Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
That's not really the case. Everyone got caught up in the filesharing craze--it was novel, easy, and fun. The funny part is that it would actually have been legal if people could exercise restraint. But many can't. It's how riots start and how people don't feel guilty for exploiting a flaw as long as someone else made it (the ATM issue recently, for example).
Honest people always, *always* pay for "it"--health care, vandalism, piracy, you name it. That's why it's in society's best interests to minimize problems. The lawsuits are serious mistakes and massive blows to any shred of credibility the industry organizations may have been clinging to, but they're not the only people involved. They're also only tangentially harmed by any counteractions. Ultimately, it's only the art and artists that are hurt, because no one is willing to engage a more complicated mechanism to deal with the actual problems.
There's a difference between not supporting these *AA dumbasses as you appear to have done and stealing from artists to "stick it" to them as huge tracts of Slashdot seem to think is appropriate.
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Which is exactly why they feel they have to make it harder to copy. It doesn't cost anything, so the only thing they can do is throw the law around while simultaneously making it more difficult to copy.
Now, obviously the honor system doesn't work. If DRM vanished tomorrow, most Slashdotters would still keep downloading. It provides something to bitch about more than anything. The fundamental problem is that Slashdot has decided it doesn't like the media industry's business model. It doesn't actually have anything to do with DRM in the overwhelming majority of cases--precisely because every single kind of DRM has been cracked. It's not a real deterrent to Slashdot. But it's good for the go to pretend that it was supposed to be and you beat "the man."
The only real deterrent is the law, which is why there's all the sabre-rattling here. You don't want to pay for the content. You've all but declared it every single time this issue comes up. There aren't many people here who carve a rational balance. Most of you will continue getting it for free because a) you can and b) you don't think they deserve money in the first place (or "not as much as they charge" in the truest mob fashion). Rationalize all you want, but that's all it comes down to.
There need to be massive changes in the media industry. Lots of things which are fundamentally clear have become confused in the fiery rhetoric and the balance is wrong. But if you won't come to the table, why should they?
What do you mean? If you like eMusic, you can subscribe on your computer (for a substantially lower cost), and put the tracks on your iPhone through your entire music library. True, there's no direct client for the phone, but paying quadruple for being able to access the catalog anywhere doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure that other people would be happy to pay it, but I think this service is more for the regular phones which until now have not been able to act like "real" music players.
You've clearly never owned a smartphone. Plugging it into the computer is the way it's done. You install updates, ROM flashes, most third-party software, and do syncing and backup all through ActiveSync. It's a nice, proprietary application, too.
Mac users were screwed until someone created a hack that would let them work. Early Vista adopters (myself included) were screwed until after the retail release because Sync Center, which replaced ActiveSync, didn't actually do anything like, you know, syncing. Windows Mobile 6 does allow for over-the-air patching, but cell phone providers will still likely provide 50-60MB ROM images on their sites which require an actual computer to run--there isn't enough RAM to unpack and handle the installer for updates. Small patches delivered via CAB files are certainly one advantage to WM6.
What about Palm, which required Palm syncing software for the longest time? It was arbitrary and proprietary, too. Sony-Ericcson? Same deal.
The reality is that portable devices like this can't manage complete updates on their own. They can't stand alone all the time. You've still not addressed pre-update syncing and backup and how the device could handle restoring itself.
Yeah, because what everyone needs is a download or patching failure to brick their phone while they're traveling. Needing a computer allows you to backup/sync data beforehand and gives you the tools to do a restore if need be (for example, if a wonky hack bricks the update).
Just because data and an installer can be delivered doesn't mean it's a brilliant plan.
But I just have to ask: to whom has Apple sold out by requiring you to sit down at your computer to update a mobile device?
Unless new legislation has passed since I was there last, this isn't true. It's true for sundries and food below $50 or $100. It certainly does not apply to electronics at AU$1000, or to my knowledge, to electronics at all.
Websites are not responsible for pricing errors as long as it's caught prior to completion of the transaction. The key there is completion of the transaction--that's not when you click "buy" or when your card is authorized for the amount. It's when the product is invoiced and has shipped. If they don't catch it in that time, you're clear. But 99% of the time, they catch it between ordering and invoicing (most companies review invoices before issuing them for just this very reason since the process up until that point is wholly automated).
If such an error occurs after an order is placed, they will contact you. You can choose to accept the higher price and continue, cancel the order, or seek some sort of comp/freebie for the trouble. Just like you don't create a contract when you place an offer on a house or call in an order at a restaurant, clicking "buy" on a website doesn't complete a contract. It initiates one. For example, if your card is declined or if the product is out of stock, that's the end of it. A contract is not in place until your money has been taken (not merely authorized) and an irrevocable invoice for a product has been provided to you.
But you have to ask for permission first. Some of us don't like having to ask permission to use something we own. Asking yourself for permission hardly counts. YOU authorize YOUR account to be used on a computer YOU designate. Apple's only involvement is to limit those authorizations to five concurrent ones. You don't need anything for iPods or iPhones.
