Hear hear. The number of mistakes I've seen in areas I've known about is astonishing. So just consider that it is likely just the same for all the things I don't know about? And the BBC is one of the better ones...
But no, let's blame some vague illdefined generalised term "Bloggers", to shift attention for the unprofessional attitude of journalism.
I saw an interesting case today with the death of some Boyzone member - no I don't care about the band:) But it's astonishing how all the articles are basically copies of each other, with subtle changes in wording. They also quoted his last Twitter entry, which had the word "focussing", which the news articles quoted with "[sic]" after it, to imply a spelling mistake. Except "focussing" is a valid spelling! So you had all these moronic journalists copy and pasting this quote, with the incorrect "sic" in it, because they aren't able to even do the level of journalism to check out his Twitter account himself, or look a word up in a dictionary...
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/ is a cool site for seeing how articles are edited, btw. E.g., here the BBC finally get a clue and edit out the "sic".
And what is a "blogger"? A blog is a piece of technology, so anyone could be a "blogger". Slashdot is a blog. Mainstream news sites have blogs. So your rant - and this article - is just a vague generalisation that might be true for some sources, and completely untrue for others.
Reuters issues apologies and if it is a big mistake has a whole article making the correction. Bloggers aren't expected to do anything. And often they don't.
Ah I see - so you compare Reuters specifically, to "Bloggers"? What is "Bloggers" - is this some competing website or something?
No, let's compare like with like. If we take "news sites" - you can bet there are those that don't correct themselves. OTOH, I have seen blogs that do update in response to corrections (I do this myself even for my own personal journal, for heavens sake).
The problem showcased in the summary is because Bloggers are very rarely investigative journalists, what this means is their data comes from someplace else.
But you also have to remember that most of the news is very rarely investigative journalism, so all of the criticisms about "Bloggers" applies to journalism too. Most news is just copy and pasted around the news sites, with zero fact checking. Pick a story, do a Google - it's astonishing how similar the articles are, but often with petty word changes so they can't be accused of doing an exact copy. And there have been countless times when false or misleading information has been propogated. It's like a bad game of Chinese Whispers. And the number of people who read mainstream news sites is far higher than random blogs.
But even worse, the article talks about lies that start out by the media, and bloggers are getting blamed for merely transmitting it!:
Journalists get caught up in the moment; we get excited and we post stupid crap from a foreign language student blog and call it news. And then within half a minute bloggers being what they are the news gets repeated and repeated until it becomes fact.
So what now? It's the readers who are to blame for passing on the news, and not the journalists for talking crap and not fact checking in the first place?
...oh, and he evidently has time to write long blog entries. I love the irony of trying to sound smug and superior "I spend time with my family and my kids' development", whilst tapping away into a computer, posting it on the Internet and then posting it to Slashdot...
But by the same reasoning, he should get why some people do have time to code in their spare time, rather than talking as if his way is the One True Way.
I get that he doesn't code. I don't get why being smug about not coding is Front Page News.
Put it this way: If I write to my blog an entry entitled "I Don't Have Children" and say how great it is, can that make Front Page News on Slashdot too?
Personally I wish that coding in one's spare time was more valued - I mean, what with the threat of things like "we own everything you do" IP contracts, whilst I'm eager to talk about personal projects at an interview, when I'm working part of me feels like I need to keep my personal work secret, in case they claim it's a violation of "their" copyright, or I'm conflicting with the business somehow.
I did manage to successfully refuse to sign such a contract when they tried to enforce one on us, but I did have this feeling as if I was somehow unusual or in the wrong to be writing code in my spare time.
As for this guy - I guess at 30 I'm past it. There I was striving to write some wonderful new open source project, but now it seems you get famous in the geek world by not writing code. Brilliant!
Just on that alone, with an open mind, a scientist with a heart and belief in humans, if not the personal experience herself, should be able to deduce there must be something real in all of these phenomena.
Sure there's something real - evidently, people really do have these experiences. That isn't support for your batshit made-up idea about it being proof of angels, life after death, or whatever else.
And the issue isn't proof - but evidence. If you dismiss reason and the requirement for evidence, then we might as well all believe in pixies and unicorns. Stories about them exist, and you can't disprove them, so we'd better all believe in them, right?
But Einstein, like every other genius like him, was open to other schools of thought, and studied all kinds of traditions with an open mind. Not like the dogmatism of science today which too prematurely dismiss what can't be logically proven.
