If Apple can pull off a successful hardware release
If, If, If...
I find it interesting that so much Apple praise isn't just about vaporware, but is about mere hopes of some imaginary product that they should release.
Yeah, and I think it'd be really cool if Amiga release a super new computer that has the latest 3D graphics and costs only $100, that's just the size of a keyboard. Just because I can imagine it doesn't mean that it'll happen, nor does it mean that there's anything good about Amiga or Apple. The products that you or I describe could just as well be released by any company - by all mean describe your dream product, but that's not a reason to say that one company is any better than any other. Let's judge companies on actual released products and actual market share, right?
Indeed - that's the one that's not vaporware. Predictably though, anything that isn't praising Apple will get modded down, including my own comment I bet.
You, the article submitter, and Apple fans may be waiting for the next Apple product. But, contrary to TFS's claim, the rest of the world is not.
This is just the first part of the Apple product cycle - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media whips up unsourced weasel worded claims about how "everyone" is interested in what is still nothing more than vaporware, and then as a result of the media awareness, Apple fans go "Look how interested 'everyone' is in it!".
There are plenty of tablets already on the market. Let's have some articles on them, rather than vaporware. If Apple bring a product to market, sure, maybe that might be worth a single article. What's the betting that we'll end up with a single article every day of the bloody year, just like happened with their less than 5% market share phone that they once produced?
That's all very well, but the irony is that now Apple fans are raving over multitouch on the JPhone being better than singletouch on other phones. "Why gesture am I suppose to do?"
Which is it?
But my experience is that even computer novices cope fine with two button mouse. I guess Macs are a plus for people who are really computer ignorant - but that's hardly a ringing endorsement for a geek place like Slashdot, is it?
They can set what rules they like as a condition of entry, and kick you out if you refuse.
But if you happen to get an image through whatever means - of if even they make an image of a public domain work - it's legal (in the US at least) to copy that. See the recent case involving Wikipedia and some British gallery.
On another note, surely it's mad here that we're not just talking about a specific image, but the concept of an Aztec image, which copyright surely doesn't apply to at all? You can't copyright ideas, or your culture or history.
It is in the UK though, which the article is about. So are pictures, in fact - the police are now using the law even to go after people with joke Tony the Tiger animations...
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit.
But that's the point - under law, a child can't consent. So if you're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed, why are scanners any different? Or if you are saying that it's okay if the child consents, then are you in favour of changing that law?
(And I think it's dubious to say that anyone consents, when these are being enforced on all airports by the Government. Is an airline free to not use one? This sloppy definition of consent wouldn't pass for any other kind of act.)
That didn't stop Wikipedia being censored. And sure, if they want to argue that they aren't indecent, they are free to argue that in court after they've been arrested, and had all their electronic equipment confiscated for months for searching.
The point isn't that we really think these images are illegal, the point is that it shouldn't be a double standard: the laws on children are being enforced in draconian and overly broad ways, and even if a court doesn't find you guilty, your life can be messed up.
Why should it be one rule for them, and another for us? Send the police in. Let the courts decide. Or otherwise - let's change the laws and the system so that people's lives aren't messed up from an unfair accusation.
A "HD television set", as stated in TFS, is lower resolution than a monitor?
My 1680x1050 TV is my monitor. But sometimes it would be handy to send a display from my laptop without fiddling with cables, and my laptop resolution is lower than my TV.
No need to pick on the poor souls. They are already drowning in the irony that their rebellion drives them to dictate the beliefs of others, if even only through ridicule and spite. Just smile and let it slide. It will likely dawn on them eventually. Meanwhile it must drive them absolutely nuts to face a thinking believer, to the point that they would deny that it is possible to do both at the same time. Thus it is natural for them to attempt to deny the faithful access to science and reason. Good old fashioned dissonance...
Trademarks is all about registering common words for business purposes...in a specific market.
You can't just use a word and then claim no one else is allowed to use it! Otherwise I'm claiming owner to all the words in this post. Your reply isn't allowed to use any of them:)
Trademarks that cover the use of a word in a commercial product for a specific market, makes sense.
Trademarks that allow authors to own parts of the English language, in any context, even words that they didn't invent is madness. Especially when it's not even the original author complaining.
There's a non-zero chance of all sorts of terrible things resulting from trivial actions - should we ban all of them?
