Cell phone cameras around for ten thousand years? If you say so.
It's somewhat easier to see a person than a CCTV or drone. And it's a level playing field - they can see me, but I can see them watching me. Can I see the person on the other end of the CCTV or drone? No.
Unfortunately the rule in the UK seems to be, it's okay for the authorities to monitor us everywhere in public ("no right to privacy in a public place!" they cry), yet should you dare take a photo or video of a policeman, then they'll be demanding you delete it. (I've experienced this myself, for merely taking a photo after the police had decided to detain everyone at Cambridge station for the purpose of drug searching everyone, despite having no cause for suspicion.)
Imagine if a private citizen released one of these drones - I bet they'd be arrested in a moment.
Can you point me to where there is a source of cheaper, more ethically produced computers? And you forget the citation to show where these are being supressed by the makers of the unethical computers? Thanks.
I have rights, and I have the right to call people on their nonsense when they try to brand D&D as being related to gangs, and that it's a negative influence.
Would it be okay if the prison decided to ban reading the Bible? Imagine the uproar that would cause.
Nobody is implying that Fantasy_Game => Criminality, except the readers. Actually what's being implied is Criminality & Fantasy_Game => Criminality, which of course is a valid argument.
No, the claim would be Criminality & Fantasy_Game => More Criminality - otherwise they might as well ban everything.
And no, it's not a valid argument.
The claim is also D&D => Gang structure. Also nonsense.
the argument a weak one: the preceding argument's conclusion does not need Fantasy Game to make the argument valid.
Yes, exactly. So there is no defence for the prison's POV.
"Oh no..." thinks the potential would-be criminal "I was going to commit a crime because spending ten years in prison is no sweat. But they just banned D&D!!!!"
Yeah, I can see the deterrent.
I don't object to the general principle of your argument, but it needs to be supported by evidence, not speculation. Remember, a key point is that most people don't expect to be caught.
Well that's the point - if it was the case that any form of entertainment or pasttime was banned because it's meant to be a punishment, then sure, fine. But last time I looked, this wasn't the case.
RTFA. They didn't ban it because "Prisoners shouldn't have fun", they banned it because of "Mimicking Gang Structure". That's a mad claim, and it's fair game for us to ridicule it. Furthermore, it reflects badly on D&D, and anyone who plays those games, by associating it with gangs, and generally pushing the idea that it's bad.
What if another story came along and said "Prisoners are banned from playing Grand Theft Auto because it encourages gangs."
Then it would be nothing to do with your claim of banning it because it's fun and prison's supposed to be a punishment.
It doesn't matter the fucking justification, it's prison.
Wait - the whole premise for your argument was that the justification was it's a prison and it's meant to be a punishment. Which is it?
The particular problem is the false claim in their adverts of PCs getting viruses, since you could just run Linux (not to mention that Macs are PCs anyway). If they were comparing to Windows, it would be fair enough, but they don't. Possibly it's to avoid getting sued, which makes me suspect that they have no confidence in their claims in the first place (if the claims were true, it wouldn't be a problem to mention Windows).
When people point out something the Iphone can't do, we hear "Oh it can, but you just have to jailbreak it". When we get stories about security holes, we hear "Oh that doesn't count, you just have to not jailbreak it".
So er, which is it?
The problem is that the Iphone is the only phone where "jailbreaking" is necessary to get basic functionality working (e.g., tethering, running applications that Apple don't like).
Consider, do you ever hear people talking about "jailbreaking" in the context of any other phone?
My 5800 works fine, not had a virus (indeed on any of my phones), never needed to hack it.
Indeed, this was one of the things which kept me from buying an mp3 player for so long. The original Ipod was 20GB, more than enough for me - but I didn't really want less
Years later, can I get a 20GB player for a cheaper price? Instead, I see the choice is a 160GB player at the same price, with lower prices limited to at most 8GB. And the larger flash based ones are as expensive, if not more, than the 160GB player! (Usually because they then add in crap like Internet and video which I don't want.)
The insane thing is how few flash based players accept memory cards - just about every other gadget supports them, even when it's not really relevant, yet here is the one place upgradeable storage would be useful. Especially as memory cards are getting cheaper/larger all the time (16GB for microSD, and 32GB will be out soon).
Thankfully I found the Sandisk Sansa Clip which does do this - the player is cheap on its own (8GB for £40), and you can just shove in whatever memory card you like. Admittedly you'd have to wait a bit before it can do 80GB, but it's fine for 24GB now, and will soon be capable of 40GB.
