Apple's device definitely takes the Smartphone concept one step forward, and certainly Apple put no limits on certain features. So what are these sale-killing features that you want? Your post would have been much more useful if you had made it constructive, rather than leaving this "big gap" of issues you have that you don't mention.
You mention people not mentioning issues, but I take issue with your claim of "definitely takes the Smartphone concept one step forward". That's more than a little subjective, even more so when one can look at pretty much any article on the iPhone to find extensive list of features it doesn't have. "Less is more", in itself, is not a step forward.
Wow. Apparently now 'building a comprehensive and relatively failsafe infrastructure' is something they/shouldn't/ have to do? Protecting against fraud, and semblances of security, shouldn't be necessary?
Wait, I know who you are. You sound like one of those Apple apologists who say that "when Apple does HD", they'll do it without such things as HDCP and DRM. And somehow will magically have the studio's blessing, because we all know that the studios are happy to piss off that proportion of the 90%+ of users on Windows, but oh no, can't possibly dare to think of the ramifications of pissing off that proportion of the 10% or so of users on Mac.
Features (i.e. GDocs "is teh sux" when feature-compared to OOo or even MSO 2007)
Haha. I love OSS as much as the next guy, but I gotta love how you spin that to make it sound like OOo is so obviously more feature rich than MSO 2007. Are you serious? Please tell me you're not.
I will go acquire the music elsewhere - either on a physical CD (if I like enough songs on an album) or though another source (iTunes, etc.). That will not possess DRM, since I have never paid for (and don't intend to pay for) DRMed music. [That's like buying the car you test drove, for those following the analogy]
Apparently you're unaware that all music that is acquired through iTMS is DRMed.
That's a stupid remark. The/code/ (and or documents) are what is licensed, not the license itself. I struggle to see what is so hard to grasp about this concept. It's not "Well, the license is BSD and BSD says we can do whatever we want, so we'll rewrite the license itself" - isn't that pulling the rug out from under yourself?
I'm amused that you think the pronouncements on this forum, or on a website, from a lawyer would constitute legal advice.
Where's the attorney-client relationship?
Bottom line: random observations, be it from lawyers or laymen, hold equal weight in and of themselves. Yes, a lawyer is more likely to be able to make an educated observation by virtue of qualification, but no more so.
In fact, if you ran into court based on a pronouncement from Eben, I can guarantee you he'd (or indeed any lawyer) run from anything that hinted at any statement being legal advice, and I can guarantee that if you lost, and wanted to sue for costs based on this "legal advice", you'd not remotely stand a chance of avoiding a summary dismissal.
Yeah, it's amazing how many people here seem to believe that "a qualified opinion" is a surety. Eben can speak as a lawyer, but there is a difference between speaking as a lawyer, giving legal opinion, and giving legal advice. Only one has a fallback for you, as the guy in the street who listens to him, and that is "legal advice received, having entered into an attorney-client relationship", which you sure haven't.
But yet, apparently, we are supposed to wait for the pronouncement from upon high.
Even when you get such, there's no guarantee that it's right. I'm sure for most opinions and advice you can find an equally specialized, qualified expert that will find a way to argue the opposite.
Pronouncements of interpretations should be flagged as such. Coming from a qualified legal practitioner does NOT make them legal advice, and though this may appear obvious, it is often something overlooked. Particularly when someone is viewed as "one of us/the good guys". Proceed at your own risk.
Interesting that your morality allows you to disregard someone else's requests when it comes to something that is theirs, that does not impinge upon you. You say you have a right to copy bits. Do you have a right to copy bits against someone else's express wishes?
Do I have a right to do as I wish upon and with your property and creations? Say someone gives me your credit card numbers and I choose to copy them in the privacy of my house, it's not your business, right? If I choose to use this information without your consent or authorization, well, that's not your business either. Don't hide behind 'one deprives of use, one doesn't'. I am not talking about that, I am talking about 'using something which is not yours, against or in contradiction of terms imposed by the owner of said item', be that item a creative work that the author has said "I do not want you to copy without consent and/or reparation or your credit card numbers that you refuse to allow anyone to have.
It's their choice to refuse any business model (note that their current idea of trying to have congress/enforce/ their business model is highly wrong, IMO). That's still not a justification for your breaking of the law because you disagree with their model.
"Most of them suck anyway" - yeah, but they're still the most downloaded things - whether that's because most people 'suck', have sucky tastes, or whatever, whenever I look at the top ten lists of a torrent/P2P site, I never see it filled with indy movies or music, you know, the stuff people like to claim they use P2P for, "things I can't easily find", it's Fifty Cent, it's Britney, it's Michael Bay's latest dump, and so on.
It's not immoral? By whose standards? Yours? (Sure, they're the standards you live by). Leave aside the intent of copyright for the time being. What about the moral right of the author to be able to do something on their own terms? Is that, in itself, less morally important a right to protect than your 'right' to their content? (For the record, I think current copyright laws are a farce and a travesty - but I do think someone who creates an original work should have some say in it.)
What a fucking non-article. "Content provider decides not to allow iTMS (or indeed any, but hey, iTMS is all that's important, right?) users to buy their content online. Solution: Spin. Find ways to justify copyright infringement (look, I didn't call it piracy, I didn't call it theft. Go ahead, deny that it's copyright infringement. You lose if you say "information wants to be free" - information is sick of being anthropomorphized). Apparently it's okay to torrent things from ThePirateBay if you can't get what you want, in the way you want.
Perhaps it's a protest. "Show content owners how much you value what they have to offer - by finding ways of avoiding compensating them for their endeavors!".
