Despite the examples given in the parent, I can't honestly think of a single practical use for an input device like this (as has been mentioned, Microsoft has a really warped idea of what qualifies as a "GUI"). I mean what would you use it for? A mouse may not be the perfect hardware for controlling your virtual world, but it's amazingly versatile. You can also let go of a mouse. I can just imagine a surgeon using this and then having to sneeze, or playing WoW with your new MUI device getting killed because you had to scratch your nose during combat. Driving?! Are they insane?? If you're not moving your hands from the wheel, what part of you IS moving?! I don't often flex my muscles while driving as that can often lead to involuntary sudden deceleration.
I said it is information (hard to disagree on that one) and hence it is free to copy. It *is*, not it *should*. Stating a fact is not showing an opinion on whether it's a good thing or not. I'm saying that in my opinion it is inevitable. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing.
So yes, those were my words, and my name was on the post, and I still stand by them. What I don't stand by is your interpretation of my words.
The problem with your wording is the arrogance of assuming that something is a "fact" and then using your "fact" to prove your own point. My entire disagreement with your original post was over your assumption that "talking freely" with your neighbor equates to "free speech", and that "any" information includes copyrighted (or even uncopyrighted) movies, MP3's or digital books (not sure how you would "say" a digital file to your neighbor over the fence, but whatever...). You said, "If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information." EVERY ONE of those statements is a personal assumption, NOT a "fact." Indeed, I would go so far as to say every one of those statements is incorrect, but that's another post. You can call it an "interpretation" if you want, but it still doesn't make your words any more "factual".
You went on to say: "Trying to prevent someone to distribute a digital book (for non profit) is the equivalent of preventing him/her to have free speech." I'm not sure what "profit" has to do with it since copyright law does not limit itself only to those who would seek to make a profit from the reproduction of another's works, but again, not really the point, and again an incorrect assumption.
It works for music, why shouldn't it work for books?
You assume based on your previous "facts", that books and music are the same, chiefly "data", and since all forms of communication are merely "data", that you should be able to use the same rules, regulations and means of legal distribution, and that is complete and utter nonsense. A book is not a song- different medium, different industry, different marketing, different rules and regs. That's why.
I am aware of this. Case in point: My wife, who is also an author wrote a novel through a publisher who, among other idiocies, decided to use as a marketing strategy that you could return the book to the publisher no questions asked for a full refund. The problem was, this was NOT something mentioned in the book contract beyond the generic blanket of "marketing". They even made little stickers that were included on the cover stating the deal. Of course, the publisher, not wanting to take a hit on profits, simply claimed these "returns" in the same category as unsold bookstore returns which are then placed against the author's profits, not the publishing house. It would be easy to say that yes, they were "returns", when in actuality, it's a nice little trick to keep an author's royalty payments down while they invest the money for interest.
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works.
Then it's good that I never stated that! Your mistake is in the 'should'. I said that I believe that nobody will be able to stop the information flow, nothing else. It's a belief in what will happen, not a wishful thinking.
Actually, yes, you did state that, or implied as much. Simply because you didn't use the word "I" doesn't mean you aren't held accountable for the implications of your words. YOU were making a statement about free speech and it's relationship to digital works. Whether you personally believe in the concept you are presenting, they are still your words and your name is on the post.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
Right. Because the "try before you buy" idea for a book has worked so well in the past... Have you ever actually published a book? Do you know how rare it is for an author to make any profits off of royalties? Do you know why that is? Publishers subtract books "returned" from books sold, and frankly, an amazing number of people return books that they have read. It's so easy to say, "they return them because you're a lame author." But this isn't even the case (oh, who knows, *I* may indeed be a lame author), because I see this with every other author I have ever talked to. But even if the author IS lame, why is it acceptable to return a book you have already read, and not software you have already purchased, copied to and used on your computer? Or for that matter, even music.
And for reference, I'm not advocating DRM for books. I hate it for many of the same reasons that you do. But as an author, I can honestly say that free digital books won't work if writers expect to actually make a living from writing. I wish there was an alternative, like maybe being able to permanently mark a digital book with the name of it's owner (I do that with my paper books) such that you can give it away or copy it as much as you like, but YOUR name is going on those copies.
Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing)
He was referencing the founders of the United States who write its constitution. And your "effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry" is entirely bogus. It is a positive effect, not a negative one. Doctorow gives his books away for free on his website, yet is on the New Your Times bestseller list. Care to explain that one, Einstein?
Sure, he's on the bestseller list because A: he's a very good writer, B: he has a crackerjack publisher who is willing to take risks, and C: he knows that the majority of those who read books are still mostly clueless when it comes to pirating digital books on the net. His books work this way because he is one of the only people doing it. If his idea caught on and everyone started giving away free digital copies of their books, I highly doubt most people would bother to buy them anymore. The concept works as an marketing tool the same way that any marketing concept works. As soon as it's stale, it's stops being effective. More so, the market is changing radically. Digital readers are coming out in droves, and people are very much more receptive to viewing books digitally than they were even two years ago. Sure, I may still want a physical copy of a good book for my library, but even that is becoming less appealing as the publishing industry "compensates" for the supposed lost revenue from piracy by raising yet again the price of paper books.
Logic alone is often completely trumped by pop market culture...
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works. 99.9% of all authors do NOT live lavish lifestyles. It's a living, but usually, not a very good one. I would love to be able to distribute my works digitally, but I know that for every 1 copy I actually sell, 10 people will download it for free off a USENET group or website. Sure, people could do the same thing with a paper book and a copy machine, but it took time and effort, and the end result was usually something that was less than the original. Today, I can make a perfect copy nearly instantly and put it up on the net so that it is forever available to anyone with a net connection for free, irrevocably. Once it's out there, it's out there, and anyone with half a brain can find it. I think I may be in the growing minority of people that still prefer to read books without batteries, so my chances of ever making more than a ghost of a profit off a publication is next to nil once a work has gone DRM'less on the net. And you wonder why authors are scared? And no, most authors don't spends years of their time and an amazing amount of frustration publishing a work simply for the joy of seeing it in print. Sure, that's wonderful, but I'd like to be able to eat now and again as well, so yeah, I'm in it for the money.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
Well, do people really worry if Google will collapse if Sergey or Larry were to leave? Can you say the same thing for Jobs and Apple?
Any company is only going to be as good as it's collective talent, but Jobs has done what most CEO's only wish they could do. He took a company that was teetering on the edge of oblivion and not only turned them around, but shaped them into a force that has completely changed the way that people listen to music. Then he did it AGAIN with the iPhone. Entire industries watch and wait to see what he's going to pull out of his magic hat next. Like him or not, the guy in the turtleneck DOES deliver.
This was a poll for "person" of the decade, NOT "company" of the decade. Can you really say that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are directly responsible for Google's success? Or was it a collaborative effort on the part of the company and the hundreds of brilliant minds they employ?
But taken the other way, you CAN say that Jobs is directly responsible for Apple's success. His leadership, vision, and overbearing micro-management style has directly mastered where Apple is today.
It would be interesting if these "glitter cells" could be suspended in some kind of "paint" or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile. The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car, for example.
Because we all want cars that look like they were manufactured by Mattel.
Also remember that last year's cell phones are about as popular used gum, and just as hard to sell to the American cell market. It's for this reason that Verizon has it's "New Every Two" deal where they give you a big break on a new phone ever two years. They want you to be in the habit of thinking of phones as having a one or two-year shelf life, when most of us would be perfectly happy holding on to the phone we have for as long as five. But you BETTER buy a new phone every two years or they're going to be stuck with a whole bunch of useless hardware that they can't sell. They charge you a ton to leave not to subsidize the phones they SELL, but rather to subsidize they phones they DON'T SELL. If you buy a phone use it for a while and cancel, they might break even on the deal (probably more than that) but they lose big time if they end up with branded hardware they can't sell at all.
