Do be fair, I do get the sense that the ISPs are doing their absolute best to get judicial oversight of any blocking.
That's because although implementing kiddie porn blocking is a no brainer that nobody's going to publicly complain about, this proposed blocking would be very detrimental to ISPs.
Blocking websites with legitimate uses that customers want to (and do) use, because someone else has claimed without any proof that it's potentially damaging their business model will lead to public complaints. I'll write to my ISP and complain, which will cost them money. I'll write to my MP and complain, which costs him money. So will thousands of others.
I don't even download warez, I have 30 games on Steam that I've bought on their cheap weekends and haven't had time to play yet, I have a DVD rental service for films and I have the radio, TV and Youtube for all my music listening needs.
But I do want to resize and move windows with the touchscreen...
I want everything. Mouse/keyboard control and a touchscreen, instant-on, instant response, access to all my media and a selection of software to meet my every possible need.
Sounds like a lot, but in 2002 I demanded a mobile phone with built-in GPS, built-in MP3 player, touch-screen, keyboard, good quality digital camera and 'net access. I had to wait, but not all that long..
I'm sorry, I'm from the 'high pixel density maximum screen real estate' school, in the 'do not run fullscreen' school.
I have ADHD, I multitask. I run multiple windows visible at once on most devices and want to continue. Everything running as fullscreen by default is awful.
I accept there would be performance benefits from not needing a window manager, but people were getting superb UI responsiveness in 1996 on pentium chips (if they were running linux). Don't blame the WM, blame the rest of the OS - losing 0.3% of my CPU time to a WM from time to time is easily worthwhile for the benefits it gives.
It's also worth mentioning that the tablets are 'instant on' and their single-app-at-a-time usage means much quicker responsiveness. This is the main reason they are content consumption devices instead of content creation.
You'd think this would be blindingly obvious to the netbook fanboys given how long smartphones have been around.
My smartphone can run multiple apps concurrently. I find this very useful, and continue to be amazed at people that think it isn't.
It's also the reason I don't have a netbook - anything I need a netbook for my phone can do, or I'd rather use a proper computer.
I'm planning to buy a tablet, but waiting for a convertible one that has a keyboard. Much like my smartphone. I'll also buy one that can run more than one application at a time, because frankly, it's not 1986 any more.
Aka, lacking 120 vertical pixels that the MacBook Pro has.
AKA no black bars in films and a significantly higher FOV in games without vertical image stretching. I'll take a real widescreen aspect over a sort-of widescreen.
Wtf? You're seriously trying to argue that losing 10% of your screen real-estate is a good thing?
Shit, even if (and it's a pretty big if) the FOV is better for FPS games, it sucks donkeys for RTS games, it's crap for normal PC use, it makes it harder to read documents and.. well, I'd take 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 every single time.
A tv I never plan to use as a computer display, sure, 16:9 makes sense. Any computer output, 16:10 is better.
I've just realised I'd misunderstood the initial question. I thought (based on the discussions) the query was how to install an application that lets you access the Android Market more easily than the default app.
If you want an alternative app store installed then no, looks like the Android Market itself wont help, and AT&T are doing their best to prevent you installing them from other sources.
erm. No it's not. It's over two years old, and in Internet timeframes that's a very long time.
I've had a non-Android phone for over a year now and I had expected that when I went back to Android with my next phone, they'd have sorted out the atrocious Market interface.
France look to be taking the lead, although the Arab nations are being invited to play too.
I seriously doubt they have the capability, or the competence
Then you're either naive, stupid or intentionally obnoxious. European military forces are at least as well trained as any on the planet and the USA is the only country that equips its military better than many European nations (including the UK and France).
You may not have noticed but the RAF took the lead on attacking Iraq, appalling/impressing the US air force with their ability to press home low level attacks that the US just wouldn't try.
We're good at war, and we've had a lot of practice.
NO US AIRPOWER TO PROTECT EUROPES OIL SUPPLY!
I'm not sure anybody's asking for it. I know nobody _needs_ it, if the US gets involved it'll be a political "Hey, come and get some of the good publicity" thing not because they're actually needed.