I'm serious. I've downloaded movies in the past. TV shows too. But enough with the ridiculous fucking denial, the self righteous indignation of "they took away our 'right' to see their content". You want to break the law to get it, do so. But let's not pretend it's oh-so-evil-NBC's fault.
Very true. Except those very organizations are/not/ going to be affected by this.
Organizations with change control on system updates are not going to be relying on client side "Windows Update" functionality, because they couldn't control what updates got rolled out and when.
They'll be using SMS/WSUS, or similar, which TFA states very clearly and explicitly, will NOT push this update, silently or explicitly.
Slashdot Mirror
Do Apple offer Applecare for the iPhone? I know AT&T specifically excludes the iPhone from being eligible for insurance through them.
You mention people not mentioning issues, but I take issue with your claim of "definitely takes the Smartphone concept one step forward". That's more than a little subjective, even more so when one can look at pretty much any article on the iPhone to find extensive list of features it doesn't have. "Less is more", in itself, is not a step forward.
Wow, we're outlawing clothes now?
Wow. Apparently now 'building a comprehensive and relatively failsafe infrastructure' is something they /shouldn't/ have to do? Protecting against fraud, and semblances of security, shouldn't be necessary?
The RDF is strong, I guess.
Haha. I love OSS as much as the next guy, but I gotta love how you spin that to make it sound like OOo is so obviously more feature rich than MSO 2007. Are you serious? Please tell me you're not.
Apparently you're unaware that all music that is acquired through iTMS is DRMed.
Bestiality, too. One of the developers even comments on how much of it he's seen, what he recommends, and so on and so forth.
"Planning" might be too strong a word, but like death and taxes, the probability is quite high.
Don't even start me on how many women were described as being "plumply pretty". What was he, a chubby-chaser?
Your camera writes 24MB RAW files? Which camera is this? The D200, even with uncompressed RAW mode, is only at 15MB. The 1Ds Mk II is around 10MB.
That's a stupid remark. The /code/ (and or documents) are what is licensed, not the license itself. I struggle to see what is so hard to grasp about this concept. It's not "Well, the license is BSD and BSD says we can do whatever we want, so we'll rewrite the license itself" - isn't that pulling the rug out from under yourself?
Yeah, that sounds legitimate.
Where's the attorney-client relationship?
Bottom line: random observations, be it from lawyers or laymen, hold equal weight in and of themselves. Yes, a lawyer is more likely to be able to make an educated observation by virtue of qualification, but no more so.
In fact, if you ran into court based on a pronouncement from Eben, I can guarantee you he'd (or indeed any lawyer) run from anything that hinted at any statement being legal advice, and I can guarantee that if you lost, and wanted to sue for costs based on this "legal advice", you'd not remotely stand a chance of avoiding a summary dismissal.
But yet, apparently, we are supposed to wait for the pronouncement from upon high.
Even when you get such, there's no guarantee that it's right. I'm sure for most opinions and advice you can find an equally specialized, qualified expert that will find a way to argue the opposite.
Pronouncements of interpretations should be flagged as such. Coming from a qualified legal practitioner does NOT make them legal advice, and though this may appear obvious, it is often something overlooked. Particularly when someone is viewed as "one of us/the good guys". Proceed at your own risk.
Do I have a right to do as I wish upon and with your property and creations? Say someone gives me your credit card numbers and I choose to copy them in the privacy of my house, it's not your business, right? If I choose to use this information without your consent or authorization, well, that's not your business either. Don't hide behind 'one deprives of use, one doesn't'. I am not talking about that, I am talking about 'using something which is not yours, against or in contradiction of terms imposed by the owner of said item', be that item a creative work that the author has said "I do not want you to copy without consent and/or reparation or your credit card numbers that you refuse to allow anyone to have.
"Most of them suck anyway" - yeah, but they're still the most downloaded things - whether that's because most people 'suck', have sucky tastes, or whatever, whenever I look at the top ten lists of a torrent/P2P site, I never see it filled with indy movies or music, you know, the stuff people like to claim they use P2P for, "things I can't easily find", it's Fifty Cent, it's Britney, it's Michael Bay's latest dump, and so on.
It's not immoral? By whose standards? Yours? (Sure, they're the standards you live by). Leave aside the intent of copyright for the time being. What about the moral right of the author to be able to do something on their own terms? Is that, in itself, less morally important a right to protect than your 'right' to their content? (For the record, I think current copyright laws are a farce and a travesty - but I do think someone who creates an original work should have some say in it.)
Perhaps it's a protest. "Show content owners how much you value what they have to offer - by finding ways of avoiding compensating them for their endeavors!".
I'm serious. I've downloaded movies in the past. TV shows too. But enough with the ridiculous fucking denial, the self righteous indignation of "they took away our 'right' to see their content". You want to break the law to get it, do so. But let's not pretend it's oh-so-evil-NBC's fault.
Organizations with change control on system updates are not going to be relying on client side "Windows Update" functionality, because they couldn't control what updates got rolled out and when.
They'll be using SMS/WSUS, or similar, which TFA states very clearly and explicitly, will NOT push this update, silently or explicitly.
This whole angle on things is a non-event.
I have this image of RMS pinning TdR down, and making him submit with a sleeper hold that consists of smothering Theo's face with his armpit.
Possible. Highly unlikely. It would also actually have to happen, not "the potential of".
Really? And on what grounds would you even possibly try to claim grounds for a suit?
And this is unreasonable, why, exactly?
Gah. Or not. Oops, oh well. :)