If porn was allowed in the App Store, imagine how creative the multitouch apps could become on the iPad... I am already thinking of a cunnilingus training app...
How many people wanna bet that they'll have ZERO accessibility utility and require people with near perfect sight to use? This is the ONE place where Google could actually beat Apple at something related to human interfaces (Apple is in a league of their own when it comes to accessibility right now), and I bet they won't even give it any thought, which is common of them.
Let us hope that someone out there actually reads this and thinks: Hey we could actually use this to help people see while at the same augmenting the abilities of people who already have perfect sight!
I am 95.2% disabled thanks to a congenital open angle glaucoma, and my iPhone 4S' 8MP camera as well as iOS' accessibility options have exceeded all my expectations to the point where now anything that's not Apple feels clunky and obsolete to me. My cell phone can literally see better than me, especially in the distance, and Apple makes that kind of use even more convenient with subtle changes to the way apps work such as by increasing the zoom cap in the Pictures app when accessibility Zoom is enabled, even if it's not active, because they actually KNOW that SOME people have a use case for this kind of thing, and yet this has absolutely no impact in the way normal people use their iPhones, most are completely oblivious to these details.
It has existed for online information for a long time too. Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data cites several examples of online data (in fact, if I recall correctly, all examples refer to online data). The only thing that was NOT covered by Directive 95/46/EC was the ability to demand that data stored outside of the EU abide to the same requirements. In the EU you are required by law to allow citizens to easily refuse processing, modify, or delete personal data without prejudice to themselves (i.e.: you can't tell me that because I don't give you my personal data you won't offer me a service) unless that data serves a fundamental or legal purpose (for example: if I am registering to receive a paper magazine, they can't offer the service without at the very least a snail mail address).
Regarding the question of ownership, by the IPRED (Directive 2001/29/EC), personal information falls outside of the scope of copyrightable material, so a third party can't claim ownership over it since it can't be appropriated. Furthermore, Directive 95/46/EC is directly mentioned as applying whenever personal data is involved, so if you take a picture and either I or anything that could identify me directly or indirectly is in it, currently I have the right to demand that you either take it down or mask all personal information relating to me in that picture (which is why Google is forced to mask vehicle plates and people's faces here).
I own all information relating to me in the EU, according to Directive 95/46/EC, which has been transposed to local law in 1998. The only real change here is that from this point forward I will own all information relating to me worldwide, because anyone who doesn't comply will be sanctioned in the EU.
Violet. Just like normal people we can only see 3 colors, though above blue everything starts to gain a reddish hue that most cameras can't reproduce, which is why violet and purple look identical despite being totally different colors (purple is a composite color, while violet is a pure color). The only difference is that we keep perceiving higher frequencies that we aren't supposed to see as violet.
The problem is when that light gets absorbed by all wooden platforms and even people's skin (melanin is supposed to absorb UV). As someone who, too, can fucking see those lights, whenever I enter a nightclub with lots of blacklights, I'm just as good as any legally blind person, because all I see are extremely bright lights with specular reflections bouncing off lots of shiny surfaces but almost no diffuse reflections for me to see where I'm going. It is so intense sometimes that I have to cover up my eyes the same way people react while driving at the sunset.
What kind of color blindness do you have? Are you only unable to distinguish between red and green? Are you unable to see blue? Or are you simply insensitive to all 3 colors? If it's the latter case, it might be that you have more light sensitive rods in the retina than normal people. Usually, light-sensitive rods are more common in the periphery of the eye, whereas color-sensitive cones are located in the center, as they also perceive detail much better but perform a lot worse in the dark (we stop perceiving color long before we stop perceiving light).
Disclaimer: I'm not an ophthalmologist, but am disabled with an open angle glaucoma, so anything related to the eyes matters a lot to me.
Yes, anything above blue gains a reddish hue to me, starting from the mosquito trap fluorescent lamps in restaurants to the black lights and forensic flashlights. I understand that this has something to do with those frequencies activating the red-sensing cones in the eye even though they shouldn't. Whenever I take pictures of such lights they either appear blue or aren't captured at all. In any case I wouldn't say the color looks red at all, at most it would look like purple, which is what I assume violet looks like to everyone (despite being a totally different and pure color).
So aren't people supposed to see black lights? I see them extremely well and they obfuscate everything else around. I'm literally lost in any place with too many of such lights, especially when they start bouncing off the walls and the floor, but most people seem to navigate those places without any problems. I have a congenital open angle glaucoma, one of my eyes is totally blind, and the other retains only 10% of sight, but can see color very well, possibly better than usual, as I've had lots of arguments about colors with people where I turned out to be right (such as the backlight (seen through the table in the lid) and keyboard LEDs having a very noticeable pink hue on the MacBook Pros, while lots of people kept telling me that they were white).