This would be the same Einstein that was reluctant to accept quantum mechanics, which we now know to be supported by overwhelming evidence, and is perhaps the most accurate description of the Universe we have?
Come on - let's have an example of something that is true but "dismissed" by science today, and which Einstein believed?
Indeed, but I'd say it's reasonable to sue the person who forced you to have the vaccine, if you're an adult and it was mandated. If someone's required to have it, then you'd better damn well make sure you provide for them if they suffer ill health as a result of your actions.
For months I was struggling to explain why my computer was randomly rebooting or switching off. Then eventually it didn't turn on at all - thankfully I had an older computer next to it, and I suddenly thought to try the same lead in it, and it didn't work either.
Oh, and if you want to talk about what "most of the stuff" is, the bigger picture is that, even according to the UK Government's own documents (which if anything is going to be biased on the anti-filesharing side, as it is supporting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers), the alleged damages from commercial software piracy by businesses is 144 times greater than the alleged damages from filesharing.
So if you want to talk about most of the stuff, why aren't we bringing in draconian laws to target where the vast majority of the problem is, instead of worrying about less than 1% caused by people downloading something using bittorrent?
And I think it's quite ovious that the next step after Rapidshare etc, is filesharing mp3s on your MySpace, in the form of a "mix tape". Apparently if you do that, in the UK at least, even if everyone knows who you are, it's perfectly fine.
This is all about people who don't have enough money to buy something, but still think that they should have it anyway.
Your back-pedalling:
Most of the stuff being "shared" on p2p networks IS NOT 14 years old...it's movies, music, and software that just came out.
So which is it? Are you making a blanket claims against anyone who might criticise copyright law? Or are you instead criticising what you claim to be most usage of downloading - which may not at all be representative of readers here?
you and people like you would still be respecting copyright within the timeframe that you think it should be.
Ah, back to the accusations. Provide evidence that he's downloading material less than 14 years old, please?
But hey, what do I know. I live in the UK where it's illegal to copy a CD I own onto my mp3 player. And we have to pay a mandatory TV licence, yet if I happen to download a TV programme instead of watching it or videotaping it because I want to timeshift, I'm a pirate.
But you don't, and it's hilarious to see you try to justify it as something noble when it's really slightly less than theft.
Slightly less than theft? Is that like me saying you have "slightly less than a valid argument"?
Not really - the narrower definition still referred to a particular standard of hardware - i.e., derived from IBM compatibles, but exclusing other hardware such as old Macs and Amigas. So arguably I'd say Macs are still included under this definition (since now they do use the same hardware - x86, graphics, PCI etc), and also, this definition still includes other OSs that might run on PCs.
It's true that "PC or Mac" is used by some people, but I don't think that means it makes any more sense. You might as well say "PC or Dell". I think it stems from the idea of trying to give the Mac special mention - it's great from a marketing point of view.
Talking of marketing, note that Apple themselves have tried to have it both ways for their marketing. E.g., PowerMacs were PCs (so they could say that PowerMacs were the first "64 bit PC", using some odd definition that didn't include Alphas, as they were "Workstations", which apparently is mutually exclusive to being a PC - I guess my Dell x86 Workstation I have at work isn't a PC then, and Macs aren't suitable for work, but anyway), but Intel x86 Macs surprisingly then aren't PCs - so they can have their "PC versus Mac" campaign, and get away with bashing Windows, without attracting a lawsuit.
Personally I'd rather keep conversation about technical topics free of cheap marketing tricks, but that's just me.
It's the most visible because it's the only one that gets advertised by the media. I mean seriously - I used to joke about daily Iphone stories, but today we have, what, at least three on the front page? Where's the coverage for the big names like Nokia? Of course it's the most visible - but sales figures show a different story. And a good thing too, as I for one don't want the future of mobile computing to be a monopoly like we ended up with Microsoft, but worse one that's locked down to the extent that you can't even release an application without Apple approval.
Personally I'd much rather to see a future that continues with multiple companies (of which Apple can be one), with choice, and most importantly, compatible standards so that I can release an application that Just Works on all phones, without needing me to recompile it especially for each make, or getting corporate approval from the companies. I don't see why this is so controversial - and why Slashdot of all places is supporting the Iphone all the way.
Once upon a time, this was a place to support open and alternative solutions, not to give coverage and free advertising solely to large companies with locked down products!
Note that all phones can run so called "apps". Running applications on phones has been common on all but the most basic phones for at least 5 years, and note that the market of Java smartphones is estimated at two billion.
