You bought your iPhone? Did you pay the full price or did you get it subsidized? If you bought it subsidized, did you complete your contract term? If not, then you do not own it yet and are still renting to own.
Google voice is also US centric. Why should I, as a Canadian give a damn? I have access to Truphone, which is not a free service but cheap. I have yet to use any VOIP software or service with my iPhone. I don't see the point for me right now.
I hope that this IC technology works more consistently than debit cards because I feel like punching out idiots that try to buy small items at 7-11 with the debit card only to either enter their pin in wrong multiple times or having the magnetic strip not reading in at all. How hard is to to carry a little bit of cash for convenience food items? I always have cash on me (especially when traveling abroad) because I save money that way and I can keep track of what I'm spending more easily.
I personally feel that items below 10 dollars equivalent should be cash only not just for the sake of the retailers having to pay extra transaction fees for gum purchases but to save the aggravation of other customers waiting in line.
A flip phone? This is not the 90's anymore. I don't care how many mega pixels the camera has or how high the resolution of the display is if it relies on a numeric keypad for navigation. No thank you.
Hardware is useless without good software to drive it.
The Japanese aren't brand-motivated. They are quality-motivated.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. Have you ever been to the DFS Galleria in the Waikiki area of Honolulu? It is a duty free mall which caters mainly towards Japanese tourists. I took a look around and was handed a bunch of flyers for NTT Docomo and other Japanese companies (in Japanese of course). They sell all of the high end luxury brands there at inflated prices. I could get the watches they sell there for half the price or even less in stores on the mainland. They sell them at those prices because they can get away with it as the Japanese tourists don't seem to care about the price.
And copyright does not benefit society, it degrades it. (A good book to read on copyrights and other IP related matters would be Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly.)
Are you aware the everyone has a copyright automatically when they create a creative work in certain jurisdictions? Copyright protects you and me from having our work misused or used for profit by other party without permission and compensation. From the tone of your post, you seem to be blissfully unaware that average people either have automatic copyright or can apply for copyright for a small fee for any work they created depending on where they live. This would even include slashdot posts like these. Of course, it would be difficult for an anonymous coward such as yourself to prove that you wrote it since you did not sign in with an account.
The purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of content creators which could very well be an individual for a period of time to allow them to either sell their work directly or to distributing party for financial compensation. Without this protection, there would be very little incentive to create new creative works.
It is smooth as silk on my 24" iMac 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running 10.5.8 in Safari 4.0.2
You might want to tell us the screen resolution and frame rate, rather than the display size.
For example, a computer with a display set at 800x600 @30 fps is probably processing fewer pixels than a computer displaying 1600x1200 at 60 fps... In this context, the comment about a '24" iMac' tells us nothing except that the author has a penchant for big size.
As to the GP's point about a slideshow, it's most likely due to using generic video drivers with his linux installation.
It is set at the default resolution of the LCD panel which is 1920X1200.
The GP's issue might be linux drivers but we do not know what browser they are using which could also affect performance.
Sorry but what freedom does the GPL provide an end user? End users generally have zero interest in writing or even looking at code.
Here is a reality check for you. The majority of end users are neither sys admins or developers.
BSD and similar licenses provides the free access for end users to functionality derived from an open source project in either a free flavour or a non-free flavour which might be charged for and possibly include additional functionality and usability improvements from non-open source code or libraries. That is true freedom of choice of the end users who are generally not coders.
BSD and similar licenses do not force developers to return all changes back to the project. This can make a great deal of sense in a lot of cases. Let's say that I have a fork of code for another OS but it order for it to work seamlessly in that other OS or to meet some security requirement for the defence department, I have to use a proprietary third-party extension, how would releasing the code back into the project benefit anyone? It simply would not help the general community at all.
Developers involved in a BSD project will make contributions back into the main source tree if the change moves the project forward for the majority. That is true freedom as there is no compulsion to do so.
