... a really simple cure to the entire situation: don't use an iPhone.
Yes. I know that they are incredible. They're are a wonderful device and beautifully designed. To be quite honest, I want one myself! The cost, and the thought of the contract that goes with it have kept me from purchasing one. Besides, what is a person really purchasing a phone for: to use a phone, or to be a member of the "in" crowd?
There *are* alternatives. How about OpenMoko? http://www.openmoko.com./ They even have a developers site set up: http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page.
With respect, I must disagree.
I remember the old days as well, and reformatting was not always the best solution. Sometimes you just had to find something else to do the job, or just get another disk. The same is true of Microsoft's Vista.
I could start to write a tome on the more 'interesting' features of Vista, such as the higher price, lack of drivers, lack of platform-specific applications, byzantine versioning and licensing requirements, increased hardware and the message that the product fundamentally sends customers - regardless of what the Redmond spin doctors say - about the lack of trust, and dealing with your customers the same way that you would deal with a criminal, but there is no need and these points have been covered in verbatim already.
The situation is actually a good thing because it wakes people up, and makes them aware that Windows is not the only game in town. There are alternatives. What is required to make the jump, however, is time and a willingness to learn.
Take a walk on the wild side. Give alternatives OS'es a try. You might like them.
"Don't be Evil" was supposed to be the motto of the company. When they stood up to the Bush administration in court and defended it's user searches, I applauded them. Not because they were defending the search data, not because they were defending the people that made the searches, but rather because they were defending the end users *right* to make the search in the first place.
Yet, in past months, my view of Google has started to change. Headlines like the one in which their CEO defended their policy of storing search terms (presumably for data mining operations and targeted marketing), and then this event in which they are going to turn over the data to a foreign government.
I'm not defending the bad guys in any way here, but what I am saying is that there is going to come a day in the not so distant future in which the searches that you did ten years ago can be brought into question. Who knows? Maybe at somepoint some whacked law maker will make a twinkie illegal, and those searches that you made so that you could distill your own will be akin to taking a walk on the Dark Side.
Philip Zimmermann said it best: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
This is just another incident in a long list of legal disputes which have been in the courts of late. The American way of doing business seems to have shifted from actual invention and innovation over to one that seems to resemble nothing short of extortion: we hold the patent on this and your new piece of software infringes upon it - so pay us. The biggest one that comes to mind at the moment is probably the SCO vs. IBM suit.
Normally, I stick up for the little guy - the one that actually did invent something that the big fish tried to call their own. This view is changing, however. There are just too many nonsence suits (consider for a moment the suit in which an American company actually got a Federal judge to hear discussions on allowing them to patent human thought - because the same company held the patent on dopamine) going on and it's becoming much more difficult day by day to tell who is right - or rather appears to be right.
The Americans patent office needs to 1.) remove certain patents from exclusivity and place them into a common, public domain for use by other developers, and 2.) alter the means by which they are filed and 3.) restrict the language that is use in the patent definition. Until then, I hate to say it, but it will remain a point of significant amusement for the rest of the world, and stifle real innovation. There are a number of efforts going on now which see software development moved outside of the US so that they can get around these restrictions.
As a programmer, it is very, very difficult to actually develop a piece of software in the US without stepping into someone elses - patented - 'processes', concieved of 'process or method by which' something works. End result - the consumer pays for it with a consistent lack of choice, and the developer pays for it when the application never makes it to market.
What ever happen to the days when the USPTO did not grant software patents?
What ever happen to the real story line? Back in the old days, the Cylons were actually a product of an alien race, not a creation of the human race. Starbuck was a cigar smoking, hard drinkin', womanizing warrior that was sort of a personal hero of mine. Boomer was an African-American guy.
IMHO - I realize that the story is going to change a bit, depending on who tells it, but let's at least tell the right story. What has happened here is that the yo-yo that produces the show has decided to produce a whipped, whacked-off at the knees, politically correct version of the story.
Personally, I hope that the show gets cancelled soon. I don't know if I can stand any more wasted space on the air waves.