I'm not a hater. That's just another deceitful trick put out: that if someone uses another phone, disagrees that the Iphone is the best phone ever - or disputes claims that the Iphone is the best selling phone out there - they must be doing so out of an irrational hatred (e.g., the story about Japan hating Iphones).
By all means let's have a sensible debate about which phone is the best, or argue about how many phones are sold by which company. But please, let's have a fair debate, with evidence - rather than resorting to the usual tactic of branding people "haters", or modding people down out of sight simply because you disagree with them, and can't respond to their criticisms.
It's functional on my 4 year old V980. My mum (who is not very good with phones or computers, and has yet to work out how to store numbers in the phone's address book) still manages to use the Internet on her Motorola phone. It's pretty bog standard since, ooh, about 2004. Of course more people will use a phone's Internet if they've paid through the nose for it, or they're offered an "unlimited" plan, but in general web use as been increasing on all phones.
Which just makes this all the more embarrasing for AT&T if they can't cope with web traffic.
I agree - I'm on Pay As You Go with my V980, and the Internet rates are extortionate (£1 for 15MB, and then the rates go up rapidly if you go over that limit in a day). As far as I can tell, you can only get better prices on a contract, which doesn't suit my usage.
The interesting thing is that this is very different for 3G USB mobile broadband devices - here PAYG is common, and you get more sensible deals (e.g., £15 per 1GB). So I plan on getting one of these soon. But it just seems mad - it would be much simpler to just use my phone as a modem, but instead I have to buy a separate device and have separate accounts. The joke is that the one I plan on buying is from the same company that is my phone network...
Indeed. Whilst Flash and Java may have some drawbacks, the advantage of cross-platform applications is huge. With desktop computing, we had to go through the painful ordeal in the 80s and 90s where every platform were incompatible, making it a pain both for developers and users. Finally we've got to a stage where most platforms run the same code - but only due to having a monopoly platform of Windows, running on only Intel CPUs or clones; not because of any standardisation (well, PC hardware is now standardised, with even Macs now being simply another brand of PC, but the OS still makes a difference, and there is no standardisation there).
Mobile computing today is much like computing of the 80s - so called "smart" phones are ubiquitous - all but the cheapest phones are now Internet enabled phones that can run applications. There are many hardware manufacturers, with hundreds of different models, all running different (often custom) OSs, with different hardware. Yet, the vast majority of them are compatible, thanks to Java.
When I got my first smartphone in 2005, a Motorola V980, I marvelled at how I could download an application from any webpage, and have it run, even if it wasn't made with my phone in mine.
And then along comes the Iphone, and puts a spanner in the works. Yes, let's go back to the dark ages where an application has to be coded natively for that phone, and things like Java or Flash aren't allowed! Let's even make it so that applications can only be installed with Apple approval. It's great for Apple of course - people make applications specifically for the Iphone, generating extra publicity, and the media and fans spin the "app store" as being a good thing.
It's sad that even on places like Slashdot, people would prefer either 80s style computing where every platform is incompatible - or a possible future where compatibility is achieved only through a single Microsoft-like company dominating all of mobile computing (and what if that's a different company to Microsoft, as is likely? We'll have the absurd situation where mobile handheld/phone devices are incompatible with netbooks and desktop devices...). As opposed to having true standardisation and cross-platform applications, which had been achieved by a billion or two Java smartphones, before Apple start to put a stop to it.
I agree - though, can you give me a definition of "smartphone" that distinguishes it from feature phone?
The thing is, the terms are pretty much the same, except that "smartphone" vaguely means one that's higher end or more costly at the time. (This is what the "But the Iphone does well in the smartphone market" crowd don't get.)
So the trend of yesterday's smartphones becoming today's feature phones has been going on for years, and it's natural that we'll continue to see this to happen. Nokia are indeed number one, which is much to do with them having a full range of phones that people want. The Iphone might not lose sales, but it's easy to see them becoming (even more) irrelevant as high end features continue to become bog standard on cheap phones (Internet access and ability to run applications were bog standard years before the Iphone existed; last time I checked, even touchscreen was becoming commonplace on cheap contract-free phones).
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear. The number of mistakes I've seen in areas I've known about is astonishing. So just consider that it is likely just the same for all the things I don't know about? And the BBC is one of the better ones...
But no, let's blame some vague illdefined generalised term "Bloggers", to shift attention for the unprofessional attitude of journalism.