True, they should price their phone service more in line with their internet service. Blame AT&T for the pricing. The novelty here is access anywhere from your handheld device, which is how they'll try to pawn off the higher price.
True enough, emusic's catalog is much better. I like eMusic and their catalog. But iTunes has well over five million tracks from a tremendous number of popular artists. It's difficult, if not impossible, to make a case that eMusic has the better catalog, period. But if you cut out the big labels' cut on iTunes, you're left with 29 cents per song (using DRM numbers; it's not clear how much MORE money the labels take on the $1.29 tracks). That's basically on par with eMusic, so it works out the same for the artist.
1. That's the point. It's an extreme disincentive to the company, which must bear the burden of that waste. Further, most of these products don't end up in landfills, but are rather reproduced with the offending parts replaced and/or corrected. The company will only throw the product away if it is cheaper to do so from their end, which is the way society is set up.
2. Patently untrue. Taking money from the company is taking money from the company. If the company is so small that its offending product causes it to avoid paying its salaries, then it doesn't matter that production ceased--punitive damages in money would bankrupt the company and do the same. If the company is large enough not to be shut down by the monetary costs, then people still go to work and still get paid. The employees are the one who broke the law, and management must bear the responsibility for that deed. If management caves to the investors and violates their own consciences in the process, so be it. They know that they're the ones on the line. The investors don't demand that people break the law. Management does it so that the investors are pleased with financial results. Again, it's about money.
3. Moot. If the ruling is overturned, the action is avoided. Product is barred from sale immediately by court order, but orders to destroy are appealed. No company would comply with such an order while pending decision. If, for some reason, they destroyed product that is later determined salable, then the company can seek damages against the earlier prevailing party. If it has not been destroyed (as in the vast majority of cases), they can simply resume the sale of the product.
"Heavy handed actions like these" (recall and dismantling of merchandise) are extremely rare. You've still not demonstrated any logic as to how the system is broken OR dangerous based on this issue. The ability of a system to have both freedom and discretion to determine appropriate consequences is a sign of a functional system.
You're making a leap from an ostentatious demand (destruction of PS3s) that will never happen to some external issue. Of course the demand is bogus. Everyone knows that. They only way your view would even begin to make sense would be if a court had actually ordered the destruction of these products.
480p is considered part of the HDTV standard in the United States. EDTV is nothing more than a marketing term, and SDTV is 480i. EDTV is officially categorized to be part of the HDTV standard, since it requires more than a conventional television's capability (namely, progressive scan), whereas SDTV can work with any old CRT television assuming an appropriate STB.
It would also make some sense to include EDTV with SDTV in the US (since the resolution is more similar), but the whole point of creating a false "standard" in marketing lingo is to upsell--EDTV is supposed to be "better than" SDTV and it makes that distinction. They shy away from calling it "high definition" because of the aspect ratio and pixel size. However, enderandrew is correct that 480p is technically part of the HDTV standard in the US (just as 576p is 'technically' HDTV in Australia).
Why? Why should a company be protected from having to eat merchandise that doesn't comply? What difference does it make how the monetary damages are levied? What powers fail the justification test, and what is that test?
Guess who writes the budget? The Executive. Pick up any 8th grade social studies textbook or hell, just read the news every January.
The Office of Management and Budget is an Executive agency. THEY write the budget. Congress just changes some numbers around and puts it into action. The president is largely the one who pushes for funding and makes up the master plan--that's basically what the State of the Union is for. He names priorities which give a preview of the next budget cycle.
If you don't believe that, consider this: how are there "budget showdowns" with the president practically every year if Congress truly controls the money?
A court order requiring that businesses destroy what you yourself admit are usually unsafe items is proof that the human system is really useless.
You play at the level of the field. Humanity doesn't set the bar very high for an enlightened legal system.
Divorce yourself from the idea that patents shouldn't exist for a moment and accept that they do (you can return to your normal anti-IP machinations in a moment). Given that basic assumption, the conclusion is reasonable. If you enforce patents with a "don't do that!" notice, nothing happens. The company must either pay enough to be discouraged or it must be punished in some other way--destroying the unsold product and forced to mount a costly recall, for example. Capitalist companies respond more or less only to money; taking money away from them is the most effective way to get them to stop doing something wrong. In point of fact, strong consequences are a prerequisite to a functioning system, precisely contrary to your statement.
Violating a controlling law, be it a safety law, import law, consumer protection law, or even a patent makes a product unfit for sale. That's true even if 99.9% of your cans of chili are perfectly good. You might find patents absurd, but I'll bet that there's a group of people who think consumer protection laws are absurd, too. They could make a compelling case about free markets and personal responsibility, but at the end of the day, consumer laws aren't going anywhere and neither are patents, and all for good reason.
I would be happy to lend a hand where I can. My schedule is a bit erratic for the next few months as I switch gears and take on some new cases, but I'll get in touch.
