I suggest you go to a Sprint store and check out the form factor for yourself. They're getting seeded with them now, so call ahead first.
Myself, I put my 600 in my pocket, and I feel it's acceptable. The case it comes with adds a little bulk, so I take it out of that if I'll be walking far. The phone has a keyguard function, so it's not a big deal to keep it in your pocket, as long as you don't put your keys in with it! You can also pick up PDA screen protecters (clear plastic) that you can cut to fit the screen.
I haven't tried it with jeans yet, though. I mainly wear khakis and slacks.
There are also several belt clip type options already available, but I personally wouldn't be caught dead with one. Mainly because I fear the dude's from "Queer Eye" would be called for an intervention.
What elitist tripe! This makes no sense. Instead of some artificial barrier like an unreasonably complex setup routine, how 'bout you make it as easy as possible and let the user decide whether they have a use for some software?
People that don't want software won't try to install it. If they try to get it running and can't, that doesn't mean they don't need it, it just means they couldn't install it! If the install routine was impossible to get any easier without compromising features, you might have some grounds, but I don't think that is the case. In fact, I think the setup for PGP sucks rocks.
Why shouldn't people have easy access to security that allows them to send information like a credit card over email? If it's secure, why not, except for paranoia?
You think a levy on blank media is a good solution? It seems ridiculous to me. So, I have to pay extra for blank media to make backups of my data, just so someone else can pirate music freely? And who gets the proceeds of such a levy, RIAA? I already pay them for overpriced CD's on occasion, what does my data backup have to do with them? Sorry, that's just lame. Punishing legitimate customers is never a good strategy.
It seems to me that's treating the symptoms, not the problem.
Hmmm, doesn't seem to likely to me. To use your own analogy, I think it's more like walking into a bank, already under the control of bank robbers who happen to be standing in the teller booth, and the bank robbers tell you it's OK to grab a handful of money from the safe.
I don't think the "they told me it was OK" defense would impress a judge too much.
Just to play devil's advocate, nowhere in the LinuxPlanet article or on the AclereX site (that I could find) does it say that there will be no downloads. As far as I could tell, this is complete conjecture on the part of the submitter.
The most likley explanation is that the software isn't even ready for release yet. The site is only barebones at this point, anyway.
Give Transgaming's past history, the submitter is probably correct, but there's not enough information at this point to make such an accusation. The submission itself is flamebait!:)
It doesn't say anywhere in the Linuxworld article that the source will not be available, or anything at all about downloads whatsoever. I'm not sure where the submitter got this information. Could be the Aclerex site, but it's already down.
I don't have information either way, but before jumping to conclusions and starting a witch hunt, I'd wait for the real facts. It's very possible that the reason their are "no downloads" is that's it's simply not done yet! Companies ususally announce products a fair amount ahead of their actual release.
I don't think you got his point. Although this effects Trillian as well, it's even worse for the current Linux/Unix based solutions that are out there. That's because Trillian is a commericial developer, and has an infrastructure where they could pass the cost of the MSN license onto their customers. A free software project has no such ability to pay another entity for server costs. That's why he said it effectively blocks their access to the MSN protocol.
If MS really believed that it was all about the infrastructure cost of running servers, perhaps they should have designed a system where someone else could run their own server, like IRC. Or change the protocol to allow this. But I don't really think that's what this is about all. Other vendors in the IM business threaten their complete domination, so they must be converted to a revenue stream (and controlled by a license), or be removed.
Unfortunately, this market has become all about competing *companies*, not competing products. Whichever company has the most control of different markets, not necessarily the best product, is the one that stays alive and "wins". And certainly not the consumer. Netscape learned this the hard way.
The FCC restriction *did not* require them to cripple AIM! They decided to cripple it themselves instead of giving up some of their control on the market. The restriction they were put under said that if they wanted to add these features, they were free to do so, but they had to give access to their system to other companies so they could *compete*. Instead of doing this, they essentially decided to take their ball and go home. If market pressure to compete was so strong, how come they didn't feel pressured enough to make these improvements? Answer: These companies are so big, they don't have to care that much.
You could have the best IM client in the world be released today, and it will get crushed by MS and AOL/TW. I use Trillian, too, and I think it's great, but I doubt it'll ever have more than niche status.
Personally, I think the FCC mandate was a joke in the first place. Really just a way to placate critics of the AOL/TW merger. Now enough time has past, everyone seems to have forgotten that they were ever separate companies. Boo hoo, poor multinational corporation forced to play nice! Can't have that!
The thief (usually) wouldn't care about the data at the time he stole it, agreed. But the owner sure as hell cares.
That laptop ends up in someone's hands, and at some point gets booted up. You think they're not at least going to look at what's on it? Of course they are. That could be serious bad news, depending on the data and the person looking at it. Things like email and accounts could easily be taken advantage of.
Actually, I'd love this for my home computer. I have my most important data (accounts and stuff) encrypted in case of theft. It would be nice if it was automatically and transparently available when I sat down.
Yes, this is a good example of a "reasonable" easter egg compromise. The last easter egg I wrote in a project (awhile back, now) was a similar type of thing, but on a smaller scale. I notified QA what I was doing, and they tested it. I think this is quite uncommon, however. Especially the extremely thoughtful process you describe.
Part of the problem I believe lies in the reasons why devs are writing eggs. I think it's usually because they are in some way unhappy with the project they're on. I've seen a few instances otherwise, but the vast majority seem to be a method of rebellion. That's not good, and is a symptom of a greater problem. If the developers were on a fulfulling project, I think they would be far less likely to be driven to develop easter eggs. If not, I really think they should find some other outlet that is less risky. Maybe even another job. At our company, the devs like the work they're doing, so giving up easter eggs wasn't a biggie, and they also do side projects that interest them.