I could just as well argue that there's a non-zero chance of the world ending if we don't operate the LHC. Without evidence, your claim is pointless, and is just a variation on the flawed Pascal's Wager (you're setting up a false dichotomy by only considering the two possibilities of "LHC destroys the world" and "LHC doesn't destroy the world").
Saying you think something will happen is a much stronger claim of probability that merely noting the probability is non-zero. So saying that someone who makes the former claim is a twat doesn't mean you're claiming it's totally impossible.
What if someone ran around saying they thought the world was going to be destroyed by a big asteroid tomorrow - are going to say we shouldn't dismiss him, because the probability is non-zero? What about someone claiming we'll all turn into headless chickens? There's a non-zero probability of that too.
It's the same argument as (the flawed) Pascal's Wager - "As long as the chance is non-zero of something infinitely bad happening, the cost is still infinite".
The problem is that your argument could apply to anything. I could assert that there's a chance, no matter how small, that you posting to Slashdot will cause the planet to blow up.
So, in the absence of evidence for that assertion, should we waste time having endless legal debates about it? Should you even be prevented from posting to Slashdot, just in case?
Indeed. On that note, it's depressing that the media have to compare the phone to only the Iphone all the time. Who cares if the $199 Iphone can use all the space for applications. A Nokia 5800 which you get for free can use all the space for applications. On top of that, you can run any application that you like, not just those that Nokia like. And Nokia only have like, you know, 40% of the market. Compared to Apple's few per cent...
On that note, I can't help thinking how for years, Apple fans told us how "one mouse button was good enough" - not even that, but it was better, because it made things simpler, and Apple were wonderful because they designed their UI this way.
But now, on phones, I'm expected to memorise all manner of complex different kinds of touch operation. On my Nokia 5800 OTOH, it's simple - I just touch it.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation need. Photoshop is multiplatform, anyway.
And "Mac" is nothing more than a brand name anyway, not a specific platform.
If Apple can pull off a successful hardware release
If, If, If...
I find it interesting that so much Apple praise isn't just about vaporware, but is about mere hopes of some imaginary product that they should release.
Yeah, and I think it'd be really cool if Amiga release a super new computer that has the latest 3D graphics and costs only $100, that's just the size of a keyboard. Just because I can imagine it doesn't mean that it'll happen, nor does it mean that there's anything good about Amiga or Apple. The products that you or I describe could just as well be released by any company - by all mean describe your dream product, but that's not a reason to say that one company is any better than any other. Let's judge companies on actual released products and actual market share, right?
Indeed - that's the one that's not vaporware. Predictably though, anything that isn't praising Apple will get modded down, including my own comment I bet.
You, the article submitter, and Apple fans may be waiting for the next Apple product. But, contrary to TFS's claim, the rest of the world is not.
This is just the first part of the Apple product cycle - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media whips up unsourced weasel worded claims about how "everyone" is interested in what is still nothing more than vaporware, and then as a result of the media awareness, Apple fans go "Look how interested 'everyone' is in it!".
There are plenty of tablets already on the market. Let's have some articles on them, rather than vaporware. If Apple bring a product to market, sure, maybe that might be worth a single article. What's the betting that we'll end up with a single article every day of the bloody year, just like happened with their less than 5% market share phone that they once produced?
That's all very well, but the irony is that now Apple fans are raving over multitouch on the JPhone being better than singletouch on other phones. "Why gesture am I suppose to do?"
Which is it?
But my experience is that even computer novices cope fine with two button mouse. I guess Macs are a plus for people who are really computer ignorant - but that's hardly a ringing endorsement for a geek place like Slashdot, is it?
Which bit is Wikipedia wrong on?
Whatever it is, it's nothing to do with Champagne, which is a trademark issue.
They can set what rules they like as a condition of entry, and kick you out if you refuse.
But if you happen to get an image through whatever means - of if even they make an image of a public domain work - it's legal (in the US at least) to copy that. See the recent case involving Wikipedia and some British gallery.
On another note, surely it's mad here that we're not just talking about a specific image, but the concept of an Aztec image, which copyright surely doesn't apply to at all? You can't copyright ideas, or your culture or history.
It is in the UK though, which the article is about. So are pictures, in fact - the police are now using the law even to go after people with joke Tony the Tiger animations...
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit.
