History has proven time and time again perfectly adequate devices beating technologically superiour devices due to price. The netbook isn't great, it's perfectly adequate. It's perfectly adequate for viewing youtube video full screen, it's perfectly adequate for typing a quick letter, editing a few spread sheet cells, heck even developing stuff in Eclipse (although the eclispe start up time is a bitch).
$500 (for the gimp version) isn't cheap enough so that there isn't a distinction between that and half price. And once the sub $100 e-reader's start appearing then, well, the iPad starts to look really overpriced for the promise of magic.
Apple reallllllly need to stop mentioning netbooks.
The cheap, gimped, version of the iPad is twice as expensive as a netbook. Every time they say netbook it reminds people that there's a perfectly adequate device that is in many ways more capable than their device for far less money. Everyone was initially amazed that Apple had produced a tablet computer for $500, their amazement waned when they realised Apple hadn't produced a computer.
This case, however, defines the problems with British libel law.
Justice Eady basically defines libel law, any and all high profile libel cases get ruled on by him. He has been single-handedly defining British case law on libel and defamation for the last 10 years. He has shown a near total disregard for the use of 'fair comment' as a defence. It has had a spectacular chilling effect on reporting, especially due to the use of the super injunction (an injunction banning the reporting of the fact that their is an injunction).
Sure, Eady has reacted against a particularly low point British newspaper reporting (with some spectacularaly crass and downright horrible invasions of privacy by the tabloid press in the 80's and early 90's) but his high handed approach is killing free debate.
The problem is that Justice Eady ruled on the use of the word "bogus" in a way that made it totally impossible for Singh to defend himself. This ruling was made despite Singh explaining exactly what he meant by bogus in the paragraph following the sentence in which he used the word.
The ruling meant that it wasn't enough for Singh to show there was no evidence at all that chiropractic treatment helped to cure asthma (for instance), he also had to show that a chiropractor undertook these treatments whilst knowing that they were not effective. This is fundamentally impossible to do. Yet the treatments are still bogus. Bogus, bogus bogus. They are presented as being able to do something that they cannot, that is the very definition of a bogus treatment. Yet Eady fucked Singh up the arse.
Just to give you some idea of what is going on. Singh was found guilty of libel by a Judge know as Justic Eady, he is the Eastern Texas District Court of Libel Judges. Ridiculous libel decision after ridiculous libel decision has been made by him, well beyond the bounds of Britain's already incredibly strict laws.
Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity. The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's
1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten
For the love of...
Stop with the idiotic library analogies.
Libraries are not producing new copies of a work. They're purchasing a work and loaning out that work.
It is not remotely similar to what Google is doing. So please stop using library analogies in copyright arguments, it makes everyone just a little bit more stupid.
Libraries are the new number 1 stupid analogy used by people who think they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
I've started seeing libraries being used more and more as "proof" that "Big Media" are hypocrites, or stupid, or something, something, blah, blah I WANT FREE STUFF.
Comparing making unauthorised copies of an item and lending copies of items that have been paid for is the STUPIDEST COMPARISON THAT CAN BE MADE.
It's hair rendingly stupid. It serves no purpose other than to make people who make the comparison appear brain crushingly thick and who don't understand the first thing about the purpose of copyright.
Just to sum it up for the terminally thick.
Library: pays for one copy. Lends that copy to 1 person at a time. One copy paid for, one copy made.
Making unlimited copies of things: One copy paid for (if that). Infinite copies made.
Care to mention these places that have made private firefighting illegal? Even communist Britain wit the most communist of all fire fighting structures has private firefighters.
Silverlight, although not widely used yet (less than 5% of market), is great and innovative compared to Flash which itself now requires a $1499 set of programs for development.
What? You can produce.SWFs with free tools. For instance (and this is not the only one) the Adobe Flex SDK allows you to produce SWFs and it is totally free (and open source I believe).
I can only assume the parent post is astroturf to spread so blatant a lie.
"...and it remains to be seen what parts will be implemented consistently across all browsers"
Is the key phrase. Given that one of the RIA tool vendors also controls and significant percentage of browser adoption of HTML 5/CSS 3 features I can only see a viable future for Flash in the medium term.
There's little you can do in Flash/Flex that you can't do in (D)HTML/Javascript/Ajax. I say this as a Flex developer. The key thing is though that Flex provides a single consistent environment to develop on whilst developing for HTML is a nightmarish, byzantine, tangled knot of subtle incompatibilities and shifting target environments.
There was a Slahsdot article a few years ago about a coffee shop that got rid of it's free wifi and found that sales and profits when up as all the seat blockers buggered off somewhere else to get their free bandwidth from.
Yes, a thousand times yes
Can we not conflate unrelated issues at all and keep Net Neutrality to mean one thing and one thing only, agnosticism to packets content. Everything else can go and find it's own banner to campaign under, probably one that says "Free Cake" because it does seem to me a whole pile of freeloader causes are trying to get some of that sweet, sweet Network Neutrality moral certitude.
I suppose the world governments do 'manipulate' the price of gold, by hoarding vast stores of it to use as collateral on their loans. I can't belive you'd think that people offering gold for sale is manipulating the markets? That is crazy talk.
That's a spectacular point miss by you there. The point is that Wolverine stabs a couple of dozen people in the chest, why does not seeing the blood shift this film, with it's massive gratuitous violence from an R to a PG-13? It's a startling example of the contrived, arbitrary rules that govern ratings.
