I'm guessing it's because it's easier for people. To set up an RSS feed, you generally need to set up a site and set up the feed. Then you need to figure out a way to update that feed, and find software that you want to use to follow other people's feeds.
Twitter has set up the site and the feed for you. You can get specially built software for your phone to update/follow those feeds, or else you can do it through SMS. And if you want to find other people's feeds, there's a single site you can go to.
Not that I'm defending Twitter. I don't like Twitter or Facebook or any of those social networking sites, and I think it should all be done with open protocols and open software so you can set up your own sites and configure your own privacy settings. I think most people still wouldn't bother to set up their own site, and would still want some kind of searchable index of people to follow.
I guess the idea is that people were using the incredibly short messages to link to other content anyway, so they're just making that linked content available without leaving twitter.
I wonder if this is a conscious decision by the manufacturers...
Well they make money selling new printers and scanners. They generally don't make money off of supporting old printers and scanners. The profit margin on consumer printers and scanners isn't large enough to fund extensive support.
Yeah, except that this isn't a "choice is bad" argument. If Android phones really gave you a choice, you could choose your own "flavor" (i.e. distribution) to install on whatever phone you want. Instead, you're confined to only the choices that your manufacturer and carrier decide to allow you.
Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured.
Yeah, so there are still laws governing the transport, which was my point. In has to be legal at both endpoints, and it needs to be secured.
I believe the gun must be unloaded while in transport, and it must be somehow contained. Like you can have the gun in your trunk, but you can't drive around with a gun in your lap. So the point remains: there are laws about these things.
There was a case where a guy was arrested without the key being in the ignition. I think he may not have even been in the driver's seat. I'm not sure if it held up, though.
Yes, while you're driving. That has a rational purpose: to ensure that you conduct your vehicle with reasonable respect for the safety of others.
I agree with you, but still the rules that apply to you outside of your car continue to apply in your car, and there can also be further rules that apply to you for being in your car.
So yes, he's in a private jet, but that doesn't generally mean that security is pointless. As you mentioned (and this was something that went through my head) if he's passing through an airport to an otherwise secured area, then he also needs to be secured.
I could also see someone saying, "I don't care if it is your private jet, we won't allow you to bring weapons and explosives on." Just because, you know... it's dangerous. And it's not just dangerous for the people on the plane, but for anyone that the plane might crash into. Not that it'd be easy to enforce universally, but I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable. We do have laws regarding how you can transport guns or explosives-- which aren't the same as shurikens, but...
Apple is claiming the whole story is fiction anyway, so I'm not sure it matters.
He's more than welcome to sleep in the back seat of his car and drinking Mad Dog 20/20 out of a brown paper sack
Depends. I believe people have been arrested for being drunk in a parked car on private property.
Regardless, there are rules about what you can do in your car in a on the public highways in your private car, and there can be rules about what you can bring through an airport to your private jet.
I think the point GrumblyStuff was trying to make is url shortening services create an additional point of failure. So if Twitter starts using T.co for all of its links and then there's a problem with T.co, then *no* links on Twitter will work anymore until the problem is resolved. If you had used the original url, then the link would still be functional.
Of course, that's probably not world-ending stuff, but it's something to keep in mind when using these services. If bit.ly closed its doors, for example, then every bit.ly link on the Internet would suddenly become useless.
But only the rotation of the earth cannot be explained away. Therefore you could still say the earth is the center of the universe so long as you admit that it's rotating.
In fact, according to the big bang theory, every point in space could be said to be the center of the universe. Therefore, even if the Earth is moving, you could say that it is always located at the center of the universe.
No, I'm saying that if you were reading Slashdot in recent months during the Flash/iPhone/iPad discussions or during the Flash HTML5/H264 discussions, Flash was pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. It solved all problems, and being critical of Flash got you modded down pretty regularly.
I would know, since I got yelled at and modded 'troll' for saying, "I don't like the control Apple has over iPhone/iPad application distribution, but let's be honest: Apple isn't really wrong in their criticisms of Flash."
But whatever. You're defensive and angry. I'm not going to argue with you.
Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how everyone was pretty well in agreement that Flash sucks until Apple said they wouldn't allow it on iOS. Then suddenly it's like, "How could they do that?! Flash is awesome and efficient and never crashes and is an integral part of the web! It's a perfect little diamond of the application and is everything computer applications and frameworks should be!"
If it stops being a talking point against Apple, then most likely people will go back to agreeing that Flash sucks. Because it pretty well does. It's just some people are willing to pretend that Flash is awesome in order to try to make Apple look worse than they are.
It will only last until people stop thinking that lack of Flash support is an effective talking point for criticizing Apple. Then everyone will go back to hating Flash.
Isn't Chrome open source? And isn't IE9 still unreleased?
Look, there's nothing wrong with Firefox. Performance improvements are lagging a bit behind Chrome, but obviously they're working on it. It's still a great browser.
Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are all great browsers, and they're all (at least to some extent) open source browsers. When a story comes out about how Firefox is preparing a new release with substantial performance improvements, I think you have to bend over backward to turn it into a sad anti-FOSS story.
I've never really understood: why don't more hardware companies open the source for their drivers? Is there super-secret special source in the drivers that they're trying to prevent their competitors from learning? Is it an issue of patents?
It seems to me that drivers are an instance where opening the source should be a no-brainer. It's not like an application, where you're trying to sell the software. People still need to buy your hardware to make use of the drivers, so it's not like your customers will be inclined to stop buying things from you. I would image you could drastically lower the cost of supporting the drivers by opening them, though. You'll probably increase quality at the same time.
I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
I think you're missing something-- Apple can't get access to the content because, in their walled garden, the walls aren't high enough. Content owners have always demanded higher prices, more strict DRM, controls over what devices the content can be played on, etc.
Google isn't going to get all of the content owners to sign off on making everything available. Apple has the most content, but it's expensive. Netflix has the best terms, but their library for "Watch Instantly" is always fairly limited. Hulu has decent distribution, but they're purposefully trying to keep Hulu from being available on your TV. (Yes, Hulu has a pilot program that makes their content available on the TV, but it only makes *some* of their content available on *some* devices for *some* people, and it's for a subscription fee.)
The real problem is the content owners.
Google may be able to get other illegal content, but that's a different story. I can play illegal content on my Apple TV-- though admittedly I might have to transcode it first.
Which leads to the question.. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.
... and this is why the TV industry is fighting online distribution. There will no longer be a purpose to channels. Sure, you'll still need someone to front the money for production of new shows, but you won't need the big networks, local affiliates, cable stations, pay channels, or cable TV providers. None of those people will want to give up their piece of the pie.
Also, media companies have lived for decades in a world of strange manipulations. They don't just try to sell you a show, they try to force you to watch their pet shows by sandwiching them between other popular shows. They kill off shows they don't like by putting them in bad time-slots. They justify their power-plays by limitations of the medium, e.g. cable service only offers so many channels, each channel can only play one show at a time, and there are a limited number of good time slots. If you may everything on-demand and pay-per-view, a lot of those high-powered jobs simply become obsolete.
So you have businesses with a lot of income who don't want to give up that income, and executives with a lot of power who don't want to give up that power. Newer business models may provide better service at a cheaper price, but these people will stonewall as long as they can.
Yes, and you give the reference so that people can look up that paper. If, instead, you write "Prof. Smith told me and he has two PhD's so it must be true, people are going to laugh at you.
If you say, "Prof. Smith said so in his paper, and his paper said he did an experiment so it must be true!" you'll get laughed at, too. Or if not, you should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, they'll be inserting fake tweets into the streams of other people, without those people's consent? Or do we know how this is supposed to work?
I'm guessing it's because it's easier for people. To set up an RSS feed, you generally need to set up a site and set up the feed. Then you need to figure out a way to update that feed, and find software that you want to use to follow other people's feeds.
Twitter has set up the site and the feed for you. You can get specially built software for your phone to update/follow those feeds, or else you can do it through SMS. And if you want to find other people's feeds, there's a single site you can go to.