1 - GPL restricts _that_ freedom from developers (the freedom to redistribute with no strings attached), for the sake of the freedom of _users_
2 - Because the power to improve that situation is yours. In the case of the Apple store, it's not.
I'm sorry but since end users generally do not write code, that freedom is completely useless for "end users". What they are looking for is a usable product that works as intended, not a buggy product that would require them to roll up their sleeves and bug fix.
Again, as an end user at home, I would not be interested in coding. Some people might like to bring their work home with them but not me. It seems to me that the GPL movement seems to be completely out of touch with the reality of what end users want or need. They don't want code. They want a usable interface and sufficient documentation if the complexity of the software warrants it. Code is useless and is no substitute for usability/stability or proper documentation. I'm sorry but Read The F'ing Code will not fly with the masses.
It is as if RMS and his ilk think that everyone is either a coder or wants to become one.
It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.
What freedom would that be? Software that is BSD licensed is free without restrictions whereas the GPL does restrict the use of code to only other GPL'ed software and requires that you provide the source to any distributed derivatives. That is a restriction on freedom.
There is a lot of code that is GPL'ed which will only work on Linux. What if I don't want to use linux? I am forced to either install linux or rewrite large portions of code in order to create a usable version for the platform of my choice. How is this situation different?
We're talking about a BIOS rootkit. The BIOS runs directly on the hardware. It doesn't really care what OS you're loading, unless it has some specific reason to.
Uh, yeah, we are talking about a BIOS feature that some companies choose to install. Macs do not come with a BIOS but rather use EFI. Have you heard of Google?
Apple would have to deliberately include an EFI compatible version of this feature in order for this to be applicable.
If Apple sold the phones unlocked or at least allowed any consumer to pay a fee to legally unlock their phones at a wireless carrier store, most people would not have any need to jailbreak. I can see the danger of jailbreaking and software unlock code having either bugs or malicious backdoors which could be used crash networks.
My 3Gs is not jailbroken or unlocked but I had to jailbreak and unlock my 3G before I sold it as it was sold to someone on the Rogers network and that phone was bought at Fido. I would rather not have to risk using untested and forensically unverified just to be able to use foreign sims in my 3GS and I'd be willing to pay a fee to Fido to be able to unlock the device.
Carriers should give consumers a break but giving a legal/official option for unlocking phones especially if we bought it unsubsidized.
...and they said that they were making too much money and that they're tired of it. So from now on, only the iPhone/iPod can utilise their music services and everyone else can either pony up or sod off.
...and they wanted to introduce you to a thing called google. Apple makes very little revenue let alone profit from music sales after bandwidth and storage costs are considered from that 30 cents per song that they get from each sale.
That having been said, my wife and I own an older(read hand-me-down) 60GB iPod, and we don't use iTunes or any service that has DRM of any kind attached. Once we pay for our music, it's ours. Period. We decide the when, where and how, not Apple or anyone else for that matter.
Seriously dude, you need to check out google. Apple has not been selling DRM'ed music for some time now.
Palm broke the rules and got burned. Apple will not stop Palm from writing a plug in for iTunes so that it is recognized as a Palm Pre and as a sync capable device. This is how RIM did it and it is how Palm should have done it if they had not been lazy and just used Jon's insider knowledge from his time at Apple.
Apple is entering a losing battle with this change. Next up, I imagine either:
a) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itself
b) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes.
Are you serious? If Palm continues this, Apple could sue Jon Rubenstein for violating any non-compete agreements he signed while leading the iPod division or for using proprietary information to give Palm the ability to emulate the iPod. Or they could simply try to get Palm's USB license revoked for impersonating another device which is a no no as far as the license agreement for USB goes.
Palm could have avoided all of this by simply going through the proper channels and writing a plugin for iTunes like what RIM did with their Blackberry phone which can probably still sync with iTunes even after the patch.
Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.
