As far as I know, there is no reason why you can't have open source android applications. Example: the ADW Launcher for Android, of which I use a modified version called VTL.Launcher.
Furthermore, the app store is a convenience, not a necessity, on Android. I can download and install an apk from anywhere I like.
And, lastly, there are closed-source and non-free Linux applications.
"Linux" != "open source," does it? They generally coincide, but they are not equivalent.
Also, you can modify various kernels and build "distros" of Android. I'm running a "distro" on my viewsonic g tablet. I have tried two others, as well.
FYI, it uses some sort of Skype plugin, it looks like. I tried it on an Ubuntu system and it wanted me to download and install a.exe. I don't know if it uses flash; it doesn't work with Linux, apparently...
How about a relatively flat income tax. I understand it makes sense to not tax at the same percentage once you get to certain lower income levels, as taking a chunk out of "barely making it" incomes is a lot harder as taking a chunk out of luxury incomes. A sales tax would be more fair in this regard, but hard when you're going across states; the "report non-taxed sales" thing is stupid, as it only affects honest people (I report it. it's annoying.)
A decent and fair income tax, though, would be able to tax everyone more or less fairly, as more or less everyone has income:P And you have to have the income before you spend it. No more double taxing - taxing when you get it, taxing when you use it...
The words you are looking for are unethical, unjust, "not right." I think "criminal" would refer more to breaking laws, committing crimes: An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. We use it hyperbolically or analogously when we really, really don't like something ("that's a crime!") but that doesn't make it technically correct...
Ok, so they may make it MS only. I could see that happening. But that's not monetizing it/charging for it. If anything, the evil-est thing I can see them doing right now is making it basically functional on Windows only. Maybe they'll make it work on the xbox, too, and I could see them offering things like Linksys did (standalone phones, I have one... works somewhat well).
I would be happy if they made it work on Linux well. Here's to hoping.
What are you basing this on? Microsoft has a lot of completely free software and services. Why would Skype be so different? If anything. Microsoft has a lot more money to throw around than Skype's previous owners did, right?
My box has a power switch on the back (on the power supply). Works. Yes, you have to reach an entire 18 to 24 inches back, but it's not that difficult.:) And I'd rather have it there than have it on the front where I'd accidentally turn it off...
Apple is declining to remove software, which the customer has installed and subsequently changed their mind about. Sigh.
So here's what I don't understand. The user installed it. The user apparently figures out that's a problem and calls AppleCare. What's AppleCare there for? Only to answer questions/help users if there is an actual bug in an Apple product? I guess what I don't understand is this: I would have expected, at least eventually, to be helped even if it IS my mistake. Even Verizon does that. Mess up your wireless settings? They walk you through that. In fact, they walk you through that whether or not that is your problem;)
To me, this is like saying the following: We know this software is bad and you were tricked into installing it; however, since we don't want to go down the path of having to hire enough people to help clean their system from their own mistakes, we'll just point you to some documentation and let you figure it out.
At least, reading the article, that's what it sounds like to me. That doesn't sound like much in the way of customer/tech support. It sounds more like what I would consider the general attitude of Linux techies to be;) (it's probably just a select few that come off that way; it does give us a bad name though.)
That ruins the fun of arguing in ignorance though!:P:)
Apple is not telling its staff to deny that the malware exists, it is directing that the support staff should not confirm or deny that the software is installed on a specific Mac
I will go read the article, but this is confusing. Neither confirming nor denying that a given piece of software is installed seems odd. Even if they are going to say "but you installed it, so we can't help you," why should they not be allowed to say "Yes, that software is installed."... ?
Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.
Seems to me that it's still around here after all these years and still works well
That argument doesn't work though. I assume most people here think Windows doesn't "work well." Well, it's still around here after all these years, too...;)
"Everything is a file" may be fine. Who is to say something better can't be made? Maybe everything-is-an-object allows for something better... that doesn't mean everything-is-a-file is wrong. Just maybe it can be improved or a new paradigm can be used.
I seem to remember that most Hollywood people (who are, incidentally, rich) tend to be Democrat? Or at least vote that way? How is pandering to Hollywood anything new?
they simply select "Remove" from the menu option, scan the item again, and it is removed from the cart. The total is updated.
Simply? It's a lot easier to just put it back on the shelf...
I like cool gadgets... but when it takes longer ans is more finicky than the "old" way, I dunno. I guess it depends on the customer. I'd probably try it just for fun, but it seems like this is kinda destined for the same problem as self-checkout stands; replaces employees but break down a lot and you end up having to wait a while, since there's only one employee "manning" all four stations...
while you were all 'growing up with aim', rest of the world was growing up with ICQ. and i mean, the world. not a mere country.
I am American, I "grew up" with AIM. And ICQ, and MSN, and Yahoo Messenger, and e-mail (even had Juno when it was a free dialup-to-check-your-mail thing, hehe).
And, third, you sound bitter.;) I'd be curious to know the statistics of internet use back in the 90s, divided up by country.