As to the horizontal sort, it's really quite simple. Arrange the field headers in a row (like Firefox's bookmark bar, for example) with individual options in drop-down menus. For flexibility, include a collapsible side "drawer" which contains the options of the chosen sort mode. I'd be happy to provide some rough visual examples if this description is unclear.
That mockup is a wholesale ripoff. You keep saying you're not going after OS X and you don't want to invite comparisons, but then you do something like this.
Why do you have the rounded top corners in the menubar? It's mildly inconsistent in OS X, but it's 100% out of place in your mockup. What function does it serve? Unlike OS X, none of your windows have rounded edges. The audio icon, like another poster stated, is a complete recreation. You can't honestly say that there's no other way to convey an audio control or even a visual representation of a speaker. Why the black silhouettes for all the icons? Simplicity and contrast is a good idea to take away, but it can be accomplished in many other ways. What is the icon to the right of the clock? Presumably a search function. The buttons in the foreground window are nice, but shouldn't they embrace the same sharp lines as the windows and interface in general? The sidebar layout is the exact tree topography used by Apple, which can be improved (use horizontal sorting to prevent scrolling, to give one example).
If you want to provide something different, provide something different. There's not a single original idea in the mockup. The mockup is an improvement, but it's begging for even more OS X comparison because all of the improvements consist of taking more ideas from OS X (though in many cases more successfully than the current version).
Yes, currently, as opposed to "in this possible future where electronics are more integrated." It's not claiming to be a recent development that mechanical parts are sometimes interchangeable.
I understand that your website does not make that claim. I also indicated that the source of this could easily be the Slashdot editors. However, the top menu bar and inclusion of a dock is begging for someone to make that comparison, and coupled with the GNUstep use, it's something you must expect. The fact is that Slashdot is just as much about the ideas proposed by the summaries as it is about the material they link.
Being "just" a 0.2 release is meaningless, though. People do all sorts of things with version numbers these days. If you release a product to the public at any stage, criticism should be expected of that product as it exists. Anything and everything else promised or hinted by developers or on the website is vaporware until it's done. It also doesn't appear as though the site indicates a list of "known issues" or "future development plans." Moreover, the idea that the developers are aware of every issue is something that we all know is false.
I'm glad that you guys are trying your hand at something new. The UI basics you've chosen certainly are functional and familiar. But to expect that you know what you have to do already (particularly from a UI standpoint) is unrealistic, historically speaking. If you're serious about UI, I would suggest creating a separate visual layer mailing list and trying to get good interface designers and artists onboard as early as possible. Putting it on the "we'll get to it at the 'polish' stage" is perhaps the biggest reason FOSS UIs tend to suck so much. It needs to be part of the process from the very beginning, and it needs just as much time and attention as any other component. The "it's just a 0.2 release" excuse just doesn't fly. Good UI basics should be in place from the very first release just like good programming basics need to be in place.
Perhaps you should ask yourself what your problem is. You're the blustery, vitriol-spitting pig that makes Slashdot infamous as a hive of morons and assholes.
Needing or asking for a blessing is irrelevant. This is a discussion site, in case you hadn't noticed. The summary makes a proposition. People disagree with that proposition. I'm one of them. The idea that people should get a free pass because they're not paid to do it is likewise absurd. These developers are not children. They don't get a writeoff for failing to capture the essence and for missing the point. If they want to invite comparisons to other products and want to put something in the public eye, then they can accept the consequences that result, which includes criticism. It's not an arbitrary, empty, personal assault, much unlike your comment.
"My personal taste" is not a factor in this assessment. They're called basic design principles and are sorely misunderstood and violated by people at large. That's why not everyone is an architect or a designer or a sculptor. It's an art of subtlety, but as you clearly personify, there's no one more dense than an angry Slashdotter. "My personal taste" would be to avoid purple and flowers. "My personal taste" would involve a more dynamic menu bar that goes beyond the Mac metaphor. But you see, these aren't the issues with the project from a design standpoint. Part of a fair critique is looking at what it purports itself to be and seeing how well-realized that is. I don't like Gothic architecture, but I can certainly admire the success of a great Gothic revival piece.
The "yardstick," further, is clear: they (be they/. editors or developers) threw down the gauntlet and said "Mac-like" while coughing up a poor approximation. Success and failure are determined by their ability to capture the theme. It's abundantly clear that this is sorely lacking. If you disagree, then be a rational adult and do it. I've outlined a few of the many ways they fail to measure up. Demonstrate how they ARE Mac-like if you can. The summary put itself in with the big kids and it can't hold its weight. You can't seem to divorce yourself from your rabid feelings and don't seem to know anything about space and weight, to say nothing of design in general, so I won't hold my breath for an intelligent response.
While you're at it, cook up some rationale as to how thoughtful criticism is demeaning.
Wouldn't it still be more accurate to say that this project is GNUstep-like? Or GNUstep-based?
