By moving the interaction with your finger to the back they can get a much smaller device or allow for controls where you might not want to have controls blocked by fingers because of the application.
I've tried a couple of video games for the iPod touch. A few of the racing games I've played have this problem, you put controls on the screen and you all of a sudden have me playing in landscape mode with both thumbs on top of the device but I've covered both the corners of the screen and the buttons I'm trying to press. You either have to limit your number of controls to, say, one per corner so I don't have to worry about not being about covering them, or make really big controls so your finger doesnt block them. Moving the touch interface to the back would let me keep most of the screen visible while interacting with more buttons or smaller buttons on a smaller form-factor device. In situations where you'll be using it one-handed (phone) this may not be as useful. For mobile gaming or other situations where you'll already be using 2 hands, this could help.
You see, what you're doing here is blaming the victim. Yes, the victim.
Very few file-sharers have the capacity to buy the stuff they download, they are just tagging along in what is a part of their culture, a culture which the media conglomerate has built very effectively.
So, the choice is to be left out of the loop on everyday culture or pirate.
This is me playing the worlds smallest violin for all those poor file-sharers denied access to the latest Jonas Brothers CD or Wolverine movie.
You can't afford it, then don't buy it. Your rationalization for stealing whatever isn't nailed down because it's easy and available are complete bullshit. People with talent and skill work to create things you will never be capable of creating yourself. You derive enough enjoyment from them to take the time to steal them, you should be paying for them.
The UID stuff somewhat does this. However, having seen it in WoW, I really hope that/. doesn't implement an equivalent to/played. Sometimes you're better off not knowing how much time you wasted doing time-wasting things.
"For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]"
Why do we celebrate our age from the time of exiting our mother's womb? Why not conception?
"On this day, XX years ago, my parents had hot hot sex and I just wanted to thank them for it. Without that hot hot sex, done by my parents, I wouldn't be here today with all of you. With that image firmly in all of your minds, lets party!!!"
It is not simple petulance and want for instant gratification (instant gratification would be nice, but it's about YOU TOOK not I WANT). I'm not trying to put Gentoo on my iPod (what?), I'm just trying to get my iPod working with Linux. It's not an outrageous, unprecedented or unusual desire.
When you bought your iPod it listed the operating systems on the back of the box that it supported. It also said that it required iTunes to work. You've decided to go and try and make it do things it wasn't designed to do and they've made changes that have made that difficult. Gues what, they never promised you this would work. You bought hardware that depended on a third-party non-supported solution and when that solution went 'boom' you just whine.
This has nothing to do with DRM. Apple has made a change that affects a usage scenario (Linux with non-iTunes software as a sync mechanism) that they've NEVER supported and NEVER claimed to support. Is it because of DRM that I can't run Photoshop on Linux? In your new definition of "DRM means companies preventing me from doing anything I want" then I guess it is. I'll stick to the old definition, which is about content owners placing restrictions on their copyrighted material that may or may not limit a purchasers fair-use rights to content they've purchased.
Oh, and the fact that the basis of your argument seems to be an ad hominem attack on my being a teenager (which isn't even true, I'm not even close to teen aged) only reflects badly on you.
You're half right, it was an ad-hominem attack but I was calling you childish, which is a mental stage that affects people regardless of age. Based on your response, I stand by my original position.
You mean that you bought hardware that is widely recognized not to work with your particular OS and rather than admit you made a dumb decision you'd rather piss and moan that Apple isn't doing everything you want RIGHT NOW!!! Or you bought hardware from a company with a 20+ year reputation for controlling its HW and UI and are pissed that you can't put Gentoo on it? Well stomp your feet, slam the door, and go write in your diary about how mean Steve Jobs is and how he TOTALLY hates you.
Meanwhile, in the real world we recognize that not everything works with everything else but sometimes this has advantages. If you can't do what you want with an iPod, don't buy one.
As a UI Designer, let me say I really doubt this. There just simply aren't the incentives for a designer to work on OSS as there are for a developer.
Working on an OSS project without the ability to code means my ability to get design done depends on influence. Influence that will likely have to be accomplished across chat or VOIP with people I've never met who may have worked on this for a while or have strong opinions about how it should be designed PLUS the ability to completely ignore me and check in whatever they want. Additionally, while a draw for a developer to work on OSS might be that you're working absent the processes and influences of other less-programmy groups (marketing and design for instance), this removes any organizational leverage I may have as a designer to get things done.
While my dev friend gets a cool way to try out stuff they want to play with absent all those annoying rules at work, I get stuck in a situation with so little ability to do my job that if it were something I was being paid for, I'd likely quit. I'd rather spend my free time either selling my skills to clients (allows me to build up a network if I ever want to go out on my own), working on my own projects (fun + might be better for the portfolio than the game where I struggled for 6 months to get something I'm really not happy with in the end), or just relaxing.