As someone else mentioned, who reviews? If I do my own research and it just so happens that nobody wants to touch it because it is too politically charged (but could be correct), why should I get fined?
I'll call a lie a lie... but if free speech IS fine and dandy, then why AREN'T lies aimed at manipulating people tolerated? Now, if it's a question of ethics or morality, of course I'll agree that lies shouldn't be stated and people shouldn't be manipulated.
But politics and governance are NOT sciences. Socialism vs. Capitalism is not a scientific debate where there IS one clear answer. It depends on the people being governed, depends on the land, various decisions depend on the locality and geography and politics of other nations, etc. It's not something that there is a clear yes or no answer. And when it comes to statistics, statistics can be proven wrong (is that the fault of the statistic taker? should he be fined? what if he was in the right and he just got a bad sample?), they can be misleading (accidentally or purposefully), they can be interpreted wrongly, they can be outdated, they can be misused, they can be used to manipulate...
I am pretty firmly on the "right" side of center and pretty conservative; yet I find Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., to be annoying, frustrating, maddening, and generally don't like listening to them. I probably agree with them "politically," but I disagree with their methods of "discussion," I disagree with their attitudes, with how they treat other people (including the President), etc. But I support their right to say what they want to say... and yes, make money off of it.
I also find many Senators (www.politifact.com) stating similar half truths, misleading statements, lies, etc., all to try to "prove" their point or get people to agree with them. Some of them are even true but simply used logically wrong. Should that be fined? Logical fallacies are now illegal?;) Slightly exaggerated there but you get the point: free speech necessarily has to include speech that one does not agree with or simply "wrong" speech (logical fallacy, lie, whatever). If it didn't, there would be someone, some committee, some party, etc., that basically controls free speech... which means it's not really that free. I would rather tolerate lies than get into the position where a ruling party or prevailing view has the power to censor speech that they simply disagree with by claiming that it is untrue (and, perhaps, making up their own "facts" to "disprove" the "bad" facts...)
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, there is no reason why you can't have open source android applications. Example: the ADW Launcher for Android, of which I use a modified version called VTL.Launcher.
Furthermore, the app store is a convenience, not a necessity, on Android. I can download and install an apk from anywhere I like.
And, lastly, there are closed-source and non-free Linux applications.
"Linux" != "open source," does it? They generally coincide, but they are not equivalent.
Also, you can modify various kernels and build "distros" of Android. I'm running a "distro" on my viewsonic g tablet. I have tried two others, as well.
Watson the cloud? Probably water vapor.
FYI, it uses some sort of Skype plugin, it looks like. I tried it on an Ubuntu system and it wanted me to download and install a .exe. I don't know if it uses flash; it doesn't work with Linux, apparently...
The USPO doesn't have queues. We have lines. ;)
Incredibly ugly, bulky, and downright odd-looking glasses are quite fashionable, these days.
How about a relatively flat income tax. I understand it makes sense to not tax at the same percentage once you get to certain lower income levels, as taking a chunk out of "barely making it" incomes is a lot harder as taking a chunk out of luxury incomes. A sales tax would be more fair in this regard, but hard when you're going across states; the "report non-taxed sales" thing is stupid, as it only affects honest people (I report it. it's annoying.)
A decent and fair income tax, though, would be able to tax everyone more or less fairly, as more or less everyone has income :P And you have to have the income before you spend it. No more double taxing - taxing when you get it, taxing when you use it...
The words you are looking for are unethical, unjust, "not right." I think "criminal" would refer more to breaking laws, committing crimes: An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. We use it hyperbolically or analogously when we really, really don't like something ("that's a crime!") but that doesn't make it technically correct...
Funny. I am aware of my speed without any apps. My car has a speedometer, and I look at it. Even if there aren't cops :-o
Ok, so they may make it MS only. I could see that happening. But that's not monetizing it/charging for it. If anything, the evil-est thing I can see them doing right now is making it basically functional on Windows only. Maybe they'll make it work on the xbox, too, and I could see them offering things like Linksys did (standalone phones, I have one ... works somewhat well).
I would be happy if they made it work on Linux well. Here's to hoping.
What are you basing this on? Microsoft has a lot of completely free software and services. Why would Skype be so different? If anything. Microsoft has a lot more money to throw around than Skype's previous owners did, right?
My box has a power switch on the back (on the power supply). Works. Yes, you have to reach an entire 18 to 24 inches back, but it's not that difficult. :) And I'd rather have it there than have it on the front where I'd accidentally turn it off...
Point conceded. Where's the "retract comment" button...
Why should it work? Shouldn't China be held liable, not Cisco?
Maybe Cisco can sue China in turn, but at the moment, this sounds like someone that got attacked with a kitchen knife suing the kitchen knife maker.
You act like they're separate divisions. =D
Oops. For a minute, I bypassed reality. Sorry about that. ;)
Ok, so I read it.
Apple is declining to remove software, which the customer has installed and subsequently changed their mind about. Sigh.