Its similarity to OS X is purely by virtue of it using GNUstep, which is Cocoa-like. Credit for "Mac-like" would therefore go to the GNUstep project, at least in my book. I certainly agree with your assessment of the context of the summary, and I think that I simply glossed over the underpinnings. Perhaps my definition of similarity is too strict. I simply assumed that everyone knew GNUstep was Cocoa-like and that these people were making the claim based on their UI. It hadn't occurred to me that they would just take the "Mac-like" title from their GNUstep underpinnings.
But the problem exists on that level as well. I confined my comments to the visual layer because that's what parent started with this thread. But these people seem to writing themselves into a corner and it's pretty easy to see how their frameworks are going to have to be wedged in with electronic equivalents of shims and compatibility layers to come back into the fold. They're writing a lot of their own stuff and making it, just like on the surface layer, an approximation of true interoperability.
GNUStep is reasonably compatible with NextStep which is reasonably compatible with Cocoa. They branched from a common ancestor and happen to be reasonably similar now. All the extra frameworks tossed in to this project looks to be a third fork more than a bridge between the two.
Accusations of non-existent karma whoring, aside, this is what you said:
ie, this law isn't going to prevent anyone with malicious intent from having and using a program like KisMac, but it will prevent people from using KisMac as a tool to learn and test their own network security. The argument might be made in both cases, but it's wrong in both cases.
Gun control laws DO prevent most people from having guns. They do NOT prevent people with legitimate uses for guns from having them. This law does NOT prevent tools like KisMac from being used by professionals or those who otherwise have permission. It DOES keep it out of the hands of punk kids and armchair/lazy hackers who cause nothing but trouble but aren't skilled or interested enough to hack it (pardon the pun) on their own.
The argument is just plain wrong on both sides. You're trying to use a decidedly flawed argument from the gun context in support of your views (or in defense of the OP's views) on the KisMac issue. That simply doesn't work.
Ubuntu is more Mac-like than this. This is the perfect example of just plain not getting it. Copying a general layout isn't good enough. Approximations of a user experience defined by close attention to detail and sound design principles are simply bound to failure. Just look at the screenshots. This UI has the exact same deficiencies as nearly every other window manager for Linux--poor typefaces, rendered poorly and positioned poorly. Manipulation elements that lack refinement. You've got flat icons on a flat background shoehorned into a plain rectangular space.
The "About" screen shows it all. The background image is unbalanced. That's fine. But the shadowbox on top of it is precisely centered. Those are clashing elements. The corners on that shadowbox are too rounded to appear crisp and too confined to appear smooth or blended. The "let your environment grow" text looks goofy and childish, and it doesn't seem related to anything. It should be superimposed on the image, above the gradient bar, or it should be boxed into a separate branding box somewhere. Right now, it's superfluous text, and it's a typical, ugly Linux text experience to boot.
I don't mean to be an art snob or to demean the people who doubtlessly worked hard on this. I certainly don't mean to imply that Linux's goals should be as heavily slanted toward the aesthetic as, say, OS X. But if you put *yourself* in the big kids' pool, be prepared to take it. This is amateur, uninspired, and completely misses the boat.
Neither Yolo nor Santa Clara County landfills charge for depositing these goods. There were no charges at collection sites in Contra Costa and San Francisco counties as well. These were all locations listed at the counties' respective waste disposal websites, at varying times and in varying quantities from two monitors to an entire pickup bed of decommissioned hardware.
The whole point of assessing this fee is so that waste collection sites will take these products without hassle and I have had no problems on approximately 10 such trips. The California state website established for this issue sets out the guidelines and shows how the collectors seek reimbursement from the state fund in accordance with this act. If it's a site designated for the purpose, you don't pay anything at the dropoff.
You probably went to a non-participating location or dealt with someone who didn't understand the program. There are 14 participating locations in your county according to DTSC. If your location is charging you AND collecting from the state, you should find somewhere else to take your old stuff.
Um, all the collection sites take the equipment for free. You drive in, tell them you have e-waste to dispose of, and they direct you to the bins. Toss it in and drive out. I've done this in four counties and never paid a single cent. That's sort of the whole point of the fee.
The simple solution in that case would be not to install the new version. The license text is available when it asks you if you want to update. It's available on their website at any time. It is, in fact, presented to you before the update downloads and then AGAIN after.
If you managed to be so lazy as to not take any of those opportunities to know what you're getting into, then you deserve what you get. Even at that point, though, you could also use any number of resources to get the older installer with the older user agreement that you agreed to, while continuing to use your purchases.
It's not duress, plain and simple, because you're not being forced to do anything with your existing purchases. There's no leverage on money spent by you and no one threatening to make worthless your investment. The songs you already purchased won't stop working if you don't update. You just won't be able to make NEW purchases if they make changes to the store.
Not at all. You said outlawing guns isn't going to stop people from shooting you. The evidence points to the contrary. Outlawing this would undoubtedly cut down on people breaking into networks.