The problem is that without this kind of legal entitlement you can not control what others publish about you.
For example, I've played World of Warcraft in the past, and as a result my characters have an activity feed associated with them showing timestamps with minute precision that I've never actually intended to share. Now the only thing require is for someone to leak who my characters are in the game and everyone online can tell exactly what I've been doing. These are things that, without such protections, you can not control, and they are a lot more complex and harder to avoid than directly posting your life to Facebook.
Other examples would be, for example, someone taking an innocent picture of themselves at a specific disclosed location featuring your vehicles number plate in the background. Thanks to that picture, now everyone knows where your vehicle was when it was taken, and without such rights there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Isn't there a huge difference between raping a woman and distributing porn? So why do the terms suddenly change when it comes to children? You know, repeating yourself doesn't make your arguments any more valid. We all understand that you don't like child porn, and the fact of the matter is that nobody gives a flying crap about what you like or not; however your posts are highly emotional and devoid of rational thought, hence the justified moderation. I'm actually sorry for having disabled moderation on my account 6 years ago, otherwise I would be contributing to it myself now, because you did not address a single point of what the parent poster said.
The attitude stems from the fact that such services act as mediums and should not be responsible for what their users post, much in the same way ISPs are not responsible for what users share online. If I ran a service, that would be my policy as well, and I'd only take action if a court demanded so, because the moment you start censoring content you make yourself responsible for everything posted to your site.
Sharing things is one of the fundamental aspects behind the concept of social networks. If you don't like doing that, then you don't like social networks and have absolutely no business subscribing to them. I, for example. only have a LinkedIn and a Twitter account, because I don't care about sharing and I don't care about what others share. Twitter is acceptable because although I receive a lot of spam from it, posts are limited to 140 characters and I don't get to see embedded movies and images.
I suppose you're grossly underestimating the iDevices' ruggedness. I can't count how many times my iPhone 4S has literally been projected out of my pockets due to me accidentally pulling the headset cable, suffering minimum to no damage to the rubber frame, and no scratches to the either of the glass faces. My iPad hasn't been as thoroughly tested, though, but it doesn't seem weak to me at all, with its back being entirely made of alluminium (except for a little bit at the top, which is plastic because I have the 3G model), and the glass on the other side seeming pretty strong.
Try doing a search on a paper book, for a term not in the index.
Try using a search in place of a proper index. I guaranteed you'll take the well-designed index every time.
What exactly prevents you from using both at the same time? While you can't search easily in paper documentation, you can still (and it is actually quite common to) have an index in digital documentation, so digital documentation wins out. In fact, you can even search through multiple documents' indexes using Spotlight on the iPad! Where's the paper version of that?
That's easy, create an external battery iPad cover. There's one for the iPhone, for example, which solves your battery replacement problems. Once you run out of juice in the cover (which can take ages, given how much room the iPad's size and thinness would give custom power cover designers to stuff in extra batteries), at least there are still 10 hours of active-use battery juice in the device itself to go.
Like most other gadgets, the iPad can charge off of a USB port. That would be 5 Vdc.
Actually the iPad can't be charged off a USB port, it doesn't have the 10W of power required. Still, the Air Force could replace one of the overhead 50W cabin lights (note, I have no idea how much wattage the cabin lights take but any decent light coming off an old style incandescent is going to be at least 50W) with a 20W CFL, or other low power use light, and run a cable off the socket for charging the iPads. Hell, build a nice docking station right into the instrument panel so the pilot has access to the charts while its charging.
My iPad 2 is currently charging off a USB port as I type this, and that's been the case for almost a year now, because I never use its power adapter. If what you said was true, I suspect that by now it would have run out of juice already.
I don't see how existing customers would have anything to worry about, considering that their phones work the same. As far as older customers are concerned, an app from the app store was discontinued because its authors were offered money for the technology. I buy a product for what it currently does, not for what it's gonna do in 12 months. If the same brand releases a better product with better functionality in 12 months, I will buy that too. I see no reason to feel entitled to that functionality just because it was technically possible to implemented it on the product that I currently have, because it didn't have that functionality when I bought it, and I considered it fair deal at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
If porn was allowed in the App Store, imagine how creative the multitouch apps could become on the iPad... I am already thinking of a cunnilingus training app...
How many people wanna bet that they'll have ZERO accessibility utility and require people with near perfect sight to use? This is the ONE place where Google could actually beat Apple at something related to human interfaces (Apple is in a league of their own when it comes to accessibility right now), and I bet they won't even give it any thought, which is common of them.