But that's the point - under law, a child can't consent. So if you're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed, why are scanners any different? Or if you are saying that it's okay if the child consents, then are you in favour of changing that law?
(And I think it's dubious to say that anyone consents, when these are being enforced on all airports by the Government. Is an airline free to not use one? This sloppy definition of consent wouldn't pass for any other kind of act.)
In that case, we'd better ban these body scanners.
They can't have it both ways.
That didn't stop Wikipedia being censored. And sure, if they want to argue that they aren't indecent, they are free to argue that in court after they've been arrested, and had all their electronic equipment confiscated for months for searching.
The point isn't that we really think these images are illegal, the point is that it shouldn't be a double standard: the laws on children are being enforced in draconian and overly broad ways, and even if a court doesn't find you guilty, your life can be messed up.
Why should it be one rule for them, and another for us? Send the police in. Let the courts decide. Or otherwise - let's change the laws and the system so that people's lives aren't messed up from an unfair accusation.
A "HD television set", as stated in TFS, is lower resolution than a monitor?
My 1680x1050 TV is my monitor. But sometimes it would be handy to send a display from my laptop without fiddling with cables, and my laptop resolution is lower than my TV.
Maybe someone wants to play something from their laptop?
No need to pick on the poor souls. They are already drowning in the irony that their rebellion drives them to dictate the beliefs of others, if even only through ridicule and spite. Just smile and let it slide. It will likely dawn on them eventually. Meanwhile it must drive them absolutely nuts to face a thinking believer, to the point that they would deny that it is possible to do both at the same time. Thus it is natural for them to attempt to deny the faithful access to science and reason. Good old fashioned dissonance...
A nice load of straw atheists you have there...
But who watches the meta mods?
There are plenty of products with the word Apple. For example, http://www.ciao.co.uk/Tesco_Value_Pure_Apple_Juice__5325278 .
Trademarks is all about registering common words for business purposes ...in a specific market.
You can't just use a word and then claim no one else is allowed to use it! Otherwise I'm claiming owner to all the words in this post. Your reply isn't allowed to use any of them :)
That's mad too.
Trademarks that cover the use of a word in a commercial product for a specific market, makes sense.
Trademarks that allow authors to own parts of the English language, in any context, even words that they didn't invent is madness. Especially when it's not even the original author complaining.
Loads of phones could do that, and even better, some of them would be cheaper.
There's a non-zero chance of all sorts of terrible things resulting from trivial actions - should we ban all of them?
I could just as well argue that there's a non-zero chance of the world ending if we don't operate the LHC. Without evidence, your claim is pointless, and is just a variation on the flawed Pascal's Wager (you're setting up a false dichotomy by only considering the two possibilities of "LHC destroys the world" and "LHC doesn't destroy the world").
Where did he say it was impossible?
Saying you think something will happen is a much stronger claim of probability that merely noting the probability is non-zero. So saying that someone who makes the former claim is a twat doesn't mean you're claiming it's totally impossible.
What if someone ran around saying they thought the world was going to be destroyed by a big asteroid tomorrow - are going to say we shouldn't dismiss him, because the probability is non-zero? What about someone claiming we'll all turn into headless chickens? There's a non-zero probability of that too.
It's the same argument as (the flawed) Pascal's Wager - "As long as the chance is non-zero of something infinitely bad happening, the cost is still infinite".
The problem is that your argument could apply to anything. I could assert that there's a chance, no matter how small, that you posting to Slashdot will cause the planet to blow up.
So, in the absence of evidence for that assertion, should we waste time having endless legal debates about it? Should you even be prevented from posting to Slashdot, just in case?
Indeed. On that note, it's depressing that the media have to compare the phone to only the Iphone all the time. Who cares if the $199 Iphone can use all the space for applications. A Nokia 5800 which you get for free can use all the space for applications. On top of that, you can run any application that you like, not just those that Nokia like. And Nokia only have like, you know, 40% of the market. Compared to Apple's few per cent...
Here in Europe, you either tie yourself into a contract and get the phone free, or pay money and have no ties. I've no ties on my Nokia 5800.
On that note, I can't help thinking how for years, Apple fans told us how "one mouse button was good enough" - not even that, but it was better, because it made things simpler, and Apple were wonderful because they designed their UI this way.
But now, on phones, I'm expected to memorise all manner of complex different kinds of touch operation. On my Nokia 5800 OTOH, it's simple - I just touch it.