What it's not going to stop are people determined to get what's on your network, so the gun argument is specious. Gun control laws are designed to cut back on "non-professional" or impulse-based murders. There's no illusion that an assassin or someone who has made the premeditated decision and plan to kill someone would be stopped by those laws. But the number of those deaths is quite small. The number of "professional" hackers is also small compared to the "hobbyists" and script kiddies who cause trouble because of the availability of tools to do so. They're neither smart nor determined enough to break in on their own.
I'm not saying this is an effective law to pass or that I support it. But the gun analogy is horribly wrong because a) it's not the same aim, and b) gun control laws DO stop people from gun homicides. Nine times out of ten, in fact, based on Canada's experience. That's a pretty effective and reasonable law.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really the case. Everyone got caught up in the filesharing craze--it was novel, easy, and fun. The funny part is that it would actually have been legal if people could exercise restraint. But many can't. It's how riots start and how people don't feel guilty for exploiting a flaw as long as someone else made it (the ATM issue recently, for example).
Honest people always, *always* pay for "it"--health care, vandalism, piracy, you name it. That's why it's in society's best interests to minimize problems. The lawsuits are serious mistakes and massive blows to any shred of credibility the industry organizations may have been clinging to, but they're not the only people involved. They're also only tangentially harmed by any counteractions. Ultimately, it's only the art and artists that are hurt, because no one is willing to engage a more complicated mechanism to deal with the actual problems.
There's a difference between not supporting these *AA dumbasses as you appear to have done and stealing from artists to "stick it" to them as huge tracts of Slashdot seem to think is appropriate.
Which is exactly why they feel they have to make it harder to copy. It doesn't cost anything, so the only thing they can do is throw the law around while simultaneously making it more difficult to copy.
Now, obviously the honor system doesn't work. If DRM vanished tomorrow, most Slashdotters would still keep downloading. It provides something to bitch about more than anything. The fundamental problem is that Slashdot has decided it doesn't like the media industry's business model. It doesn't actually have anything to do with DRM in the overwhelming majority of cases--precisely because every single kind of DRM has been cracked. It's not a real deterrent to Slashdot. But it's good for the go to pretend that it was supposed to be and you beat "the man."
The only real deterrent is the law, which is why there's all the sabre-rattling here. You don't want to pay for the content. You've all but declared it every single time this issue comes up. There aren't many people here who carve a rational balance. Most of you will continue getting it for free because a) you can and b) you don't think they deserve money in the first place (or "not as much as they charge" in the truest mob fashion). Rationalize all you want, but that's all it comes down to.
There need to be massive changes in the media industry. Lots of things which are fundamentally clear have become confused in the fiery rhetoric and the balance is wrong. But if you won't come to the table, why should they?
What do you mean? If you like eMusic, you can subscribe on your computer (for a substantially lower cost), and put the tracks on your iPhone through your entire music library. True, there's no direct client for the phone, but paying quadruple for being able to access the catalog anywhere doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure that other people would be happy to pay it, but I think this service is more for the regular phones which until now have not been able to act like "real" music players.
You've clearly never owned a smartphone. Plugging it into the computer is the way it's done. You install updates, ROM flashes, most third-party software, and do syncing and backup all through ActiveSync. It's a nice, proprietary application, too.
Mac users were screwed until someone created a hack that would let them work. Early Vista adopters (myself included) were screwed until after the retail release because Sync Center, which replaced ActiveSync, didn't actually do anything like, you know, syncing. Windows Mobile 6 does allow for over-the-air patching, but cell phone providers will still likely provide 50-60MB ROM images on their sites which require an actual computer to run--there isn't enough RAM to unpack and handle the installer for updates. Small patches delivered via CAB files are certainly one advantage to WM6.
What about Palm, which required Palm syncing software for the longest time? It was arbitrary and proprietary, too. Sony-Ericcson? Same deal.
The reality is that portable devices like this can't manage complete updates on their own. They can't stand alone all the time. You've still not addressed pre-update syncing and backup and how the device could handle restoring itself.
Yeah, because what everyone needs is a download or patching failure to brick their phone while they're traveling. Needing a computer allows you to backup/sync data beforehand and gives you the tools to do a restore if need be (for example, if a wonky hack bricks the update).
Just because data and an installer can be delivered doesn't mean it's a brilliant plan.
But I just have to ask: to whom has Apple sold out by requiring you to sit down at your computer to update a mobile device?
Unless new legislation has passed since I was there last, this isn't true. It's true for sundries and food below $50 or $100. It certainly does not apply to electronics at AU$1000, or to my knowledge, to electronics at all.
Websites are not responsible for pricing errors as long as it's caught prior to completion of the transaction. The key there is completion of the transaction--that's not when you click "buy" or when your card is authorized for the amount. It's when the product is invoiced and has shipped. If they don't catch it in that time, you're clear. But 99% of the time, they catch it between ordering and invoicing (most companies review invoices before issuing them for just this very reason since the process up until that point is wholly automated).