I don't use ringtones myself. But I've never understood why the high pitched repeated alarm shrill of a traditional phone is considered less alarming or annoying. Indeed, the very nature of the noise was designed to get people's attention.
I was once on a train where someone was talking quietly on the phone behind me, and then someone came up and suggested they stop, phrasing it in the indirect way of "When I make a phone call, I go to the end of the carriage by the door".
To be fair, we were in the designated "quiet" coach. On the other hand, I was more disturbed by him, and was tempted to say "When I want to complain to someone, I go to the end of the carriage..."
It's wrong to criticise someone for using a Mac, just as it's tiring when people do it for any other story on Slashdot, such as Linux or Amiga.
But you only have to look at this thread to see the large amount of mud-slinging at anyone who dares to use Windows, or non-Apple PCs. And then check out the attitude towards any phone that isn't an almighty Iphone - they don't even get news coverage here most the time.
Have we had a story on any tablet computers? And how many will we get if Apple releases its vaporware?
Indeed, this article itself is a perfect example - a complete non-story, and we'd never get it for any other company, but it's allowed because it's Apple. Appledot - stuff that doesn't matter, rumours for Apple fans.
and five hundred application launcher shortcuts on the desktop
Completely false, in fact since XP by default there's hardly anything on the desktop (though I prefer to switch it back to having My Computer, Recycle Bin etc show). The tendency for shortcuts are either put there by applications, or by users themselves, and the same is true for OS X.
Or designing your apps as monolithic monstrosities because your users don't understand multitasking.
Or writing OSs that don't multitask at all, something that Apple seem to have a thing for.
Or having your windows maximize because the multiple-application desktop is too confusing, or you were too cheap to buy an actual workstation monitor.
Completely false for Windows. Windows runs fine with multiple applications, with whatever sized windows you want. Have you used Windows?
Are you seriously telling me that OS X can't run an application full screen, if you want that?
And then needing to add a taskbar because with maximized windows it's really hard to see what you are running.
A way to switch applications is still useful - are you seriously telling me that OS X can't even do this?
Obviously, I'm pointing my finger at Windows, here, but Linux has been adopting the Windows conventions of desktop computing steadily over the last 10 years, to the point where it is now pretty much assumed even by most OSS enthusiasts that the many of the idiotic conventions of Windows are the correct ones to emulate. It takes several hours of tweaking a *nix box to undo these stupidities and get it back to a proper Unix-style desktop as were common in the 1990s, but then of course you are taking a step backwards.
Personally I can't stand the way that Windows has try to copy Apple-isms, like the big glorified icons and making things look pretty rather than usable.
Or you can get a Mac, and get a Unix desktop that has kept up with the times.
No thanks.
You can always spot the people who don't understand real desktop computing. They are the ones who complain that the Mac's maximize button doesn't work
No, you are the one who doesn't understand real desktop computing, if you think the answer to questions is to tell the user that they're not allowed to do that. It's my computer, not yours.
and that you need a two-button mouse to do real work.
And that you need to do multi-touch gestures in order to use a phone.
Apple actually sued Digital Research (and won) because it was such a blatant copy of the Mac's interface.
Which shows Apple for their true colours. Why innovate, when you can just sue the competition? And they don't even play by their own rules (e.g., their recent use of Nokia patents without permission).
Did you have fun doing art on a two colour Mac? Given that that was the OP's criterion for dismissing DOS, it's a bit unreasonable to then refer to a black and white computer.
And since when was a whole four months "a long time", as the OP asserted?
Macintosh didn't get colour until 1987 - that's a long long long long long time after many systems available in 1985.
For a long time, Apple made the only computers that you could do art on; the Mac was graphic when DOS was text-only.
When was that "long time" exactly?
Unfortunately it seems common of Apple fans to rewrite history as if Mac and DOS were the only platforms around. Just as these days we have people thinking the only mobile phones in the market are the Iphone and Android...
Slashdot Mirror
Cell phone cameras around for ten thousand years? If you say so.
It's somewhat easier to see a person than a CCTV or drone. And it's a level playing field - they can see me, but I can see them watching me. Can I see the person on the other end of the CCTV or drone? No.
Unfortunately the rule in the UK seems to be, it's okay for the authorities to monitor us everywhere in public ("no right to privacy in a public place!" they cry), yet should you dare take a photo or video of a policeman, then they'll be demanding you delete it. (I've experienced this myself, for merely taking a photo after the police had decided to detain everyone at Cambridge station for the purpose of drug searching everyone, despite having no cause for suspicion.)
