both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief.
Belief? You're casting the Google Glass user as someone religious?
No, Glass users aren't risking being punched in the face for believing in Glass or believing in Google or whatever. But for being in people's face with a recording device where it isn't wanted, or for showing disrespect by putting a computer screen in-between their eyes and the eyes of the person they are conversing with. It's about rude and inconsiderate behaviour not belief.
So any notes apps that are like Vesper? Or any read later apps like Instapaper? Or even anything like Urban Spoon? Or... and I could go on.
Notes apps, for sure. Instapaper and Urban Spoon are more to do with the internet era. Those PDAs we are talking about were at a time when just having a browser on the internet on a mobile device was a pretty neat thing.
Also, it helps that iOS is way more regular people friendly than the Psion was.
Well, time moves on, and the OS came 16 years after the Series 3 and 10 years after the Series 5, so of course it's more user friendly. But by the standards of the time, the Psions were very user friendly. Indeed Psion took their big picture ideals on app design from Apple and NeXT.
Later, there was much sadness amongst Psion's original developers when many design ideals of EPOC32 had to be broken to make it fit with Nokia's style of UI.
Again, we are apes, so we know how one species of ape thinks from self awareness. And then the chimp and the bonobo are our closest relatives, and genetically they are closer to us than they are to the other apes, let alone monkeys.
The chimp and bonobo brains work in basically the same way as ours. We obviously have a bit more ability on the language area, and there are other areas where chimps and bonobos brains outdo us. But fundamentally they work in the same way, They are very close.
Interestingly adult chimps are a great mirror for our aggressive and competitive side and bonobos for our community and peaceable side.
Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?
You've moderated it now. Before it was "people killing in the name of religion". Which certainly is different to throwing a punch at someone who's getting in your face. To the point that if you think they are the same, you are being hysterical.
AND confusing(Are you using a MIPS CE device? ARM? Do you even know? etc.).
Might have been confusing on WinCE. But the Psion and Palm Pilot mobile app scene wasn't at all confusing.
And whilst nothing like Apple's App Store existed until Apple created it, there was a pretty vibrant app scene back on those older mobile devices. To the extent of professional packages for doctors, pilots, estate agents etc. Lots of productivity apps. Plenty of games. Basically all the categories you get on iOS and Android now. Just fewer in number.
Before that there were organizers from Casio, Sharp, etc. Also besides Palm in the US, Psion PDAs were popular in Europe.
Let's discount the Data Cards and Programmable calculators. Anything with a calculator like display and chicklet keys definitely isn't a tablet.
Before the Newton (in 1993) there was the Psion Series 3 in 1991. But the Palm Pilot wasn't until 1996.
The Psion Series 3 was great. I had one. But it was a mini-laptop in design. Keyboard only, no touch-screen. It was a very nice PDA, but it wasn't a tablet.
And the Pilot was clearly influenced by the Newton. Basically the concept is a cut-down Newton.
I did not say their products sucked. But when you have end users preordering product by the millions before anyone had a chance to try it out what can you call those people but gullible?
Pre-orders didn't start until 2 months after the iPad had been demonstrated by Jobs. 2 months in which all the tech press reviewed it. And it was hardly an unknown to everyone who's already experienced iOS on an iPhone.
Compared with the lack of knowledge which most people have when they buy products, they were pretty well informed.
There is a reason why people claimed Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field you know. The fact is the products are not that good right now to justify the demand even if they were at points.
That's not a fact. That's your ill-informed opinion. Big difference.
I call them early adopters. I call you an imbecile.
No question the heartbleed thing is a huge and embarassing problem.
The biggest of the internet era. Only outdone by the Y2K category of bugs.
And the origins of both are optimisations which are no longer necessary. For Y2K, back in the day saving 2 bytes repeatedly mattered. And for C, back in the day, saving a bounds check mattered. (And on top of that the Open SSL term believed creating their own malloc mattered.) Nowadays none of these optimisations are worth it. They should all be long gone.
It's everybody's failure that C hasn't been replaced as a systems programming language. It's ought to be a footnote in history by now.
It also does not help when you have large commercial institutions RELYING on the source code in a security critical role under constant attack by well-funded adversaries, AND the developers of said open source code are so pitifully underfunded, AND the commercial proprietors that cause said open source library to become a high-value target are only willing to invest in features, and not improvements that would lead to better quality and lesser likelihood of serious bugs.
