When you're talking about writing apps for fun, not for profit, as the person you were replying to, it's not a matter of affording it. He can do it on Android with his current hardware.
Oh wow, I changed thoughts mid-sentence there, didn't I? Well, the original questions would have been "If you're going to acknowledge that as an option for obtaining the files for backup purposes, isn't your original reasoning for dismissing the Nook invalid?" Shame on me for setting up the conclusion I wanted you to come to on your own.
Start with the factory ROM, root it on day one, run your aftermarket shit off an SD card, and keep your warranty. What's so hard about that? I somehow managed, with no prior research other beyond "it's possible to root the nook tablet", to gather everything I needed in order to do this within 15min of unboxing my tablet back in March; it's come a long way farther since then.
I'll grant your point about installing the desktop app, but then I'll ask... If you're going to acknowledge that as an option for obtaining the files for backup purposes, then your original reasoning for dismissing the Nook becomes invalid. I was purposely ignoreing that solution in an attempt to work around your logic, rather than invalidate it. That said, if you do as I said above, there's no redownloading, because you never download them to the Nook's internal book storage to begin with, making it a perfect workaround (functionality-wise) and not "a bit much" as you say.
Ahh, but the Nook Tablet can be soft-rooted with nothing more than an SD card. Warranty issue? Pop out the SD card and it'll boot the stock firmware with no trace of the soft-root. More to the point, when you soft-root and use the Nook app, all your downloaded books are saved to your SD card.
Today I only surf the web with browsers like Erwise, Viola, Mosaic, and Cello. People today are accessing the internet with applications that run executable code, such as Internet Explorer and Firefox. Very dangerous for amateurs and noobs.
YOU can use YOUR life experience and point of view. You can NOT discuss either of those things with anyone else on the jury or attempt to use them to persuade another member of the jury.
And that protection is only granted to that implementation.
The "slide to unlock" patent does not specify implementation details, it only lays out the concept. This should not be protected, as there are no implementation details to protect and it bars the use of the concept in its entirety, regardless of implementation. This is not how patents are supposed to work.
Maybe you should fix the mistake I was poking fun at in the post to which I was replying... or, since you may still not have heard the "WOOSH!", maybe fix both of the purposeful mistakes I made (again, purposefully) in the post you're attempting to (incorrectly) correct?
Actually, I bought her the iPhone. She was set to stay with her Android phone for another 8 months until we had an upgrad available on our account. I upgraded from an Atrix 4g (which is what she also had) to an HTC One-X a couple weeks after getting her that iPhone and she's been regretting begging me for that iPhone ever since. Come upgrade time next year, she'll either be keeping her 4s, not wanting to replace her existing accessories due to the new port on the iPhone 5, or switching back to Android, sharing many of my accessories, and keeping her iDevice accessories for use with her iPod Classic.
The MBP purchase has more to do with wanting a physically smaller machine and weighing the cost of replacing OSX licences for Adobe CS against a platform switch. Since the licenses in question cost more than the computer they will be used on, there's not really any advantage to switching platforms at this point.
That she's gone from getting pissy with me when I point out Apple's fuckups (to the point that I learned to stop bringing it up) to pointing them out herself does say a lot. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
I'll second this. My wife has been an exclusive Apple user (save for a 1 year stint with an Android phone, which ended a couple months back when she got an iPhone 4s) and even she's starting to call Apple's bullshit. She's not to the point, just yet, of switching to Windows or Linux and I doubt she'll ever let go of her iPhone (though she did just decide against an accessory purchase, citing fears that the app for that and another accessory she'd be using at the same time might both require that they be used in the foreground -- she even went so far as to point out that this would not be an issue for Android), but she's starting to see the light.
That said, her next computer purchase, already planned, will be a 15" MacBook Pro in December, to replace the 17" she complains is too bulky. I'm not going to force my own econopolitical views on her, and I will have zero hesitation using that 17" MBP, as it will be quite an upgrade from my current dual core i3 PC. My only stipulation was that she not upgrade her current MBP past Snow Leopard, since it is impossible (from the standpoint of not wanting to have to apply patches and hacks) to downgrade and I refuse to use the steaming piles that are Lion and Mountain Lion.
Anyway, enough history. Yes, even Apple fans are starting to see the light.
And yes, I know I could just as easily run Linux or Windows on that MBP, but I happen to actually like Snow Leopard.
50 out of 300 is 16.666&...%, not too far off from your 20% figure. More to the point, those 50 are willingly using iPhones as their personal phones, not being handed an iPhone by their employer and being told to use it. In your case, it was likely 4 or 5 people out of 5000+ (less than 0.1%) who decided that 20% should have an iPhone, versus 50 out of 300 (over 16%) who decided it for themselves.
TL;DR: Your anecdote doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think it does.
This post might surprise a few people here (who think I'm a firmly anti-Apple Linux/Android fanboi), coming from me, but here it is anyway.