... for the last 15 years and didn't notice that, well, every damn company on the web was violating their patent. You should only be able to claim damages from the time you file a suit. Sorry you waited until now to get off your asses and do something about it.
I am constantly blown away that the telcos seem to have forgotten one basic rule of good business: give the people what they want. Mind you, I'm talking about the idea that it's better to make your customers happy than it is to get the most profit out of them. Telcos have fallen into the idea that they must simply find ways in which to entice people to buy their expensive phones and data plans (ie:marketing), instead of turning it around and asking, what can we actually give to the customer that would make them happy to be with us? How many people would jump on the iPhone in a heartbeat if they simply said, you know what, we're going to give you bandwidth up to 5GB/mo. FOR FREE. It's part of the same basic plan. You buy the phone, you get the bandwidth. I know, I know... the contract subsidizes the hardware, but it you OWN the market share, who freaking cares! People are being nickel and dimed to death. And they HATE IT. They HATE their carrier. Congratulations AT&T, you have found the perfect way to make people despise you. Way to go! Your marketing department should be proud!
My daughter recently brought home a Jr. High level biology textbook that was bigger than the ones I had in college as a microbiology major. It had a hard cover with an 8 in. hologram and foil-stamped embossing. Having worked in a high school library, I can understand the hard cover. Kids are hard on textbooks. However, when I was in school our teachers actually told us to take care of the damn things and that we would be held responsible for excessive damages. They gave us covers and encouraged us to use them. Still, I weep that the school was suckered into paying for all those fancy printing extras, especially given that the content hasn't changed all that much since I was learning it, at least at that level. Grade school textbooks are nothing more than the publishing industry's last gasp chance to suck every penny out of a system they have been raping with impunity for decades. Forget ebooks, I want to see more of the free government funded and approved public domain textbooks that you can get online. You need another copy of your science textbook, here, I'll burn you a CD. No laptop or ereader? No problem, I'll just print one out for you for the cost of the paper. Harcourt Brace et al can kiss my fanny!
Hmm. Yes, your property, but NOT your network. You are completely free to throw your iPhone into a blender and make it into soup, but you assume that someone jailbreaking an iPhone is NOT going to use it (and the network it happens to be attached to) for purposes it was not intended for, such as playing movies direct from Hulu. The "owner" of the network subsidized phone may decide to stay with AT&T, or they may take that subsidized phone to a competitor, which would make AT&T look pretty foolish, yes?
Wow, whooosh! I'll say it again, slowly. The guy was an idiot. He should not have been using a school computer for personal use. BUT that is so completely not the point! We, in this thing we call civilization, have laws and procedures and authorities so that when we suspect that someone might be doing something we deem as "wrong", we can pass that feeling on to those in charge and THEY can decide if action is required. ANYTHING else is called a "witch hunt", or a "coup", or even a "revolution", but it is hardly something to be proud of or paraded in front of the public as a shining example of community good. This moderator basically bypassed not only his own employer's TOS, but may very well have opened them up to a civil lawsuit. But even more importantly, he violated the trust of the readers and posters of his forum. He took it upon himself to decide what was "right" instead of taking it to the authorities, and he did so in a legally binding work environment. Sure, the guy at the school got what he deserved... Karma's a bitch, but the moderator's actions border on the criminal and are certainly grounds for dismissal in any professional work environment.
If the poll was about late-term abortion, which is as heated an issue as simple obscenities, would you still feel the paper was justified in hunting this guy down and exposing him to his employers?
The guy was an idiot for using a school computer for personal comments, and certainly violating school policy (right or wrong) but the paper was WAY out of line for violating not only their own TOS, but an implied trust of anonymity within their online system. The subject matter simply doesn't matter. The guy at the paper is the one who should have resigned, or been fired.
I am amazed at the responses here on/. This is completely not about this moron's use of vulgarity. Of course he's an idiot, that's a given. More important is the fact that a paper gave what was supposed to be an anonymous poll with an obviously baiting question, and then used that information to track this guy down and ruin his life. In this case it was about some obscenities, but what's to say this couldn't have been about say, late-term abortion, or gay rights? Would you want someone tracking you down and exposing you over that information? Those topics are AT LEAST as enraging today as a couple of obscenities. The school employee was an idiot, but the guy at the newspaper is the one who should be arrested.
