What if they do the same as the coffee shops and libraries - set up a password and then just hand it out to everyone?
Most coffee shops and libraries where I've used Wi-Fi have traffic routed through a proxy. It's the smart way to do it. My guess (hope) would be that that is an additional, accepted form of security.
(and why do they think it's okay that private individuals aren't allowed to share a service they pay for!)
Optimistically, because the German lawmakers involved believe the public good of fining people who don't secure their wireless networks (fewer innocent people for copyright holders to go after) exceeds the harm to the individual caused by disallowing it (the nanny state prevents you from doing something really stupid anyway).
Disagreement with this is entirely reasonable. If you are a German citizen and you don't approve, try to gain popular support to overturn the law, and use the power of your vote to oust the politicians who supported it. If you are not a German citizen, perhaps don't move there?
If a hairy-knuckled liberal arts person like myself can crack WEP in a matter of minutes are we going to require that people use WPA?
It's incredibly easy to connect to an unsecured wireless network. It's even easy to do it accidentally with many devices and configurations. There's no way I'm aware of to accidentally crack even the poorest wireless security, it requires actual malicious effort, small though it may be. I believe that, in this case, it's reasonable to draw the line at "anything more than nothing."
Heck there are times when I leave my truck unlocked, I sure hope that if somebody hot-wired it and took it on a 4 state killing spree I wouldn't be held even partially culpable.
The analogy doesn't work. First of all, the act of hot-wiring itself requires malicious intent, and a circumvention of reasonable security. Even if you left your keys in the ignition, the only aspect of the crime you could be said to be responsible for would be the theft itself, and since you're the victim in that case, who cares? At worst, your insurance wouldn't pay out due to negligence.
Regardless, reasonable people who don't want their cars stolen secure their vehicle, at least by not leaving the keys in it. And reasonable people (especially who live in an area where it's illegal to run an unsecured wireless network) secure their wireless network. If for no better reason than to avoid dealing with bullshit RIAA copyright claims that have nothing to do with them.
Sorry but the accelerated use of plastics and cheap alloys isn't an accident or an improvement in cars.
There is the benefit that a largely plastic car that deforms on impact absorbs a lot of the energy that would otherwise be transferred to the occupants during a collision. I know I'd much rather be in a squishy modern car than a solid steel behemoth if I'm going to crash into something.
I'm sad to see a very interesting alternative disappear, but:
Lala is obviously a much better store
I find this claim hard to make with such certainty. It's obviously different, but I can think of at least two ways it's not better:
1.) The music you "bought" for web streaming is only available as long as Lala stays open. Corporations are amoral and self interested, and the risk that that ability would be taken away due to any number of reasons was always there. That's not to say that it was wrong or foolish of anyone to take on the risk of using the service, but that risk is present and worth being aware of. Also note that this doesn't strictly rely on Apple being "evil", it was the nature of the arrangement. They could have gone out of business due to non-profitability, or a number of other possibilities. Note that currently, if you buy DRM'd content from iTunes (this does not include music, but does include App Store content), you're in a very similar position with regard to the risk you're choosing to take on.
2.) Streaming music online limits you to those times when you have an internet connection. If your use case for music ever involves playback on a device not connected to the internet, as far as I know, your Lala music is out. This type of case does seem to be shrinking, though.
iTunes of course has complimentary disadvantages: the music is quite a bit more expensive, and hosting, storing, and backing up the files is up to the end user. But you get to keep them forever, even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow, which is a plus
Also, if the Lala business model is really a profitable one, I'm pretty sure someone else will try to do it.
Just because you don't want LAN play doesn't mean others don't want it.
So I'll buy it, and they won't. I'm not about to boycott a product I want because it doesn't have a feature I don't want.
The longer people let companies get away with putting in DRM like this the more restrictive it will get. Until you have...rentalware.
When a product comes out that doesn't let me do what I want, I'll refuse to buy it. Not before. Slippery slope arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.
Do you really want rentalware?
Do you really think you know what I want better than I do? Voting with your wallet means not buying a product you don't support. It doesn't mean trying to force other people to conform to your wishes.