I fully believe if the software in question had been proprietary then the bug would have gone unreported longer and we'd still be looking for a patch 3 years from now.
Then you have religion. The number of contrary examples are myriad. Your blind belief can't change the fact that, for example, the recent much publicised iOS SSL bug was discovered by Apple, reported by them to the public CVE, and fixed all within 1 year and 4 months of it first appearing in code.
And for comparison the very similar bug in GnuTLS laid undiscovered for 8 years, and was only discovered in the bow-wave of the discovery of the Apple SSL bug, which finally prompted someone to code review the equivalent GnuTLS code.
Let's not forget that Heartbleed wouldn't have been a problem on OpenBSD, had they used the built in malloc. Whilst system programming in C is still unaccountably common, not all kernels are as insecure as others. And libraries can still be insecure no matter what the kernel does.
That's the point. It's not rational to write security applications with languages or libraries that rely on a programmer checking bounds and overlap before doing a copy operation. A copy function in a rational security language / library would do these checks itself. That way they are always done and they are always done correctly.
Far cheaper then getting the fancy in-dash model and not being able to replace it.
To be fair, the flip side is that you have to unplug/unattach/pack away third party GPS units when you park if you don't want to come back to a smashed window and no GPS.
Model specific built in panels that have GPS as one of their functions don't work in other models of car, and thus have no resale value to crack-heads.
That need to keep packing the GPS away every time you park, or have the feeling of insecurity if you risk leaving it, is a non-negligible cost.
The only way to get a radio that can be removed without affecting other equipment is to buy a base, fleet-trim vehicle that doesn't have any other options to begin with.
Good. Anyone who was around in the 1980s and 1990s will remember that the most common reason a radio got removed from a car was that it had been visited by a car stereo thief. Abandoning standardisation of car radios, more or less killed that category of crime.
The last thing I want is a removable stereo that will work in other cars.
Car stereo crime has more or less stopped because car manufacturers shifted from having standard stereo enclosures to fitting decent model specific stereos that wouldn't fit in other makes or models of car.
When this becomes successful, before you know it, they will force other manufacturers out of the market. Look at how they are controlling the app-store, and forcing developers to not compete with Apple's products.
That's precisely the opposite of what happened on iOS. The app-store rules initially started really tight on the "duplicating in-built functionality" thing. Over the years those rules have relaxed, not got more controlling.
Apple have no direct financial benefit to stopping people doing variations on built in apps. After all everyone who can use third party apps has already bought iOS with all the included apps. The "duplicating in-but functionality" rules were about limiting user confusion.
As to hardware manufacturers, Apple stocks in their own store many accessories that compete with Apple's own accessories.
You started with "I wouldn't trust Apple." And that's the thing here. For whatever reason you have a negative emotional relationship to Apple, and you seek to justify it. Even when your justification is in opposition to the facts.
But we are different from the apes in that we have a choice.
No, you are an ape. If you believe you have a choice, so does the ape.
But recent research shows that most "choices" are not made by the conscious mind, they are made by the unconscious mind, with the conscious mind at most doing a post-hoc justification for the choice. You have as little real choice over what you do as the other species of ape.
No, envy is an emotion reserved for things that are actually desirable.
The fact that Google Glass is not desirable is evidenced by the fact that they have to do marketing tricks like permanent "beta" status and one day sales.
You re confusing your minority desire for a product you can't afford for a general desirability.
More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves.
No, he's patenting the idea of using the output unspecified camera detecting algorithms to blur a display.
This is a crucial point most posters here miss. Just because there's a patent on a widget, it doesn't mean it covers the whole of that widget. And it doesn't mean the mention of that widget in other patents or elsewhere disqualifies the patent as prior art.
It's the detail that's added that's being patented.
Slashdot Mirror
both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief.
Belief? You're casting the Google Glass user as someone religious?
No, Glass users aren't risking being punched in the face for believing in Glass or believing in Google or whatever. But for being in people's face with a recording device where it isn't wanted, or for showing disrespect by putting a computer screen in-between their eyes and the eyes of the person they are conversing with. It's about rude and inconsiderate behaviour not belief.
So any notes apps that are like Vesper? Or any read later apps like Instapaper? Or even anything like Urban Spoon? Or... and I could go on.
Notes apps, for sure. Instapaper and Urban Spoon are more to do with the internet era. Those PDAs we are talking about were at a time when just having a browser on the internet on a mobile device was a pretty neat thing.