...It's because their products have a history being user-friendly and bringing the power of traditional tech-only gadgetry to those who either can't or won't learn a more complex device.
"More complex" being what?... Less user friendly? I have an old LG phone that takes five clicks just to get to the contact list (or you can scroll through an obtuse and confusing menu system). Does that make it more complex than an iPhone? If that's the case, then hell yes, go Apple.
But I agree, if Apple tried to push this foolishness on any product of theirs that I might own, it would be a doorstop in a week. Maybe (and that's a really big maybe) if they gave me the phone, and the service to use it FOR FREE, I might put up with that.
So, what you're basically saying is that Apple designs their interfaces to be intuitive, and Microsoft... doesn't.
Yup, that pretty much covers it.
But to be fair, you have to remember that Microsoft wasn't originally targeting yuppy thirty-somthethings and college students, they were going for business programmers and well, nerds. This is a completely different audience than Apple, and frankly, they hit the mark. Nerds don't want intuitive. Nerds want it the way they want it. This kind of interface is great for a logical thinker who can remember where they buried that TPS report, but not so hot for a non-programer who still confuses RAM with drive storage.
Hmmm... You could measure (somehow) the number of people who were pissed off that their computer was infected/hacked/etc.. by their web browser. After all, it's the end result that matters, not so much the vulnerability itself. (Customer complaints perhaps?) Of course, that assumes that the average user would even be aware that they are infected/hacked/etc...
Being color deficient myself, I want to strangle whoever in California decided it would be a good idea to make a RED ARROW. Color problems aside, what the frak is that supposed to mean?! "Go... NO WAIT!"
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the examples given in the parent, I can't honestly think of a single practical use for an input device like this (as has been mentioned, Microsoft has a really warped idea of what qualifies as a "GUI"). I mean what would you use it for? A mouse may not be the perfect hardware for controlling your virtual world, but it's amazingly versatile. You can also let go of a mouse. I can just imagine a surgeon using this and then having to sneeze, or playing WoW with your new MUI device getting killed because you had to scratch your nose during combat. Driving?! Are they insane?? If you're not moving your hands from the wheel, what part of you IS moving?! I don't often flex my muscles while driving as that can often lead to involuntary sudden deceleration.
I said it is information (hard to disagree on that one) and hence it is free to copy. It *is*, not it *should*. Stating a fact is not showing an opinion on whether it's a good thing or not. I'm saying that in my opinion it is inevitable. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing.
So yes, those were my words, and my name was on the post, and I still stand by them. What I don't stand by is your interpretation of my words.
The problem with your wording is the arrogance of assuming that something is a "fact" and then using your "fact" to prove your own point. My entire disagreement with your original post was over your assumption that "talking freely" with your neighbor equates to "free speech", and that "any" information includes copyrighted (or even uncopyrighted) movies, MP3's or digital books (not sure how you would "say" a digital file to your neighbor over the fence, but whatever...). You said, "If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information." EVERY ONE of those statements is a personal assumption, NOT a "fact." Indeed, I would go so far as to say every one of those statements is incorrect, but that's another post. You can call it an "interpretation" if you want, but it still doesn't make your words any more "factual".
You went on to say: "Trying to prevent someone to distribute a digital book (for non profit) is the equivalent of preventing him/her to have free speech." I'm not sure what "profit" has to do with it since copyright law does not limit itself only to those who would seek to make a profit from the reproduction of another's works, but again, not really the point, and again an incorrect assumption.
It works for music, why shouldn't it work for books?
You assume based on your previous "facts", that books and music are the same, chiefly "data", and since all forms of communication are merely "data", that you should be able to use the same rules, regulations and means of legal distribution, and that is complete and utter nonsense. A book is not a song- different medium, different industry, different marketing, different rules and regs. That's why.