Apple allows many Browsers on the iPhone & iPod Touch including Opera (free App).
Only kind of true. Everything but Opera Mini is a wrapper around WebKit, which is Safari's rendering engine. Opera Mini isn't, but it basically fetches trimmed down, static versions of web pages proxied through Opera's servers. All javascript is interpreted on the servers before it's sent to the phone, which is why it doesn't run afoul of the portion of the developer agreement that forbids interpreters that locks out other browsers.
This isn't a deal breaker for me, but I'd like it to get better.
First of all, I never said the deal never changed. I said the specific things he mentioned have always been impossible, and he must have known that.
Second of all, he's clearly not an iPhone developer, which means the agreement that changed has never applied to him in any way. Only people who agree to its terms have restrictions placed upon them in exchange for the ability to develop. In fact, ordinary iPhone users have no legal restrictions of any kind about what they can do with their hardware, it's just that Apple makes going outside the app store model intentionally difficult. You have to jailbreak your phone to do it, but jailbreaking is not a crime, and violates no agreement I am aware of. If it is, then I certainly don't like it.
You are so very angry that I fear you aren't thinking clearly. I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're frothing at the mouth.
In fact, all those developers that werent using those, also only found out last week.
First of all, the specific objections in the comment I replied to have remained constant. He didn't say anything about the terms change. Second of all it's been clear for a long time that the app store is Apple's playground, and that their judgments are often arbitrary and almost universally final. To use anything other than their sanctioned development tools and then pretend you're surprised when they pull the rug out from under you is the real willful ignorance.
You can take your "like you didn't know" argument, and shove it right up your ass.
I see two main reasons for preserving the natural world:
1.) That our reckless behaviour with respect to the Earth could be against our self-interest as a species. We still very much rely on the biosphere to stay alive, yet we don't fully understand it. Every risk we take with respect to it is worth consideration and evaluation. We are capable of doing enough damage to either make existence very difficult, or render ourselves extinct. The Earth itself, and life in general, will probably shrug that off, and that's cool. But I'd like us to stick around for the long haul.
2.) Its destruction offends our sensibilities. Lots of people want some semblance of the natural world external to humanity to be preserved for lots of other reasons, many of which are completely subjective. That's their right.
Actually, that's one of the very few problems you won't have trying to raise plants on Mars, considering it makes up 95% of the atmosphere. Even despite the greatly lower atmospheric pressure, it has more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth.
Of course, everything else you mentioned, along with the lack of oxygen, is pretty accurate
that quote is wrong.. just look at the source at the bottom of the wiki page.
That is the title of the cited paper. Often, scholarly papers contain information beyond the content of the title. For example, following the provided link to the article reveals this in the first line of the abstract:
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
The fact that Adobe made a Linux version and not an OSX version should make it abundantly clear that it is Apple they do not want to do business with.
The parent was joking/speculating. CS5 just came out for OS X and Windows. Dropping OS X support in the future would be ballsy, but its biggest effect would probably be keeping people on CS5 for a long time.
Oh, but wait, you CAN'T make a version of flashblock for safari because it's not allowed.
ClickToFlash works fine. Or were you talking about MobileSafari? Why would you want a flashblock plugin for a browser that doesn't have a flash player?
iPhone doesn't work I want and I own the damned thing.
It sounds like you didn't know this when you bought it, despite the fact that it's always been that way, and it's never been a secret to anyone. Caveat emptor.
Jobs' argument is poorly stated. But I do see a difference here:
One is devices that all view the same open web. Apple pisses you off for not letting your run your browser of choice on the iPhone? You can buy any other phone and get to exactly the same content. This approach puts the power in the market, and it's what Jobs appears to be, advocating, in a half-assed, self interested way, of course. And if I want to buy a locked down phone? That's my business, not yours.
The other is devices that view a web where the good bits are all controlled by Adobe. Now suppose Adobe pisses you off for not including some feature, or performing poorly on your device of choice. Your option here is basically to conform to Adobe's wishes or do without the content they lock up.