Let us hope that someone out there actually reads this and thinks: Hey we could actually use this to help people see while at the same augmenting the abilities of people who already have perfect sight!
I am 95.2% disabled thanks to a congenital open angle glaucoma, and my iPhone 4S' 8MP camera as well as iOS' accessibility options have exceeded all my expectations to the point where now anything that's not Apple feels clunky and obsolete to me. My cell phone can literally see better than me, especially in the distance, and Apple makes that kind of use even more convenient with subtle changes to the way apps work such as by increasing the zoom cap in the Pictures app when accessibility Zoom is enabled, even if it's not active, because they actually KNOW that SOME people have a use case for this kind of thing, and yet this has absolutely no impact in the way normal people use their iPhones, most are completely oblivious to these details.
It has existed for online information for a long time too. Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data cites several examples of online data (in fact, if I recall correctly, all examples refer to online data). The only thing that was NOT covered by Directive 95/46/EC was the ability to demand that data stored outside of the EU abide to the same requirements. In the EU you are required by law to allow citizens to easily refuse processing, modify, or delete personal data without prejudice to themselves (i.e.: you can't tell me that because I don't give you my personal data you won't offer me a service) unless that data serves a fundamental or legal purpose (for example: if I am registering to receive a paper magazine, they can't offer the service without at the very least a snail mail address).
Regarding the question of ownership, by the IPRED (Directive 2001/29/EC), personal information falls outside of the scope of copyrightable material, so a third party can't claim ownership over it since it can't be appropriated. Furthermore, Directive 95/46/EC is directly mentioned as applying whenever personal data is involved, so if you take a picture and either I or anything that could identify me directly or indirectly is in it, currently I have the right to demand that you either take it down or mask all personal information relating to me in that picture (which is why Google is forced to mask vehicle plates and people's faces here).
I own all information relating to me in the EU, according to Directive 95/46/EC, which has been transposed to local law in 1998. The only real change here is that from this point forward I will own all information relating to me worldwide, because anyone who doesn't comply will be sanctioned in the EU.
My browser is Desktop and my OS is Unknown ... on an iPhone...
Violet. Just like normal people we can only see 3 colors, though above blue everything starts to gain a reddish hue that most cameras can't reproduce, which is why violet and purple look identical despite being totally different colors (purple is a composite color, while violet is a pure color). The only difference is that we keep perceiving higher frequencies that we aren't supposed to see as violet.
The problem is when that light gets absorbed by all wooden platforms and even people's skin (melanin is supposed to absorb UV). As someone who, too, can fucking see those lights, whenever I enter a nightclub with lots of blacklights, I'm just as good as any legally blind person, because all I see are extremely bright lights with specular reflections bouncing off lots of shiny surfaces but almost no diffuse reflections for me to see where I'm going. It is so intense sometimes that I have to cover up my eyes the same way people react while driving at the sunset.
What kind of color blindness do you have? Are you only unable to distinguish between red and green? Are you unable to see blue? Or are you simply insensitive to all 3 colors? If it's the latter case, it might be that you have more light sensitive rods in the retina than normal people. Usually, light-sensitive rods are more common in the periphery of the eye, whereas color-sensitive cones are located in the center, as they also perceive detail much better but perform a lot worse in the dark (we stop perceiving color long before we stop perceiving light).
Disclaimer: I'm not an ophthalmologist, but am disabled with an open angle glaucoma, so anything related to the eyes matters a lot to me.
Yes, anything above blue gains a reddish hue to me, starting from the mosquito trap fluorescent lamps in restaurants to the black lights and forensic flashlights. I understand that this has something to do with those frequencies activating the red-sensing cones in the eye even though they shouldn't. Whenever I take pictures of such lights they either appear blue or aren't captured at all. In any case I wouldn't say the color looks red at all, at most it would look like purple, which is what I assume violet looks like to everyone (despite being a totally different and pure color).
So aren't people supposed to see black lights? I see them extremely well and they obfuscate everything else around. I'm literally lost in any place with too many of such lights, especially when they start bouncing off the walls and the floor, but most people seem to navigate those places without any problems. I have a congenital open angle glaucoma, one of my eyes is totally blind, and the other retains only 10% of sight, but can see color very well, possibly better than usual, as I've had lots of arguments about colors with people where I turned out to be right (such as the backlight (seen through the table in the lid) and keyboard LEDs having a very noticeable pink hue on the MacBook Pros, while lots of people kept telling me that they were white).
The problem is that without this kind of legal entitlement you can not control what others publish about you.
