Well, the "where were the parents when kids do horrible things" thing comes from this mistaken belief that, somehow, we can prevent anything bad from ever happening to anyone anywhere as well as the belief that if something bad happens it is obviously someone's fault and you can't blame a child or a victim. In the case of children, that leads to the parents. "If the parents had only paid more attention, they could have known and done something..."
But we're not really talking about school shootings and the like here. We're talking about access to "age-inappropriate material."
I actually approve of the rating system for games and movies. From a parental standpoint, it cuts down a bit on the amount of research I have to do. When the kid comes up and says, "Will you buy me this 'M' rated game?" it acts as a warning that this contains material that society feels is inappropriate for children. Now, I might not agree with society and that's fine. But I'll probably look it up and see whether I agree or not and make a decision as to whether or not to buy the game for the kid. Conversely, when the kid comes up with an 'E' rated game, I probably won't bother looking it up.
In short, the ratings system is a tool for parents.
Where I get annoyed is with parents who don't use the tools. If your kid whines and acts like a brat until you buy him this 'M' rated game and then you complain about the content, I don't want to hear it. If your concern is that "even if I don't buy him the game, other parents might buy it for their kids and then my kid will see them playing it," TFB. If you don't like your kids watching MTV, block the damn channel. Use the V-Chip on your cable box or TV.
Having kids is tough. Sometimes you have to be the bad guy and say "No." But you have parents who don't want to do that. They want to slough that responsibility onto someone else. "Gosh, I'm sure you'd love to have Grand Theft Auto, but the government won't let me buy it for you. I would if I could, honest, but it's not my decision." This conveniently lets them off the hook. This is one reason parents don't use the V-Chip. It's not that they can't figure it out, it's that then they have to be the heavy and tell little Tommy that Cinemax's "Life on Top" is not appropriate viewing.
No. However, like Apple, some tablet owners are offering them with WiFi & 3G. And, like Apple, they charge more for the tablets that have both. The question is: Is it worth it?
Personally, I say no--not for a few years. With AT&T pursuing HSPA+ and LTE, Verizon going gangbusters with LTE, Sprint's WiMax, and T-Mobile's HSPA+ and the buyout, I'd want to keep my Internet connection separate from the tablet and use USB/Bluetooth/WiFi to access it.
Maybe in a few years, when things have calmed down a bit, I might consider getting a device with the cellular network built in. But for now, I'd go with a WiFi-only tablet and either pay for a dedicated router device or use my phone.
You know, don't you, that Apple negotiated some pretty slick pay-as-you-go plans with Verizon and ATT for their 3G iPads. I think with ATT, for example, it's $15.00 for 250MB in a 30-day period. Not super-awesome on a per-MB cost [...]
In fact, it's even worse if you use less than 250MB in a 30-day period because you still have to pay the $15 and, 30 days later, you have to pay again.
I suppose we must have different definitions of "slick."
Well, you have read between the lines a little bit...
I have had an iPad for more than a year [...]
Considering the iPad has only been in existence for a little more than a year, he obviously stood in line for his. Read: Fanboi.
Thus, he has an iPhone. This whole "being able to use your phone as a WiFi access point" is an innovative brand-new idea from Apple. But a year ago, such amazing technology didn't exist because Apple hadn't invented it yet.
Agreed. If they said, "How do you eject a disk?" and you said, "Drag it to the trash," I wouldn't blame them for going "Huwha!?"
Did you ever tell them to go to the File menu and choose "Eject"?
Also, I believe that in Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, the "Eject" menu item started behaving the way you expected it to behave (ie, it didn't leave off-line volumes lying around).
I don't necessarily disagree--dragging the disk to the trash
A little entertaining but useless trivia about that...
Way back when, the Mac allowed you to have "off-line volumes." This was a disk that the Mac knew about but it wasn't actually in the computer. This was necessary for you to be able to copy a file from one disk to another when your Mac only had one floppy drive. When you ejected a disk, the volume went off-line. To completely get rid of a disk, you would then drag that off-line image to the trash.
Most people didn't have a problem with this--you were throwing out the image and not the disk, which was no longer in the machine. I would show people this and they were fine with it.
So the "dragging the disk to the trash" became a shortcut for "Eject Disk, Drag Off-Line Disk Image to Trash." When I was teaching people to use Macintoshes, if I showed them the longer method (ie, Eject Disk, Drag Off-Line Disk Image to Trash) and then said, "Or you can just drag the disk to the trash" they seemed far more comfortable than if I didn't show them the longer method (That's where you usually heard the, "Won't that get rid of all my files?!!?")
