Slashdot is moving to bws111.com!!!! Check it out now!!!.
There's a slight difference between an Anonymous Coward saying it and, say, Timothy Lord saying it. Remember that these people were basically trying to get contributors to change from contributing to WikiTravel to contributing to their site by sending messages from Administrator accounts that people would pay attention to.
So what exactly is untrue about the community looking to migrate?
Uh...it wasn't? The Administrators were looking to migrate.
Imagine I was a WikiTravel contributor--part of the community, but I don't pay attention to the decisions being made. I just like having a place to post my opinions on the local scene for visitors. I get an e-mail from one of the admins saying, in essence, "The Community is moving to WikiMedia." Well, then, I'm going to go over to WikiMedia and set up my account and post there. After all, if we're all moving...
Well, you can choose to not join the shared ID database. Of course, you won't get any money from the federal government for law enforcement if you don't join. But, hey, it's your choice.
Kind of like how all the States suddenly decided to raise the drinking age to 21 because it was a good idea. It had nothing to do with Losing 10% of their Federal Highway Funding.
There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.
Keep in mind that "false arrest" means that the police did not have a valid warrant for your arrest, not that you didn't do it. As long as the police can show a valid arrest warrant and they didn't lie to the judge to get it, it's not false arrest--even if they made a mistake.
Of course, the police don't really care. They can still arrest him, in which case he'd better have an attorney and pay that guy and track down witnesses from years ago (all while living 1000 miles away) and all that in order to defend himself. And, if found Not Guilty, it's not like anybody's going to reimburse him. So there goes the kids' college education fund down the tubes.
But if he pleads guilty, I'm sure the DA will recommend a light sentence. After all, he has no prior arrests. He'll get a few years probation so he doesn't have to serve any jail time and can go on with his life--albeit with a criminal record. The DAs office gets to knock a "cold case" off their files and everybody's happy!
Well, Kindle is a pretty good example. No, Apple didn't kick them off the App Store. They just made sure you couldn't buy books via your Kindle nor could you launch Safari and have it go to the site where you could buy books. That makes it more difficult for people to buy books on their iPhone/iPad compared to Apple's iBookstore.
My local grocery chain doesn't stock Playboy in the magazine section. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products. Target doesn't sell Walmart generics. Barnes and Noble doesn't carry my novel.
There's a few differences.
First, in the physical world, shelf-space is limited. A store can't carry everything because there isn't room. Thus, Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because they'd rather stock their shelves with something they believe will sell. Needless to say, this isn't a factor in the digital world.
Second, companies will often make "exclusive" deals. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products because Coke offered them a better deal in return for not carrying Pepsi products. Other political factors also are involved--remember back when Pepsi owned Burger King and Pizza Hut? All the Burger King and Pizza Hut restaurants carried only Pepsi products because that's what the owners wanted. This isn't the case with Apple's Store, either. There are no exclusives.
Third, "Store Brands" are usually repackaged versions of other known products. "Charles Shaw" wine (infamously known as "Two-Buck Chuck") can be pretty good wine--it's the same wine that sells for $20 a bottle. But does a famous wine-maker want their wine to sell for that cheap? Nope. Bad for the image. So rather than "discounting" their wine, they sell it to Trader Joe's who relabel it as "Charles Shaw." They make money on the bulk purchase and they keep their fancy name. Needless to say, this certainly doesn't apply to Apple's Store, either.
Finally, the issue I have with Apple's Store is that it's the only one. While your grocery store doesn't stock Playboy because they want to "Think of the Children," I can buy Playboy at the local liquor store or magazine stand or various other places.
That's where the store analogy starts to break down. Apple runs the store. They're also the mayor of the town. They've decided that anybody who wants to run a store in their town has to pay them a 30% tax. The mayor will decide what kind of stores will be in his town. And if you don't like it, you can move out of town.
If you can deal with it just being hidden, you can hide it by going to the Apple menu and choosing Dock -> Turn Hiding On. If you want to actually get rid of it, there's this.
The menu bar? Uh...you got me there. But without a menu bar, there's not that much you can do. Kind of like saying, "Why can't I get rid of the Start menu" in Windows.
You can turn off the translucent menu bar by going to System Preferences, choosing Desktop & Screen Saver, and unchecking the "Translucent Menu Bar" checkbox.
Perhaps they're dumping their old Samsung phone so that they can buy something new. Or perhaps they believe they won't be able to legally resell the phone later, so they'd better act now.