For example, I've played World of Warcraft in the past, and as a result my characters have an activity feed associated with them showing timestamps with minute precision that I've never actually intended to share. Now the only thing require is for someone to leak who my characters are in the game and everyone online can tell exactly what I've been doing. These are things that, without such protections, you can not control, and they are a lot more complex and harder to avoid than directly posting your life to Facebook.
Other examples would be, for example, someone taking an innocent picture of themselves at a specific disclosed location featuring your vehicles number plate in the background. Thanks to that picture, now everyone knows where your vehicle was when it was taken, and without such rights there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Isn't there a huge difference between raping a woman and distributing porn? So why do the terms suddenly change when it comes to children? You know, repeating yourself doesn't make your arguments any more valid. We all understand that you don't like child porn, and the fact of the matter is that nobody gives a flying crap about what you like or not; however your posts are highly emotional and devoid of rational thought, hence the justified moderation. I'm actually sorry for having disabled moderation on my account 6 years ago, otherwise I would be contributing to it myself now, because you did not address a single point of what the parent poster said.
The attitude stems from the fact that such services act as mediums and should not be responsible for what their users post, much in the same way ISPs are not responsible for what users share online. If I ran a service, that would be my policy as well, and I'd only take action if a court demanded so, because the moment you start censoring content you make yourself responsible for everything posted to your site.
You share your personal data online, that's bound to happen. Only someone extremely stupid would think differently.
That's been implemented in your browser for a very long time, it's called a bookmark.
Sharing things is one of the fundamental aspects behind the concept of social networks. If you don't like doing that, then you don't like social networks and have absolutely no business subscribing to them. I, for example. only have a LinkedIn and a Twitter account, because I don't care about sharing and I don't care about what others share. Twitter is acceptable because although I receive a lot of spam from it, posts are limited to 140 characters and I don't get to see embedded movies and images.
Egocentric is the correct term for that.
What would happen with the iPad if the cabin lost pressurization during flight?
Its audio I/O quality would probably be degraded. I suppose it could work in space too, with no audio.
I suppose you're grossly underestimating the iDevices' ruggedness. I can't count how many times my iPhone 4S has literally been projected out of my pockets due to me accidentally pulling the headset cable, suffering minimum to no damage to the rubber frame, and no scratches to the either of the glass faces. My iPad hasn't been as thoroughly tested, though, but it doesn't seem weak to me at all, with its back being entirely made of alluminium (except for a little bit at the top, which is plastic because I have the 3G model), and the glass on the other side seeming pretty strong.
Light sources, I think the previous poster mentioned them, and you can't argue yourself out of this.
Alternate source: So when the captain's iPad batteries go dead, you discover that the First Officer has been playing Angry Birds since departure.
Yes, because one thing airplanes don't produce is power... They fly by the power of the prayer!
Try doing a search on a paper book, for a term not in the index.
Try using a search in place of a proper index. I guaranteed you'll take the well-designed index every time.
What exactly prevents you from using both at the same time? While you can't search easily in paper documentation, you can still (and it is actually quite common to) have an index in digital documentation, so digital documentation wins out. In fact, you can even search through multiple documents' indexes using Spotlight on the iPad! Where's the paper version of that?
That's easy, create an external battery iPad cover. There's one for the iPhone, for example, which solves your battery replacement problems. Once you run out of juice in the cover (which can take ages, given how much room the iPad's size and thinness would give custom power cover designers to stuff in extra batteries), at least there are still 10 hours of active-use battery juice in the device itself to go.
Actually the iPad can't be charged off a USB port, it doesn't have the 10W of power required. Still, the Air Force could replace one of the overhead 50W cabin lights (note, I have no idea how much wattage the cabin lights take but any decent light coming off an old style incandescent is going to be at least 50W) with a 20W CFL, or other low power use light, and run a cable off the socket for charging the iPads. Hell, build a nice docking station right into the instrument panel so the pilot has access to the charts while its charging.
My iPad 2 is currently charging off a USB port as I type this, and that's been the case for almost a year now, because I never use its power adapter. If what you said was true, I suspect that by now it would have run out of juice already.
I don't see how existing customers would have anything to worry about, considering that their phones work the same. As far as older customers are concerned, an app from the app store was discontinued because its authors were offered money for the technology. I buy a product for what it currently does, not for what it's gonna do in 12 months. If the same brand releases a better product with better functionality in 12 months, I will buy that too. I see no reason to feel entitled to that functionality just because it was technically possible to implemented it on the product that I currently have, because it didn't have that functionality when I bought it, and I considered it fair deal at the time.