I am aware of this. Case in point: My wife, who is also an author wrote a novel through a publisher who, among other idiocies, decided to use as a marketing strategy that you could return the book to the publisher no questions asked for a full refund. The problem was, this was NOT something mentioned in the book contract beyond the generic blanket of "marketing". They even made little stickers that were included on the cover stating the deal. Of course, the publisher, not wanting to take a hit on profits, simply claimed these "returns" in the same category as unsold bookstore returns which are then placed against the author's profits, not the publishing house. It would be easy to say that yes, they were "returns", when in actuality, it's a nice little trick to keep an author's royalty payments down while they invest the money for interest.
This was Harper Collins, btw.
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works.
Then it's good that I never stated that! Your mistake is in the 'should'. I said that I believe that nobody will be able to stop the information flow, nothing else. It's a belief in what will happen, not a wishful thinking.
Actually, yes, you did state that, or implied as much. Simply because you didn't use the word "I" doesn't mean you aren't held accountable for the implications of your words. YOU were making a statement about free speech and it's relationship to digital works. Whether you personally believe in the concept you are presenting, they are still your words and your name is on the post.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
Right. Because the "try before you buy" idea for a book has worked so well in the past... Have you ever actually published a book? Do you know how rare it is for an author to make any profits off of royalties? Do you know why that is? Publishers subtract books "returned" from books sold, and frankly, an amazing number of people return books that they have read. It's so easy to say, "they return them because you're a lame author." But this isn't even the case (oh, who knows, *I* may indeed be a lame author), because I see this with every other author I have ever talked to. But even if the author IS lame, why is it acceptable to return a book you have already read, and not software you have already purchased, copied to and used on your computer? Or for that matter, even music.
And for reference, I'm not advocating DRM for books. I hate it for many of the same reasons that you do. But as an author, I can honestly say that free digital books won't work if writers expect to actually make a living from writing. I wish there was an alternative, like maybe being able to permanently mark a digital book with the name of it's owner (I do that with my paper books) such that you can give it away or copy it as much as you like, but YOUR name is going on those copies.
I hear what you're saying, but unfortunately, the world you dream of is composed of people who value their convenience more than they do your profits.
Cory's Sacred Ancestors (or whoever the hell he was referencing)
He was referencing the founders of the United States who write its constitution. And your "effect the scanning and distribution of a book to 100,000 strangers on the Internet would have on the publishing industry" is entirely bogus. It is a positive effect, not a negative one. Doctorow gives his books away for free on his website, yet is on the New Your Times bestseller list. Care to explain that one, Einstein?
Sure, he's on the bestseller list because A: he's a very good writer, B: he has a crackerjack publisher who is willing to take risks, and C: he knows that the majority of those who read books are still mostly clueless when it comes to pirating digital books on the net. His books work this way because he is one of the only people doing it. If his idea caught on and everyone started giving away free digital copies of their books, I highly doubt most people would bother to buy them anymore. The concept works as an marketing tool the same way that any marketing concept works. As soon as it's stale, it's stops being effective. More so, the market is changing radically. Digital readers are coming out in droves, and people are very much more receptive to viewing books digitally than they were even two years ago. Sure, I may still want a physical copy of a good book for my library, but even that is becoming less appealing as the publishing industry "compensates" for the supposed lost revenue from piracy by raising yet again the price of paper books.
Logic alone is often completely trumped by pop market culture...
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works. 99.9% of all authors do NOT live lavish lifestyles. It's a living, but usually, not a very good one. I would love to be able to distribute my works digitally, but I know that for every 1 copy I actually sell, 10 people will download it for free off a USENET group or website. Sure, people could do the same thing with a paper book and a copy machine, but it took time and effort, and the end result was usually something that was less than the original. Today, I can make a perfect copy nearly instantly and put it up on the net so that it is forever available to anyone with a net connection for free, irrevocably. Once it's out there, it's out there, and anyone with half a brain can find it. I think I may be in the growing minority of people that still prefer to read books without batteries, so my chances of ever making more than a ghost of a profit off a publication is next to nil once a work has gone DRM'less on the net. And you wonder why authors are scared? And no, most authors don't spends years of their time and an amazing amount of frustration publishing a work simply for the joy of seeing it in print. Sure, that's wonderful, but I'd like to be able to eat now and again as well, so yeah, I'm in it for the money.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
Well, do people really worry if Google will collapse if Sergey or Larry were to leave? Can you say the same thing for Jobs and Apple?