Basically, I'm okay with Apple doing what they want as long as I have the option of not buying or using their products (disclaimer: I currently own an iPhone. They haven't crossed my personal line yet). I don't really have that option with Adobe, although it's getting a lot better lately.
Proposition 1: The only reason someone would pay more for these shares than the tender offer is if they think another offer is coming, and the last time I checked, the only other interested party was Lenovo.
I'm not entirely sure what happens to the borrowed shares owed when stock is shorted, but my guess is that people who've shorted Palm's stock and still owe outstanding shares stand to lose a lot if the stock becomes delisted. I imagine many people were shorting Palm, and perhaps they were willing to pay more than the HP buyout price to make sure they get the stock back to their creditors while they still can.
There is some indication that the iPad has sold more than a million units already. Now, it's a sexy new gadget that could turn out to be a flash in the pan. But if competitors bet that it is, and lose, they could stand to 1.) lose a ton of money and 2.) hand Apple a virtual monopoly. Nobody but Apple wants that.
Your post is insightful, but this bothers me a bit:
They could conceivably take down Blackberry with a decent product and good marketing.
Forgive me for singling you out, but why would competition from HP necessitate that RIM be "taken down"? Isn't it more likely that it would spur RIM to improve the blackberry line? And wouldn't that be better than replacing one virtual monopoly with another? There seems to be this pervasive idea among geeks that there is one superior technology, and therefore all others must die. The last thing I want is a monoculture, no matter who owns it.
A merger would generally only be prevented under anti-trust if it would create a monopoly. As HP and Palm are both relatively minor players in the market, that's not an issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
What if they do the same as the coffee shops and libraries - set up a password and then just hand it out to everyone?
Most coffee shops and libraries where I've used Wi-Fi have traffic routed through a proxy. It's the smart way to do it. My guess (hope) would be that that is an additional, accepted form of security.
(and why do they think it's okay that private individuals aren't allowed to share a service they pay for!)
Optimistically, because the German lawmakers involved believe the public good of fining people who don't secure their wireless networks (fewer innocent people for copyright holders to go after) exceeds the harm to the individual caused by disallowing it (the nanny state prevents you from doing something really stupid anyway).
Disagreement with this is entirely reasonable. If you are a German citizen and you don't approve, try to gain popular support to overturn the law, and use the power of your vote to oust the politicians who supported it. If you are not a German citizen, perhaps don't move there?
If a hairy-knuckled liberal arts person like myself can crack WEP in a matter of minutes are we going to require that people use WPA?
It's incredibly easy to connect to an unsecured wireless network. It's even easy to do it accidentally with many devices and configurations. There's no way I'm aware of to accidentally crack even the poorest wireless security, it requires actual malicious effort, small though it may be. I believe that, in this case, it's reasonable to draw the line at "anything more than nothing."
Heck there are times when I leave my truck unlocked, I sure hope that if somebody hot-wired it and took it on a 4 state killing spree I wouldn't be held even partially culpable.
The analogy doesn't work. First of all, the act of hot-wiring itself requires malicious intent, and a circumvention of reasonable security. Even if you left your keys in the ignition, the only aspect of the crime you could be said to be responsible for would be the theft itself, and since you're the victim in that case, who cares? At worst, your insurance wouldn't pay out due to negligence.
Regardless, reasonable people who don't want their cars stolen secure their vehicle, at least by not leaving the keys in it. And reasonable people (especially who live in an area where it's illegal to run an unsecured wireless network) secure their wireless network. If for no better reason than to avoid dealing with bullshit RIAA copyright claims that have nothing to do with them.
You know, I never did understand that criticism. "Why would anyone buy a 21" monitor? It's just a big 13" monitor!"
Sorry but the accelerated use of plastics and cheap alloys isn't an accident or an improvement in cars.
There is the benefit that a largely plastic car that deforms on impact absorbs a lot of the energy that would otherwise be transferred to the occupants during a collision. I know I'd much rather be in a squishy modern car than a solid steel behemoth if I'm going to crash into something.
Lots of people use their mod points to mean either "+1 I agree!" or "-1 You're wrong, moron!" Sucks, but it's true.