Imagine if a private citizen released one of these drones - I bet they'd be arrested in a moment.
One of the standard (and hence, predictable) pro-Apple replies: "Why would you want to do that?"
That is not an answer to the criticism. Especially not for a company that prides itself allegedly on good UI and being easy to use.
get another phone
I did.
I cannot imagine needing to do so.
Good for you. Do you post to every discussion about technology, where you don't have a need for a particular thing? Or only to defend Apple?
Well my EULA - which the company agrees to when the software installs itself on my computer - says that the game's EULA isn't valid.
Can you point me to where there is a source of cheaper, more ethically produced computers? And you forget the citation to show where these are being supressed by the makers of the unethical computers? Thanks.
I have rights, and I have the right to call people on their nonsense when they try to brand D&D as being related to gangs, and that it's a negative influence.
Would it be okay if the prison decided to ban reading the Bible? Imagine the uproar that would cause.
Nobody is implying that Fantasy_Game => Criminality, except the readers. Actually what's being implied is Criminality & Fantasy_Game => Criminality, which of course is a valid argument.
No, the claim would be Criminality & Fantasy_Game => More Criminality - otherwise they might as well ban everything.
And no, it's not a valid argument.
The claim is also D&D => Gang structure. Also nonsense.
the argument a weak one: the preceding argument's conclusion does not need Fantasy Game to make the argument valid.
Yes, exactly. So there is no defence for the prison's POV.
But will they allow Farmville?
"Oh no ..." thinks the potential would-be criminal "I was going to commit a crime because spending ten years in prison is no sweat. But they just banned D&D!!!!"
Yeah, I can see the deterrent.
I don't object to the general principle of your argument, but it needs to be supported by evidence, not speculation. Remember, a key point is that most people don't expect to be caught.
It's prison. It's punishment.
Well that's the point - if it was the case that any form of entertainment or pasttime was banned because it's meant to be a punishment, then sure, fine. But last time I looked, this wasn't the case.
RTFA. They didn't ban it because "Prisoners shouldn't have fun", they banned it because of "Mimicking Gang Structure". That's a mad claim, and it's fair game for us to ridicule it. Furthermore, it reflects badly on D&D, and anyone who plays those games, by associating it with gangs, and generally pushing the idea that it's bad.
What if another story came along and said "Prisoners are banned from playing Grand Theft Auto because it encourages gangs."
Then it would be nothing to do with your claim of banning it because it's fun and prison's supposed to be a punishment.
It doesn't matter the fucking justification, it's prison.
Wait - the whole premise for your argument was that the justification was it's a prison and it's meant to be a punishment. Which is it?
The particular problem is the false claim in their adverts of PCs getting viruses, since you could just run Linux (not to mention that Macs are PCs anyway). If they were comparing to Windows, it would be fair enough, but they don't. Possibly it's to avoid getting sued, which makes me suspect that they have no confidence in their claims in the first place (if the claims were true, it wouldn't be a problem to mention Windows).
When people point out something the Iphone can't do, we hear "Oh it can, but you just have to jailbreak it". When we get stories about security holes, we hear "Oh that doesn't count, you just have to not jailbreak it".
So er, which is it?
The problem is that the Iphone is the only phone where "jailbreaking" is necessary to get basic functionality working (e.g., tethering, running applications that Apple don't like).
Consider, do you ever hear people talking about "jailbreaking" in the context of any other phone?
My 5800 works fine, not had a virus (indeed on any of my phones), never needed to hack it.
On a similar note, IIRC we can now convert other elements to gold - it's just not economical.
Indeed, this was one of the things which kept me from buying an mp3 player for so long. The original Ipod was 20GB, more than enough for me - but I didn't really want less
Years later, can I get a 20GB player for a cheaper price? Instead, I see the choice is a 160GB player at the same price, with lower prices limited to at most 8GB. And the larger flash based ones are as expensive, if not more, than the 160GB player! (Usually because they then add in crap like Internet and video which I don't want.)
The insane thing is how few flash based players accept memory cards - just about every other gadget supports them, even when it's not really relevant, yet here is the one place upgradeable storage would be useful. Especially as memory cards are getting cheaper/larger all the time (16GB for microSD, and 32GB will be out soon).
Thankfully I found the Sandisk Sansa Clip which does do this - the player is cheap on its own (8GB for £40), and you can just shove in whatever memory card you like. Admittedly you'd have to wait a bit before it can do 80GB, but it's fine for 24GB now, and will soon be capable of 40GB.
