And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone on Thursday.
The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.
Self-taught programmers might not know design patterns by name, but they will likely stumble upon the more common ones on their own. When they finally learn about design patterns, they will understand the topic better because they "invented" some of the design patterns themselves. That's how it was for me at least. One day I was explaining something to another programmer, and after my long explanation he just looked at me and said "Oh, so you're using the visitor pattern." I tilted my head, went online, and learned a new name for something I had been using for years.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
The actual dollar amount paid out in courts due to medical lawsuits might be a small percentage, but don't underestimate the subtle effect it has on the healthcare system as a whole. The threat of malpractice lawsuits means doctors must buy expensive malpractice insurance. That could mean hiring fewer staff to assist with patient care. In other words patients suffer. Another side effect of looming malpractice lawsuits: over-treatment. Doctors run expensive, time-consuming, unnecessary tests because they are afraid that if they don't, it will be used against them in a lawsuit later on. This means the MRI machine is tied up by someone who doesn't actually need it. Oh, and since insurance is paying for the scan, it's costing everyone more in premiums. Again, the patients suffer in the long run.
I drop at least one or two calls per day here in the Boston area. I live south of Boston, work north of Boston, and travel several times a week into Boston. I drop calls in all of those places... It's really awful. If I used it mostly as a phone I would be pissed, but since I mainly use it for email, browsing, etc., I'm only moderately annoyed. I do hope they will fix it soon.
Saying cloud computing is "hosting for noobs" is like saying automatic transmissions are "transmissions for noobs." Sure, automatic transmissions are inherently less efficient than manual transmissions, but they save you from having to worry about shifting gears. Similarly, cloud computing might not perform as well as traditional hosting solutions, but they save you the hassle and expense of scaling up and down with demand. It's a trade-off, like everything else in life...
I find it ironic that product is designed to work with Word. I can see why they would want to sue though, seeing as how MS just bundled in software that removes the need for their add on.
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundled technology into Word. The problem is that i4i had a patent on said technology, and that Microsoft knew about the patent before deciding to "make it obsolete."
From what I've read, the patent is on something which strips the raw text from the surrounding tags -- meaning I can call "open" on a file stream in C++, read in the data as a string, all without worrying about the tags (because the tags are logically separated already in a different location.)
I suggest reading the entire patent before trying to summarize. It's significantly more complex than what you described.
Eitherway, I'm not a fan of copyright, no matter who's getting f'd'n'the'a.
We're talking about patents, not copyrights. There's a big difference.
Learning for the sake of learning doesn't seem to be popular anymore...
Of course, because if you learned for the sake of learning you would be an intellectual, which is considered a bad thing in modern America. You can't have a beer with an intellectual, and intellectuals are not good at bowling.
Let me get this straight: You're equating improperly labeling copyright infringement to saying someone should be burned alive? Both cause one to lose the same amount of credibility? Sorry, that's a bit... ludicrous.
I'm not putting music theft and ID theft on par with each other, merely comparing our culture's attitudes towards each. My point is that we justify one thing which is clearly wrong (stealing music) and condemn another that is clearly wrong (ID theft). In no way did I trivialize ID theft or claim that it isn't a big deal.
And just for future reference, you lose all credibility with reasonable people when you call for the burning of an individual with a differing opinion. Grow. Up.
Sharing copyright files is illegal... Defrauding someone of their hard earned cash is illegal...
You just proved my point. Those two things are essentially the same thing.
The only difference is that you justify one and not the other by claiming it's alright to steal from a large company but not an individual. It's a Robin Hood mentality that, while romantic and popular, is still wrong. You're basically confusing "moral" with "popular".
You might feel better about stealing music from RIAA-affiliated labels, but it's still wrong (legally and morally).
What chain of idiocy determined the computers he accessed to be "protected"?
The U.S. Congress -- More specifically, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act expanded the definition of "protected computer" to include basically any computer with a network connection. More information is available at:
Slashdot Mirror
In response to concerns about its exploding car engines, a major car manufacturer has added additional cup holders to its vehicles.
And just to clarify, I believe people should be allowed to run third-party applications on their iPhone without having to go through the App Store (or jailbreaking). I'm just saying that the inconsistency is what really bugs me. If they want to sell a G-rated phone, that's fine with me. Advertise it as such and enforce that policy consistently, but don't blame me when I take my business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I'm switching to an Android-based phone on Thursday.
The problem is not that Apple is making moral decisions about which applications to allow in the App Store. The problem is their ever-changing, wildly inconsistent approval guidelines. This application might get approved while other seemingly identical applications might get rejected. That's the real problem: developers simply have no way to know which way the App Store approval process wind is blowing on a given day. I wouldn't have such a bone to pick with Apple if they just picked a position and stuck with it consistently.