Nowadays, the image of the Trashcan turns into an eject icon when you start dragging it.
If you can show that Apple--or another big corporation--willfully and maliciously did something, sure. If there was someone at Apple saying, "Ha! We'll leave this on so that young children will end up bankrupting their parents and we'll be filthy rich! Mwahahahaha!" I'm all for the case. But I don't see that here.
There was a 15 minute time limit. There's a way to turn off In-App purchases. There's a way to sign out after a purchase. Because some parent was too ignorant to learn these things isn't Apple's problem.
If I let my kid play on the riding mower and he cuts down my rosebushes, I don't blame Toro.
I wonder how many vendors of important Windows applications will release an ARM build.
Depends on how much Microsoft decides to pay them. Microsoft is not above using it's hoard of cash to inspire such things.
To me, it depends on what these things are going to be used for. If the theory is that my next PC/Laptop will run on an ARM chip, this could be an issue. If the theory is that my new tablet or netbook or large phone is going to run on an ARM chip, I probably don't want to port a desktop-like UI to that because it simply won't sell.
I probably don't want to run those legacy VB6 apps on a large phone...
I somewhat agree--not with the "tablet will be a fad" thing but the TV in their lap. If I'm at home--which the TWC & Cablevision apps require--I'd rather watch programs on my Sony Bravia TV. That's why I bought it, after all, and it does an excellent job.
Of course, this is just a set-up for being out and about. Next time these contracts with providers come around, TWC & Cablevision will be asking for the rights to send programming to individuals wherever they might be. So I can watch the same programs on the train, on the beach, or in the limo that I can watch in my house. This is where the portability of the tablet will make it worthwhile.
Consider radio's current dodgy existence. Sure, it's great for news, talk radio, etc. But for entertainment purposes (eg, listening to music), it's having a hard time competing with internet sources (Pandora, last.fm, etc.).
One could argue that traditional TV is headed in a similar direction.
Does it make you feel better to say "Android passes RIM OS" versus Blackberry?
One thing I'd be interested in seeing is iOS versus Android, WP7, and RIM OS market share numbers. That would be an interesting piece of information for developers considering investing in another platform.
10.7 will support Intel machines with 64-bit capabilities (ie, Core 2 Duo). This precludes any Mac mini built before August 2007, which would be four years.
Apple is slowly narrowing the window.
That said, I would agree. I would expect last year's hardware to run next year's software. I wouldn't expect the best experience, though.
It's strictly a business deal between content producers and a cable distributor; the content producers think Time Warner is welching on their deal to distribute the data according to their contract.
The problem is, of course, that they are not.
Time Warner has the right (via these contracts) to distribute the cable channels' content to me in my house. How I view it--whether on my beautiful 50" Plasma TV with Dolby Surround Sound or on my crappy 20" Tube TV with mono speakers--is besides the point. The iPad app basically turns my $499 iPad into a 9.7" TV with a cable box so if I want to watch the game in the backyard, I don't have to drag a TV and wire out there.
What I choose to view the content on is not covered by the contract, nor should it be. Remember, these content producers are the same people who figure I should by a CD for my house, a CD for my car, and a CD for my office if I want to listen to their music in three different places. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
What if a cable channel wants to stream their channel themselves for direct subscription revenues?
Frankly, Cable Channels have had the option to do this for many years. They choose not to. They choose not to because they're not certain that they'll make the same amount of money. They make x dollars now distributing through cable operators and they don't want to jeopardize that money. If they started doing their own distribution, they'd be competing against the cable operators. Cable operators hate competition.
It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.
I'll admit, it's kind of like watching two bullies fight. In this case, though, I'll root for TWC because of the contracts.
Look, if you figure you should be paid more because I watch your program on a 50" Plasma TV versus a 20" Tube TV, that's your right as a content producer. Write up the contracts appropriately. But don't come crying to me because you made this deal and then some new way to view your content came out and you figure you should be able to get more money.
Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't.
I would agree. However, I would have to say that a BAL of 0.08% is not "truly drunk."
Furthermore, it would depend on the App. An App that shows the DUI checkpoints in a five mile radius might be tricky. An App that knows my route back home and says, "WARNING: DUI Checkpoint at Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue!" is pretty easy to consider. An App that says, "WARNING: Don't turn left on Beach Boulevard--there's a DUI Checkpoint at Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue! Continue to Golden West before turning left!" as I approach Beach Boulevard would be pretty easy for me to handle in an inebriated state.
Bigots and religious lunatics already have the right to say pretty much anything they like, no need to give them an additional platform for doing that!