Okay, I'll point out one simple fact: This is not an App. If you go to the iTunes Store and search for Wajam, you find nothing. Nil, Zip, Nada. So it's not an App that Apple is implicitly saying is okay by hosting it in it's App Store.
If you want to "bash" Apple, what this is is a privacy attack vector. If I can get you to download something like this to your phone, I can set up the proxy so that a trip to, oh, bankofamerica.com will end up on a server of my choice. Great for spoofing and pretty dangerous.
Note that it doesn't automatically select the configuration--I have to do this myself. But that can be socially-engineered, so it's not like it's great protection. So Apple is not entirely blameless on this, I'll agree.
I gotta admit, I was wondering how a script could change your proxy on iOS when, in theory, the only "script" you can run is JavaScript.
The neat question, of course, is did Apple vet what they're doing in any way before allowing them on their store. Or is this one of those cases where Apple looks out for the safety and security of their users until something goes wrong and then it's, "Hey, we're not responsible for third-parties."
Well, the argument is that if we don't look for "magic moonbeams," if we don't require automakers to figure out how to harness "magic moonbeams" for moving vehicles around, then you're right. If we just use 2012 technology, the only way you're getting 54 MPG is with a motorcycle.
The idea is to encourage the automakers to try to come up with a way to do this.
The solution is to not test the vehicles at 80 MPH and, instead, test them at 55/65 MPH, which is the speed limit. If you choose to go over the speed limit, your gas mileage will suffer.
Are we seeing 450 crashes a day? Are we even seeing 1/1000th of that? Nope. [...] Well, looks like you're an idiot, and electronic devices are perfectly fine.
Keep in mind that you do have human beings in charge of airplanes who can usually figure around these things. Airplanes do have a few redundancies for things. You also have Air Traffic Controllers who check these things
Also, NASA has their ASRS database. It's a volunteer thing--pilots, FAs, etc report these things to NASA which keeps track of them. Because of this, this is certainly not an exhaustive list. For entertainment value, do a text search on PED in the narrative, though, and you'll see various cases where passenger electronic devices are believed to have affected the instruments.
Of course, there's no direct connection. These people aren't trying to prove or disprove anything. If there's a problem, they tell passengers to turn off electronic devices. If the problem goes away, it was the device. Also, some of the reported issues are with older planes--737s, MD80s, etc.--which may actually have issues versus a brand new Boeing 767 or Airbus A380. Also, from the equipment involved, your cheap-ass Dell may have a problem that my beautiful MacBook Pro doesn't have--or, if you prefer, your cheap-ass laptop may have more shielding than my super-thin less-is-more MacBook Air. Not to mention that air travel is international and a phone used by a Chinese or Australian person might not have the same requirements as a phone sold here in the states. Add to that overlapping radio problems--the interference only occurs when I'm using my iPhone in seat 23F and you're using your PSP in seat 17A.
There's no way to take all of these factors into account.
I think there is still quite a market for the general purpose PC...you know, getting real work done.
The problem is that comparatively few people do "real work."
In the mid-90s, everyone wanted to check out this thing called "The Internet." But the only way to do it was to buy a PC. So they did. Then the spouse bought one. Then we bought them for the kids. Because that was the only way to get on "The Internet."
Today? Not so much.
I can watch YouTube from my TV. I can look at maps on my phone. I can Skype from my tablet. So there's no real need for that big clumsy PC in the corner. Unless I want to do "real work."
So I can go back to having one PC in the house--y'know, for the times somebody needs to do real work in the house. Other than that, I can get by quite easily with a tablet--maybe with a Bluetooth keyboard for long and rambling posts about technology.
The point being is that, in the typical home, there won't be a PC for each person. That means less PCs sold.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they Hid it in the toy.
Val Hogan, is that you?
Because no one gets killed when you misuse your right to vote?
Right.
(Though more people are killed by guns in the US than have died in Iraq)
Slashdot is moving to bws111.com!!!! Check it out now!!!.
There's a slight difference between an Anonymous Coward saying it and, say, Timothy Lord saying it. Remember that these people were basically trying to get contributors to change from contributing to WikiTravel to contributing to their site by sending messages from Administrator accounts that people would pay attention to.
So what exactly is untrue about the community looking to migrate?
Uh...it wasn't? The Administrators were looking to migrate.
