Using UI quite a bit in the style of desktops, quite similar to desktop Win at least and basically requiring a stylus for optimal operation was "an interface that makes sense"? And not the only OS with multitasking back then...
Plus remember that I have my doubts about rollable screens / wasn't really thinking about this part as the defining one. We basically have rest of the tech you mentioned, and those do change the state of affairs. I can't readily recollect one scifi book where devices practically identical to modern mobile phones were discussed, but it's certainly comfortably older from red planet.
I wondered some time ago how pinpointing the location of mobile phone works in practice. I imagine one based on power measurement would be rather sloppy. So is it based on the delay of signal arrival measured at each participating base station? (the main limitation being the precision and synchronisation of clocks in base stations) Something else?
Similar devices were being conceived at least a decade before red planet, it's not very accurate to give it credit; especially since we basically already have them, quite a bit sooner than that film depicts;)
I'm still not holding my breath for roll up screens. I suspect they belong to things which are mostly only good to be shown at exhibitions in order to amaze customers.
None of those issues you raise in any way rebut what I said. It's a long series of non-sequiturs none of which address software freedom.
Heh, glad you settled that outright...
You don't get it, do you? Companies with the track record of Opera (it's not "compliance" BTW, they gave you lots of those standards; but that's of course not socially important right? Creating an enviroment which also allows free software to thrive, cherishes social solidarity ffs...) are on your side. Closed software won't dissapear - the best you can strive for is a reality which Opera Software, among other, signs up to; and in their case willingly & for a very long time, without forcing it upon them - they're your allies
And by first talking about supposed non-sequiturs on my part and then using a spyware as an example you embarass yourself.
Furthermore, while closed in your small world you don't even realise how socially irresponsible using poorly optimised software is. This graph might help you to understand it (X axis), needlessly wastaeful software certainly contributing its part.
Finally, your ending sentence accusing me of supposed appeal to popularity and conjecture is exactly just that. Opera Mini is the number one mobile web browser worldwide, in large part thanks to people in developing countries who don't have other means to access the internet than on their "feature phones" (which in itself are the first real means of communication for them); for which Opera Mini is often the only sensible browser available. Where's your social solidarity in providing tthose people something they can use at all? Does it only work among the confines of one "premium" society? (or group of such societies)
Does society manage to learn from efforts quicker than politicians? From where the latter come from, anyway? Where is a place where their "values" are promoted and highly sought for?
It's not a single source yes. Not a single "bug in our minds" too, thought. This a relfection of the society.
PS. "I have to spend nearly as much energy watching my speedometer as I do watching the road for obstacles" - seriously? Perhaps you should reconsider driving...
Recordings of calls supposedly aren't really preferred, nor relied upon as the solid evidence; they're tedious to go through and extracting meaning out of context (codewords anybody?) is often hard.
OTOH, they can lead to useful conclusions as far as "web of connctions" goes.
"Becayse he said so!"? Nevermind that it's fairly easy to find his quotes which are a bit archaic by today's standards (and not some obscure ones)...I'm pretty certain he would disapprove "because he said so" argument, in his time. Besides, bloodshed is what's easy for humans, "idle" in a way.
Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.
As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency. Or even, in a way, leadership of some of the so called "comunist" regimes - which, while quite effective in regards to ways keeping them in power, overall could easily fall under "indolent" (that's certainly my impression of the past one from my place) Generally the point being it doesn't struck me as a terribly good quote.
With that quote you could have just as well used "effort"; that you chose "struggle" might be exactly something falling under the issue.
(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")
If the society (don't kid yourself it's due to some "assholes runing the show") would lead itself to the stage of "last guard", then "protecting anonymity via legal means" will be already devoid of any meaning by then.
The issue doesn't have much to do with the right to anonymity; at most only with being able to be anonymous, nevermind whether it is legal or not. But that has nothing to do with free speech. And, again, close to China or Iran.
How cute of you, helpfully providing what could be put as an example below the definition of the term ending my previous post.