Wow dude, learn to use google. Blackberry devices can and probably still continue to be able to sync non-DRM'ed music through iTunes using a plug-in which allows the device to be recognized by iTunes as a sync capable device without impersonation. What Palm did was impersonate an iPod in order to sync with iTunes. They cheated and used inside information from Jon Rubinstein who used to work at Apple on the iPod project. Apple probably could have sued Jon and Palm for what they did.
I don't see a problem with Apple releasing a patch to break a potentially illegal hack created by Palm. I'm surprised that they have not been called to the carpet for violating the license terms for USB as impersonating another device is against the license terms for any device with the USB mark.
If Palm has not been lazy and written their own plug in like RIM did to be able to sync with iTunes, we would not have a problem here and Apple would not have released this patch.
I thought we were talking about iPhones, not some crappy Nokia device that is nowhere near comparable hardware wise as well as software? If a Nokia N78 only costs 230 unlocked, how can you think of calling it comparable?
You seems to completely miss out on my point of missing features like Visual Voicemail which is not available on T-Mobile in the US and T-Mobile also does not use a frequency supported by the iPhone for their limited 3G service so you are stuck with Edge.
Regardless, I'm not an American and I"m quite happy with Fido up here in Canada where I pay about 79 CAD plus tax for my service with a data plan that is more than sufficient for my needs.
I never had any problem getting service when I was in Europe on my iPhone as I kept my data roaming switched off like it is by default.
I don't think you understand the appeal of the iPhone. It is more than just a phone. It is also an iPod and it has a vast library of applications unmatched by any other mobile platform.
Do people really buy in to the BS about an Iphone being $99? IT's only $99 if you sign your soul away for 2 years. The mobile carriers here are so fortunate to have an ignorant populace that is eager to go through the mental gymnastics required to truly believe that their iphone only costed $99.
So.... how do you use any phone with out service? The contract really means nothing the US since AT&T is the only major GSM carrier in the US that supports all of the features of the iPhone. The price of the service would be the same with or without a contract so the subsidization is just a business expense AT&T incurs to get some sort of guarantee of future revenue. What carrier would a person switch to without losing features? The argument is effectively moot given the lack of choice in providers.
... for software that really isn't needed these days. Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such? Same with spreadsheets. Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).
Wikis? Are you on crack. Wikis are not only often disorganized but they are also the epitome of poor usability. They do have their place but they are not a replacement properly rewritten and organized documentation. Wikis are a fad like twitter and will be forgotten in a few years.
They want to discourage full disclosure, because it means they won't get to abuse undisclosed vulnerabilities as freely as they currently do.
Let me put it to you in more immediate terms: If the BH presentation on ATM exploits goes through, it will trigger a much more rapid response to patch the problem, which means the true exploiters have less time to plunder. Now this is just one example... There are hundreds of high-risk exploits discovered every day, some of which were obviously used to hack into ImageShack. These kiddies are scared that full disclosure will take away their "toys".
Wow. I don't think you understand what full disclosure is and what they are allegedly advocating. It seems like they are not advocating to not disclose the vulnerability to the vendor but rather to not disclose not only the existence of vulnerability but also an example exploit to the world. This full disclosure is precisely what results in "script kiddies" getting their toys because they don't have to be part of any particular hacking group or hack significant "skillz". It creates a mad rush for the vendor to get the patch out there before it can be exploited by lamerz using a script they either downloaded off a website or a script that they copied from the the disclosure with some minor changes.
Providing the public with a warning that a vulnerability exists is not unethical and neither is providing information to the vendor but providing full exploit information is not only unethical but completely useless to the end user and places them at additional risk.
I can't believe that people use WinCE for a real world application that requires security and reliability. The morons who built these systems are reaping the reward for their ignorance.
A lot of ATM's were previously running IBM OS/2 and were pretty stable. Not only are these ATMs now exploitable but they are also much slower than before they were "upgraded" to WinCE.