I saw an interesting case today with the death of some Boyzone member - no I don't care about the band :) But it's astonishing how all the articles are basically copies of each other, with subtle changes in wording. They also quoted his last Twitter entry, which had the word "focussing", which the news articles quoted with "[sic]" after it, to imply a spelling mistake. Except "focussing" is a valid spelling! So you had all these moronic journalists copy and pasting this quote, with the incorrect "sic" in it, because they aren't able to even do the level of journalism to check out his Twitter account himself, or look a word up in a dictionary...
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/ is a cool site for seeing how articles are edited, btw. E.g., here the BBC finally get a clue and edit out the "sic".
And what is a "blogger"? A blog is a piece of technology, so anyone could be a "blogger". Slashdot is a blog. Mainstream news sites have blogs. So your rant - and this article - is just a vague generalisation that might be true for some sources, and completely untrue for others.
Reuters issues apologies and if it is a big mistake has a whole article making the correction. Bloggers aren't expected to do anything. And often they don't.
Ah I see - so you compare Reuters specifically, to "Bloggers"? What is "Bloggers" - is this some competing website or something?
No, let's compare like with like. If we take "news sites" - you can bet there are those that don't correct themselves. OTOH, I have seen blogs that do update in response to corrections (I do this myself even for my own personal journal, for heavens sake).
The problem showcased in the summary is because Bloggers are very rarely investigative journalists, what this means is their data comes from someplace else.
But you also have to remember that most of the news is very rarely investigative journalism, so all of the criticisms about "Bloggers" applies to journalism too. Most news is just copy and pasted around the news sites, with zero fact checking. Pick a story, do a Google - it's astonishing how similar the articles are, but often with petty word changes so they can't be accused of doing an exact copy. And there have been countless times when false or misleading information has been propogated. It's like a bad game of Chinese Whispers. And the number of people who read mainstream news sites is far higher than random blogs.
But even worse, the article talks about lies that start out by the media, and bloggers are getting blamed for merely transmitting it!:
Journalists get caught up in the moment; we get excited and we post stupid crap from a foreign language student blog and call it news. And then within half a minute bloggers being what they are the news gets repeated and repeated until it becomes fact.
So what now? It's the readers who are to blame for passing on the news, and not the journalists for talking crap and not fact checking in the first place?
Yep, everyone knows that Anonymous Coward is who to go to to get the real facts!
...oh, and he evidently has time to write long blog entries. I love the irony of trying to sound smug and superior "I spend time with my family and my kids' development", whilst tapping away into a computer, posting it on the Internet and then posting it to Slashdot...
But by the same reasoning, he should get why some people do have time to code in their spare time, rather than talking as if his way is the One True Way.
I get that he doesn't code. I don't get why being smug about not coding is Front Page News.
Put it this way: If I write to my blog an entry entitled "I Don't Have Children" and say how great it is, can that make Front Page News on Slashdot too?
Let me replace that with something that makes the same amount of sense:
Using computers in your spare time when you're already using computers for 40 hours a week for your job suggests more of an obsession.
So, you're either posting to Slashdot during work time, or obsessed with computers. Which is it?
Isn't it obvious? He doesn't code in his spare time, because he's on Slashdot instead.
I suspect some people here don't code in their work time, for much the same reason...
Personally I wish that coding in one's spare time was more valued - I mean, what with the threat of things like "we own everything you do" IP contracts, whilst I'm eager to talk about personal projects at an interview, when I'm working part of me feels like I need to keep my personal work secret, in case they claim it's a violation of "their" copyright, or I'm conflicting with the business somehow.
I did manage to successfully refuse to sign such a contract when they tried to enforce one on us, but I did have this feeling as if I was somehow unusual or in the wrong to be writing code in my spare time.
As for this guy - I guess at 30 I'm past it. There I was striving to write some wonderful new open source project, but now it seems you get famous in the geek world by not writing code. Brilliant!
Just on that alone, with an open mind, a scientist with a heart and belief in humans, if not the personal experience herself, should be able to deduce there must be something real in all of these phenomena.
Sure there's something real - evidently, people really do have these experiences. That isn't support for your batshit made-up idea about it being proof of angels, life after death, or whatever else.
And the issue isn't proof - but evidence. If you dismiss reason and the requirement for evidence, then we might as well all believe in pixies and unicorns. Stories about them exist, and you can't disprove them, so we'd better all believe in them, right?
But Einstein, like every other genius like him, was open to other schools of thought, and studied all kinds of traditions with an open mind. Not like the dogmatism of science today which too prematurely dismiss what can't be logically proven.