So I assume you're all for Free Speech Zones, right? After all, why should those protesters be able to protest somewhere where I can see them.
The analogy you're discussing only works when there is competition. When it comes to App Stores on the iOS platform, there is no competition, which makes it a monopoly. So, yes, they can be forced.
Now before you get your panties in a twist because I used the 'M' word, a monopoly exists for a particular market. Microsoft argued they did not have a monopoly in personal computer operating systems because of Apple. The court found that Microsoft did have a monopoly on operating systems for Intel based computers. This is why I prefaced the 'M' word with the statement about "When it comes to App Stores on the iOS platform", thus delineating the market in question.
Considering the flack that google is getting for allowing malware on Android and the problems Nokia had with viruses on their phones, they have to have some sort of quality control for apps.
Not entirely true.
Apple has an App Store, but you can buy or download Apps from any website. Apple can moderate it's App Store all it wants, but you can still get Apps that Apple won't approve.
Want the security that comes from knowing that someone (in theory) is making sure that you're protected? Buy from Apple's store exclusively.
I wouldnt have any trouble what so ever with a zero-tolerance law, provided you dont get nicked for eating a single chocolate with some dubious filling
"I would have no problem with a zero-tolerance law, provided there was some tolerance."
The reason you would want a zero-tolerance law is that operating a motor vehicle in anything less than full mental capacity is dangerous to you and to other road users. So what difference should it make how you attained a state of less than full mental capacity--whether you had a shot of whiskey or ate 17 whiskey-filled chocolates?
"Zero Tolerance" always sounds good and tough, but for it to be effective, it has to be spelled out. "We have zero tolerance for weapons in our schools!" sounds good, but what is a weapon? Guns, knives, bombs, yeah sure. Nail files? Pens? Pencils? Sticks? Kind of silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the "where were the parents when kids do horrible things" thing comes from this mistaken belief that, somehow, we can prevent anything bad from ever happening to anyone anywhere as well as the belief that if something bad happens it is obviously someone's fault and you can't blame a child or a victim. In the case of children, that leads to the parents. "If the parents had only paid more attention, they could have known and done something..."
But we're not really talking about school shootings and the like here. We're talking about access to "age-inappropriate material."
I actually approve of the rating system for games and movies. From a parental standpoint, it cuts down a bit on the amount of research I have to do. When the kid comes up and says, "Will you buy me this 'M' rated game?" it acts as a warning that this contains material that society feels is inappropriate for children. Now, I might not agree with society and that's fine. But I'll probably look it up and see whether I agree or not and make a decision as to whether or not to buy the game for the kid. Conversely, when the kid comes up with an 'E' rated game, I probably won't bother looking it up.
In short, the ratings system is a tool for parents.
Where I get annoyed is with parents who don't use the tools. If your kid whines and acts like a brat until you buy him this 'M' rated game and then you complain about the content, I don't want to hear it. If your concern is that "even if I don't buy him the game, other parents might buy it for their kids and then my kid will see them playing it," TFB. If you don't like your kids watching MTV, block the damn channel. Use the V-Chip on your cable box or TV.
Having kids is tough. Sometimes you have to be the bad guy and say "No." But you have parents who don't want to do that. They want to slough that responsibility onto someone else. "Gosh, I'm sure you'd love to have Grand Theft Auto, but the government won't let me buy it for you. I would if I could, honest, but it's not my decision." This conveniently lets them off the hook. This is one reason parents don't use the V-Chip. It's not that they can't figure it out, it's that then they have to be the heavy and tell little Tommy that Cinemax's "Life on Top" is not appropriate viewing.
No. However, like Apple, some tablet owners are offering them with WiFi & 3G. And, like Apple, they charge more for the tablets that have both. The question is: Is it worth it?
Personally, I say no--not for a few years. With AT&T pursuing HSPA+ and LTE, Verizon going gangbusters with LTE, Sprint's WiMax, and T-Mobile's HSPA+ and the buyout, I'd want to keep my Internet connection separate from the tablet and use USB/Bluetooth/WiFi to access it.
Maybe in a few years, when things have calmed down a bit, I might consider getting a device with the cellular network built in. But for now, I'd go with a WiFi-only tablet and either pay for a dedicated router device or use my phone.
You know, don't you, that Apple negotiated some pretty slick pay-as-you-go plans with Verizon and ATT for their 3G iPads. I think with ATT, for example, it's $15.00 for 250MB in a 30-day period. Not super-awesome on a per-MB cost [...]
In fact, it's even worse if you use less than 250MB in a 30-day period because you still have to pay the $15 and, 30 days later, you have to pay again.