I'm sad to see a very interesting alternative disappear, but:
Lala is obviously a much better store
I find this claim hard to make with such certainty. It's obviously different, but I can think of at least two ways it's not better:
1.) The music you "bought" for web streaming is only available as long as Lala stays open. Corporations are amoral and self interested, and the risk that that ability would be taken away due to any number of reasons was always there. That's not to say that it was wrong or foolish of anyone to take on the risk of using the service, but that risk is present and worth being aware of. Also note that this doesn't strictly rely on Apple being "evil", it was the nature of the arrangement. They could have gone out of business due to non-profitability, or a number of other possibilities. Note that currently, if you buy DRM'd content from iTunes (this does not include music, but does include App Store content), you're in a very similar position with regard to the risk you're choosing to take on.
2.) Streaming music online limits you to those times when you have an internet connection. If your use case for music ever involves playback on a device not connected to the internet, as far as I know, your Lala music is out. This type of case does seem to be shrinking, though.
iTunes of course has complimentary disadvantages: the music is quite a bit more expensive, and hosting, storing, and backing up the files is up to the end user. But you get to keep them forever, even if Apple goes out of business tomorrow, which is a plus
Also, if the Lala business model is really a profitable one, I'm pretty sure someone else will try to do it.
Just because you don't want LAN play doesn't mean others don't want it.
So I'll buy it, and they won't. I'm not about to boycott a product I want because it doesn't have a feature I don't want.
The longer people let companies get away with putting in DRM like this the more restrictive it will get. Until you have...rentalware.
When a product comes out that doesn't let me do what I want, I'll refuse to buy it. Not before. Slippery slope arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.
Do you really want rentalware?
Do you really think you know what I want better than I do? Voting with your wallet means not buying a product you don't support. It doesn't mean trying to force other people to conform to your wishes.
Apple allows many Browsers on the iPhone & iPod Touch including Opera (free App).
Only kind of true. Everything but Opera Mini is a wrapper around WebKit, which is Safari's rendering engine. Opera Mini isn't, but it basically fetches trimmed down, static versions of web pages proxied through Opera's servers. All javascript is interpreted on the servers before it's sent to the phone, which is why it doesn't run afoul of the portion of the developer agreement that forbids interpreters that locks out other browsers.
This isn't a deal breaker for me, but I'd like it to get better.
The differences between humans and humanoid robots are minor implementation details.
First of all, I never said the deal never changed. I said the specific things he mentioned have always been impossible, and he must have known that.
Second of all, he's clearly not an iPhone developer, which means the agreement that changed has never applied to him in any way. Only people who agree to its terms have restrictions placed upon them in exchange for the ability to develop. In fact, ordinary iPhone users have no legal restrictions of any kind about what they can do with their hardware, it's just that Apple makes going outside the app store model intentionally difficult. You have to jailbreak your phone to do it, but jailbreaking is not a crime, and violates no agreement I am aware of. If it is, then I certainly don't like it.
You are so very angry that I fear you aren't thinking clearly. I'm trying to be reasonable, but you're frothing at the mouth.
In fact, all those developers that werent using those, also only found out last week.
First of all, the specific objections in the comment I replied to have remained constant. He didn't say anything about the terms change. Second of all it's been clear for a long time that the app store is Apple's playground, and that their judgments are often arbitrary and almost universally final. To use anything other than their sanctioned development tools and then pretend you're surprised when they pull the rug out from under you is the real willful ignorance.
You can take your "like you didn't know" argument, and shove it right up your ass.
Truly, your civility is matched only by your wit.
I see two main reasons for preserving the natural world:
1.) That our reckless behaviour with respect to the Earth could be against our self-interest as a species. We still very much rely on the biosphere to stay alive, yet we don't fully understand it. Every risk we take with respect to it is worth consideration and evaluation. We are capable of doing enough damage to either make existence very difficult, or render ourselves extinct. The Earth itself, and life in general, will probably shrug that off, and that's cool. But I'd like us to stick around for the long haul.