This would be the same Einstein that was reluctant to accept quantum mechanics, which we now know to be supported by overwhelming evidence, and is perhaps the most accurate description of the Universe we have?
Come on - let's have an example of something that is true but "dismissed" by science today, and which Einstein believed?
They'd look it up on Wikipedia - and then maliciously edit the answer to fool everyone else in the class!
Unless you're a medical worker, apparently.
Indeed, but I'd say it's reasonable to sue the person who forced you to have the vaccine, if you're an adult and it was mandated. If someone's required to have it, then you'd better damn well make sure you provide for them if they suffer ill health as a result of your actions.
Don't forget the lead!
For months I was struggling to explain why my computer was randomly rebooting or switching off. Then eventually it didn't turn on at all - thankfully I had an older computer next to it, and I suddenly thought to try the same lead in it, and it didn't work either.
Oh, and if you want to talk about what "most of the stuff" is, the bigger picture is that, even according to the UK Government's own documents (which if anything is going to be biased on the anti-filesharing side, as it is supporting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers), the alleged damages from commercial software piracy by businesses is 144 times greater than the alleged damages from filesharing.
Source: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page51696.html
So if you want to talk about most of the stuff, why aren't we bringing in draconian laws to target where the vast majority of the problem is, instead of worrying about less than 1% caused by people downloading something using bittorrent?
And I think it's quite ovious that the next step after Rapidshare etc, is filesharing mp3s on your MySpace, in the form of a "mix tape". Apparently if you do that, in the UK at least, even if everyone knows who you are, it's perfectly fine.
Your original post:
This is all about people who don't have enough money to buy something, but still think that they should have it anyway.
Your back-pedalling:
Most of the stuff being "shared" on p2p networks IS NOT 14 years old...it's movies, music, and software that just came out.
So which is it? Are you making a blanket claims against anyone who might criticise copyright law? Or are you instead criticising what you claim to be most usage of downloading - which may not at all be representative of readers here?
you and people like you would still be respecting copyright within the timeframe that you think it should be.
Ah, back to the accusations. Provide evidence that he's downloading material less than 14 years old, please?
But hey, what do I know. I live in the UK where it's illegal to copy a CD I own onto my mp3 player. And we have to pay a mandatory TV licence, yet if I happen to download a TV programme instead of watching it or videotaping it because I want to timeshift, I'm a pirate.
But you don't, and it's hilarious to see you try to justify it as something noble when it's really slightly less than theft.
Slightly less than theft? Is that like me saying you have "slightly less than a valid argument"?
But where do you get your straw men from?
Not really - the narrower definition still referred to a particular standard of hardware - i.e., derived from IBM compatibles, but exclusing other hardware such as old Macs and Amigas. So arguably I'd say Macs are still included under this definition (since now they do use the same hardware - x86, graphics, PCI etc), and also, this definition still includes other OSs that might run on PCs.
It's true that "PC or Mac" is used by some people, but I don't think that means it makes any more sense. You might as well say "PC or Dell". I think it stems from the idea of trying to give the Mac special mention - it's great from a marketing point of view.
Talking of marketing, note that Apple themselves have tried to have it both ways for their marketing. E.g., PowerMacs were PCs (so they could say that PowerMacs were the first "64 bit PC", using some odd definition that didn't include Alphas, as they were "Workstations", which apparently is mutually exclusive to being a PC - I guess my Dell x86 Workstation I have at work isn't a PC then, and Macs aren't suitable for work, but anyway), but Intel x86 Macs surprisingly then aren't PCs - so they can have their "PC versus Mac" campaign, and get away with bashing Windows, without attracting a lawsuit.
Personally I'd rather keep conversation about technical topics free of cheap marketing tricks, but that's just me.
It's a gray area in the sense that it's illegal for the likes of you and I, but okay if you're Lily Allen...
iPhone is just the most visible because
It's the most visible because it's the only one that gets advertised by the media. I mean seriously - I used to joke about daily Iphone stories, but today we have, what, at least three on the front page? Where's the coverage for the big names like Nokia? Of course it's the most visible - but sales figures show a different story. And a good thing too, as I for one don't want the future of mobile computing to be a monopoly like we ended up with Microsoft, but worse one that's locked down to the extent that you can't even release an application without Apple approval.
Personally I'd much rather to see a future that continues with multiple companies (of which Apple can be one), with choice, and most importantly, compatible standards so that I can release an application that Just Works on all phones, without needing me to recompile it especially for each make, or getting corporate approval from the companies. I don't see why this is so controversial - and why Slashdot of all places is supporting the Iphone all the way.
