If you read the actual article rather than starting ranting about whether glossy or matte is better, you immediately see some problems. First, it's the readers of one particular magazine that was supposedly polled. How can we draw conclusions about the market as a whole from that? Second, it just says that readers were asked. Was that a self-selecting "online poll"? If so, it would have just as much statistical validity as throwing darts at a chart. Unless you have a random sample of the overall population that you're trying to draw conclusions about, you have no hope of coming to an accurate conclusion. This story isn't an effort to get at the truth. It's simply an effort to claim support for what its writer already believed. It's just plain flat-out dishonest journalism.
The headline here was written by someone who either doesn't understand the process or was being sloppy. Congress as a whole isn't trying to cut scanner funding. Republicans in the House of Representatives -- just one house of Congress -- are trying to cut funding. Even if it passes the House, it won't pass in the Senate. And Obama wouldn't sign it if it DID pass both houses of Congress. But on the basis issue of accuracy, it's wrong. "Congress" isn't trying to do anything at this point on this issue.
You're 100 percent right, of course, but because people would rather reflexively defend what they already believe in -- which is their beloved, but restrictive GPL -- you will be attacked. It's not trolling (as you're currently modded as I write this) to say that the GPL has the effect of forcing everyone else to behave with code as the license's authors want. The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code. The fact that the "free software" advocates can't understand that they are trying to control others is one of the supreme ironies in IT today.
The headline is inflammatory and wrong. AT&T can't force you to do anything. All this says is that AT&T can have an element in a contract -- that you can enter into or not -- that if there's a dispute, it goes to arbitration instead of court. If you aren't willing to accept that clause, you don't sign the contract. It's just like any other condition. If you don't like a price or a part of the service or whatever, don't sign a contract.
Isn't this nearly as big a deal as when an iPhone site likes a new iPhone? I mean, Android lovers are desperate for Android tablets to like, so they're hardly unbiased.
Can't people finally start admitting that maybe Apple was doing the right thing -- for users' long term experience -- in trying to get rid of Flash for mobile devices? It's so bizarre how hatred of Apple and Steve Jobs drives some tech people to irrationally support a lousy and proprietary plugin that we CAN move beyond. Flash was a great thing earlier in the history of the web, but it's time to leave it behind. The only reason the Android crowd loves it is because Apple was the first to admit that it was time to leave it behind. It's become a badge of honor to be able to check that box as a feature -- even if we would be better off (long term for sure) without it.
When the anonymous submitter of this item refers to companies "abusing" software patents, what he really means is companies that use software patents in accordance with current law. If the idiot who wrote that submission would like to change the law, that's fine. He ought to work to get the law changed. But companies reasonably work within the framework of the law as its written. Google can make all the noises it wants to in order to try to make the open source fanboys happy, but Google has to work within the SAME framework. It's idiocy to pretend that companies don't have the right (and the responsibility to their shareholders) to protect their intellectual property in ways that are specified in the law.
You can also find books and websites about how to build your own car, but hardly anybody does that, statistically speaking. The fact that something CAN be done doesn't necessarily mean that most people want to do it. For a small minority, it's vaguely interesting that it's possible, but the majority just want a product that works. The actual percentage of people who actually turn a Nook into a cheap tablet would be astonishingly small, IMO.
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
John Gruber of Daring Fireball carefully lays out the situation in this post from a couple of days ago. I know that a lot of people like to make up all sorts of conspiracy theories and bizarre motives when it comes to Apple, but the truth is a lot more interesting and a lot less sinister: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43
So if the federal government is now in favor of us having the right to control our privacy, I guess this means they'll stop threatening to throw us into jail when we don't tell them our business, huh?;-)
It's ironic that you took the time to write a post calling other people idiots, yet you still managed at least four errors in your four sentences: 1) In your first sentence, you mean "you're," not "your." 2) In your second sentence, it's wrong to put an apostrophe after "MP3" in an effort to make it plural. It's just MP3s. 3) When you refer to a decade in your second sentence, the apostrophe is supposed to go where something is left off. If you refer to the 1990s, you're dropping off the "19," meaning the correct form is '90s. 4) In your last sentence, you meant "you're," not "your." It's probably wise that you posted as an AC.
The fact that Apple's approval process isn't PERFECT at stopping everything doesn't mean that Google's policy of stopping NOTHING until a quarter of a million people have already downloaded the malware is a good idea.
Your needs/desires aren't everyone's needs/desires
on
Hands On With Apple IPad 2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've been using a bluetooth keyboard with my iPad since last spring, when the iPad took the place of my laptop. I wouldn't know about a mouse, because there's no need for a mouse with it. The Flash issue has been covered to death. You either understand why its exclusion is a good thing or you don't, so there's nothing to add there. As for user-expandable memory, I can't figure out why people bring this up. It's a trade-off. There are certain advantages to having sealed, fixed memory, and it's a tradeoff to get them. If you don't want those advantages, buy a product that requires the user to manipulate a file system, but you're NOT going to see those in iOS products. Period.