2.) Its destruction offends our sensibilities. Lots of people want some semblance of the natural world external to humanity to be preserved for lots of other reasons, many of which are completely subjective. That's their right.
no carbon dioxide
Actually, that's one of the very few problems you won't have trying to raise plants on Mars, considering it makes up 95% of the atmosphere. Even despite the greatly lower atmospheric pressure, it has more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth.
Of course, everything else you mentioned, along with the lack of oxygen, is pretty accurate
Oh for god's sake. How can you use the same piece of evidence in two places without even reading the abstract of the paper?
that quote is wrong.. just look at the source at the bottom of the wiki page.
That is the title of the cited paper. Often, scholarly papers contain information beyond the content of the title. For example, following the provided link to the article reveals this in the first line of the abstract:
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
someone is trying to create their own reality.
Indeed.
The fact that Adobe made a Linux version and not an OSX version should make it abundantly clear that it is Apple they do not want to do business with.
The parent was joking/speculating. CS5 just came out for OS X and Windows. Dropping OS X support in the future would be ballsy, but its biggest effect would probably be keeping people on CS5 for a long time.
Oh, but wait, you CAN'T make a version of flashblock for safari because it's not allowed.
ClickToFlash works fine. Or were you talking about MobileSafari? Why would you want a flashblock plugin for a browser that doesn't have a flash player?
iPhone doesn't work I want and I own the damned thing.
It sounds like you didn't know this when you bought it, despite the fact that it's always been that way, and it's never been a secret to anyone. Caveat emptor.
So let me start: Penny Arcade is not funny. xkcd is not funny. Don't bother referencing them, we won't find them funny!
Since we're doing the whole opinions-as-facts thing: xkcd and Penny Arcade are funny because I find them funny.
It's neat that a lot of people seem to agree, but my opinion of their humor doesn't require it.
Jobs' argument is poorly stated. But I do see a difference here:
One is devices that all view the same open web. Apple pisses you off for not letting your run your browser of choice on the iPhone? You can buy any other phone and get to exactly the same content. This approach puts the power in the market, and it's what Jobs appears to be, advocating, in a half-assed, self interested way, of course. And if I want to buy a locked down phone? That's my business, not yours.
The other is devices that view a web where the good bits are all controlled by Adobe. Now suppose Adobe pisses you off for not including some feature, or performing poorly on your device of choice. Your option here is basically to conform to Adobe's wishes or do without the content they lock up.
Basically, I'm okay with Apple doing what they want as long as I have the option of not buying or using their products (disclaimer: I currently own an iPhone. They haven't crossed my personal line yet). I don't really have that option with Adobe, although it's getting a lot better lately.
Proposition 1: The only reason someone would pay more for these shares than the tender offer is if they think another offer is coming, and the last time I checked, the only other interested party was Lenovo.
I'm not entirely sure what happens to the borrowed shares owed when stock is shorted, but my guess is that people who've shorted Palm's stock and still owe outstanding shares stand to lose a lot if the stock becomes delisted. I imagine many people were shorting Palm, and perhaps they were willing to pay more than the HP buyout price to make sure they get the stock back to their creditors while they still can.
There is some indication that the iPad has sold more than a million units already. Now, it's a sexy new gadget that could turn out to be a flash in the pan. But if competitors bet that it is, and lose, they could stand to 1.) lose a ton of money and 2.) hand Apple a virtual monopoly. Nobody but Apple wants that.
Your post is insightful, but this bothers me a bit:
They could conceivably take down Blackberry with a decent product and good marketing.
Forgive me for singling you out, but why would competition from HP necessitate that RIM be "taken down"? Isn't it more likely that it would spur RIM to improve the blackberry line? And wouldn't that be better than replacing one virtual monopoly with another? There seems to be this pervasive idea among geeks that there is one superior technology, and therefore all others must die. The last thing I want is a monoculture, no matter who owns it.
How are smartphones not already ultra-portable computers? And if they're not, why would adding only a projector change that?
A merger would generally only be prevented under anti-trust if it would create a monopoly. As HP and Palm are both relatively minor players in the market, that's not an issue here.