Any company is only going to be as good as it's collective talent, but Jobs has done what most CEO's only wish they could do. He took a company that was teetering on the edge of oblivion and not only turned them around, but shaped them into a force that has completely changed the way that people listen to music. Then he did it AGAIN with the iPhone. Entire industries watch and wait to see what he's going to pull out of his magic hat next. Like him or not, the guy in the turtleneck DOES deliver.
This was a poll for "person" of the decade, NOT "company" of the decade. Can you really say that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are directly responsible for Google's success? Or was it a collaborative effort on the part of the company and the hundreds of brilliant minds they employ? But taken the other way, you CAN say that Jobs is directly responsible for Apple's success. His leadership, vision, and overbearing micro-management style has directly mastered where Apple is today.
It would be interesting if these "glitter cells" could be suspended in some kind of "paint" or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile. The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car, for example.
Because we all want cars that look like they were manufactured by Mattel.
Also remember that last year's cell phones are about as popular used gum, and just as hard to sell to the American cell market. It's for this reason that Verizon has it's "New Every Two" deal where they give you a big break on a new phone ever two years. They want you to be in the habit of thinking of phones as having a one or two-year shelf life, when most of us would be perfectly happy holding on to the phone we have for as long as five. But you BETTER buy a new phone every two years or they're going to be stuck with a whole bunch of useless hardware that they can't sell. They charge you a ton to leave not to subsidize the phones they SELL, but rather to subsidize they phones they DON'T SELL. If you buy a phone use it for a while and cancel, they might break even on the deal (probably more than that) but they lose big time if they end up with branded hardware they can't sell at all.
... for the last 15 years and didn't notice that, well, every damn company on the web was violating their patent. You should only be able to claim damages from the time you file a suit. Sorry you waited until now to get off your asses and do something about it.
I am constantly blown away that the telcos seem to have forgotten one basic rule of good business: give the people what they want. Mind you, I'm talking about the idea that it's better to make your customers happy than it is to get the most profit out of them. Telcos have fallen into the idea that they must simply find ways in which to entice people to buy their expensive phones and data plans (ie:marketing), instead of turning it around and asking, what can we actually give to the customer that would make them happy to be with us? How many people would jump on the iPhone in a heartbeat if they simply said, you know what, we're going to give you bandwidth up to 5GB/mo. FOR FREE. It's part of the same basic plan. You buy the phone, you get the bandwidth. I know, I know... the contract subsidizes the hardware, but it you OWN the market share, who freaking cares! People are being nickel and dimed to death. And they HATE IT. They HATE their carrier. Congratulations AT&T, you have found the perfect way to make people despise you. Way to go! Your marketing department should be proud!
Given Palm's recent thumbing their nose at Apple and iTunes, all I can say is, "ha ha".
My daughter recently brought home a Jr. High level biology textbook that was bigger than the ones I had in college as a microbiology major. It had a hard cover with an 8 in. hologram and foil-stamped embossing. Having worked in a high school library, I can understand the hard cover. Kids are hard on textbooks. However, when I was in school our teachers actually told us to take care of the damn things and that we would be held responsible for excessive damages. They gave us covers and encouraged us to use them. Still, I weep that the school was suckered into paying for all those fancy printing extras, especially given that the content hasn't changed all that much since I was learning it, at least at that level. Grade school textbooks are nothing more than the publishing industry's last gasp chance to suck every penny out of a system they have been raping with impunity for decades. Forget ebooks, I want to see more of the free government funded and approved public domain textbooks that you can get online. You need another copy of your science textbook, here, I'll burn you a CD. No laptop or ereader? No problem, I'll just print one out for you for the cost of the paper. Harcourt Brace et al can kiss my fanny!