Well, it's a "bad term" only because it's totally and completely inaccurate. You make it sound as though his statement was fine other than the fact that it was 100 percent wrong.;-)
Why do you repeat the lie that Apple "stole" anything from Xerox? Apple and Xerox had a specific deal to allow Apple engineers to see the things that PARC was doing. In exchange, Xerox was compensated in the form of cheap stock in Apple. It's pure ignorance to keep repeating the claim that Apple stole anything from Xerox.
If YouTube is dependent on Flash, how do you suppose my iPhone has been viewing YouTube videos from Day 1 (and the iPad has done likewise)? YouTube's video is encoded as MPEG-4. Devices using Flash using Flash to decode and play the MPEG-4. Devices that can directly play the MPEG-4 just do that. This isn't rocket science to understand.
Honestly, I don't care. I don't want government to have the power to track me, but if a marketer figures out in his database that the same person who posts on Slashdot also posts on a filmmaker site and a college football site, well, who cares? If I happen to want to do something where nobody can know who it is, yeah, I'll create another identity. But for the vast majority of what I do today, I've taken to using my real name as my user name. I can't figure out why people think a user name "betrays" you because it connects you to something you've said elsewhere. In real life, I already have something like that. It's called my name. So more and more, I'm using it online except in the VERY rare cases I want to protect my identity. This is not rocket science, IMO.
This is a horrible idea. Why would anybody outside of RIM bother to write apps for Blackberry if this happens? If they're really doing this, it just proves that RIM doesn't care about the user experience for Blackberry users. To have apps from different platforms mixing will mean that there's no consistency in look and feel. Native Blackberry apps will dry up (even more than they already are). Soon, people will say, "Why buy a Blackberry when I'm just running Android apps?" I don't really care whether RIM does it, because I don't use Blackberry or Android. (I'm an iPhone user.) I just think it's a really stupid business move. It's going to be hard for RIM to survive as an independent company, but this certainly won't help.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between those models? Or do you just enjoy missing and point and acting glib when you don't know what you're talking about? Google isn't a content creator. Google is making money from advertising, but it's not from creating the content. Those who are creating the content are losing money, in most cases.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the actual article rather than starting ranting about whether glossy or matte is better, you immediately see some problems. First, it's the readers of one particular magazine that was supposedly polled. How can we draw conclusions about the market as a whole from that? Second, it just says that readers were asked. Was that a self-selecting "online poll"? If so, it would have just as much statistical validity as throwing darts at a chart. Unless you have a random sample of the overall population that you're trying to draw conclusions about, you have no hope of coming to an accurate conclusion. This story isn't an effort to get at the truth. It's simply an effort to claim support for what its writer already believed. It's just plain flat-out dishonest journalism.
I'm sure that all three people who still care about MeeGo were really excited about this.
The headline here was written by someone who either doesn't understand the process or was being sloppy. Congress as a whole isn't trying to cut scanner funding. Republicans in the House of Representatives -- just one house of Congress -- are trying to cut funding. Even if it passes the House, it won't pass in the Senate. And Obama wouldn't sign it if it DID pass both houses of Congress. But on the basis issue of accuracy, it's wrong. "Congress" isn't trying to do anything at this point on this issue.
You're 100 percent right, of course, but because people would rather reflexively defend what they already believe in -- which is their beloved, but restrictive GPL -- you will be attacked. It's not trolling (as you're currently modded as I write this) to say that the GPL has the effect of forcing everyone else to behave with code as the license's authors want. The BSD is neutral on the matter and allows everyone to do whatever THEY want with code. The fact that the "free software" advocates can't understand that they are trying to control others is one of the supreme ironies in IT today.
The headline is inflammatory and wrong. AT&T can't force you to do anything. All this says is that AT&T can have an element in a contract -- that you can enter into or not -- that if there's a dispute, it goes to arbitration instead of court. If you aren't willing to accept that clause, you don't sign the contract. It's just like any other condition. If you don't like a price or a part of the service or whatever, don't sign a contract.
Isn't this nearly as big a deal as when an iPhone site likes a new iPhone? I mean, Android lovers are desperate for Android tablets to like, so they're hardly unbiased.
Can't people finally start admitting that maybe Apple was doing the right thing -- for users' long term experience -- in trying to get rid of Flash for mobile devices? It's so bizarre how hatred of Apple and Steve Jobs drives some tech people to irrationally support a lousy and proprietary plugin that we CAN move beyond. Flash was a great thing earlier in the history of the web, but it's time to leave it behind. The only reason the Android crowd loves it is because Apple was the first to admit that it was time to leave it behind. It's become a badge of honor to be able to check that box as a feature -- even if we would be better off (long term for sure) without it.