If such an error occurs after an order is placed, they will contact you. You can choose to accept the higher price and continue, cancel the order, or seek some sort of comp/freebie for the trouble. Just like you don't create a contract when you place an offer on a house or call in an order at a restaurant, clicking "buy" on a website doesn't complete a contract. It initiates one. For example, if your card is declined or if the product is out of stock, that's the end of it. A contract is not in place until your money has been taken (not merely authorized) and an irrevocable invoice for a product has been provided to you.
1. That's the point. It's an extreme disincentive to the company, which must bear the burden of that waste. Further, most of these products don't end up in landfills, but are rather reproduced with the offending parts replaced and/or corrected. The company will only throw the product away if it is cheaper to do so from their end, which is the way society is set up.
2. Patently untrue. Taking money from the company is taking money from the company. If the company is so small that its offending product causes it to avoid paying its salaries, then it doesn't matter that production ceased--punitive damages in money would bankrupt the company and do the same. If the company is large enough not to be shut down by the monetary costs, then people still go to work and still get paid. The employees are the one who broke the law, and management must bear the responsibility for that deed. If management caves to the investors and violates their own consciences in the process, so be it. They know that they're the ones on the line. The investors don't demand that people break the law. Management does it so that the investors are pleased with financial results. Again, it's about money.
3. Moot. If the ruling is overturned, the action is avoided. Product is barred from sale immediately by court order, but orders to destroy are appealed. No company would comply with such an order while pending decision. If, for some reason, they destroyed product that is later determined salable, then the company can seek damages against the earlier prevailing party. If it has not been destroyed (as in the vast majority of cases), they can simply resume the sale of the product.
"Heavy handed actions like these" (recall and dismantling of merchandise) are extremely rare. You've still not demonstrated any logic as to how the system is broken OR dangerous based on this issue. The ability of a system to have both freedom and discretion to determine appropriate consequences is a sign of a functional system.
You're making a leap from an ostentatious demand (destruction of PS3s) that will never happen to some external issue. Of course the demand is bogus. Everyone knows that. They only way your view would even begin to make sense would be if a court had actually ordered the destruction of these products.
480p is considered part of the HDTV standard in the United States. EDTV is nothing more than a marketing term, and SDTV is 480i. EDTV is officially categorized to be part of the HDTV standard, since it requires more than a conventional television's capability (namely, progressive scan), whereas SDTV can work with any old CRT television assuming an appropriate STB.
It would also make some sense to include EDTV with SDTV in the US (since the resolution is more similar), but the whole point of creating a false "standard" in marketing lingo is to upsell--EDTV is supposed to be "better than" SDTV and it makes that distinction. They shy away from calling it "high definition" because of the aspect ratio and pixel size. However, enderandrew is correct that 480p is technically part of the HDTV standard in the US (just as 576p is 'technically' HDTV in Australia).
Why? Why should a company be protected from having to eat merchandise that doesn't comply? What difference does it make how the monetary damages are levied? What powers fail the justification test, and what is that test?
Guess who writes the budget? The Executive. Pick up any 8th grade social studies textbook or hell, just read the news every January.
The Office of Management and Budget is an Executive agency. THEY write the budget. Congress just changes some numbers around and puts it into action. The president is largely the one who pushes for funding and makes up the master plan--that's basically what the State of the Union is for. He names priorities which give a preview of the next budget cycle.
If you don't believe that, consider this: how are there "budget showdowns" with the president practically every year if Congress truly controls the money?
A court order requiring that businesses destroy what you yourself admit are usually unsafe items is proof that the human system is really useless.
You play at the level of the field. Humanity doesn't set the bar very high for an enlightened legal system.
Divorce yourself from the idea that patents shouldn't exist for a moment and accept that they do (you can return to your normal anti-IP machinations in a moment). Given that basic assumption, the conclusion is reasonable. If you enforce patents with a "don't do that!" notice, nothing happens. The company must either pay enough to be discouraged or it must be punished in some other way--destroying the unsold product and forced to mount a costly recall, for example. Capitalist companies respond more or less only to money; taking money away from them is the most effective way to get them to stop doing something wrong. In point of fact, strong consequences are a prerequisite to a functioning system, precisely contrary to your statement.
Violating a controlling law, be it a safety law, import law, consumer protection law, or even a patent makes a product unfit for sale. That's true even if 99.9% of your cans of chili are perfectly good. You might find patents absurd, but I'll bet that there's a group of people who think consumer protection laws are absurd, too. They could make a compelling case about free markets and personal responsibility, but at the end of the day, consumer laws aren't going anywhere and neither are patents, and all for good reason.
I would be happy to lend a hand where I can. My schedule is a bit erratic for the next few months as I switch gears and take on some new cases, but I'll get in touch.
As to the horizontal sort, it's really quite simple. Arrange the field headers in a row (like Firefox's bookmark bar, for example) with individual options in drop-down menus. For flexibility, include a collapsible side "drawer" which contains the options of the chosen sort mode. I'd be happy to provide some rough visual examples if this description is unclear.
That mockup is a wholesale ripoff. You keep saying you're not going after OS X and you don't want to invite comparisons, but then you do something like this.