Upgrades are supposed to improve functionality or improve performance but the text UI actually got about 2X slower to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
You bought your iPhone? Did you pay the full price or did you get it subsidized? If you bought it subsidized, did you complete your contract term? If not, then you do not own it yet and are still renting to own.
Google voice is also US centric. Why should I, as a Canadian give a damn? I have access to Truphone, which is not a free service but cheap. I have yet to use any VOIP software or service with my iPhone. I don't see the point for me right now.
I personally feel that items below 10 dollars equivalent should be cash only not just for the sake of the retailers having to pay extra transaction fees for gum purchases but to save the aggravation of other customers waiting in line.
Hardware is useless without good software to drive it.
The Japanese aren't brand-motivated. They are quality-motivated.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. Have you ever been to the DFS Galleria in the Waikiki area of Honolulu? It is a duty free mall which caters mainly towards Japanese tourists. I took a look around and was handed a bunch of flyers for NTT Docomo and other Japanese companies (in Japanese of course). They sell all of the high end luxury brands there at inflated prices. I could get the watches they sell there for half the price or even less in stores on the mainland. They sell them at those prices because they can get away with it as the Japanese tourists don't seem to care about the price.
And copyright does not benefit society, it degrades it. (A good book to read on copyrights and other IP related matters would be Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly.)
Are you aware the everyone has a copyright automatically when they create a creative work in certain jurisdictions? Copyright protects you and me from having our work misused or used for profit by other party without permission and compensation. From the tone of your post, you seem to be blissfully unaware that average people either have automatic copyright or can apply for copyright for a small fee for any work they created depending on where they live. This would even include slashdot posts like these. Of course, it would be difficult for an anonymous coward such as yourself to prove that you wrote it since you did not sign in with an account.
The purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of content creators which could very well be an individual for a period of time to allow them to either sell their work directly or to distributing party for financial compensation. Without this protection, there would be very little incentive to create new creative works.
But that's not necessarily the resolution that the aristotle was running it at.
LCD panels have an optimal native resolution. It would be foolish for me to run it at any other resolution than 1920X1200.
It is smooth as silk on my 24" iMac 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running 10.5.8 in Safari 4.0.2
You might want to tell us the screen resolution and frame rate, rather than the display size. For example, a computer with a display set at 800x600 @30 fps is probably processing fewer pixels than a computer displaying 1600x1200 at 60 fps... In this context, the comment about a '24" iMac' tells us nothing except that the author has a penchant for big size.
As to the GP's point about a slideshow, it's most likely due to using generic video drivers with his linux installation.
It is set at the default resolution of the LCD panel which is 1920X1200.
The GP's issue might be linux drivers but we do not know what browser they are using which could also affect performance.
Is a slideshow on my old Dell D820 (core duo, 2 gigs of ram, FF 3.5, Ubuntu Hardy)
You might want to reconsider your OS of choice. It is smooth as silk on my 24" iMac 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running 10.5.8 in Safari 4.0.2
Alternatively, you could consider using a newer build of Firefox.
Here is a reality check for you. The majority of end users are neither sys admins or developers.
BSD and similar licenses provides the free access for end users to functionality derived from an open source project in either a free flavour or a non-free flavour which might be charged for and possibly include additional functionality and usability improvements from non-open source code or libraries. That is true freedom of choice of the end users who are generally not coders.
BSD and similar licenses do not force developers to return all changes back to the project. This can make a great deal of sense in a lot of cases. Let's say that I have a fork of code for another OS but it order for it to work seamlessly in that other OS or to meet some security requirement for the defence department, I have to use a proprietary third-party extension, how would releasing the code back into the project benefit anyone? It simply would not help the general community at all.
Developers involved in a BSD project will make contributions back into the main source tree if the change moves the project forward for the majority. That is true freedom as there is no compulsion to do so.
1 - GPL restricts _that_ freedom from developers (the freedom to redistribute with no strings attached), for the sake of the freedom of _users_
2 - Because the power to improve that situation is yours. In the case of the Apple store, it's not.