Perhaps in an OSS company focused on building games you could get the structure you need to make OSS design work for designers, but the traditional "give away the code and charge for service/support" model doesn't seem too workable for games so I'm struggling to see how a business would work.
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that you were offended by posters of late term abortions, but are actually for the act itself? If the poster offends you, how can the act NOT offend you. That would be like saying you are offended by goatse but are A-O.K. with gay marriage.
I'd be offended by a poster showing a guy taking a dump, but it doesn't mean I think we should ban shitting. I'm OK with gay marriage but I don't really want to see gay porn. Is this really that hard to grasp?
Include the next 2 paragraphs though and you can see what this actually has them doing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.
(bolding is mine) They're sending a strongly worded letter. That's it. This is a complete non-story and the sort of symbolic political crap that pols do so they can send out fund raising letters to the fundies saying how they fought the darwinists without actually having to do anything. If they're preventing him from speaking that's an issue but there's nothing here that at all suggests that.
This whole situation reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's mechanic held his car hostage because he didn't feel Jerry did a good enough job taking care of it.
As much as it may pain network admins to hear it, you don't own your network. You are paid to build and maintain it but your relationship to it is like the mechanic and not like the car owner. If the people who pay you and who paid for the network ask for the keys, give it to them. If you don't, from their point of view you are now holding their property hostage.
I could go on, but lets face it. When has anyone fought what the majority of people want and won?
Well, in the US at least, womens suffrage, the desegregation of both the military and the school system, and civil rights more broadly just in the 20th century. Not so sure about other countries but in all of those cases a minority won victories against the majority opinion through constant non-violent protest, political lobbying and a good public communication campaign. They didn't have pre-release movies that they didn't have to pay for though, so I can see why you like your way better.
IMHO piracy is fair reaction regardless of whether the people pirating do so for political reasons in addition to the fact that it's possible. Considering to how twisted the law and legal system has become. How the law is bought and sold by those with the most money. And the endless attempts at DRM and trying to licesense everything instead of people actually owning the stuff they buy. I consider it a counter force to the overwhelming concentration of corporate and private power at the expense of the public good and the individuals rights to own what they buy and not trying to be turned into serfs of consumption via legal corruption of the law and peoples rights.
Name a political system in the history of time where laws weren't twisted in the interest of monied powers. While I wait for you to find this nirvana I'll point out that people have been getting positive change throughout human history despite the fact that political systems tend towards graft and vice to a much larger extent than anything you're seeing between the copyright holders and politicians today. You could be writing your local political officials, staging protests and demonstrations, even downloading music and movies you believed you were morally allowed to download in public places as a way of showing how unjust the punishment you'd receive would be. Sitting in your house, downloading songs and movies does none of these things and just gives copyright holders a convenient way to excuse having to give large amounts of money to politicians to defend themselves against you. It does, however, give you access to movies and music without having to pay for them.
But the President Elect pullout poster in this month's Tiger Beat CLEARLY stated that Barack loves listening to David Cassidy songs on his iPod. If I can't believe that how do you know that he really loves puppies and rainbows and if that's not true I'LL JUST DIE!!!
I like the guy, I voted for the guy, and this sort of bullshit is just embarrassing.
World Net Daily is trash, the Weekly World News of republican news outfits (which is saying a lot). Quoting something that Rahm Emanuel said 2 years ago, well before he was selected as Obama's chief of staff, just confirms this is more hyperbole from the crazy end of the GOP internet.
Okay, firstly, the latter is not what you actually said. Second, even if it was, it still wouldn't be reasonable because it implies ad hominem. An "idiotic" argument could be fallacious or flawed in some way, but there is a burden of proof on you to specify what fallacy or flaw there is. You can't just call me an idiot, or even my argument idiotic and call it good.
You're an idiot, your argument is idiotic. The preceding statement is nothing but goodness and light.
Seriously, when your starting premise for a business model doesn't take into account the cost of producing the object you want to sell because you think it's "unethical" you're an idiot. Running a business with both hands tied behind your back doesn't get you extra brownie points for doing it on "hard mode". The guy behind trism had a great idea and with a minimal investment and some effort was able to capitalize on it. Why does it cost $5 for the game and not $.01? Because people will pay $5 for the game and the number of people who would buy it for $.01 and not $5 aren't worth $4.99 to try and get as your customers.