But hey, our oil supply is your oil supply, and civilian deaths are bad everywhere, so feel free to come and play with us too. We don't mind.
The US had to be sweet-talked into backing this action in the first place. European countries (specifically France and England) are going to lead the efforts, an Arab country is almost certainly going to commit aircraft and it's possible the US may not ever fly a combat patrol over Libya.
If she's old enough to ask for it, she's old enough to take it.
Now that is clearly just bullshit. Spend any time at all with girls between the ages of about 6 and about 12 and you'll get them flirting with you.
It's part of growing up, learning, and testing boundaries.
Post-puberty girls are also able to 'ask for it', and society states that while they're below a given age it's wrong to say 'yes'. That's precisely because being old enough to ask isn't the same as being old enough to take.
Simply, being attracted to sexually mature women: Perfectly fine. Fucking a sexually mature woman that's below the age of consent in your jurisdiction: Illegal. Don't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Comically my Virgin connection returns a page from http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/ with the text
"yeah"
So it's working fine, but not particularly useful :)
Do be fair, I do get the sense that the ISPs are doing their absolute best to get judicial oversight of any blocking.
That's because although implementing kiddie porn blocking is a no brainer that nobody's going to publicly complain about, this proposed blocking would be very detrimental to ISPs.
Blocking websites with legitimate uses that customers want to (and do) use, because someone else has claimed without any proof that it's potentially damaging their business model will lead to public complaints. I'll write to my ISP and complain, which will cost them money. I'll write to my MP and complain, which costs him money. So will thousands of others.
I don't even download warez, I have 30 games on Steam that I've bought on their cheap weekends and haven't had time to play yet, I have a DVD rental service for films and I have the radio, TV and Youtube for all my music listening needs.
I still want uncensored access to the Internet.
But I do want to resize and move windows with the touchscreen...
I want everything. Mouse/keyboard control and a touchscreen, instant-on, instant response, access to all my media and a selection of software to meet my every possible need.
Sounds like a lot, but in 2002 I demanded a mobile phone with built-in GPS, built-in MP3 player, touch-screen, keyboard, good quality digital camera and 'net access. I had to wait, but not all that long..
I'm sorry, I'm from the 'high pixel density maximum screen real estate' school, in the 'do not run fullscreen' school.
I have ADHD, I multitask. I run multiple windows visible at once on most devices and want to continue. Everything running as fullscreen by default is awful.
I accept there would be performance benefits from not needing a window manager, but people were getting superb UI responsiveness in 1996 on pentium chips (if they were running linux). Don't blame the WM, blame the rest of the OS - losing 0.3% of my CPU time to a WM from time to time is easily worthwhile for the benefits it gives.
No, but the ones not visible are doing stuff. Recording data, downloading data, playing music, even just maintaining state.
Interestingly I can view multiple apps at once too, and see their displays update concurrently, which is also useful at times.
Yeah, it would be nicer to have a proper window layout capability, but given the form factor it would be less useful overall. On a tablet however..
It's also worth mentioning that the tablets are 'instant on' and their single-app-at-a-time usage means much quicker responsiveness. This is the main reason they are content consumption devices instead of content creation.
You'd think this would be blindingly obvious to the netbook fanboys given how long smartphones have been around.
My smartphone can run multiple apps concurrently. I find this very useful, and continue to be amazed at people that think it isn't.
It's also the reason I don't have a netbook - anything I need a netbook for my phone can do, or I'd rather use a proper computer.
I'm planning to buy a tablet, but waiting for a convertible one that has a keyboard. Much like my smartphone. I'll also buy one that can run more than one application at a time, because frankly, it's not 1986 any more.
Aka, lacking 120 vertical pixels that the MacBook Pro has.
AKA no black bars in films and a significantly higher FOV in games without vertical image stretching. I'll take a real widescreen aspect over a sort-of widescreen.
Wtf? You're seriously trying to argue that losing 10% of your screen real-estate is a good thing?
Shit, even if (and it's a pretty big if) the FOV is better for FPS games, it sucks donkeys for RTS games, it's crap for normal PC use, it makes it harder to read documents and.. well, I'd take 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 every single time.