Why do you have the rounded top corners in the menubar? It's mildly inconsistent in OS X, but it's 100% out of place in your mockup. What function does it serve? Unlike OS X, none of your windows have rounded edges. The audio icon, like another poster stated, is a complete recreation. You can't honestly say that there's no other way to convey an audio control or even a visual representation of a speaker. Why the black silhouettes for all the icons? Simplicity and contrast is a good idea to take away, but it can be accomplished in many other ways. What is the icon to the right of the clock? Presumably a search function. The buttons in the foreground window are nice, but shouldn't they embrace the same sharp lines as the windows and interface in general? The sidebar layout is the exact tree topography used by Apple, which can be improved (use horizontal sorting to prevent scrolling, to give one example).
If you want to provide something different, provide something different. There's not a single original idea in the mockup. The mockup is an improvement, but it's begging for even more OS X comparison because all of the improvements consist of taking more ideas from OS X (though in many cases more successfully than the current version).
Yes, currently, as opposed to "in this possible future where electronics are more integrated." It's not claiming to be a recent development that mechanical parts are sometimes interchangeable.
I understand that your website does not make that claim. I also indicated that the source of this could easily be the Slashdot editors. However, the top menu bar and inclusion of a dock is begging for someone to make that comparison, and coupled with the GNUstep use, it's something you must expect. The fact is that Slashdot is just as much about the ideas proposed by the summaries as it is about the material they link.
Being "just" a 0.2 release is meaningless, though. People do all sorts of things with version numbers these days. If you release a product to the public at any stage, criticism should be expected of that product as it exists. Anything and everything else promised or hinted by developers or on the website is vaporware until it's done. It also doesn't appear as though the site indicates a list of "known issues" or "future development plans." Moreover, the idea that the developers are aware of every issue is something that we all know is false.
I'm glad that you guys are trying your hand at something new. The UI basics you've chosen certainly are functional and familiar. But to expect that you know what you have to do already (particularly from a UI standpoint) is unrealistic, historically speaking. If you're serious about UI, I would suggest creating a separate visual layer mailing list and trying to get good interface designers and artists onboard as early as possible. Putting it on the "we'll get to it at the 'polish' stage" is perhaps the biggest reason FOSS UIs tend to suck so much. It needs to be part of the process from the very beginning, and it needs just as much time and attention as any other component. The "it's just a 0.2 release" excuse just doesn't fly. Good UI basics should be in place from the very first release just like good programming basics need to be in place.
Perhaps you should ask yourself what your problem is. You're the blustery, vitriol-spitting pig that makes Slashdot infamous as a hive of morons and assholes.
/. editors or developers) threw down the gauntlet and said "Mac-like" while coughing up a poor approximation. Success and failure are determined by their ability to capture the theme. It's abundantly clear that this is sorely lacking. If you disagree, then be a rational adult and do it. I've outlined a few of the many ways they fail to measure up. Demonstrate how they ARE Mac-like if you can. The summary put itself in with the big kids and it can't hold its weight. You can't seem to divorce yourself from your rabid feelings and don't seem to know anything about space and weight, to say nothing of design in general, so I won't hold my breath for an intelligent response.
Needing or asking for a blessing is irrelevant. This is a discussion site, in case you hadn't noticed. The summary makes a proposition. People disagree with that proposition. I'm one of them. The idea that people should get a free pass because they're not paid to do it is likewise absurd. These developers are not children. They don't get a writeoff for failing to capture the essence and for missing the point. If they want to invite comparisons to other products and want to put something in the public eye, then they can accept the consequences that result, which includes criticism. It's not an arbitrary, empty, personal assault, much unlike your comment.
"My personal taste" is not a factor in this assessment. They're called basic design principles and are sorely misunderstood and violated by people at large. That's why not everyone is an architect or a designer or a sculptor. It's an art of subtlety, but as you clearly personify, there's no one more dense than an angry Slashdotter. "My personal taste" would be to avoid purple and flowers. "My personal taste" would involve a more dynamic menu bar that goes beyond the Mac metaphor. But you see, these aren't the issues with the project from a design standpoint. Part of a fair critique is looking at what it purports itself to be and seeing how well-realized that is. I don't like Gothic architecture, but I can certainly admire the success of a great Gothic revival piece.
The "yardstick," further, is clear: they (be they
While you're at it, cook up some rationale as to how thoughtful criticism is demeaning.
Wouldn't it still be more accurate to say that this project is GNUstep-like? Or GNUstep-based?
Its similarity to OS X is purely by virtue of it using GNUstep, which is Cocoa-like. Credit for "Mac-like" would therefore go to the GNUstep project, at least in my book. I certainly agree with your assessment of the context of the summary, and I think that I simply glossed over the underpinnings. Perhaps my definition of similarity is too strict. I simply assumed that everyone knew GNUstep was Cocoa-like and that these people were making the claim based on their UI. It hadn't occurred to me that they would just take the "Mac-like" title from their GNUstep underpinnings.