Slashdot Mirror
... a really simple cure to the entire situation: don't use an iPhone. Yes. I know that they are incredible. They're are a wonderful device and beautifully designed. To be quite honest, I want one myself! The cost, and the thought of the contract that goes with it have kept me from purchasing one. Besides, what is a person really purchasing a phone for: to use a phone, or to be a member of the "in" crowd? There *are* alternatives. How about OpenMoko? http://www.openmoko.com./ They even have a developers site set up: http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page.
With respect, I must disagree. I remember the old days as well, and reformatting was not always the best solution. Sometimes you just had to find something else to do the job, or just get another disk. The same is true of Microsoft's Vista. I could start to write a tome on the more 'interesting' features of Vista, such as the higher price, lack of drivers, lack of platform-specific applications, byzantine versioning and licensing requirements, increased hardware and the message that the product fundamentally sends customers - regardless of what the Redmond spin doctors say - about the lack of trust, and dealing with your customers the same way that you would deal with a criminal, but there is no need and these points have been covered in verbatim already. The situation is actually a good thing because it wakes people up, and makes them aware that Windows is not the only game in town. There are alternatives. What is required to make the jump, however, is time and a willingness to learn. Take a walk on the wild side. Give alternatives OS'es a try. You might like them.
"Don't be Evil" was supposed to be the motto of the company. When they stood up to the Bush administration in court and defended it's user searches, I applauded them. Not because they were defending the search data, not because they were defending the people that made the searches, but rather because they were defending the end users *right* to make the search in the first place. Yet, in past months, my view of Google has started to change. Headlines like the one in which their CEO defended their policy of storing search terms (presumably for data mining operations and targeted marketing), and then this event in which they are going to turn over the data to a foreign government. I'm not defending the bad guys in any way here, but what I am saying is that there is going to come a day in the not so distant future in which the searches that you did ten years ago can be brought into question. Who knows? Maybe at somepoint some whacked law maker will make a twinkie illegal, and those searches that you made so that you could distill your own will be akin to taking a walk on the Dark Side. Philip Zimmermann said it best: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
This is just another incident in a long list of legal disputes which have been in the courts of late. The American way of doing business seems to have shifted from actual invention and innovation over to one that seems to resemble nothing short of extortion: we hold the patent on this and your new piece of software infringes upon it - so pay us. The biggest one that comes to mind at the moment is probably the SCO vs. IBM suit. Normally, I stick up for the little guy - the one that actually did invent something that the big fish tried to call their own. This view is changing, however. There are just too many nonsence suits (consider for a moment the suit in which an American company actually got a Federal judge to hear discussions on allowing them to patent human thought - because the same company held the patent on dopamine) going on and it's becoming much more difficult day by day to tell who is right - or rather appears to be right. The Americans patent office needs to 1.) remove certain patents from exclusivity and place them into a common, public domain for use by other developers, and 2.) alter the means by which they are filed and 3.) restrict the language that is use in the patent definition. Until then, I hate to say it, but it will remain a point of significant amusement for the rest of the world, and stifle real innovation. There are a number of efforts going on now which see software development moved outside of the US so that they can get around these restrictions. As a programmer, it is very, very difficult to actually develop a piece of software in the US without stepping into someone elses - patented - 'processes', concieved of 'process or method by which' something works. End result - the consumer pays for it with a consistent lack of choice, and the developer pays for it when the application never makes it to market. What ever happen to the days when the USPTO did not grant software patents?
What ever happen to the real story line? Back in the old days, the Cylons were actually a product of an alien race, not a creation of the human race. Starbuck was a cigar smoking, hard drinkin', womanizing warrior that was sort of a personal hero of mine. Boomer was an African-American guy. IMHO - I realize that the story is going to change a bit, depending on who tells it, but let's at least tell the right story. What has happened here is that the yo-yo that produces the show has decided to produce a whipped, whacked-off at the knees, politically correct version of the story. Personally, I hope that the show gets cancelled soon. I don't know if I can stand any more wasted space on the air waves.