You do realize that there is actually more malware on Android than there is on iOS, right? Now, I'm positive there's a ton of it on iOS that simply hasn't been discovered yet, but you know as well as I do that there's more malware on Android. To be clear, I'm certain there's more malware in Apple's App Store (much still to be discovered, if ever, due to the way Apple safeguards app permissions and prevents users from looking too closely at what an app is actually doing) than there is in the Adroid Market; but, with the ability to sideload, you don't have to slip malware into the Android Market to get it on Android devices.
While I agree with you about not wanting Apple snooping through my stuff, it's worth pointing out that Google's entire business model is built around doing just that. Of course, Google has one hell of a track record when it comes to keeping your (or their, depending on perspective) data safe from prying eyes (other than their own). With Apple devices gathering more and more data and the way iCloud has been integrated into recent iOS and OSX releases, one should be asking if Apple has the same proven track record when it comes to data security.
Of course, handing your data over to either company requires an immense amount of trust that they won't willingly abuse it. Google has a long history of handling this type of data and yes, they have overstepped their bounds at least a couple of times; Apple, on the other hand, has no track record, here, so they could be better, but they could also be much, much worse.
Ideally, one keeps their own data to themselves and a 3rd parties intentions and security practices don't matter in the slightest. Since we don't live in an ideal world, given the choice between Apple (who lacks proven security -- they simply haven't been in the data-retention game long enough -- but also lacks Google's history of storing every bit of data they can get their hands on) and Google (who literally stores everything they can find, but also has a stellar track record when it comes to security), it really comes down to whether you're more afraid of hackers getting your data or your vendor abusing it. All things being equal, flip a coin; if you're more concerned with hackers, go to Google, otherwise, go to Apple.
Your last paragraph made me realize that I have a very lose grip on the English language. Actually, not really, but your blatant misuse of such a simple word by such an obvious language nazi has me absolutely loosing my shit.
This. Both are wrong for doing it, but Apple is more wrong for calling Samsung out while they, themselves, were doing it. Meanwhile, Samsung was right to point out that Apple was *also* doing it. Had Samsung been the first to point the finger, I would hold the opposite stance.
Make new accounts able to see spam posts until x-number of successful posts. By that time, you'll have been able to identify the spammer, at which point they will continue to see their spam.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the exploits in the Oracle Java VM that Android doesn't use? Loads of fun, indeed.
When you're talking about writing apps for fun, not for profit, as the person you were replying to, it's not a matter of affording it. He can do it on Android with his current hardware.
An that allows him to develop for iOS... how?
In other words... WHOOSH!
Oh wow, I changed thoughts mid-sentence there, didn't I? Well, the original questions would have been "If you're going to acknowledge that as an option for obtaining the files for backup purposes, isn't your original reasoning for dismissing the Nook invalid?" Shame on me for setting up the conclusion I wanted you to come to on your own.
Start with the factory ROM, root it on day one, run your aftermarket shit off an SD card, and keep your warranty. What's so hard about that? I somehow managed, with no prior research other beyond "it's possible to root the nook tablet", to gather everything I needed in order to do this within 15min of unboxing my tablet back in March; it's come a long way farther since then.
I'll grant your point about installing the desktop app, but then I'll ask... If you're going to acknowledge that as an option for obtaining the files for backup purposes, then your original reasoning for dismissing the Nook becomes invalid. I was purposely ignoreing that solution in an attempt to work around your logic, rather than invalidate it. That said, if you do as I said above, there's no redownloading, because you never download them to the Nook's internal book storage to begin with, making it a perfect workaround (functionality-wise) and not "a bit much" as you say.
No, I think he was pointing out that we're not doing the "walking away" part, so the man know he never really needs to learn how to fish.
I'm 100% positive, since I did it.
Ahh, but the Nook Tablet can be soft-rooted with nothing more than an SD card. Warranty issue? Pop out the SD card and it'll boot the stock firmware with no trace of the soft-root. More to the point, when you soft-root and use the Nook app, all your downloaded books are saved to your SD card.
Today I only surf the web with browsers like Erwise, Viola, Mosaic, and Cello. People today are accessing the internet with applications that run executable code, such as Internet Explorer and Firefox. Very dangerous for amateurs and noobs.
So, which are you, an amateur or a noob?
YOU can use YOUR life experience and point of view. You can NOT discuss either of those things with anyone else on the jury or attempt to use them to persuade another member of the jury.
This is correct. However, GP's first and third points still stand.
For the love of christ, let me double-click the knob and manually enter a value, just in case i want some level of precision.
And that protection is only granted to that implementation.
The "slide to unlock" patent does not specify implementation details, it only lays out the concept. This should not be protected, as there are no implementation details to protect and it bars the use of the concept in its entirety, regardless of implementation. This is not how patents are supposed to work.
+5, Pissed Myself Laughing
Maybe you should fix the mistake I was poking fun at in the post to which I was replying... or, since you may still not have heard the "WOOSH!", maybe fix both of the purposeful mistakes I made (again, purposefully) in the post you're attempting to (incorrectly) correct?
