You're thinking of it as a general purpose computer.
I don't see anything about his comment that indicates he's thinking of it as a general purpose computer. Looks more like distress about Digital Rights Management technologies to me.
The iPad is great for what it is.
The voucher on my desk is great for what it is.
You don't like it because it isn't want you WANT it to be.
To be fair, he isn't the only one with this opinion. Also, how is customer wants not applicable to a device intended for customers?
If you use it how it's intended it's still a great device for reading and casual web browsing, among other things.
You can do a great bunch of things with the iPad and you just made it sound lame. Good going.
I don't know of any DX11 specific games. Every other game I can think of provides DX9 support too. Like World of Warcraft, which really doesn't look better in DX11.
no MSN messenger
Does MSN messenger even work? I thought that was replaced with Windows Live Messenger years back.
They could also just not pay and they aren't the ones wiping it then, if I understood the original article correctly. If they stop paying the hosting fees, the data will no longer be available.
Wouldn't it be funnier to just let them buy the hardware but blow away the OS and put Windows on it instead?
Then when they go to clients the line would be "yea we blew that Mac OS away and put a real Enterprise OS on this pretty hardware. Most execs just want the pretty hardware anyway. The IT people want something they can manage. And look how great it runs!"
People buy Macs for the full Mac experience, including OSX.
Why does Linden Research, Inc. use Macs to run Windows then?
Regular SQL injection exploits is nothing to shake a stick at.
I would even go as far as saying they seemed like amateurs when they publicized their trivial "hacks" that most security scanners would discover within minutes.
Two of my favourite examples of developer laziness:
1) Lack of 64-bit apps for Windows. While I realize most apps don't need to be 64-bit, and 64-bit Windows provides flawless 32-bit support, you should still have 64-bit version available. They do run a tiny bit faster and it is just the right way of doing things. Let's start getting rid of the legacy stuff. What's more, it isn't hard to do, at least according to the developers I hang out with. You set the compile target for 64-bit and go. Maybe a couple things to correct but all in all the compiler takes care of the details. However most don't. The reason is they were doing shit in the code they never should have, like casting pointers in to 4 byte integers and so on. They write bad code, and it makes 32/64-bit porting a problem.
If it's so easy, as you claim - feel free to contribute working 64bit support to a project I'm working on - Exodus Viewer. 64bit switches are fully enabled in the autobuild setup. Just remember to keep in mind that the code needs to be easilly mergable with upstream sources and account for the changes. I look forward to seeing how you deal with components like 64bit support for QuickTime as well as numerous issues to do with flakiness of things like libcurl in 64bit compilations which I assure you has nothing to do with the programmers of this project.
Your potentially obnoxious person has an inflated sense of entitlement (this is MY bus) and instead of asking someone to talk quietly
I have a hard time believing your story that they think it is their property. Your view point seems heavily distorted to me as I can't really grasp what angle you're taking this from. The absolute worst I can come up with based on the proposed scenarios is vigilantism (ignoring mentally ill issues).
they resort to passive-aggressive behavior that impacts everyone on the bus just so they can enjoy their quiet and conflict free bubble.
As opposed to the person being loud and obnoxious also impacting everyone on the bus. Alternatively, starting a fight by just trying to tell someone if they could be quiet also is impacting everyone on the bus.
You want to tell me that someone using a banned device to interrupt everyone on a bus is somehow morally superior?
Numerous laws have cropped up regarding preserving the peace, yet enforcement is sporadic at best. Not to mention that public transport these days (or at least they do here), telling you to avoid disturbing other passengers etc.
I don't have a hard time discerning what is more 'wrong' in this instance. Someone who is loudly and obnoxiously disturbing everyone or someone who is causing a short localized disruption to break the call of this particular individual for the benefit of everyone else.
It might be illegal, but so was using American CB radio bands in the UK - Look what happened there. Law is not black and white.
Ends justify the means? How about if the person just gassed everyone on the bus? No less illegal, is that moral?
Really deluded view you got there, guy.
This all sounds like a vigilante trying to justify their actions to me.
Too bad I've never owned a jammer then, right? Your arguments are pretty weak to me.
The funny thing here, is your sense of entitlement is the same as the loud, obnoxious person. You both want to be the center of your little world no matter who is impacted.
You sound pretty mad, guy.
But, you can take a chill pill now. I have never owned a cell phone jammer, nor intend to jam people's communications because I am one of those people on the bus that doesn't give a shit if the person is talking or getting jammed. I'm one of those people who 'tolerates' the noise and I'd 'tolerate' people jamming the people making the noise too (probably be easier technically, since I probably wouldn't be any the wiser that the obnoxious loud dude was really getting jammed and without him, there isn't really much left to 'tolerate').
What I do care about is fights starting on the bus because that puts me in the middle of harm's way. Direct confrontational stuff? I've seen that lead to fights enough times already.
Also, being the 'third party tolerater' here, this is why I don't buy your tolerate argument.
Then you won't be the invisible passive-aggressive asshole who is shutting down the belligerent asshole, you'll be the highly visible aggressive asshole shutting down the belligerent asshole (This is why I required that the act of button-pushing be a visible one).