Surprising a bit from somebody who is too stupid to realise that "teh evil gov" is simply a reflection of the society, at least as far western world goes (though not exclusively)
Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be limited to two. Heck, I think I have, in the room I'm sitting in, around 10 sim cards that I keep for some reason (mostly to go through them at some point and maybe extract some contacts or text messages; they're all so similar, can't risk getting rid of the wrong one;) ). At this moment almost certainly only one of them is still active, the one in my phone. And typically max two, during the interlude period, alternating in one phone with single IMEI - that's one of the patterns which would be marked as OK. Or when people have separate work and private phone, those devices are often kept together and rarely making calls at the same time. Even when you give temporarily one phone to somebody trusted, that shouldn't present big problem because......it's ultimatelly about strongly narrowing down worrisome usage patterns. With some false positives, sure. But ensuring they will be verified politely should be simply part of the general measures.
And one more thing: the measures taken to obtain phones for criminal activity makes it a bit more risky, overall.
It's worded just fine for what it does. Prohibiting here and there is part of regulating things (you really think the "founding fathers" didn't understand that it can be extremelly easily understood that way? Really?!)
If there would be "assuring trade between states without limits" or something in this style there OTOH...
But it isn't theft, of which parent poster wrote about.
Straw purchasers don't have to be much of a problem, either. People don't tend to need more than two mobile phone numbers, usually at most one of them will be their private prepaid, and they really rarely talk through several of them at the same time / in different cities.
Just say it that you prefer job security... (which can be assured by other means anyway) If anything, people not wanting to work at places of certain kind could be an effective way of sending a message. You certainly must not rely on remaining anonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
Using UI quite a bit in the style of desktops, quite similar to desktop Win at least and basically requiring a stylus for optimal operation was "an interface that makes sense"?
And not the only OS with multitasking back then...
Why would you want them to ruin Nokia, too? They already beat MS at mobile game, and Symbian should get decently...cute after moving to Qt UI.
Perhaps even Jetsons, I believe.
Plus remember that I have my doubts about rollable screens / wasn't really thinking about this part as the defining one. We basically have rest of the tech you mentioned, and those do change the state of affairs. I can't readily recollect one scifi book where devices practically identical to modern mobile phones were discussed, but it's certainly comfortably older from red planet.
I wondered some time ago how pinpointing the location of mobile phone works in practice. I imagine one based on power measurement would be rather sloppy. So is it based on the delay of signal arrival measured at each participating base station? (the main limitation being the precision and synchronisation of clocks in base stations) Something else?
Hm, I guess Doom or Quake wouldn't have any problems with building upon Wolf3D... ;)
What about respawning, did you try that?
I would stay away from it - blocks are one thing, but dreams with Pacman can get really weird, I guess.
(BTW, should we ban or endorse LG?)
Evil in principle but good in practice, I could live with that.
Anyway, should I think of dreams with falling blocks as nightmares now? What if the Tetris company gets to know about them?...
I take it you also root for free enterprises to behave responsibly by themselves?
Similar devices were being conceived at least a decade before red planet, it's not very accurate to give it credit; especially since we basically already have them, quite a bit sooner than that film depicts ;)
I'm still not holding my breath for roll up screens. I suspect they belong to things which are mostly only good to be shown at exhibitions in order to amaze customers.
None of those issues you raise in any way rebut what I said. It's a long series of non-sequiturs none of which address software freedom.
Heh, glad you settled that outright...
You don't get it, do you? Companies with the track record of Opera (it's not "compliance" BTW, they gave you lots of those standards; but that's of course not socially important right? Creating an enviroment which also allows free software to thrive, cherishes social solidarity ffs...) are on your side. Closed software won't dissapear - the best you can strive for is a reality which Opera Software, among other, signs up to; and in their case willingly & for a very long time, without forcing it upon them - they're your allies
And by first talking about supposed non-sequiturs on my part and then using a spyware as an example you embarass yourself.
Furthermore, while closed in your small world you don't even realise how socially irresponsible using poorly optimised software is. This graph might help you to understand it (X axis), needlessly wastaeful software certainly contributing its part.