Imagine I was a WikiTravel contributor--part of the community, but I don't pay attention to the decisions being made. I just like having a place to post my opinions on the local scene for visitors. I get an e-mail from one of the admins saying, in essence, "The Community is moving to WikiMedia." Well, then, I'm going to go over to WikiMedia and set up my account and post there. After all, if we're all moving...
Pretty soon, nobody is posting on WikiTravel.
Well, you can choose to not join the shared ID database. Of course, you won't get any money from the federal government for law enforcement if you don't join. But, hey, it's your choice.
Kind of like how all the States suddenly decided to raise the drinking age to 21 because it was a good idea. It had nothing to do with Losing 10% of their Federal Highway Funding.
There is a mechanism for getting redress for false arrest. It's called a lawsuit. And yes, police officers who get sued for false arrest do lose points.
Keep in mind that "false arrest" means that the police did not have a valid warrant for your arrest, not that you didn't do it. As long as the police can show a valid arrest warrant and they didn't lie to the judge to get it, it's not false arrest--even if they made a mistake.
I'm sure he did.
Of course, the police don't really care. They can still arrest him, in which case he'd better have an attorney and pay that guy and track down witnesses from years ago (all while living 1000 miles away) and all that in order to defend himself. And, if found Not Guilty, it's not like anybody's going to reimburse him. So there goes the kids' college education fund down the tubes.
But if he pleads guilty, I'm sure the DA will recommend a light sentence. After all, he has no prior arrests. He'll get a few years probation so he doesn't have to serve any jail time and can go on with his life--albeit with a criminal record. The DAs office gets to knock a "cold case" off their files and everybody's happy!
Well, Kindle is a pretty good example. No, Apple didn't kick them off the App Store. They just made sure you couldn't buy books via your Kindle nor could you launch Safari and have it go to the site where you could buy books. That makes it more difficult for people to buy books on their iPhone/iPad compared to Apple's iBookstore.
My local grocery chain doesn't stock Playboy in the magazine section. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products. Target doesn't sell Walmart generics. Barnes and Noble doesn't carry my novel.
There's a few differences.
First, in the physical world, shelf-space is limited. A store can't carry everything because there isn't room. Thus, Barnes and Noble doesn't carry your novel because they'd rather stock their shelves with something they believe will sell. Needless to say, this isn't a factor in the digital world.
Second, companies will often make "exclusive" deals. McDonalds doesn't offer Pepsi products because Coke offered them a better deal in return for not carrying Pepsi products. Other political factors also are involved--remember back when Pepsi owned Burger King and Pizza Hut? All the Burger King and Pizza Hut restaurants carried only Pepsi products because that's what the owners wanted. This isn't the case with Apple's Store, either. There are no exclusives.
Third, "Store Brands" are usually repackaged versions of other known products. "Charles Shaw" wine (infamously known as "Two-Buck Chuck") can be pretty good wine--it's the same wine that sells for $20 a bottle. But does a famous wine-maker want their wine to sell for that cheap? Nope. Bad for the image. So rather than "discounting" their wine, they sell it to Trader Joe's who relabel it as "Charles Shaw." They make money on the bulk purchase and they keep their fancy name. Needless to say, this certainly doesn't apply to Apple's Store, either.
Finally, the issue I have with Apple's Store is that it's the only one. While your grocery store doesn't stock Playboy because they want to "Think of the Children," I can buy Playboy at the local liquor store or magazine stand or various other places.
That's where the store analogy starts to break down. Apple runs the store. They're also the mayor of the town. They've decided that anybody who wants to run a store in their town has to pay them a 30% tax. The mayor will decide what kind of stores will be in his town. And if you don't like it, you can move out of town.
Everything, including CO2 and water must be provided to the plants. That has to come from somewhere.
Last I knew, people tend to breath out CO2. So if you get people and oxygen, you'll get CO2.
Also, lunar soil contains CO2, which may be a good way to start things.
[...] Gradients, drop shadows [...]
Try this.
A dock and a menu bar that you can't get rid of?
If you can deal with it just being hidden, you can hide it by going to the Apple menu and choosing Dock -> Turn Hiding On. If you want to actually get rid of it, there's this.
The menu bar? Uh...you got me there. But without a menu bar, there's not that much you can do. Kind of like saying, "Why can't I get rid of the Start menu" in Windows.
Animations you can't turn off?
Well, you can turn off window animations, and a bunch more.
Transparency?
You can turn off the translucent menu bar by going to System Preferences, choosing Desktop & Screen Saver, and unchecking the "Translucent Menu Bar" checkbox.
Anything else?
Both?