Exactly, I'm convinced this is going to cause more problems. You think it's bad with non-confrontation method? A clearly provoked confrontation is likely going to break out in a fight in some cities.
Either way, the commuters win, 'cos then they get to accost you directly if they see you doing it.
No, they get to have a broken jaw or nose when one of the individuals gets punched or kicked and ends up falling back on someone with great force.
The situation is already made tense with loud obnoxious people, then you're baiting the obnoxious person by having someone who is really fedup just hitting the buttons (because you will always have one person like this) - This seems like you're intentionally setting up a situation so a fight is far more likely.
Sounds like you're getting annoyed over someone quietly being inconsiderate to others as opposed to being loudly inconsiderate to others. Considering that most public transporation these days (at least here) have stickers that tell you not to be loud and annoying to other passsengers - I'm not really convinced on the ethical stand point that the cell phone jammer is 'more wrong'.
I don't think very highly of someone who turns a blind eye to some ettiquete/rules and comes down on another that in retrospect, is at most, as bad in comparison.
What a jerk you are. If you don't like it go get a car and you won't have to put up with it. Why does everyone else need to put up with what you want in a public space? Get over yourself, jerkweed.
Same argument could be used against those who don't like cell phone jammers on 'public spaces'.
Public transportation pal, if you can't tolerate other people
So in your mind, it's okay to tolerate very loud and clearly obnoxious people, but not okay to tolerate someone who is being potentially obnoxious while restoring the peace for most individuals.
Sorry, but in my mind, if you can tolerate the loud and obnoxious, you can tolerate the cell phone jammers.
...legal...
The fact you base your argument over what is legal as opposed to an argument about the real ethics of what is right and wrong is disturbing to me. This is an indicator to me that your ethical argument is relatively weak which is why you don't use it.
Tell you what, next time you're talking to someone how would you like it if some jerk slapped a strip of duct tape over your mouth?
I don't know what public transporation you ride on, but here there is actually stickers that asks you not to be loud and annoying to other passengers on the transportation. Sadly, nobody enforces it, but it most certainly isn't considered acceptable behaviour to be loud and annoying to other passengers and I for one don't mind the idea of duct tape being applied to people's mouths who violate this ettiquete, including myself.
I agree. It would be pretty douchey if the jammer was turned on constantly as opposed to only being switched on briefly to disrupt a very obnoxious person.
Just the other day at my office, some was having a seizure. Several people immediatly dialed 911 on their cell phones, but most got no connection, and the only one that got through rerouted to Sacramento (we were in Santa clara about 120 miles away).
Maybe they should have dialed 112 instead?
Dialing numbers like 911 on a mobile phone is not considered by design on mobile networks and mobile phones to be an emergency call and won't grant access to certain emergency capabilities.
Why is the eduction on an emergency number for mobile phones so poor in the United States?
Earplugs have shown to be cheap and effective for years now.
When on underground, sometimes your only que is the overhead speaker telling you what stop you're at as the 'stops' sign is not visible/working and unable to discern one station from another depending on your location in the train. This can be even further confusing when you're not sure if you're on a train that stops on alternating stops.
In such circumstances earplugs don't help and usually a loud person on the phone doesn't help either. Amusingly, it's the underground services that made the situation worse by adding cell phone relays in these tunnels to make mobile services accessible.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't pay extra, it's standard as part of RFID chips.
In my experience, most iOS users don't even know what iOS or Android is.
I don't see anything about his comment that indicates he's thinking of it as a general purpose computer. Looks more like distress about Digital Rights Management technologies to me.
The voucher on my desk is great for what it is.
To be fair, he isn't the only one with this opinion. Also, how is customer wants not applicable to a device intended for customers?
You can do a great bunch of things with the iPad and you just made it sound lame. Good going.
Can we get /. editors to rename his account to Captain Macs4All Obvious?
So your game list is pretty much only:
I don't know of any DX11 specific games. Every other game I can think of provides DX9 support too. Like World of Warcraft, which really doesn't look better in DX11.
Does MSN messenger even work? I thought that was replaced with Windows Live Messenger years back.
Where is HTML 5's backwards compatibility with Flash?
What?
Why? I don't really have much use for an SD card, beyond running homebrew on my Wii.
How would you copy RFID chips that employ ciphers, like the RFID chips in passports?
I think you shouldn't spread that information while logged in. I was able to acquire your home address with relative ease.
They could also just not pay and they aren't the ones wiping it then, if I understood the original article correctly. If they stop paying the hosting fees, the data will no longer be available.
Why does Linden Research, Inc. use Macs to run Windows then?
Regular SQL injection exploits is nothing to shake a stick at.
I would even go as far as saying they seemed like amateurs when they publicized their trivial "hacks" that most security scanners would discover within minutes.
Except when you follow what people have been saying on /. - it appears to be more of case of vigilantism not someone claiming ownership.
Initial reason was to see how you'd react and see if my assumptions about you were correct, now it's just out of courtesy.