I suppose we must have different definitions of "slick."
Well, you have read between the lines a little bit...
I have had an iPad for more than a year [...]
Considering the iPad has only been in existence for a little more than a year, he obviously stood in line for his. Read: Fanboi.
Thus, he has an iPhone. This whole "being able to use your phone as a WiFi access point" is an innovative brand-new idea from Apple. But a year ago, such amazing technology didn't exist because Apple hadn't invented it yet.
Give him a break...
Agreed. If they said, "How do you eject a disk?" and you said, "Drag it to the trash," I wouldn't blame them for going "Huwha!?"
Did you ever tell them to go to the File menu and choose "Eject"?
Also, I believe that in Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, the "Eject" menu item started behaving the way you expected it to behave (ie, it didn't leave off-line volumes lying around).
I don't necessarily disagree--dragging the disk to the trash
A little entertaining but useless trivia about that...
Way back when, the Mac allowed you to have "off-line volumes." This was a disk that the Mac knew about but it wasn't actually in the computer. This was necessary for you to be able to copy a file from one disk to another when your Mac only had one floppy drive. When you ejected a disk, the volume went off-line. To completely get rid of a disk, you would then drag that off-line image to the trash.
Most people didn't have a problem with this--you were throwing out the image and not the disk, which was no longer in the machine. I would show people this and they were fine with it.
So the "dragging the disk to the trash" became a shortcut for "Eject Disk, Drag Off-Line Disk Image to Trash." When I was teaching people to use Macintoshes, if I showed them the longer method (ie, Eject Disk, Drag Off-Line Disk Image to Trash) and then said, "Or you can just drag the disk to the trash" they seemed far more comfortable than if I didn't show them the longer method (That's where you usually heard the, "Won't that get rid of all my files?!!?")
Nowadays, the image of the Trashcan turns into an eject icon when you start dragging it.
"My God! It's full of stars!"
If you can show that Apple--or another big corporation--willfully and maliciously did something, sure. If there was someone at Apple saying, "Ha! We'll leave this on so that young children will end up bankrupting their parents and we'll be filthy rich! Mwahahahaha!" I'm all for the case. But I don't see that here.
There was a 15 minute time limit. There's a way to turn off In-App purchases. There's a way to sign out after a purchase. Because some parent was too ignorant to learn these things isn't Apple's problem.
If I let my kid play on the riding mower and he cuts down my rosebushes, I don't blame Toro.
Which is why we need to kill it first.
I wonder how many vendors of important Windows applications will release an ARM build.
Depends on how much Microsoft decides to pay them. Microsoft is not above using it's hoard of cash to inspire such things.
To me, it depends on what these things are going to be used for. If the theory is that my next PC/Laptop will run on an ARM chip, this could be an issue. If the theory is that my new tablet or netbook or large phone is going to run on an ARM chip, I probably don't want to port a desktop-like UI to that because it simply won't sell.
I probably don't want to run those legacy VB6 apps on a large phone...
Actually, Paramount redid the graphics when they re-released TOS in HD. They look decent now.
I somewhat agree--not with the "tablet will be a fad" thing but the TV in their lap. If I'm at home--which the TWC & Cablevision apps require--I'd rather watch programs on my Sony Bravia TV. That's why I bought it, after all, and it does an excellent job.
Of course, this is just a set-up for being out and about. Next time these contracts with providers come around, TWC & Cablevision will be asking for the rights to send programming to individuals wherever they might be. So I can watch the same programs on the train, on the beach, or in the limo that I can watch in my house. This is where the portability of the tablet will make it worthwhile.
Funny comment, but there's some truth to it.
Consider radio's current dodgy existence. Sure, it's great for news, talk radio, etc. But for entertainment purposes (eg, listening to music), it's having a hard time competing with internet sources (Pandora, last.fm, etc.).
One could argue that traditional TV is headed in a similar direction.
Hopefully the fact that it is privately funded will prevent having this project interfered with as one method of making it unsuitable.
Well, there are those mysterious "unpublished standards"...
Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by companies that contribute to politicians on the committee to decide the standards.
meets published NASA human rating standards, not sure yet about "unpublished" standards
Because there are known knowns and there are known unknowns... :^D
Does it make you feel better to say "Android passes RIM OS" versus Blackberry?
One thing I'd be interested in seeing is iOS versus Android, WP7, and RIM OS market share numbers. That would be an interesting piece of information for developers considering investing in another platform.
OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Macs, some of which are over five years old now, and the upcoming 10.7 will probably do the same.
That's not entirely accurate.