It's very easy to suddenly whip out the discrimination card, but it's perfectly valid in this case to prefer older applicants who have more experience in the job. Obviously, if there is a preference for older applicants even if they don't have more experience, something is up, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. (The original poster wasn't entirely clear about this, I'll accept).
Imagine this scenario:
A 53 year old IT pro walks into your office for an interview. You sit down and say to him:
IT is seen as a young man's game. My next applicant after you is 23 years old. What do you know that he doesn't?
He gives an answer but it's not what you're looking for and he doesn't get the job. How does he take that question? Is he more or less likely to call a lawyer if he sees the 23 year old applicant waiting in the lobby?
It's a great story when the guy wows you and you end up finding the guru/jedi master that keeps everything running, saves you millions and tells you great stories about the good old days but you'll reject a lot more than you hire and asking a question in a way that says "I'm inclined not to hire you because you're old, tell me why I'm wrong" is asking for trouble.
Now while you and I may thing that this comparison is ridiculous and unfair they probably believe as strongly in the protection of animals as you do in copyright and software licensing issues. My original points stands, comparing anything that any company has ever done in the history of software licensing to slavery is an insane and offensive comparison. Just like when PETA compares eating chicken to the holocaust.
Slavery is an interesting concept in human history. We have, with the enslavement of Africans in the U.S.A. a vivid example of a very specific type of slavery. There are other kinds.
James Madison, one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, advocated separation of church and state and that anything less would destroy democracy and make slaves of men.
Similarly, I believe, and I'm sure RMS would agree, that software that compels us to do something or controls what we are allowed to do is tantamount to a form of slavery.
And PETA would have us believe that eating chicken is the moral equivalent of the holocaust. Comparing anything that any company has put in any EULA ever to slavery is a ridiculous comparison.
Mission Statement: To create educational opportunities for the world's poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning.
OLPC is not, at heart, a technology program, nor is the XO a product in any conventional sense of the word. OLPC is a non-profit organization providing a means to an end--an end that sees children in even the most remote regions of the globe being given the opportunity to tap into their own potential, to be exposed to a whole world of ideas, and to contribute to a more productive and saner world community.
both quotes from the OLPC mission page.
If you want to be accurate, a bunch of open source zealots donated to a program who used open source software as a tactic towards their larger strategic goals of educating the world's children. When the organization shifted tactics in order to accomplish their larger goal these zealots got butt-hurt because they never really understood or supported the main point to begin with.
If you can't see the difference between goals and the means used to accomplish them, its not the fault of the OLPC group.
A larger number will be curious if presented with the opportunity to see the code, but will not even consider the possibility on their own simply due to a lack of awareness. Most of these kids won't realise how computers can be programmed if you don't show them and give them the choice.
This is totally true, after all NO ONE who grew up using Windows in the 80s/90s ever became a programmer or got interested in computers.
The OLPC Sugar UI was designed by the prestigious design firm Pentagram so I'm not sure this represents a scalable solution to the problem.
Lisa Strausfeld, Christian Marc Schmidt and Takaaki Okada are working on the design of the laptop interface for the One Laptop Per Child project, the initiative to put $100 laptops in the hands of children around the world. Michael Gericke has designed the identity for the initiative. The project is being led by Nicholas Negroponte, the founding director of the MIT Media Lab, and the designers are working in close collaboration with the OLPC development team, including president Walter Bender and designer Eben Eliason. Production on the laptops is scheduled for mid-2007. (from http://blog.pentagram.com/olpc/)
Wow, take a deep breath and get some perspective. He's talking about not elevating security bugs as a class of bugs, not hiding them. You've managed to bring in 9-11, freedom and a vision of a "sharecropper" future for Linux out of this. You may disagree and I think there are some good arguments on that side (particularly that people may use the presence of a security bug as a motivator to upgrade or that auditors may need to easily classify security from non-security related bugs) but to jump from
So I personally consider security bugs to be just "normal bugs". I don't cover them up, but I also don't have any reason what-so-ever to think it's a good idea to track them and announce them as something special.
to
When even the proponents of freedom start to fear freedom, we are in deep shit.
Slashdot Mirror
By moving the interaction with your finger to the back they can get a much smaller device or allow for controls where you might not want to have controls blocked by fingers because of the application.
I've tried a couple of video games for the iPod touch. A few of the racing games I've played have this problem, you put controls on the screen and you all of a sudden have me playing in landscape mode with both thumbs on top of the device but I've covered both the corners of the screen and the buttons I'm trying to press. You either have to limit your number of controls to, say, one per corner so I don't have to worry about not being about covering them, or make really big controls so your finger doesnt block them. Moving the touch interface to the back would let me keep most of the screen visible while interacting with more buttons or smaller buttons on a smaller form-factor device. In situations where you'll be using it one-handed (phone) this may not be as useful. For mobile gaming or other situations where you'll already be using 2 hands, this could help.