I'm sorry but since end users generally do not write code, that freedom is completely useless for "end users". What they are looking for is a usable product that works as intended, not a buggy product that would require them to roll up their sleeves and bug fix.
Again, as an end user at home, I would not be interested in coding. Some people might like to bring their work home with them but not me. It seems to me that the GPL movement seems to be completely out of touch with the reality of what end users want or need. They don't want code. They want a usable interface and sufficient documentation if the complexity of the software warrants it. Code is useless and is no substitute for usability/stability or proper documentation. I'm sorry but Read The F'ing Code will not fly with the masses.
It is as if RMS and his ilk think that everyone is either a coder or wants to become one.
It is available, yes. But it is not really usable with the full freedoms of the GPL. While this may be legal for use under the GPL, I would consider this very unethical.
What freedom would that be? Software that is BSD licensed is free without restrictions whereas the GPL does restrict the use of code to only other GPL'ed software and requires that you provide the source to any distributed derivatives. That is a restriction on freedom.
There is a lot of code that is GPL'ed which will only work on Linux. What if I don't want to use linux? I am forced to either install linux or rewrite large portions of code in order to create a usable version for the platform of my choice. How is this situation different?
We're talking about a BIOS rootkit. The BIOS runs directly on the hardware. It doesn't really care what OS you're loading, unless it has some specific reason to.
Uh, yeah, we are talking about a BIOS feature that some companies choose to install. Macs do not come with a BIOS but rather use EFI. Have you heard of Google?
Apple would have to deliberately include an EFI compatible version of this feature in order for this to be applicable.
My 3Gs is not jailbroken or unlocked but I had to jailbreak and unlock my 3G before I sold it as it was sold to someone on the Rogers network and that phone was bought at Fido. I would rather not have to risk using untested and forensically unverified just to be able to use foreign sims in my 3GS and I'd be willing to pay a fee to Fido to be able to unlock the device.
Carriers should give consumers a break but giving a legal/official option for unlocking phones especially if we bought it unsubsidized.
Get with the times. MP3 is so last century and iTMS songs are DRM free MP4 Audio files at 256kps.
...and they said that they were making too much money and that they're tired of it. So from now on, only the iPhone/iPod can utilise their music services and everyone else can either pony up or sod off.
...and they wanted to introduce you to a thing called google. Apple makes very little revenue let alone profit from music sales after bandwidth and storage costs are considered from that 30 cents per song that they get from each sale.
That having been said, my wife and I own an older(read hand-me-down) 60GB iPod, and we don't use iTunes or any service that has DRM of any kind attached. Once we pay for our music, it's ours. Period. We decide the when, where and how, not Apple or anyone else for that matter.
Seriously dude, you need to check out google. Apple has not been selling DRM'ed music for some time now.
Palm broke the rules and got burned. Apple will not stop Palm from writing a plug in for iTunes so that it is recognized as a Palm Pre and as a sync capable device. This is how RIM did it and it is how Palm should have done it if they had not been lazy and just used Jon's insider knowledge from his time at Apple.
Apple is entering a losing battle with this change. Next up, I imagine either: a) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itself b) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes.
Are you serious? If Palm continues this, Apple could sue Jon Rubenstein for violating any non-compete agreements he signed while leading the iPod division or for using proprietary information to give Palm the ability to emulate the iPod. Or they could simply try to get Palm's USB license revoked for impersonating another device which is a no no as far as the license agreement for USB goes.
Palm could have avoided all of this by simply going through the proper channels and writing a plugin for iTunes like what RIM did with their Blackberry phone which can probably still sync with iTunes even after the patch.
Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.