Perhaps they're dumping their old Samsung phone so that they can buy something new. Or perhaps they believe they won't be able to legally resell the phone later, so they'd better act now.
So, in fact, they were right here all along, covered in dirt.
There's also a hot dog joke in there somewhere.
What's your interest in defending Apple on this?
What's your interest in attacking Apple on this?
Okay, I'll point out one simple fact: This is not an App. If you go to the iTunes Store and search for Wajam, you find nothing. Nil, Zip, Nada. So it's not an App that Apple is implicitly saying is okay by hosting it in it's App Store.
If you want to "bash" Apple, what this is is a privacy attack vector. If I can get you to download something like this to your phone, I can set up the proxy so that a trip to, oh, bankofamerica.com will end up on a server of my choice. Great for spoofing and pretty dangerous.
Note that it doesn't automatically select the configuration--I have to do this myself. But that can be socially-engineered, so it's not like it's great protection. So Apple is not entirely blameless on this, I'll agree.
I gotta admit, I was wondering how a script could change your proxy on iOS when, in theory, the only "script" you can run is JavaScript.
The neat question, of course, is did Apple vet what they're doing in any way before allowing them on their store. Or is this one of those cases where Apple looks out for the safety and security of their users until something goes wrong and then it's, "Hey, we're not responsible for third-parties."
I know this because I am sitting next to one in our lab.
Oh shit. Does it know we're talking about it?!
Well, the argument is that if we don't look for "magic moonbeams," if we don't require automakers to figure out how to harness "magic moonbeams" for moving vehicles around, then you're right. If we just use 2012 technology, the only way you're getting 54 MPG is with a motorcycle.
The idea is to encourage the automakers to try to come up with a way to do this.
Well, this is somewhat true.
The solution is to not test the vehicles at 80 MPH and, instead, test them at 55/65 MPH, which is the speed limit. If you choose to go over the speed limit, your gas mileage will suffer.
but I'm certainly not going to wait for my phone to boot up at landing to send a SMS to the person coming to pick me up.
Hell, yeah! I mean, my iPhone takes about one minute to boot! THE HORROR!
Twit.
Are we seeing 450 crashes a day? Are we even seeing 1/1000th of that? Nope. [...] Well, looks like you're an idiot, and electronic devices are perfectly fine.
Keep in mind that you do have human beings in charge of airplanes who can usually figure around these things. Airplanes do have a few redundancies for things. You also have Air Traffic Controllers who check these things
Also, NASA has their ASRS database. It's a volunteer thing--pilots, FAs, etc report these things to NASA which keeps track of them. Because of this, this is certainly not an exhaustive list. For entertainment value, do a text search on PED in the narrative, though, and you'll see various cases where passenger electronic devices are believed to have affected the instruments.
Of course, there's no direct connection. These people aren't trying to prove or disprove anything. If there's a problem, they tell passengers to turn off electronic devices. If the problem goes away, it was the device. Also, some of the reported issues are with older planes--737s, MD80s, etc.--which may actually have issues versus a brand new Boeing 767 or Airbus A380. Also, from the equipment involved, your cheap-ass Dell may have a problem that my beautiful MacBook Pro doesn't have--or, if you prefer, your cheap-ass laptop may have more shielding than my super-thin less-is-more MacBook Air. Not to mention that air travel is international and a phone used by a Chinese or Australian person might not have the same requirements as a phone sold here in the states. Add to that overlapping radio problems--the interference only occurs when I'm using my iPhone in seat 23F and you're using your PSP in seat 17A.
There's no way to take all of these factors into account.
37.
I disagree.
I'd like to die like my father--peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
I think there is still quite a market for the general purpose PC...you know, getting real work done.
The problem is that comparatively few people do "real work."
In the mid-90s, everyone wanted to check out this thing called "The Internet." But the only way to do it was to buy a PC. So they did. Then the spouse bought one. Then we bought them for the kids. Because that was the only way to get on "The Internet."
Today? Not so much.
I can watch YouTube from my TV. I can look at maps on my phone. I can Skype from my tablet. So there's no real need for that big clumsy PC in the corner. Unless I want to do "real work."
So I can go back to having one PC in the house--y'know, for the times somebody needs to do real work in the house. Other than that, I can get by quite easily with a tablet--maybe with a Bluetooth keyboard for long and rambling posts about technology.
The point being is that, in the typical home, there won't be a PC for each person. That means less PCs sold.
My God, you beat me to it.