This is an open forum, I have never known any netiquette on Slashdot regarding not responding to anything but a troll.
You sound pretty mad to me, hence the suggestions for a chill pill.
Ok, peace out.
If it's so easy, as you claim - feel free to contribute working 64bit support to a project I'm working on - Exodus Viewer. 64bit switches are fully enabled in the autobuild setup. Just remember to keep in mind that the code needs to be easilly mergable with upstream sources and account for the changes. I look forward to seeing how you deal with components like 64bit support for QuickTime as well as numerous issues to do with flakiness of things like libcurl in 64bit compilations which I assure you has nothing to do with the programmers of this project.
Why don't I exprience these crash issues on Team Fortress 2?
Regarding Zimbra - What's wrong with the product that would cause 'nasty'?
I have a hard time believing your story that they think it is their property. Your view point seems heavily distorted to me as I can't really grasp what angle you're taking this from. The absolute worst I can come up with based on the proposed scenarios is vigilantism (ignoring mentally ill issues).
As opposed to the person being loud and obnoxious also impacting everyone on the bus. Alternatively, starting a fight by just trying to tell someone if they could be quiet also is impacting everyone on the bus.
Numerous laws have cropped up regarding preserving the peace, yet enforcement is sporadic at best. Not to mention that public transport these days (or at least they do here), telling you to avoid disturbing other passengers etc.
I don't have a hard time discerning what is more 'wrong' in this instance. Someone who is loudly and obnoxiously disturbing everyone or someone who is causing a short localized disruption to break the call of this particular individual for the benefit of everyone else.
It might be illegal, but so was using American CB radio bands in the UK - Look what happened there. Law is not black and white.
Really deluded view you got there, guy.
Too bad I've never owned a jammer then, right? Your arguments are pretty weak to me.
You sound pretty mad, guy.
But, you can take a chill pill now. I have never owned a cell phone jammer, nor intend to jam people's communications because I am one of those people on the bus that doesn't give a shit if the person is talking or getting jammed. I'm one of those people who 'tolerates' the noise and I'd 'tolerate' people jamming the people making the noise too (probably be easier technically, since I probably wouldn't be any the wiser that the obnoxious loud dude was really getting jammed and without him, there isn't really much left to 'tolerate').
What I do care about is fights starting on the bus because that puts me in the middle of harm's way. Direct confrontational stuff? I've seen that lead to fights enough times already.
Also, being the 'third party tolerater' here, this is why I don't buy your tolerate argument.
Exactly, I'm convinced this is going to cause more problems. You think it's bad with non-confrontation method? A clearly provoked confrontation is likely going to break out in a fight in some cities.
No, they get to have a broken jaw or nose when one of the individuals gets punched or kicked and ends up falling back on someone with great force.
The situation is already made tense with loud obnoxious people, then you're baiting the obnoxious person by having someone who is really fedup just hitting the buttons (because you will always have one person like this) - This seems like you're intentionally setting up a situation so a fight is far more likely.
Sounds like you're getting annoyed over someone quietly being inconsiderate to others as opposed to being loudly inconsiderate to others. Considering that most public transporation these days (at least here) have stickers that tell you not to be loud and annoying to other passsengers - I'm not really convinced on the ethical stand point that the cell phone jammer is 'more wrong'.
I don't think very highly of someone who turns a blind eye to some ettiquete/rules and comes down on another that in retrospect, is at most, as bad in comparison.
Same argument could be used against those who don't like cell phone jammers on 'public spaces'.
So in your mind, it's okay to tolerate very loud and clearly obnoxious people, but not okay to tolerate someone who is being potentially obnoxious while restoring the peace for most individuals.
Sorry, but in my mind, if you can tolerate the loud and obnoxious, you can tolerate the cell phone jammers.
The fact you base your argument over what is legal as opposed to an argument about the real ethics of what is right and wrong is disturbing to me. This is an indicator to me that your ethical argument is relatively weak which is why you don't use it.
I don't know what public transporation you ride on, but here there is actually stickers that asks you not to be loud and annoying to other passengers on the transportation. Sadly, nobody enforces it, but it most certainly isn't considered acceptable behaviour to be loud and annoying to other passengers and I for one don't mind the idea of duct tape being applied to people's mouths who violate this ettiquete, including myself.
I agree. It would be pretty douchey if the jammer was turned on constantly as opposed to only being switched on briefly to disrupt a very obnoxious person.
Maybe they should have dialed 112 instead?
Dialing numbers like 911 on a mobile phone is not considered by design on mobile networks and mobile phones to be an emergency call and won't grant access to certain emergency capabilities.
Why is the eduction on an emergency number for mobile phones so poor in the United States?
When on underground, sometimes your only que is the overhead speaker telling you what stop you're at as the 'stops' sign is not visible/working and unable to discern one station from another depending on your location in the train. This can be even further confusing when you're not sure if you're on a train that stops on alternating stops.
In such circumstances earplugs don't help and usually a loud person on the phone doesn't help either. Amusingly, it's the underground services that made the situation worse by adding cell phone relays in these tunnels to make mobile services accessible.