Wow dude, learn to use google. Blackberry devices can and probably still continue to be able to sync non-DRM'ed music through iTunes using a plug-in which allows the device to be recognized by iTunes as a sync capable device without impersonation. What Palm did was impersonate an iPod in order to sync with iTunes. They cheated and used inside information from Jon Rubinstein who used to work at Apple on the iPod project. Apple probably could have sued Jon and Palm for what they did.
I don't see a problem with Apple releasing a patch to break a potentially illegal hack created by Palm. I'm surprised that they have not been called to the carpet for violating the license terms for USB as impersonating another device is against the license terms for any device with the USB mark.
If Palm has not been lazy and written their own plug in like RIM did to be able to sync with iTunes, we would not have a problem here and Apple would not have released this patch.
You seems to completely miss out on my point of missing features like Visual Voicemail which is not available on T-Mobile in the US and T-Mobile also does not use a frequency supported by the iPhone for their limited 3G service so you are stuck with Edge.
Regardless, I'm not an American and I"m quite happy with Fido up here in Canada where I pay about 79 CAD plus tax for my service with a data plan that is more than sufficient for my needs.
I never had any problem getting service when I was in Europe on my iPhone as I kept my data roaming switched off like it is by default.
I don't think you understand the appeal of the iPhone. It is more than just a phone. It is also an iPod and it has a vast library of applications unmatched by any other mobile platform.
Do people really buy in to the BS about an Iphone being $99? IT's only $99 if you sign your soul away for 2 years. The mobile carriers here are so fortunate to have an ignorant populace that is eager to go through the mental gymnastics required to truly believe that their iphone only costed $99.
So.... how do you use any phone with out service? The contract really means nothing the US since AT&T is the only major GSM carrier in the US that supports all of the features of the iPhone. The price of the service would be the same with or without a contract so the subsidization is just a business expense AT&T incurs to get some sort of guarantee of future revenue. What carrier would a person switch to without losing features? The argument is effectively moot given the lack of choice in providers.
... for software that really isn't needed these days. Other than a one-off printed letter, what place does a word processing document have in today's world of Wikis and such? Same with spreadsheets. Great for high school and college labs, and quick what-if stuff, but outside of that, should they really be used (don't get me started on the number of spreadsheet 'databases' or printable tables are out there).
Wikis? Are you on crack. Wikis are not only often disorganized but they are also the epitome of poor usability. They do have their place but they are not a replacement properly rewritten and organized documentation. Wikis are a fad like twitter and will be forgotten in a few years.
BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.
So are you telling us that you are just big boned?
They want to discourage full disclosure, because it means they won't get to abuse undisclosed vulnerabilities as freely as they currently do.
Let me put it to you in more immediate terms: If the BH presentation on ATM exploits goes through, it will trigger a much more rapid response to patch the problem, which means the true exploiters have less time to plunder. Now this is just one example... There are hundreds of high-risk exploits discovered every day, some of which were obviously used to hack into ImageShack. These kiddies are scared that full disclosure will take away their "toys".
Wow. I don't think you understand what full disclosure is and what they are allegedly advocating. It seems like they are not advocating to not disclose the vulnerability to the vendor but rather to not disclose not only the existence of vulnerability but also an example exploit to the world. This full disclosure is precisely what results in "script kiddies" getting their toys because they don't have to be part of any particular hacking group or hack significant "skillz". It creates a mad rush for the vendor to get the patch out there before it can be exploited by lamerz using a script they either downloaded off a website or a script that they copied from the the disclosure with some minor changes.
Providing the public with a warning that a vulnerability exists is not unethical and neither is providing information to the vendor but providing full exploit information is not only unethical but completely useless to the end user and places them at additional risk.
I can't believe that people use WinCE for a real world application that requires security and reliability. The morons who built these systems are reaping the reward for their ignorance.
A lot of ATM's were previously running IBM OS/2 and were pretty stable. Not only are these ATMs now exploitable but they are also much slower than before they were "upgraded" to WinCE.
Upgrades are supposed to improve functionality or improve performance but the text UI actually got about 2X slower to respond.