Not that I'm defending Twitter. I don't like Twitter or Facebook or any of those social networking sites, and I think it should all be done with open protocols and open software so you can set up your own sites and configure your own privacy settings. I think most people still wouldn't bother to set up their own site, and would still want some kind of searchable index of people to follow.
I guess the idea is that people were using the incredibly short messages to link to other content anyway, so they're just making that linked content available without leaving twitter.
Yeah? You can install that on any android phone you want without hacking the phone in any way?
I wonder if this is a conscious decision by the manufacturers...
Well they make money selling new printers and scanners. They generally don't make money off of supporting old printers and scanners. The profit margin on consumer printers and scanners isn't large enough to fund extensive support.
Yeah, except that this isn't a "choice is bad" argument. If Android phones really gave you a choice, you could choose your own "flavor" (i.e. distribution) to install on whatever phone you want. Instead, you're confined to only the choices that your manufacturer and carrier decide to allow you.
Federal law and legal precedent clearly state that you may transport a firearm from place A to place B as long as it is legal in the endpoints, and intermediate jurisdictions may not interfere as long as the firearm is secured.
Yeah, so there are still laws governing the transport, which was my point. In has to be legal at both endpoints, and it needs to be secured.
I believe the gun must be unloaded while in transport, and it must be somehow contained. Like you can have the gun in your trunk, but you can't drive around with a gun in your lap. So the point remains: there are laws about these things.
There was a case where a guy was arrested without the key being in the ignition. I think he may not have even been in the driver's seat. I'm not sure if it held up, though.
Yes, while you're driving. That has a rational purpose: to ensure that you conduct your vehicle with reasonable respect for the safety of others.
I agree with you, but still the rules that apply to you outside of your car continue to apply in your car, and there can also be further rules that apply to you for being in your car.
So yes, he's in a private jet, but that doesn't generally mean that security is pointless. As you mentioned (and this was something that went through my head) if he's passing through an airport to an otherwise secured area, then he also needs to be secured.
I could also see someone saying, "I don't care if it is your private jet, we won't allow you to bring weapons and explosives on." Just because, you know... it's dangerous. And it's not just dangerous for the people on the plane, but for anyone that the plane might crash into. Not that it'd be easy to enforce universally, but I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable. We do have laws regarding how you can transport guns or explosives-- which aren't the same as shurikens, but...
Apple is claiming the whole story is fiction anyway, so I'm not sure it matters.
He's more than welcome to sleep in the back seat of his car and drinking Mad Dog 20/20 out of a brown paper sack
Depends. I believe people have been arrested for being drunk in a parked car on private property.
Regardless, there are rules about what you can do in your car in a on the public highways in your private car, and there can be rules about what you can bring through an airport to your private jet.
There are still rules about what you can do in your personal car.
Any service is invalid when it goes down.
I think the point GrumblyStuff was trying to make is url shortening services create an additional point of failure. So if Twitter starts using T.co for all of its links and then there's a problem with T.co, then *no* links on Twitter will work anymore until the problem is resolved. If you had used the original url, then the link would still be functional.
Of course, that's probably not world-ending stuff, but it's something to keep in mind when using these services. If bit.ly closed its doors, for example, then every bit.ly link on the Internet would suddenly become useless.
But only the rotation of the earth cannot be explained away. Therefore you could still say the earth is the center of the universe so long as you admit that it's rotating.
In fact, according to the big bang theory, every point in space could be said to be the center of the universe. Therefore, even if the Earth is moving, you could say that it is always located at the center of the universe.
No, I'm saying that if you were reading Slashdot in recent months during the Flash/iPhone/iPad discussions or during the Flash HTML5/H264 discussions, Flash was pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. It solved all problems, and being critical of Flash got you modded down pretty regularly.
I would know, since I got yelled at and modded 'troll' for saying, "I don't like the control Apple has over iPhone/iPad application distribution, but let's be honest: Apple isn't really wrong in their criticisms of Flash."
But whatever. You're defensive and angry. I'm not going to argue with you.
I think you also misunderstand me.
Yeah, I think you're missing a lot of posts, then.
Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how everyone was pretty well in agreement that Flash sucks until Apple said they wouldn't allow it on iOS. Then suddenly it's like, "How could they do that?! Flash is awesome and efficient and never crashes and is an integral part of the web! It's a perfect little diamond of the application and is everything computer applications and frameworks should be!"
If it stops being a talking point against Apple, then most likely people will go back to agreeing that Flash sucks. Because it pretty well does. It's just some people are willing to pretend that Flash is awesome in order to try to make Apple look worse than they are.
It will only last until people stop thinking that lack of Flash support is an effective talking point for criticizing Apple. Then everyone will go back to hating Flash.
Oh, now we're expecting the loonies to be rational?
I don't know that he supported the "ground zero mosque", but he worked for an organization that did. Maybe that aggravated him even more.
Isn't Chrome open source? And isn't IE9 still unreleased?
Look, there's nothing wrong with Firefox. Performance improvements are lagging a bit behind Chrome, but obviously they're working on it. It's still a great browser.
Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are all great browsers, and they're all (at least to some extent) open source browsers. When a story comes out about how Firefox is preparing a new release with substantial performance improvements, I think you have to bend over backward to turn it into a sad anti-FOSS story.
Your theory seems pretty paranoid.
Maybe all the Islamic violence is just a vast conspiracy to make Islam look bad?
I've never really understood: why don't more hardware companies open the source for their drivers? Is there super-secret special source in the drivers that they're trying to prevent their competitors from learning? Is it an issue of patents?
It seems to me that drivers are an instance where opening the source should be a no-brainer. It's not like an application, where you're trying to sell the software. People still need to buy your hardware to make use of the drivers, so it's not like your customers will be inclined to stop buying things from you. I would image you could drastically lower the cost of supporting the drivers by opening them, though. You'll probably increase quality at the same time.
I'm sure I'm missing something, though. Would someone enlighten me?
I think you're missing something-- Apple can't get access to the content because, in their walled garden, the walls aren't high enough. Content owners have always demanded higher prices, more strict DRM, controls over what devices the content can be played on, etc.
Google isn't going to get all of the content owners to sign off on making everything available. Apple has the most content, but it's expensive. Netflix has the best terms, but their library for "Watch Instantly" is always fairly limited. Hulu has decent distribution, but they're purposefully trying to keep Hulu from being available on your TV. (Yes, Hulu has a pilot program that makes their content available on the TV, but it only makes *some* of their content available on *some* devices for *some* people, and it's for a subscription fee.)
The real problem is the content owners.
Google may be able to get other illegal content, but that's a different story. I can play illegal content on my Apple TV-- though admittedly I might have to transcode it first.
Which leads to the question .. so what role do the networks play in the grand scheme of things ... NBC / ABC / CBS / FOX are not all developing their own content, they buy that content from a show producer. If Apple develops enough mindshare and living rooms, you don't need NBC to order the episodes of a new show, Apple can buy it directly from the show's producers.
... and this is why the TV industry is fighting online distribution. There will no longer be a purpose to channels. Sure, you'll still need someone to front the money for production of new shows, but you won't need the big networks, local affiliates, cable stations, pay channels, or cable TV providers. None of those people will want to give up their piece of the pie.
Also, media companies have lived for decades in a world of strange manipulations. They don't just try to sell you a show, they try to force you to watch their pet shows by sandwiching them between other popular shows. They kill off shows they don't like by putting them in bad time-slots. They justify their power-plays by limitations of the medium, e.g. cable service only offers so many channels, each channel can only play one show at a time, and there are a limited number of good time slots. If you may everything on-demand and pay-per-view, a lot of those high-powered jobs simply become obsolete.
So you have businesses with a lot of income who don't want to give up that income, and executives with a lot of power who don't want to give up that power. Newer business models may provide better service at a cheaper price, but these people will stonewall as long as they can.
Yes, and you give the reference so that people can look up that paper. If, instead, you write "Prof. Smith told me and he has two PhD's so it must be true, people are going to laugh at you.
If you say, "Prof. Smith said so in his paper, and his paper said he did an experiment so it must be true!" you'll get laughed at, too. Or if not, you should be.