Actually, I bought her the iPhone. She was set to stay with her Android phone for another 8 months until we had an upgrad available on our account. I upgraded from an Atrix 4g (which is what she also had) to an HTC One-X a couple weeks after getting her that iPhone and she's been regretting begging me for that iPhone ever since. Come upgrade time next year, she'll either be keeping her 4s, not wanting to replace her existing accessories due to the new port on the iPhone 5, or switching back to Android, sharing many of my accessories, and keeping her iDevice accessories for use with her iPod Classic.
The MBP purchase has more to do with wanting a physically smaller machine and weighing the cost of replacing OSX licences for Adobe CS against a platform switch. Since the licenses in question cost more than the computer they will be used on, there's not really any advantage to switching platforms at this point.
That she's gone from getting pissy with me when I point out Apple's fuckups (to the point that I learned to stop bringing it up) to pointing them out herself does say a lot. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
I'll second this. My wife has been an exclusive Apple user (save for a 1 year stint with an Android phone, which ended a couple months back when she got an iPhone 4s) and even she's starting to call Apple's bullshit. She's not to the point, just yet, of switching to Windows or Linux and I doubt she'll ever let go of her iPhone (though she did just decide against an accessory purchase, citing fears that the app for that and another accessory she'd be using at the same time might both require that they be used in the foreground -- she even went so far as to point out that this would not be an issue for Android), but she's starting to see the light.
That said, her next computer purchase, already planned, will be a 15" MacBook Pro in December, to replace the 17" she complains is too bulky. I'm not going to force my own econopolitical views on her, and I will have zero hesitation using that 17" MBP, as it will be quite an upgrade from my current dual core i3 PC. My only stipulation was that she not upgrade her current MBP past Snow Leopard, since it is impossible (from the standpoint of not wanting to have to apply patches and hacks) to downgrade and I refuse to use the steaming piles that are Lion and Mountain Lion.
Anyway, enough history. Yes, even Apple fans are starting to see the light.
And yes, I know I could just as easily run Linux or Windows on that MBP, but I happen to actually like Snow Leopard.
50 out of 300 is 16.666&...%, not too far off from your 20% figure. More to the point, those 50 are willingly using iPhones as their personal phones, not being handed an iPhone by their employer and being told to use it. In your case, it was likely 4 or 5 people out of 5000+ (less than 0.1%) who decided that 20% should have an iPhone, versus 50 out of 300 (over 16%) who decided it for themselves.
TL;DR: Your anecdote doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think it does.
This post might surprise a few people here (who think I'm a firmly anti-Apple Linux/Android fanboi), coming from me, but here it is anyway.
You do realize that there is actually more malware on Android than there is on iOS, right? Now, I'm positive there's a ton of it on iOS that simply hasn't been discovered yet, but you know as well as I do that there's more malware on Android. To be clear, I'm certain there's more malware in Apple's App Store (much still to be discovered, if ever, due to the way Apple safeguards app permissions and prevents users from looking too closely at what an app is actually doing) than there is in the Adroid Market; but, with the ability to sideload, you don't have to slip malware into the Android Market to get it on Android devices.
While I agree with you about not wanting Apple snooping through my stuff, it's worth pointing out that Google's entire business model is built around doing just that. Of course, Google has one hell of a track record when it comes to keeping your (or their, depending on perspective) data safe from prying eyes (other than their own). With Apple devices gathering more and more data and the way iCloud has been integrated into recent iOS and OSX releases, one should be asking if Apple has the same proven track record when it comes to data security.
Of course, handing your data over to either company requires an immense amount of trust that they won't willingly abuse it. Google has a long history of handling this type of data and yes, they have overstepped their bounds at least a couple of times; Apple, on the other hand, has no track record, here, so they could be better, but they could also be much, much worse.
Ideally, one keeps their own data to themselves and a 3rd parties intentions and security practices don't matter in the slightest. Since we don't live in an ideal world, given the choice between Apple (who lacks proven security -- they simply haven't been in the data-retention game long enough -- but also lacks Google's history of storing every bit of data they can get their hands on) and Google (who literally stores everything they can find, but also has a stellar track record when it comes to security), it really comes down to whether you're more afraid of hackers getting your data or your vendor abusing it. All things being equal, flip a coin; if you're more concerned with hackers, go to Google, otherwise, go to Apple.
>>41121961
Testing...
Your last paragraph made me realize that I have a very lose grip on the English language. Actually, not really, but your blatant misuse of such a simple word by such an obvious language nazi has me absolutely loosing my shit.
Just clost the damn porn and get back to work.
This. Both are wrong for doing it, but Apple is more wrong for calling Samsung out while they, themselves, were doing it. Meanwhile, Samsung was right to point out that Apple was *also* doing it. Had Samsung been the first to point the finger, I would hold the opposite stance.
I don't think anyone was arguing anything different.
Make new accounts able to see spam posts until x-number of successful posts. By that time, you'll have been able to identify the spammer, at which point they will continue to see their spam.