Once upon a time, this was a place to support open and alternative solutions, not to give coverage and free advertising solely to large companies with locked down products!
Note that all phones can run so called "apps". Running applications on phones has been common on all but the most basic phones for at least 5 years, and note that the market of Java smartphones is estimated at two billion.
I'm not a hater. That's just another deceitful trick put out: that if someone uses another phone, disagrees that the Iphone is the best phone ever - or disputes claims that the Iphone is the best selling phone out there - they must be doing so out of an irrational hatred (e.g., the story about Japan hating Iphones).
By all means let's have a sensible debate about which phone is the best, or argue about how many phones are sold by which company. But please, let's have a fair debate, with evidence - rather than resorting to the usual tactic of branding people "haters", or modding people down out of sight simply because you disagree with them, and can't respond to their criticisms.
It's functional on my 4 year old V980. My mum (who is not very good with phones or computers, and has yet to work out how to store numbers in the phone's address book) still manages to use the Internet on her Motorola phone. It's pretty bog standard since, ooh, about 2004. Of course more people will use a phone's Internet if they've paid through the nose for it, or they're offered an "unlimited" plan, but in general web use as been increasing on all phones.
Which just makes this all the more embarrasing for AT&T if they can't cope with web traffic.
I agree - I'm on Pay As You Go with my V980, and the Internet rates are extortionate (£1 for 15MB, and then the rates go up rapidly if you go over that limit in a day). As far as I can tell, you can only get better prices on a contract, which doesn't suit my usage.
The interesting thing is that this is very different for 3G USB mobile broadband devices - here PAYG is common, and you get more sensible deals (e.g., £15 per 1GB). So I plan on getting one of these soon. But it just seems mad - it would be much simpler to just use my phone as a modem, but instead I have to buy a separate device and have separate accounts. The joke is that the one I plan on buying is from the same company that is my phone network...
Indeed. Whilst Flash and Java may have some drawbacks, the advantage of cross-platform applications is huge. With desktop computing, we had to go through the painful ordeal in the 80s and 90s where every platform were incompatible, making it a pain both for developers and users. Finally we've got to a stage where most platforms run the same code - but only due to having a monopoly platform of Windows, running on only Intel CPUs or clones; not because of any standardisation (well, PC hardware is now standardised, with even Macs now being simply another brand of PC, but the OS still makes a difference, and there is no standardisation there).
Mobile computing today is much like computing of the 80s - so called "smart" phones are ubiquitous - all but the cheapest phones are now Internet enabled phones that can run applications. There are many hardware manufacturers, with hundreds of different models, all running different (often custom) OSs, with different hardware. Yet, the vast majority of them are compatible, thanks to Java.
When I got my first smartphone in 2005, a Motorola V980, I marvelled at how I could download an application from any webpage, and have it run, even if it wasn't made with my phone in mine.
And then along comes the Iphone, and puts a spanner in the works. Yes, let's go back to the dark ages where an application has to be coded natively for that phone, and things like Java or Flash aren't allowed! Let's even make it so that applications can only be installed with Apple approval. It's great for Apple of course - people make applications specifically for the Iphone, generating extra publicity, and the media and fans spin the "app store" as being a good thing.
It's sad that even on places like Slashdot, people would prefer either 80s style computing where every platform is incompatible - or a possible future where compatibility is achieved only through a single Microsoft-like company dominating all of mobile computing (and what if that's a different company to Microsoft, as is likely? We'll have the absurd situation where mobile handheld/phone devices are incompatible with netbooks and desktop devices...). As opposed to having true standardisation and cross-platform applications, which had been achieved by a billion or two Java smartphones, before Apple start to put a stop to it.
I agree - though, can you give me a definition of "smartphone" that distinguishes it from feature phone?
The thing is, the terms are pretty much the same, except that "smartphone" vaguely means one that's higher end or more costly at the time. (This is what the "But the Iphone does well in the smartphone market" crowd don't get.)
So the trend of yesterday's smartphones becoming today's feature phones has been going on for years, and it's natural that we'll continue to see this to happen. Nokia are indeed number one, which is much to do with them having a full range of phones that people want. The Iphone might not lose sales, but it's easy to see them becoming (even more) irrelevant as high end features continue to become bog standard on cheap phones (Internet access and ability to run applications were bog standard years before the Iphone existed; last time I checked, even touchscreen was becoming commonplace on cheap contract-free phones).