Snow Leopard was released in August of 2009. The PowerMac G5 was discontinued in August of 2006. Doing the math, that comes to three years.
10.7 will support Intel machines with 64-bit capabilities (ie, Core 2 Duo). This precludes any Mac mini built before August 2007, which would be four years.
Apple is slowly narrowing the window.
That said, I would agree. I would expect last year's hardware to run next year's software. I wouldn't expect the best experience, though.
But for the Mac, the editors generally just suck.
Have you tried BBEdit? I hear "It doesn't suck®."
It's strictly a business deal between content producers and a cable distributor; the content producers think Time Warner is welching on their deal to distribute the data according to their contract.
The problem is, of course, that they are not.
Time Warner has the right (via these contracts) to distribute the cable channels' content to me in my house. How I view it--whether on my beautiful 50" Plasma TV with Dolby Surround Sound or on my crappy 20" Tube TV with mono speakers--is besides the point. The iPad app basically turns my $499 iPad into a 9.7" TV with a cable box so if I want to watch the game in the backyard, I don't have to drag a TV and wire out there.
What I choose to view the content on is not covered by the contract, nor should it be. Remember, these content producers are the same people who figure I should by a CD for my house, a CD for my car, and a CD for my office if I want to listen to their music in three different places. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
What if a cable channel wants to stream their channel themselves for direct subscription revenues?
Frankly, Cable Channels have had the option to do this for many years. They choose not to. They choose not to because they're not certain that they'll make the same amount of money. They make x dollars now distributing through cable operators and they don't want to jeopardize that money. If they started doing their own distribution, they'd be competing against the cable operators. Cable operators hate competition.
It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.
I'll admit, it's kind of like watching two bullies fight. In this case, though, I'll root for TWC because of the contracts.
Look, if you figure you should be paid more because I watch your program on a 50" Plasma TV versus a 20" Tube TV, that's your right as a content producer. Write up the contracts appropriately. But don't come crying to me because you made this deal and then some new way to view your content came out and you figure you should be able to get more money.
Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't.
I would agree. However, I would have to say that a BAL of 0.08% is not "truly drunk."
Furthermore, it would depend on the App. An App that shows the DUI checkpoints in a five mile radius might be tricky. An App that knows my route back home and says, "WARNING: DUI Checkpoint at Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue!" is pretty easy to consider. An App that says, "WARNING: Don't turn left on Beach Boulevard--there's a DUI Checkpoint at Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue! Continue to Golden West before turning left!" as I approach Beach Boulevard would be pretty easy for me to handle in an inebriated state.
You kids today have never driven drunk...
Bigots and religious lunatics already have the right to say pretty much anything they like, no need to give them an additional platform for doing that!
So I assume you're all for Free Speech Zones, right? After all, why should those protesters be able to protest somewhere where I can see them.
iTunes isn't a monopoly.
As always, that depends.
iTunes controls 64.5% of the online movie market. iTunes controls 70% of online music sales.
Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, it's the market that matters.
The analogy you're discussing only works when there is competition. When it comes to App Stores on the iOS platform, there is no competition, which makes it a monopoly. So, yes, they can be forced.
Now before you get your panties in a twist because I used the 'M' word, a monopoly exists for a particular market. Microsoft argued they did not have a monopoly in personal computer operating systems because of Apple. The court found that Microsoft did have a monopoly on operating systems for Intel based computers. This is why I prefaced the 'M' word with the statement about "When it comes to App Stores on the iOS platform", thus delineating the market in question.
Considering the flack that google is getting for allowing malware on Android and the problems Nokia had with viruses on their phones, they have to have some sort of quality control for apps.
Not entirely true.
Apple has an App Store, but you can buy or download Apps from any website. Apple can moderate it's App Store all it wants, but you can still get Apps that Apple won't approve.
Want the security that comes from knowing that someone (in theory) is making sure that you're protected? Buy from Apple's store exclusively.
I wouldnt have any trouble what so ever with a zero-tolerance law, provided you dont get nicked for eating a single chocolate with some dubious filling
"I would have no problem with a zero-tolerance law, provided there was some tolerance."
The reason you would want a zero-tolerance law is that operating a motor vehicle in anything less than full mental capacity is dangerous to you and to other road users. So what difference should it make how you attained a state of less than full mental capacity--whether you had a shot of whiskey or ate 17 whiskey-filled chocolates?
"Zero Tolerance" always sounds good and tough, but for it to be effective, it has to be spelled out. "We have zero tolerance for weapons in our schools!" sounds good, but what is a weapon? Guns, knives, bombs, yeah sure. Nail files? Pens? Pencils? Sticks? Kind of silly.