"The LHC was shut down again today due to an accident involving a champagne cork."
Hmm. Yes, your property, but NOT your network. You are completely free to throw your iPhone into a blender and make it into soup, but you assume that someone jailbreaking an iPhone is NOT going to use it (and the network it happens to be attached to) for purposes it was not intended for, such as playing movies direct from Hulu. The "owner" of the network subsidized phone may decide to stay with AT&T, or they may take that subsidized phone to a competitor, which would make AT&T look pretty foolish, yes?
Wow, whooosh! I'll say it again, slowly. The guy was an idiot. He should not have been using a school computer for personal use. BUT that is so completely not the point! We, in this thing we call civilization, have laws and procedures and authorities so that when we suspect that someone might be doing something we deem as "wrong", we can pass that feeling on to those in charge and THEY can decide if action is required. ANYTHING else is called a "witch hunt", or a "coup", or even a "revolution", but it is hardly something to be proud of or paraded in front of the public as a shining example of community good. This moderator basically bypassed not only his own employer's TOS, but may very well have opened them up to a civil lawsuit. But even more importantly, he violated the trust of the readers and posters of his forum. He took it upon himself to decide what was "right" instead of taking it to the authorities, and he did so in a legally binding work environment. Sure, the guy at the school got what he deserved... Karma's a bitch, but the moderator's actions border on the criminal and are certainly grounds for dismissal in any professional work environment.
If the poll was about late-term abortion, which is as heated an issue as simple obscenities, would you still feel the paper was justified in hunting this guy down and exposing him to his employers? The guy was an idiot for using a school computer for personal comments, and certainly violating school policy (right or wrong) but the paper was WAY out of line for violating not only their own TOS, but an implied trust of anonymity within their online system. The subject matter simply doesn't matter. The guy at the paper is the one who should have resigned, or been fired.
I am amazed at the responses here on /. This is completely not about this moron's use of vulgarity. Of course he's an idiot, that's a given. More important is the fact that a paper gave what was supposed to be an anonymous poll with an obviously baiting question, and then used that information to track this guy down and ruin his life. In this case it was about some obscenities, but what's to say this couldn't have been about say, late-term abortion, or gay rights? Would you want someone tracking you down and exposing you over that information? Those topics are AT LEAST as enraging today as a couple of obscenities. The school employee was an idiot, but the guy at the newspaper is the one who should be arrested.
...It's because their products have a history being user-friendly and bringing the power of traditional tech-only gadgetry to those who either can't or won't learn a more complex device.
"More complex" being what?... Less user friendly? I have an old LG phone that takes five clicks just to get to the contact list (or you can scroll through an obtuse and confusing menu system). Does that make it more complex than an iPhone? If that's the case, then hell yes, go Apple.
But I agree, if Apple tried to push this foolishness on any product of theirs that I might own, it would be a doorstop in a week. Maybe (and that's a really big maybe) if they gave me the phone, and the service to use it FOR FREE, I might put up with that.
Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans. Skynet anyone?
So, what you're basically saying is that Apple designs their interfaces to be intuitive, and Microsoft... doesn't.
Yup, that pretty much covers it.
But to be fair, you have to remember that Microsoft wasn't originally targeting yuppy thirty-somthethings and college students, they were going for business programmers and well, nerds. This is a completely different audience than Apple, and frankly, they hit the mark. Nerds don't want intuitive. Nerds want it the way they want it. This kind of interface is great for a logical thinker who can remember where they buried that TPS report, but not so hot for a non-programer who still confuses RAM with drive storage.
Hmmm... You could measure (somehow) the number of people who were pissed off that their computer was infected/hacked/etc.. by their web browser. After all, it's the end result that matters, not so much the vulnerability itself. (Customer complaints perhaps?) Of course, that assumes that the average user would even be aware that they are infected/hacked/etc...
Being color deficient myself, I want to strangle whoever in California decided it would be a good idea to make a RED ARROW. Color problems aside, what the frak is that supposed to mean?! "Go... NO WAIT!"