Server computing, development frameworks, etc, are getting more open. Personal computing is getting more closed. iOS, and now the Windows 8 store for me are a very big push against all the progress that has been made. I'm quite old... I remember the IBM days and I remember AOL... both very restricted. I have a feeling most people don't remember those and are taking the freedom they have (or had) for granted.
That man is partially responsible for the progress that has been made in the spread of open software. I think his opinion has more value than a lot of others, especially these days when things in the area of personal computing are growing more closed very quickly.
I think the "ask for it" approach they're trying is a much less evil approach, and would probably pay off more in the long run, both in dollars and good will.
It's true. Someone said nobody except a small subset of nerds even cares. If all the developers who use MacBooks stopped buying them, it would be a big hit for Apple. Corporations would need to do it to get Microsoft's attention. Of course, Apple may not care at this point. You need a MacBook to develop for iOS, and that seems to be the only platform they really care about these days.
A friend sent me an email a couple of years ago saying "Did you know that you have your phone number on FaceBook?". I said "Yes, I also have it in the phonebook".
I'm unsure why this is marked flamebait (but have a suspicion). I just did the same, picking up a Sansa Clip Zip. It plays all formats, can run RockBox, has a standard (MicroUSB) connector, has expandable storage (MicroSD), and is quite inexpensive. My older Sansa e260 won't last forever, and I figured I'd better get one while they're still available.
I don't mind trading some personal information for some services, but I don't see how helping FaceBook out on this by telling them what I want to buy helps me. If they can give me discounts, then perhaps, but I don't see that mentioned.
I don't think you should count on it not being a human. I don't recall anything specifically stating it in the agreement. The odds are low that a person would ever look at it, but for tweaking algorithms, etc, a human might look at this stuff. In general, a person could read your email in transit though, so I can't see getting too upset about it. As usual, if it's private, encrypt it.
I'm not sure how he feels copyright applies either. The emails are not being copied, they're being read. Of course, he also seems to be a nutbar. If he sent me a piece of regular mail, I'm completely entitled to do what I want with it, including showing the content to another entity so that they can target ads for him.
If Apple was remotely interested in sturdy connectors they'd put a proper strain relief on the cables they sell. This is all about lock-in and licencing.
In this case, copyright really should apply rather than patents (it doesn't seem to, but bear with me). The patent would cover the process used to create these seeds, I assume. I may be wrong, but that's all it should cover. The genetic sequence would be that part that is copyrighted in this case, if you believe that should be allowed (which I don't).
It's now what he asked, it's how he asked it. It relates to an article here a few weeks ago about how rude people are online. We see it here all the time; one of my favourites is when someone disagrees with a statement and they say "Wrong. blah blah blah". Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but to me that's a very rude way to respond, even when someone has their facts wrong. Again, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it that gets people's back up.
"The answer is a single walled garden" is the part that amazes me. Walled gardens, or peer reviewed software are good answers, but a single one? I'm utterly amazed that people will voluntarily pay a lot of money to be locked into a single software market on hardware from a single supplier. It very rarely ends in a happy consumer in the long run. Why not allow alternative markets? Make people *want* to use your software market, don't force them to.
... with a developer licence. You will have to pay for it, and prove your identity. You already need to for iOS app development... do you really think it's that much of a stretch?
Slashdot Mirror
Server computing, development frameworks, etc, are getting more open. Personal computing is getting more closed. iOS, and now the Windows 8 store for me are a very big push against all the progress that has been made. I'm quite old ... I remember the IBM days and I remember AOL ... both very restricted. I have a feeling most people don't remember those and are taking the freedom they have (or had) for granted.
That man is partially responsible for the progress that has been made in the spread of open software. I think his opinion has more value than a lot of others, especially these days when things in the area of personal computing are growing more closed very quickly.
I think the "ask for it" approach they're trying is a much less evil approach, and would probably pay off more in the long run, both in dollars and good will.
It's true. Someone said nobody except a small subset of nerds even cares. If all the developers who use MacBooks stopped buying them, it would be a big hit for Apple. Corporations would need to do it to get Microsoft's attention. Of course, Apple may not care at this point. You need a MacBook to develop for iOS, and that seems to be the only platform they really care about these days.
A friend sent me an email a couple of years ago saying "Did you know that you have your phone number on FaceBook?". I said "Yes, I also have it in the phonebook".
It needs to start somewhere. If they start certifying desktops, laptops, and smartphones, I'll probably start wih those when I'm shopping.
I'm unsure why this is marked flamebait (but have a suspicion). I just did the same, picking up a Sansa Clip Zip. It plays all formats, can run RockBox, has a standard (MicroUSB) connector, has expandable storage (MicroSD), and is quite inexpensive. My older Sansa e260 won't last forever, and I figured I'd better get one while they're still available.
I don't mind trading some personal information for some services, but I don't see how helping FaceBook out on this by telling them what I want to buy helps me. If they can give me discounts, then perhaps, but I don't see that mentioned.
And this was different before the internet?
Personally, I'd make it part of the feature set up the Pebble watch, or something similar.
I don't think you should count on it not being a human. I don't recall anything specifically stating it in the agreement. The odds are low that a person would ever look at it, but for tweaking algorithms, etc, a human might look at this stuff. In general, a person could read your email in transit though, so I can't see getting too upset about it. As usual, if it's private, encrypt it.
They do if they consider it a fair trade for the services they're getting in return. They're not really 'free'.
I'm not sure how he feels copyright applies either. The emails are not being copied, they're being read. Of course, he also seems to be a nutbar. If he sent me a piece of regular mail, I'm completely entitled to do what I want with it, including showing the content to another entity so that they can target ads for him.
The companies supplying the ads are not given personal information ... it's not anonymous really, Google knows who you are.
If Apple was remotely interested in sturdy connectors they'd put a proper strain relief on the cables they sell. This is all about lock-in and licencing.
In this case, copyright really should apply rather than patents (it doesn't seem to, but bear with me). The patent would cover the process used to create these seeds, I assume. I may be wrong, but that's all it should cover. The genetic sequence would be that part that is copyrighted in this case, if you believe that should be allowed (which I don't).
You may want to remember "Corporations are people my friend" before you make your decision as well.
I'm pretty sure Muhammed was a child molester. He waited until one of his wives was a whole nine years old before consummating the marriage.
It's now what he asked, it's how he asked it. It relates to an article here a few weeks ago about how rude people are online. We see it here all the time; one of my favourites is when someone disagrees with a statement and they say "Wrong. blah blah blah". Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but to me that's a very rude way to respond, even when someone has their facts wrong. Again, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it that gets people's back up.
Jobs was an Edison, not a Tesla. As with Edison, the truth will catch up to the legend.
If you have a hate on for Google, try one of these. Plenty do offline maps as well.
Yes, Apple with a bag of actual patents to abuse would make everyone happy ... assuming you wouldn't mind Apple being the only smartphone manufacturer.
"The answer is a single walled garden" is the part that amazes me. Walled gardens, or peer reviewed software are good answers, but a single one? I'm utterly amazed that people will voluntarily pay a lot of money to be locked into a single software market on hardware from a single supplier. It very rarely ends in a happy consumer in the long run. Why not allow alternative markets? Make people *want* to use your software market, don't force them to.
... or you believe in the statement "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither".
... with a developer licence. You will have to pay for it, and prove your identity. You already need to for iOS app development ... do you really think it's that much of a stretch?