So here's what I don't understand. The user installed it. The user apparently figures out that's a problem and calls AppleCare. What's AppleCare there for? Only to answer questions/help users if there is an actual bug in an Apple product? I guess what I don't understand is this: I would have expected, at least eventually, to be helped even if it IS my mistake. Even Verizon does that. Mess up your wireless settings? They walk you through that. In fact, they walk you through that whether or not that is your problem ;)
To me, this is like saying the following: We know this software is bad and you were tricked into installing it; however, since we don't want to go down the path of having to hire enough people to help clean their system from their own mistakes, we'll just point you to some documentation and let you figure it out.
At least, reading the article, that's what it sounds like to me. That doesn't sound like much in the way of customer/tech support. It sounds more like what I would consider the general attitude of Linux techies to be ;) (it's probably just a select few that come off that way; it does give us a bad name though.)
You should probably read the article.
That ruins the fun of arguing in ignorance though! :P :)
Apple is not telling its staff to deny that the malware exists, it is directing that the support staff should not confirm or deny that the software is installed on a specific Mac
I will go read the article, but this is confusing. Neither confirming nor denying that a given piece of software is installed seems odd. Even if they are going to say "but you installed it, so we can't help you," why should they not be allowed to say "Yes, that software is installed." ... ?
Shouldn't front-line support people actually know if it's actual bad malware or not? If it is, this is remarkably stupid to neither confirm nor deny that it even exists. That seems like it came from marketing, not tech support. sigh.
Seems to me that it's still around here after all these years and still works well
That argument doesn't work though. I assume most people here think Windows doesn't "work well." Well, it's still around here after all these years, too... ;)
"Everything is a file" may be fine. Who is to say something better can't be made? Maybe everything-is-an-object allows for something better... that doesn't mean everything-is-a-file is wrong. Just maybe it can be improved or a new paradigm can be used.
I am starting to dislike progress
If only there were a button for that!...
I seem to remember that most Hollywood people (who are, incidentally, rich) tend to be Democrat? Or at least vote that way? How is pandering to Hollywood anything new?
they simply select "Remove" from the menu option, scan the item again, and it is removed from the cart. The total is updated.
Simply? It's a lot easier to just put it back on the shelf...
I like cool gadgets... but when it takes longer ans is more finicky than the "old" way, I dunno. I guess it depends on the customer. I'd probably try it just for fun, but it seems like this is kinda destined for the same problem as self-checkout stands; replaces employees but break down a lot and you end up having to wait a while, since there's only one employee "manning" all four stations...
But we would at least die in a grammatically correct fashion!
Well, first, slashdot IS American...
Second -
while you were all 'growing up with aim', rest of the world was growing up with ICQ. and i mean, the world. not a mere country.
I am American, I "grew up" with AIM. And ICQ, and MSN, and Yahoo Messenger, and e-mail (even had Juno when it was a free dialup-to-check-your-mail thing, hehe).
And, third, you sound bitter. ;) I'd be curious to know the statistics of internet use back in the 90s, divided up by country.
AND WE WE BETTER FOR IT!
I don't suppose you ever rode that mule to your one room schoolhouse?
;)
As someone else mentioned, who reviews? If I do my own research and it just so happens that nobody wants to touch it because it is too politically charged (but could be correct), why should I get fined?
I'll call a lie a lie... but if free speech IS fine and dandy, then why AREN'T lies aimed at manipulating people tolerated? Now, if it's a question of ethics or morality, of course I'll agree that lies shouldn't be stated and people shouldn't be manipulated.
But politics and governance are NOT sciences. Socialism vs. Capitalism is not a scientific debate where there IS one clear answer. It depends on the people being governed, depends on the land, various decisions depend on the locality and geography and politics of other nations, etc. It's not something that there is a clear yes or no answer. And when it comes to statistics, statistics can be proven wrong (is that the fault of the statistic taker? should he be fined? what if he was in the right and he just got a bad sample?), they can be misleading (accidentally or purposefully), they can be interpreted wrongly, they can be outdated, they can be misused, they can be used to manipulate...
I am pretty firmly on the "right" side of center and pretty conservative; yet I find Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., to be annoying, frustrating, maddening, and generally don't like listening to them. I probably agree with them "politically," but I disagree with their methods of "discussion," I disagree with their attitudes, with how they treat other people (including the President), etc. But I support their right to say what they want to say... and yes, make money off of it.
I also find many Senators (www.politifact.com) stating similar half truths, misleading statements, lies, etc., all to try to "prove" their point or get people to agree with them. Some of them are even true but simply used logically wrong. Should that be fined? Logical fallacies are now illegal? ;) Slightly exaggerated there but you get the point: free speech necessarily has to include speech that one does not agree with or simply "wrong" speech (logical fallacy, lie, whatever). If it didn't, there would be someone, some committee, some party, etc., that basically controls free speech... which means it's not really that free. I would rather tolerate lies than get into the position where a ruling party or prevailing view has the power to censor speech that they simply disagree with by claiming that it is untrue (and, perhaps, making up their own "facts" to "disprove" the "bad" facts...)