Also, it helps that iOS is way more regular people friendly than the Psion was.
Well, time moves on, and the OS came 16 years after the Series 3 and 10 years after the Series 5, so of course it's more user friendly. But by the standards of the time, the Psions were very user friendly. Indeed Psion took their big picture ideals on app design from Apple and NeXT.
Later, there was much sadness amongst Psion's original developers when many design ideals of EPOC32 had to be broken to make it fit with Nokia's style of UI.
How do you know what an ape thinks?
Again, we are apes, so we know how one species of ape thinks from self awareness. And then the chimp and the bonobo are our closest relatives, and genetically they are closer to us than they are to the other apes, let alone monkeys.
The chimp and bonobo brains work in basically the same way as ours. We obviously have a bit more ability on the language area, and there are other areas where chimps and bonobos brains outdo us. But fundamentally they work in the same way, They are very close.
Interestingly adult chimps are a great mirror for our aggressive and competitive side and bonobos for our community and peaceable side.
Sure. HADCRUT Mar 1997 -> Mar 2014.
+0.398C per century.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com....
If it was a Gecko based UI, it wasn't this device. This was running Symbian OS, using an Eikon derived UI, and using Opera for its browser.
Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?
You've moderated it now. Before it was "people killing in the name of religion". Which certainly is different to throwing a punch at someone who's getting in your face. To the point that if you think they are the same, you are being hysterical.
AND confusing(Are you using a MIPS CE device? ARM? Do you even know? etc.).
Might have been confusing on WinCE. But the Psion and Palm Pilot mobile app scene wasn't at all confusing.
And whilst nothing like Apple's App Store existed until Apple created it, there was a pretty vibrant app scene back on those older mobile devices. To the extent of professional packages for doctors, pilots, estate agents etc. Lots of productivity apps. Plenty of games. Basically all the categories you get on iOS and Android now. Just fewer in number.
Before that there were organizers from Casio, Sharp, etc. Also besides Palm in the US, Psion PDAs were popular in Europe.
Let's discount the Data Cards and Programmable calculators. Anything with a calculator like display and chicklet keys definitely isn't a tablet.
Before the Newton (in 1993) there was the Psion Series 3 in 1991. But the Palm Pilot wasn't until 1996.
The Psion Series 3 was great. I had one. But it was a mini-laptop in design. Keyboard only, no touch-screen. It was a very nice PDA, but it wasn't a tablet.
And the Pilot was clearly influenced by the Newton. Basically the concept is a cut-down Newton.
I did not say their products sucked. But when you have end users preordering product by the millions before anyone had a chance to try it out what can you call those people but gullible?
Pre-orders didn't start until 2 months after the iPad had been demonstrated by Jobs. 2 months in which all the tech press reviewed it. And it was hardly an unknown to everyone who's already experienced iOS on an iPhone.
Compared with the lack of knowledge which most people have when they buy products, they were pretty well informed.
There is a reason why people claimed Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field you know. The fact is the products are not that good right now to justify the demand even if they were at points.
That's not a fact. That's your ill-informed opinion. Big difference.
I call them early adopters. I call you an imbecile.
"It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
â" Steve Jobs
This one *is* genuine.
No question the heartbleed thing is a huge and embarassing problem.
The biggest of the internet era. Only outdone by the Y2K category of bugs.
And the origins of both are optimisations which are no longer necessary. For Y2K, back in the day saving 2 bytes repeatedly mattered. And for C, back in the day, saving a bounds check mattered. (And on top of that the Open SSL term believed creating their own malloc mattered.) Nowadays none of these optimisations are worth it. They should all be long gone.
It's everybody's failure that C hasn't been replaced as a systems programming language. It's ought to be a footnote in history by now.
Safer != Perfect
But it's not safer. It's less safe.
It also does not help when you have large commercial institutions RELYING on the source code in a security critical role under constant attack by well-funded adversaries, AND the developers of said open source code are so pitifully underfunded, AND the commercial proprietors that cause said open source library to become a high-value target are only willing to invest in features, and not improvements that would lead to better quality and lesser likelihood of serious bugs.
And so the excuse making comes.
I fully believe if the software in question had been proprietary then the bug would have gone unreported longer and we'd still be looking for a patch 3 years from now.
Then you have religion. The number of contrary examples are myriad. Your blind belief can't change the fact that, for example, the recent much publicised iOS SSL bug was discovered by Apple, reported by them to the public CVE, and fixed all within 1 year and 4 months of it first appearing in code.