This is a point completely independent of the wooden acting (from everyone who wasn't Jackman/Stewart/McKellan), god awful dialogue, lazy visual design and over-long, confused, rewrite heavy plot.
Slashdot Mirror
$500 (for the gimp version) isn't cheap enough so that there isn't a distinction between that and half price. And once the sub $100 e-reader's start appearing then, well, the iPad starts to look really overpriced for the promise of magic.
Maybe if Apple were to stop mentioning netbooks we'd stop mentioning netbooks.
Apple reallllllly need to stop mentioning netbooks.
The cheap, gimped, version of the iPad is twice as expensive as a netbook. Every time they say netbook it reminds people that there's a perfectly adequate device that is in many ways more capable than their device for far less money. Everyone was initially amazed that Apple had produced a tablet computer for $500, their amazement waned when they realised Apple hadn't produced a computer.
Fastspring?
Any of the hundreds of third party payment providers that are out there
Justice Eady basically defines libel law, any and all high profile libel cases get ruled on by him. He has been single-handedly defining British case law on libel and defamation for the last 10 years. He has shown a near total disregard for the use of 'fair comment' as a defence. It has had a spectacular chilling effect on reporting, especially due to the use of the super injunction (an injunction banning the reporting of the fact that their is an injunction).
Sure, Eady has reacted against a particularly low point British newspaper reporting (with some spectacularaly crass and downright horrible invasions of privacy by the tabloid press in the 80's and early 90's) but his high handed approach is killing free debate.
The ruling meant that it wasn't enough for Singh to show there was no evidence at all that chiropractic treatment helped to cure asthma (for instance), he also had to show that a chiropractor undertook these treatments whilst knowing that they were not effective. This is fundamentally impossible to do. Yet the treatments are still bogus. Bogus, bogus bogus. They are presented as being able to do something that they cannot, that is the very definition of a bogus treatment. Yet Eady fucked Singh up the arse.
Britain's senior judges have been begging parliament for reform in the libel and defamation laws due to their stupidity. The three judge appeal panel has Britian's two most senior judes on it, they have specifically requested this case for two reason's
1) To smack down Eady and deliver a sternly worded "No" to him while clipping his nose with a rolled up newspaper.
2) A spot of judicial activism because the politicians are dragging their feet something rotten
No? It was the political manoeuvrings of Germany's centre-right/right-wing parties that gifted Hitler power.
For the love of...
Stop with the idiotic library analogies.
Libraries are not producing new copies of a work. They're purchasing a work and loaning out that work.
It is not remotely similar to what Google is doing. So please stop using library analogies in copyright arguments, it makes everyone just a little bit more stupid.
I've started seeing libraries being used more and more as "proof" that "Big Media" are hypocrites, or stupid, or something, something, blah, blah I WANT FREE STUFF.
It's hair rendingly stupid. It serves no purpose other than to make people who make the comparison appear brain crushingly thick and who don't understand the first thing about the purpose of copyright.
Just to sum it up for the terminally thick.
Library: pays for one copy. Lends that copy to 1 person at a time. One copy paid for, one copy made. Making unlimited copies of things: One copy paid for (if that). Infinite copies made.
So, just, stop!
Adobe's response is "Website's shouldn't serve untrusted data from a trusted domain". It's not exactly rocket science.
Care to mention these places that have made private firefighting illegal? Even communist Britain wit the most communist of all fire fighting structures has private firefighters.
What? You can produce .SWFs with free tools. For instance (and this is not the only one) the Adobe Flex SDK allows you to produce SWFs and it is totally free (and open source I believe).
I can only assume the parent post is astroturf to spread so blatant a lie.
Is the key phrase. Given that one of the RIA tool vendors also controls and significant percentage of browser adoption of HTML 5/CSS 3 features I can only see a viable future for Flash in the medium term.
There's little you can do in Flash/Flex that you can't do in (D)HTML/Javascript/Ajax. I say this as a Flex developer. The key thing is though that Flex provides a single consistent environment to develop on whilst developing for HTML is a nightmarish, byzantine, tangled knot of subtle incompatibilities and shifting target environments.
I look forward to the day when the HTML standard is flawlessly implemented by all browser vendors. On that day I will stop developing in Flex.
Why didn't you just use DataGrid? That's more than enough to do a simple table.
They especially don't get to profit from infringing trademarks.
There was a Slahsdot article a few years ago about a coffee shop that got rid of it's free wifi and found that sales and profits when up as all the seat blockers buggered off somewhere else to get their free bandwidth from.
The neo-nazi back organisation acting like cocks? Who would have thought?
As a python user I've always been confused by this one
x,y = y,x
Is the easiest way to do it surely?
Yeah, I used content in the wrong manner. I was using it to not just mean the content of the package but also the header information.
Yes, a thousand times yes Can we not conflate unrelated issues at all and keep Net Neutrality to mean one thing and one thing only, agnosticism to packets content. Everything else can go and find it's own banner to campaign under, probably one that says "Free Cake" because it does seem to me a whole pile of freeloader causes are trying to get some of that sweet, sweet Network Neutrality moral certitude.
I suppose the world governments do 'manipulate' the price of gold, by hoarding vast stores of it to use as collateral on their loans. I can't belive you'd think that people offering gold for sale is manipulating the markets? That is crazy talk.
This is a point completely independent of the wooden acting (from everyone who wasn't Jackman/Stewart/McKellan), god awful dialogue, lazy visual design and over-long, confused, rewrite heavy plot.