Finally, your ending sentence accusing me of supposed appeal to popularity and conjecture is exactly just that. Opera Mini is the number one mobile web browser worldwide, in large part thanks to people in developing countries who don't have other means to access the internet than on their "feature phones" (which in itself are the first real means of communication for them); for which Opera Mini is often the only sensible browser available.
Where's your social solidarity in providing tthose people something they can use at all? Does it only work among the confines of one "premium" society? (or group of such societies)
Hence "some of the desing criteria" (still large part either way)
Does society manage to learn from efforts quicker than politicians? From where the latter come from, anyway? Where is a place where their "values" are promoted and highly sought for?
It's not a single source yes. Not a single "bug in our minds" too, thought. This a relfection of the society.
PS. "I have to spend nearly as much energy watching my speedometer as I do watching the road for obstacles" - seriously? Perhaps you should reconsider driving...
Recordings of calls supposedly aren't really preferred, nor relied upon as the solid evidence; they're tedious to go through and extracting meaning out of context (codewords anybody?) is often hard.
OTOH, they can lead to useful conclusions as far as "web of connctions" goes.
"Becayse he said so!"? Nevermind that it's fairly easy to find his quotes which are a bit archaic by today's standards (and not some obscure ones)...I'm pretty certain he would disapprove "because he said so" argument, in his time. Besides, bloodshed is what's easy for humans, "idle" in a way.
IMEI is separate from simcard, locked to the phone...
Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.
As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency. Or even, in a way, leadership of some of the so called "comunist" regimes - which, while quite effective in regards to ways keeping them in power, overall could easily fall under "indolent" (that's certainly my impression of the past one from my place)
Generally the point being it doesn't struck me as a terribly good quote.
With that quote you could have just as well used "effort"; that you chose "struggle" might be exactly something falling under the issue.
(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")
If the society (don't kid yourself it's due to some "assholes runing the show") would lead itself to the stage of "last guard", then "protecting anonymity via legal means" will be already devoid of any meaning by then.
The issue doesn't have much to do with the right to anonymity; at most only with being able to be anonymous, nevermind whether it is legal or not. But that has nothing to do with free speech. And, again, close to China or Iran.
How cute of you, helpfully providing what could be put as an example below the definition of the term ending my previous post.
Surprising a bit from somebody who is too stupid to realise that "teh evil gov" is simply a reflection of the society, at least as far western world goes (though not exclusively)
Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be limited to two. Heck, I think I have, in the room I'm sitting in, around 10 sim cards that I keep for some reason (mostly to go through them at some point and maybe extract some contacts or text messages; they're all so similar, can't risk getting rid of the wrong one ;) ). At this moment almost certainly only one of them is still active, the one in my phone. And typically max two, during the interlude period, alternating in one phone with single IMEI - that's one of the patterns which would be marked as OK. Or when people have separate work and private phone, those devices are often kept together and rarely making calls at the same time. Even when you give temporarily one phone to somebody trusted, that shouldn't present big problem because... ...it's ultimatelly about strongly narrowing down worrisome usage patterns. With some false positives, sure. But ensuring they will be verified politely should be simply part of the general measures.
And one more thing: the measures taken to obtain phones for criminal activity makes it a bit more risky, overall.
Oh, great, they give them easy to digest training material ;)
It's worded just fine for what it does. Prohibiting here and there is part of regulating things (you really think the "founding fathers" didn't understand that it can be extremelly easily understood that way? Really?!)
If there would be "assuring trade between states without limits" or something in this style there OTOH...
But it isn't theft, of which parent poster wrote about.
Straw purchasers don't have to be much of a problem, either. People don't tend to need more than two mobile phone numbers, usually at most one of them will be their private prepaid, and they really rarely talk through several of them at the same time / in different cities.
Just say it that you prefer job security... (which can be assured by other means anyway)
If anything, people not wanting to work at places of certain kind could be an effective way of sending a message. You certainly must not rely on remaining anonymous.