And for comparison the very similar bug in GnuTLS laid undiscovered for 8 years, and was only discovered in the bow-wave of the discovery of the Apple SSL bug, which finally prompted someone to code review the equivalent GnuTLS code.
Let's not forget that Heartbleed wouldn't have been a problem on OpenBSD, had they used the built in malloc. Whilst system programming in C is still unaccountably common, not all kernels are as insecure as others. And libraries can still be insecure no matter what the kernel does.
That's the point. It's not rational to write security applications with languages or libraries that rely on a programmer checking bounds and overlap before doing a copy operation. A copy function in a rational security language / library would do these checks itself. That way they are always done and they are always done correctly.
Far cheaper then getting the fancy in-dash model and not being able to replace it.
To be fair, the flip side is that you have to unplug/unattach/pack away third party GPS units when you park if you don't want to come back to a smashed window and no GPS.
Model specific built in panels that have GPS as one of their functions don't work in other models of car, and thus have no resale value to crack-heads.
That need to keep packing the GPS away every time you park, or have the feeling of insecurity if you risk leaving it, is a non-negligible cost.
The only way to get a radio that can be removed without affecting other equipment is to buy a base, fleet-trim vehicle that doesn't have any other options to begin with.
Good. Anyone who was around in the 1980s and 1990s will remember that the most common reason a radio got removed from a car was that it had been visited by a car stereo thief. Abandoning standardisation of car radios, more or less killed that category of crime.
The last thing I want is a removable stereo that will work in other cars.
Car stereo crime has more or less stopped because car manufacturers shifted from having standard stereo enclosures to fitting decent model specific stereos that wouldn't fit in other makes or models of car.
Standard interfaces are not always a good thing!
There's a line? Maybe they should computerise enrolments.
Apple has already got these signed up. No queuing necessary.
BMW[4]
Ferrari[1]
Ford[5][1]
General Motors
Chevrolet[1]
Opel[1]
Vauxhall[1]
Honda[1]
Acura
Hyundai[1]
Kia[1]
Jaguar Land Rover[4]
Jaguar[1]
Land Rover[4]
Daimler AG
Mercedes-Benz[1]
Mitsubishi[4]
Nissan[1]
Infiniti[1]
Peugeot CitroÃn[4]
Peugeot[4]
CitroÃn[4]
Subaru[4]
Suzuki[4]
Toyota[1][6]
Volvo[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
When this becomes successful, before you know it, they will force other manufacturers out of the market. Look at how they are controlling the app-store, and forcing developers to not compete with Apple's products.
That's precisely the opposite of what happened on iOS. The app-store rules initially started really tight on the "duplicating in-built functionality" thing. Over the years those rules have relaxed, not got more controlling.
Apple have no direct financial benefit to stopping people doing variations on built in apps. After all everyone who can use third party apps has already bought iOS with all the included apps. The "duplicating in-but functionality" rules were about limiting user confusion.
As to hardware manufacturers, Apple stocks in their own store many accessories that compete with Apple's own accessories.
You started with "I wouldn't trust Apple." And that's the thing here. For whatever reason you have a negative emotional relationship to Apple, and you seek to justify it. Even when your justification is in opposition to the facts.
Too right. MS Office is bad. Open Office is worse.
Similarly, Photoshop is bad, and Gimp is worse.
Why is the open source community incapable of outdoing commercial de-facto standard apps with poor UIs?
Is it that they make the mistake of thinking it's about feature lists?
But we are different from the apes in that we have a choice.
No, you are an ape. If you believe you have a choice, so does the ape.
But recent research shows that most "choices" are not made by the conscious mind, they are made by the unconscious mind, with the conscious mind at most doing a post-hoc justification for the choice. You have as little real choice over what you do as the other species of ape.
No, envy is an emotion reserved for things that are actually desirable.
The fact that Google Glass is not desirable is evidenced by the fact that they have to do marketing tricks like permanent "beta" status and one day sales.
You re confusing your minority desire for a product you can't afford for a general desirability.
More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves.
No, he's patenting the idea of using the output unspecified camera detecting algorithms to blur a display.
It makes the detail patentable.
This is a crucial point most posters here miss. Just because there's a patent on a widget, it doesn't mean it covers the whole of that widget. And it doesn't mean the mention of that widget in other patents or elsewhere disqualifies the patent as prior art.
It's the detail that's added that's being patented.