I don't use ringtones myself. But I've never understood why the high pitched repeated alarm shrill of a traditional phone is considered less alarming or annoying. Indeed, the very nature of the noise was designed to get people's attention.
I was once on a train where someone was talking quietly on the phone behind me, and then someone came up and suggested they stop, phrasing it in the indirect way of "When I make a phone call, I go to the end of the carriage by the door".
To be fair, we were in the designated "quiet" coach. On the other hand, I was more disturbed by him, and was tempted to say "When I want to complain to someone, I go to the end of the carriage..."
It's wrong to criticise someone for using a Mac, just as it's tiring when people do it for any other story on Slashdot, such as Linux or Amiga.
But you only have to look at this thread to see the large amount of mud-slinging at anyone who dares to use Windows, or non-Apple PCs. And then check out the attitude towards any phone that isn't an almighty Iphone - they don't even get news coverage here most the time.
Have we had a story on any tablet computers? And how many will we get if Apple releases its vaporware?
Indeed, this article itself is a perfect example - a complete non-story, and we'd never get it for any other company, but it's allowed because it's Apple. Appledot - stuff that doesn't matter, rumours for Apple fans.
Microsoft "create, maintain, and run it's own OS." - do they get a cookie too?
Apple sell PCs these days. They might use expensive high end parts, but you can get that with other PCs too, if you want.
A generalisation based on three random examples?
There are "not the most conformists" who use Windows. There are those who use just about every platform you can think of.
At least they (like every other company) announce them. And the media only report after the fact.
None of this bizarre news that there will be an announcement, we think, but we don't what it's about. Here's some random speculation we just made up.
Seriously. It must be a slow news week.
For example, putting a big-ass "Start" button
Or a big-ass Apple logo button.
and five hundred application launcher shortcuts on the desktop
Completely false, in fact since XP by default there's hardly anything on the desktop (though I prefer to switch it back to having My Computer, Recycle Bin etc show). The tendency for shortcuts are either put there by applications, or by users themselves, and the same is true for OS X.
Or designing your apps as monolithic monstrosities because your users don't understand multitasking.
Or writing OSs that don't multitask at all, something that Apple seem to have a thing for.
Or having your windows maximize because the multiple-application desktop is too confusing, or you were too cheap to buy an actual workstation monitor.
Completely false for Windows. Windows runs fine with multiple applications, with whatever sized windows you want. Have you used Windows?
Are you seriously telling me that OS X can't run an application full screen, if you want that?
And then needing to add a taskbar because with maximized windows it's really hard to see what you are running.
A way to switch applications is still useful - are you seriously telling me that OS X can't even do this?
Obviously, I'm pointing my finger at Windows, here, but Linux has been adopting the Windows conventions of desktop computing steadily over the last 10 years, to the point where it is now pretty much assumed even by most OSS enthusiasts that the many of the idiotic conventions of Windows are the correct ones to emulate. It takes several hours of tweaking a *nix box to undo these stupidities and get it back to a proper Unix-style desktop as were common in the 1990s, but then of course you are taking a step backwards.
Personally I can't stand the way that Windows has try to copy Apple-isms, like the big glorified icons and making things look pretty rather than usable.
Or you can get a Mac, and get a Unix desktop that has kept up with the times.
No thanks.
You can always spot the people who don't understand real desktop computing. They are the ones who complain that the Mac's maximize button doesn't work
No, you are the one who doesn't understand real desktop computing, if you think the answer to questions is to tell the user that they're not allowed to do that. It's my computer, not yours.
and that you need a two-button mouse to do real work.
And that you need to do multi-touch gestures in order to use a phone.
I hope you've never hit on a woman then, as they might not like it either.
Apple actually sued Digital Research (and won) because it was such a blatant copy of the Mac's interface.
Which shows Apple for their true colours. Why innovate, when you can just sue the competition? And they don't even play by their own rules (e.g., their recent use of Nokia patents without permission).
Did you have fun doing art on a two colour Mac? Given that that was the OP's criterion for dismissing DOS, it's a bit unreasonable to then refer to a black and white computer.
And since when was a whole four months "a long time", as the OP asserted?
Macintosh didn't get colour until 1987 - that's a long long long long long time after many systems available in 1985.
For a long time, Apple made the only computers that you could do art on; the Mac was graphic when DOS was text-only.
When was that "long time" exactly?
Unfortunately it seems common of Apple fans to rewrite history as if Mac and DOS were the only platforms around. Just as these days we have people thinking the only mobile phones in the market are the Iphone and Android...