This is me playing the worlds smallest violin for all those poor file-sharers denied access to the latest Jonas Brothers CD or Wolverine movie.
You can't afford it, then don't buy it. Your rationalization for stealing whatever isn't nailed down because it's easy and available are complete bullshit. People with talent and skill work to create things you will never be capable of creating yourself. You derive enough enjoyment from them to take the time to steal them, you should be paying for them.
The UID stuff somewhat does this. However, having seen it in WoW, I really hope that /. doesn't implement an equivalent to /played. Sometimes you're better off not knowing how much time you wasted doing time-wasting things.
"For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
So in other words, your original post and your followup are both pretty much completely wrong.
"On this day, XX years ago, my parents had hot hot sex and I just wanted to thank them for it. Without that hot hot sex, done by my parents, I wouldn't be here today with all of you. With that image firmly in all of your minds, lets party!!!"
I'll stick with tradition here.
When you bought your iPod it listed the operating systems on the back of the box that it supported. It also said that it required iTunes to work. You've decided to go and try and make it do things it wasn't designed to do and they've made changes that have made that difficult. Gues what, they never promised you this would work. You bought hardware that depended on a third-party non-supported solution and when that solution went 'boom' you just whine.
This has nothing to do with DRM. Apple has made a change that affects a usage scenario (Linux with non-iTunes software as a sync mechanism) that they've NEVER supported and NEVER claimed to support. Is it because of DRM that I can't run Photoshop on Linux? In your new definition of "DRM means companies preventing me from doing anything I want" then I guess it is. I'll stick to the old definition, which is about content owners placing restrictions on their copyrighted material that may or may not limit a purchasers fair-use rights to content they've purchased.
You're half right, it was an ad-hominem attack but I was calling you childish, which is a mental stage that affects people regardless of age. Based on your response, I stand by my original position.
You mean that you bought hardware that is widely recognized not to work with your particular OS and rather than admit you made a dumb decision you'd rather piss and moan that Apple isn't doing everything you want RIGHT NOW!!! Or you bought hardware from a company with a 20+ year reputation for controlling its HW and UI and are pissed that you can't put Gentoo on it? Well stomp your feet, slam the door, and go write in your diary about how mean Steve Jobs is and how he TOTALLY hates you.
Meanwhile, in the real world we recognize that not everything works with everything else but sometimes this has advantages. If you can't do what you want with an iPod, don't buy one.
As a UI Designer, let me say I really doubt this. There just simply aren't the incentives for a designer to work on OSS as there are for a developer.
Working on an OSS project without the ability to code means my ability to get design done depends on influence. Influence that will likely have to be accomplished across chat or VOIP with people I've never met who may have worked on this for a while or have strong opinions about how it should be designed PLUS the ability to completely ignore me and check in whatever they want. Additionally, while a draw for a developer to work on OSS might be that you're working absent the processes and influences of other less-programmy groups (marketing and design for instance), this removes any organizational leverage I may have as a designer to get things done.
While my dev friend gets a cool way to try out stuff they want to play with absent all those annoying rules at work, I get stuck in a situation with so little ability to do my job that if it were something I was being paid for, I'd likely quit. I'd rather spend my free time either selling my skills to clients (allows me to build up a network if I ever want to go out on my own), working on my own projects (fun + might be better for the portfolio than the game where I struggled for 6 months to get something I'm really not happy with in the end), or just relaxing.
Perhaps in an OSS company focused on building games you could get the structure you need to make OSS design work for designers, but the traditional "give away the code and charge for service/support" model doesn't seem too workable for games so I'm struggling to see how a business would work.
I'd be offended by a poster showing a guy taking a dump, but it doesn't mean I think we should ban shitting. I'm OK with gay marriage but I don't really want to see gay porn. Is this really that hard to grasp?
Include the next 2 paragraphs though and you can see what this actually has them doing.
(bolding is mine)
They're sending a strongly worded letter. That's it. This is a complete non-story and the sort of symbolic political crap that pols do so they can send out fund raising letters to the fundies saying how they fought the darwinists without actually having to do anything. If they're preventing him from speaking that's an issue but there's nothing here that at all suggests that.
I completely agree.
This whole situation reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's mechanic held his car hostage because he didn't feel Jerry did a good enough job taking care of it.
As much as it may pain network admins to hear it, you don't own your network. You are paid to build and maintain it but your relationship to it is like the mechanic and not like the car owner. If the people who pay you and who paid for the network ask for the keys, give it to them. If you don't, from their point of view you are now holding their property hostage.