When the anonymous submitter of this item refers to companies "abusing" software patents, what he really means is companies that use software patents in accordance with current law. If the idiot who wrote that submission would like to change the law, that's fine. He ought to work to get the law changed. But companies reasonably work within the framework of the law as its written. Google can make all the noises it wants to in order to try to make the open source fanboys happy, but Google has to work within the SAME framework. It's idiocy to pretend that companies don't have the right (and the responsibility to their shareholders) to protect their intellectual property in ways that are specified in the law.
You can also find books and websites about how to build your own car, but hardly anybody does that, statistically speaking. The fact that something CAN be done doesn't necessarily mean that most people want to do it. For a small minority, it's vaguely interesting that it's possible, but the majority just want a product that works. The actual percentage of people who actually turn a Nook into a cheap tablet would be astonishingly small, IMO.
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
John Gruber of Daring Fireball carefully lays out the situation in this post from a couple of days ago. I know that a lot of people like to make up all sorts of conspiracy theories and bizarre motives when it comes to Apple, but the truth is a lot more interesting and a lot less sinister: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43
If I control the criteria for judging, I can name any company ethical or unethical, which is why lists such as this seem completely useless to me.
So if the federal government is now in favor of us having the right to control our privacy, I guess this means they'll stop threatening to throw us into jail when we don't tell them our business, huh? ;-)
It's ironic that you took the time to write a post calling other people idiots, yet you still managed at least four errors in your four sentences: 1) In your first sentence, you mean "you're," not "your." 2) In your second sentence, it's wrong to put an apostrophe after "MP3" in an effort to make it plural. It's just MP3s. 3) When you refer to a decade in your second sentence, the apostrophe is supposed to go where something is left off. If you refer to the 1990s, you're dropping off the "19," meaning the correct form is '90s. 4) In your last sentence, you meant "you're," not "your." It's probably wise that you posted as an AC.
The fact that Apple's approval process isn't PERFECT at stopping everything doesn't mean that Google's policy of stopping NOTHING until a quarter of a million people have already downloaded the malware is a good idea.
I've been using a bluetooth keyboard with my iPad since last spring, when the iPad took the place of my laptop. I wouldn't know about a mouse, because there's no need for a mouse with it. The Flash issue has been covered to death. You either understand why its exclusion is a good thing or you don't, so there's nothing to add there. As for user-expandable memory, I can't figure out why people bring this up. It's a trade-off. There are certain advantages to having sealed, fixed memory, and it's a tradeoff to get them. If you don't want those advantages, buy a product that requires the user to manipulate a file system, but you're NOT going to see those in iOS products. Period.
Well, it's a "bad term" only because it's totally and completely inaccurate. You make it sound as though his statement was fine other than the fact that it was 100 percent wrong. ;-)
Why do you repeat the lie that Apple "stole" anything from Xerox? Apple and Xerox had a specific deal to allow Apple engineers to see the things that PARC was doing. In exchange, Xerox was compensated in the form of cheap stock in Apple. It's pure ignorance to keep repeating the claim that Apple stole anything from Xerox.
If YouTube is dependent on Flash, how do you suppose my iPhone has been viewing YouTube videos from Day 1 (and the iPad has done likewise)? YouTube's video is encoded as MPEG-4. Devices using Flash using Flash to decode and play the MPEG-4. Devices that can directly play the MPEG-4 just do that. This isn't rocket science to understand.
I agree 100 percent. My iPad replaced my laptop last April and I don't recall a single time a lack of Flash has mattered to me.
Honestly, I don't care. I don't want government to have the power to track me, but if a marketer figures out in his database that the same person who posts on Slashdot also posts on a filmmaker site and a college football site, well, who cares? If I happen to want to do something where nobody can know who it is, yeah, I'll create another identity. But for the vast majority of what I do today, I've taken to using my real name as my user name. I can't figure out why people think a user name "betrays" you because it connects you to something you've said elsewhere. In real life, I already have something like that. It's called my name. So more and more, I'm using it online except in the VERY rare cases I want to protect my identity. This is not rocket science, IMO.
This is a horrible idea. Why would anybody outside of RIM bother to write apps for Blackberry if this happens? If they're really doing this, it just proves that RIM doesn't care about the user experience for Blackberry users. To have apps from different platforms mixing will mean that there's no consistency in look and feel. Native Blackberry apps will dry up (even more than they already are). Soon, people will say, "Why buy a Blackberry when I'm just running Android apps?" I don't really care whether RIM does it, because I don't use Blackberry or Android. (I'm an iPhone user.) I just think it's a really stupid business move. It's going to be hard for RIM to survive as an independent company, but this certainly won't help.
I was thinking the same thing, but this AC worded it much more succinctly than I was.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between those models? Or do you just enjoy missing and point and acting glib when you don't know what you're talking about? Google isn't a content creator. Google is making money from advertising, but it's not from creating the content. Those who are creating the content are losing money, in most cases.