Don't Talk to the Police
The think the IRS would disagree with you ;-)
This is the US Post Office we're talking about here, so we don't have to worry about any profits being made...
Self-taught programmers might not know design patterns by name, but they will likely stumble upon the more common ones on their own. When they finally learn about design patterns, they will understand the topic better because they "invented" some of the design patterns themselves. That's how it was for me at least. One day I was explaining something to another programmer, and after my long explanation he just looked at me and said "Oh, so you're using the visitor pattern." I tilted my head, went online, and learned a new name for something I had been using for years.
8Gb seems a bit small. Photos, music, and applications will fill up 1GB pretty quickly. /nitpick
Not true. The secure connection is established before the HTTP request (containing the URL) is transmitted.
For added irony, I'll refer you to Google.cn for an explanation.
Not true. Applying for new lines of credit will lower your score, but checking it yourself will not. See http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs6c-CreditScores.htm#5
The actual dollar amount paid out in courts due to medical lawsuits might be a small percentage, but don't underestimate the subtle effect it has on the healthcare system as a whole. The threat of malpractice lawsuits means doctors must buy expensive malpractice insurance. That could mean hiring fewer staff to assist with patient care. In other words patients suffer. Another side effect of looming malpractice lawsuits: over-treatment. Doctors run expensive, time-consuming, unnecessary tests because they are afraid that if they don't, it will be used against them in a lawsuit later on. This means the MRI machine is tied up by someone who doesn't actually need it. Oh, and since insurance is paying for the scan, it's costing everyone more in premiums. Again, the patients suffer in the long run.
Kind of surprised that "most" iPhone users have the unlimited texting plan. Any data to back that up?
I drop at least one or two calls per day here in the Boston area. I live south of Boston, work north of Boston, and travel several times a week into Boston. I drop calls in all of those places... It's really awful. If I used it mostly as a phone I would be pissed, but since I mainly use it for email, browsing, etc., I'm only moderately annoyed. I do hope they will fix it soon.
Hey, asdfndsagse, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the wall and the mozzarella sticks?
Saying cloud computing is "hosting for noobs" is like saying automatic transmissions are "transmissions for noobs." Sure, automatic transmissions are inherently less efficient than manual transmissions, but they save you from having to worry about shifting gears. Similarly, cloud computing might not perform as well as traditional hosting solutions, but they save you the hassle and expense of scaling up and down with demand. It's a trade-off, like everything else in life...
Tomorrow's headline: "RIAA Lobbies Congress to Shut Down NASA"
Personally, I'm hoping for a catchy musical number that will save The Pirate Bay.
Couldn't be any worse than the plan in TFA...
The problem isn't that Microsoft bundled technology into Word. The problem is that i4i had a patent on said technology, and that Microsoft knew about the patent before deciding to "make it obsolete."
I suggest reading the entire patent before trying to summarize. It's significantly more complex than what you described.
We're talking about patents, not copyrights. There's a big difference.
Of course, because if you learned for the sake of learning you would be an intellectual, which is considered a bad thing in modern America. You can't have a beer with an intellectual, and intellectuals are not good at bowling.
Let me get this straight: You're equating improperly labeling copyright infringement to saying someone should be burned alive? Both cause one to lose the same amount of credibility? Sorry, that's a bit... ludicrous.
I'm not putting music theft and ID theft on par with each other, merely comparing our culture's attitudes towards each. My point is that we justify one thing which is clearly wrong (stealing music) and condemn another that is clearly wrong (ID theft). In no way did I trivialize ID theft or claim that it isn't a big deal.
And just for future reference, you lose all credibility with reasonable people when you call for the burning of an individual with a differing opinion. Grow. Up.
You just proved my point. Those two things are essentially the same thing.
The only difference is that you justify one and not the other by claiming it's alright to steal from a large company but not an individual. It's a Robin Hood mentality that, while romantic and popular, is still wrong. You're basically confusing "moral" with "popular".
You might feel better about stealing music from RIAA-affiliated labels, but it's still wrong (legally and morally).
The U.S. Congress -- More specifically, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act expanded the definition of "protected computer" to include basically any computer with a network connection. More information is available at:
This is outrageous! Our rights have been trampled on for the last time! We must rise up and fi....
Wait, wait, wait... are we /.ers for or against doing illegal stuff on P2P networks this week?
Sorry, between defending one illegal P2P activity (music "sharing") and condemning another (ID theft), it's hard to know what's what...
Tip: The mod point you're looking for is "-1 offtopic"
TFA links a company's security reputation to whether or not a breach occurred in the first place, not how the company responded to the breach.
There is a subtle difference between a reputation for having no security breaches and a reputation for responding well to security breaches.
I am claiming the former is not as important as the latter.