Well, in the US at least, womens suffrage, the desegregation of both the military and the school system, and civil rights more broadly just in the 20th century. Not so sure about other countries but in all of those cases a minority won victories against the majority opinion through constant non-violent protest, political lobbying and a good public communication campaign. They didn't have pre-release movies that they didn't have to pay for though, so I can see why you like your way better.
Name a political system in the history of time where laws weren't twisted in the interest of monied powers. While I wait for you to find this nirvana I'll point out that people have been getting positive change throughout human history despite the fact that political systems tend towards graft and vice to a much larger extent than anything you're seeing between the copyright holders and politicians today. You could be writing your local political officials, staging protests and demonstrations, even downloading music and movies you believed you were morally allowed to download in public places as a way of showing how unjust the punishment you'd receive would be. Sitting in your house, downloading songs and movies does none of these things and just gives copyright holders a convenient way to excuse having to give large amounts of money to politicians to defend themselves against you. It does, however, give you access to movies and music without having to pay for them.
So how do you defend piracy again?
But the President Elect pullout poster in this month's Tiger Beat CLEARLY stated that Barack loves listening to David Cassidy songs on his iPod. If I can't believe that how do you know that he really loves puppies and rainbows and if that's not true I'LL JUST DIE!!!
I like the guy, I voted for the guy, and this sort of bullshit is just embarrassing.
World Net Daily is trash, the Weekly World News of republican news outfits (which is saying a lot). Quoting something that Rahm Emanuel said 2 years ago, well before he was selected as Obama's chief of staff, just confirms this is more hyperbole from the crazy end of the GOP internet.
You're an idiot, your argument is idiotic. The preceding statement is nothing but goodness and light.
Seriously, when your starting premise for a business model doesn't take into account the cost of producing the object you want to sell because you think it's "unethical" you're an idiot. Running a business with both hands tied behind your back doesn't get you extra brownie points for doing it on "hard mode". The guy behind trism had a great idea and with a minimal investment and some effort was able to capitalize on it. Why does it cost $5 for the game and not $.01? Because people will pay $5 for the game and the number of people who would buy it for $.01 and not $5 aren't worth $4.99 to try and get as your customers.
Imagine this scenario:
A 53 year old IT pro walks into your office for an interview. You sit down and say to him:
He gives an answer but it's not what you're looking for and he doesn't get the job. How does he take that question? Is he more or less likely to call a lawyer if he sees the 23 year old applicant waiting in the lobby?
It's a great story when the guy wows you and you end up finding the guru/jedi master that keeps everything running, saves you millions and tells you great stories about the good old days but you'll reject a lot more than you hire and asking a question in a way that says "I'm inclined not to hire you because you're old, tell me why I'm wrong" is asking for trouble.
While the comparison is hyperbole, it is an actual PETA campaign
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.holocaust/
Now while you and I may thing that this comparison is ridiculous and unfair they probably believe as strongly in the protection of animals as you do in copyright and software licensing issues. My original points stands, comparing anything that any company has ever done in the history of software licensing to slavery is an insane and offensive comparison. Just like when PETA compares eating chicken to the holocaust.
And PETA would have us believe that eating chicken is the moral equivalent of the holocaust. Comparing anything that any company has put in any EULA ever to slavery is a ridiculous comparison.
And coming from someone who equated differences in software licensing to slavery, that's saying something.
Exactly, which is why no one in the world continues to play that terrible game called Chess after Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
both quotes from the OLPC mission page.
If you want to be accurate, a bunch of open source zealots donated to a program who used open source software as a tactic towards their larger strategic goals of educating the world's children. When the organization shifted tactics in order to accomplish their larger goal these zealots got butt-hurt because they never really understood or supported the main point to begin with.
If you can't see the difference between goals and the means used to accomplish them, its not the fault of the OLPC group.
This is totally true, after all NO ONE who grew up using Windows in the 80s/90s ever became a programmer or got interested in computers.
Careful, your fanboy is showing.
The OLPC Sugar UI was designed by the prestigious design firm Pentagram so I'm not sure this represents a scalable solution to the problem.
Except that Childs is not the cars owner, he's the mechanic hired to fix and maintain it for the owners (the city government of SF).
Wow, take a deep breath and get some perspective. He's talking about not elevating security bugs as a class of bugs, not hiding them. You've managed to bring in 9-11, freedom and a vision of a "sharecropper" future for Linux out of this. You may disagree and I think there are some good arguments on that side (particularly that people may use the presence of a security bug as a motivator to upgrade or that auditors may need to easily classify security from non-security related bugs) but to jump from
to
Is a complete overreaction.