A tv I never plan to use as a computer display, sure, 16:9 makes sense. Any computer output, 16:10 is better.
You do realise those are all brands of the same bank?
Look, guys, there's no reason whatever for a bank to use social networking. Email, sure, but not facebook.
The irony being TFA telling us that the bank _is_ using Facebook.
Just not for individual account servicing activities.
So take an iphone and sell it to someone while you use a decent phone you bought unlocked.
No, but belief in either is equally naive.
I've just realised I'd misunderstood the initial question. I thought (based on the discussions) the query was how to install an application that lets you access the Android Market more easily than the default app.
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.triapodi.apprec is one answer - there are others on the Market, and I haven't tested any of them (that happens to be the first one I found).
If you want an alternative app store installed then no, looks like the Android Market itself wont help, and AT&T are doing their best to prevent you installing them from other sources.
It's a good question - the device probably blocks non-market app installations unless the 'unknown sources' toggle is switched to allow them.
What you may be able to do is download an app that toggles it - but that may also need root access, which might be trickier in itself.
I don't have an Android phone in the house so can't play and check, sorry.
Use their service. What's so hard about that?
You can use their service without buying your phone from them. Can't you? Are they really that shit?
Sigh. People keep spouting such untruths that it's increditble.
Except that for people subscribing to Netflix via an idevice, it is true.
Apple are exploiting a monopoly position they've artificially created on their devices. Why are you getting so frustrated at people highlighting this?
Indeed. I disabled UAC minutes after installing, but have no issue with entering my password into Ubuntu when it asks me too.
One is proportionate and makes me think about what I'm doing, the other is switched off.
It's a new service.
erm. No it's not. It's over two years old, and in Internet timeframes that's a very long time.
I've had a non-Android phone for over a year now and I had expected that when I went back to Android with my next phone, they'd have sorted out the atrocious Market interface.
Oh well. Still some time yet..
Erm. From the Google Android Market?
So don't be stupid enough to buy a phone from AT&T.
For once Europe can do the fighting.
France look to be taking the lead, although the Arab nations are being invited to play too.
I seriously doubt they have the capability, or the competence
Then you're either naive, stupid or intentionally obnoxious. European military forces are at least as well trained as any on the planet and the USA is the only country that equips its military better than many European nations (including the UK and France).
You may not have noticed but the RAF took the lead on attacking Iraq, appalling/impressing the US air force with their ability to press home low level attacks that the US just wouldn't try.
We're good at war, and we've had a lot of practice.
NO US AIRPOWER TO PROTECT EUROPES OIL SUPPLY!
I'm not sure anybody's asking for it. I know nobody _needs_ it, if the US gets involved it'll be a political "Hey, come and get some of the good publicity" thing not because they're actually needed.
But hey, our oil supply is your oil supply, and civilian deaths are bad everywhere, so feel free to come and play with us too. We don't mind.
Libya (now)
- UN mandated
- Necessary act of compassion to save civilian lives
- Widely supported in the US, in Europe, in Africa and by Arab nations
You may rest your case :)
The US had to be sweet-talked into backing this action in the first place. European countries (specifically France and England) are going to lead the efforts, an Arab country is almost certainly going to commit aircraft and it's possible the US may not ever fly a combat patrol over Libya.
Sorry.
I have mod points, but can't give you Insightful, Interesting, Informative and Funny all at once.
So I decided to reply to say thank you - your summary is the best one I've read on Libya in weeks, including various media sources such as the BBC.
If she's old enough to ask for it, she's old enough to take it.
Now that is clearly just bullshit. Spend any time at all with girls between the ages of about 6 and about 12 and you'll get them flirting with you.
It's part of growing up, learning, and testing boundaries.
Post-puberty girls are also able to 'ask for it', and society states that while they're below a given age it's wrong to say 'yes'. That's precisely because being old enough to ask isn't the same as being old enough to take.
Simply, being attracted to sexually mature women: Perfectly fine.
Fucking a sexually mature woman that's below the age of consent in your jurisdiction: Illegal. Don't do it.
Hang on? You're a duck-billed platypus?
Or does 'furry' now include 'feathered', 'scaled' and anything else that could be classified as bestiality?