But the problem exists on that level as well. I confined my comments to the visual layer because that's what parent started with this thread. But these people seem to writing themselves into a corner and it's pretty easy to see how their frameworks are going to have to be wedged in with electronic equivalents of shims and compatibility layers to come back into the fold. They're writing a lot of their own stuff and making it, just like on the surface layer, an approximation of true interoperability.
GNUStep is reasonably compatible with NextStep which is reasonably compatible with Cocoa. They branched from a common ancestor and happen to be reasonably similar now. All the extra frameworks tossed in to this project looks to be a third fork more than a bridge between the two.
Gun control laws DO prevent most people from having guns. They do NOT prevent people with legitimate uses for guns from having them. This law does NOT prevent tools like KisMac from being used by professionals or those who otherwise have permission. It DOES keep it out of the hands of punk kids and armchair/lazy hackers who cause nothing but trouble but aren't skilled or interested enough to hack it (pardon the pun) on their own.
The argument is just plain wrong on both sides. You're trying to use a decidedly flawed argument from the gun context in support of your views (or in defense of the OP's views) on the KisMac issue. That simply doesn't work.
Parent is not a troll.
Ubuntu is more Mac-like than this. This is the perfect example of just plain not getting it. Copying a general layout isn't good enough. Approximations of a user experience defined by close attention to detail and sound design principles are simply bound to failure. Just look at the screenshots. This UI has the exact same deficiencies as nearly every other window manager for Linux--poor typefaces, rendered poorly and positioned poorly. Manipulation elements that lack refinement. You've got flat icons on a flat background shoehorned into a plain rectangular space.
The "About" screen shows it all. The background image is unbalanced. That's fine. But the shadowbox on top of it is precisely centered. Those are clashing elements. The corners on that shadowbox are too rounded to appear crisp and too confined to appear smooth or blended. The "let your environment grow" text looks goofy and childish, and it doesn't seem related to anything. It should be superimposed on the image, above the gradient bar, or it should be boxed into a separate branding box somewhere. Right now, it's superfluous text, and it's a typical, ugly Linux text experience to boot.
I don't mean to be an art snob or to demean the people who doubtlessly worked hard on this. I certainly don't mean to imply that Linux's goals should be as heavily slanted toward the aesthetic as, say, OS X. But if you put *yourself* in the big kids' pool, be prepared to take it. This is amateur, uninspired, and completely misses the boat.
Neither Yolo nor Santa Clara County landfills charge for depositing these goods. There were no charges at collection sites in Contra Costa and San Francisco counties as well. These were all locations listed at the counties' respective waste disposal websites, at varying times and in varying quantities from two monitors to an entire pickup bed of decommissioned hardware.
The whole point of assessing this fee is so that waste collection sites will take these products without hassle and I have had no problems on approximately 10 such trips. The California state website established for this issue sets out the guidelines and shows how the collectors seek reimbursement from the state fund in accordance with this act. If it's a site designated for the purpose, you don't pay anything at the dropoff.
You probably went to a non-participating location or dealt with someone who didn't understand the program. There are 14 participating locations in your county according to DTSC. If your location is charging you AND collecting from the state, you should find somewhere else to take your old stuff.
Um, all the collection sites take the equipment for free. You drive in, tell them you have e-waste to dispose of, and they direct you to the bins. Toss it in and drive out. I've done this in four counties and never paid a single cent. That's sort of the whole point of the fee.
The simple solution in that case would be not to install the new version. The license text is available when it asks you if you want to update. It's available on their website at any time. It is, in fact, presented to you before the update downloads and then AGAIN after.
If you managed to be so lazy as to not take any of those opportunities to know what you're getting into, then you deserve what you get. Even at that point, though, you could also use any number of resources to get the older installer with the older user agreement that you agreed to, while continuing to use your purchases.
It's not duress, plain and simple, because you're not being forced to do anything with your existing purchases. There's no leverage on money spent by you and no one threatening to make worthless your investment. The songs you already purchased won't stop working if you don't update. You just won't be able to make NEW purchases if they make changes to the store.
Not at all. You said outlawing guns isn't going to stop people from shooting you. The evidence points to the contrary. Outlawing this would undoubtedly cut down on people breaking into networks.
What it's not going to stop are people determined to get what's on your network, so the gun argument is specious. Gun control laws are designed to cut back on "non-professional" or impulse-based murders. There's no illusion that an assassin or someone who has made the premeditated decision and plan to kill someone would be stopped by those laws. But the number of those deaths is quite small. The number of "professional" hackers is also small compared to the "hobbyists" and script kiddies who cause trouble because of the availability of tools to do so. They're neither smart nor determined enough to break in on their own.
I'm not saying this is an effective law to pass or that I support it. But the gun analogy is horribly wrong because a) it's not the same aim, and b) gun control laws DO stop people from gun homicides. Nine times out of ten, in fact, based on Canada's experience. That's a pretty effective and reasonable law.