I've helped create a number of easter eggs in the past, but these days, I've had a serious change in thinking about them.
This may sound extreme, but if a coder added an easter egg to a project that I was running, they would get in serious trouble, maybe even fired. Now, before you think that is just being too serious or flame-bait, here's my reasoning:
Simply put, easter eggs are for the developers, not for the customers, and they don't belong in commericial software developement. The risk almost always outweighs the benefits, especially in a project like a public site! That is incredibly dangerous.
One of the biggest problems with easter eggs is they almost always bypass the QA process. Think about that for a minute. The developers are writing code that hasn't been tested, and the QA department doesn't even know it exists! Granted, this isn't always true, but most of the time, it is. Bad, bad. Like potentially company-ruining-bad if the dev uses some bad judgement (gee, that never happens, late at night, at the end of a project, does it?).
The best course of action is that the devs know ahead of time that easter eggs are not tolerated unless they are totally above-board in the development cycle. Save your humorous inside jokes for internal little apps you give to your mates, and you and your company will be a lot better off. They're usually inside jokes, anyways, so putting them in a public software project is just a totally unecessary risk, IMO. A few yuk-yuks is not worth your company or your project being compromised by bad code or a PR hit from an embarassing easter egg.
You forget about the extra expenses incurred by the ISP. We all pay collectively for the extra infrastructure that the ISPs have to build up to handle the additional email and network bandwidth caused by spam. You can bet that they pass any such costs along to all their customers. They also have to pass on the costs of those email filter apps and the man hours it takes to monitor abuse@email.net type addresses.
The spammers make enough money so the extra costs don't matter to them, but it sure as hell matters to me.
I think Hollywood is definitely going down that road. Remember Titanic? They had "digital stuntmen" during the final sinking scenes. Remember the famous guy-that-falls-and-whacks-his-head-on-the-way-down when the ship became vertical? When I saw the film, the entire audience groaned. They totally bought it.
As the rendering and animation get better, I think audience empathy will follow automatically.
No, but thanks for the compliment -- that's how I'll take it. I don't agree with a some of the viewpoints that Katz spouts, but the man knows how to write!
Moderators, I prounounce this post wholeheartedly OT.
Yellow pages list companies. On the Web, sometimes you don't want that, you want to find non-commerical sites. Fan sites, non-biased reviews and information, etc. That's getting harder and harder to find via search engines. All the commerical sites appear first.
Obviously, more and more sites are going commericial to cover costs, but there's still a lot of quality information on non-profit sites, and it's getting harder to find. At least, that's my experience, even with Google.
Who knows, it might just be the harsh reality of the future of the 'net. Surfers standards' of quality have risen much higher, and non-commericial sites have a harder time keeping up with the companies that have a whole team running a site to make it look pretty. That doesn't mean the information won't be missed, though.
So is it really a big deal? Yes, I think so.
Wow. If that's true, that's just incredible. Basically, MS has this account just so they can complain to Ebay, and so they can get the sellers' email addresses and send them legal notices. On top of that, the sellers have no way to give them feedback!
This is an incredibly important point. I'm really surprised this wasn't moderated up. That's really sad.
I thought MS just stopped their actions in March, because they wanted to avoid more bad PR near the DOJ hearings. Instead, they supposedly (with Ebay's acquiescence) just censored the people who would have given them that bad PR. Yikes.
BTW, did anyone notice the date of the original negative comment on Ebay? It was March 22, 1999. This has been going on for over a year. Over a year, and no press at all. That just floors me. How many other incidents of their corporate bullying have we missed? It's a sobering thought about the state of today's "corporate" Internet. Like information, Internet portals are now power.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you go to a Sprint store and check out the form factor for yourself. They're getting seeded with them now, so call ahead first.
Myself, I put my 600 in my pocket, and I feel it's acceptable. The case it comes with adds a little bulk, so I take it out of that if I'll be walking far. The phone has a keyguard function, so it's not a big deal to keep it in your pocket, as long as you don't put your keys in with it! You can also pick up PDA screen protecters (clear plastic) that you can cut to fit the screen.
I haven't tried it with jeans yet, though. I mainly wear khakis and slacks.
There are also several belt clip type options already available, but I personally wouldn't be caught dead with one. Mainly because I fear the dude's from "Queer Eye" would be called for an intervention.
What elitist tripe! This makes no sense. Instead of some artificial barrier like an unreasonably complex setup routine, how 'bout you make it as easy as possible and let the user decide whether they have a use for some software?
People that don't want software won't try to install it. If they try to get it running and can't, that doesn't mean they don't need it, it just means they couldn't install it! If the install routine was impossible to get any easier without compromising features, you might have some grounds, but I don't think that is the case. In fact, I think the setup for PGP sucks rocks.
Why shouldn't people have easy access to security that allows them to send information like a credit card over email? If it's secure, why not, except for paranoia?
You think a levy on blank media is a good solution? It seems ridiculous to me. So, I have to pay extra for blank media to make backups of my data, just so someone else can pirate music freely? And who gets the proceeds of such a levy, RIAA? I already pay them for overpriced CD's on occasion, what does my data backup have to do with them? Sorry, that's just lame. Punishing legitimate customers is never a good strategy.
It seems to me that's treating the symptoms, not the problem.
Hmmm, doesn't seem to likely to me. To use your own analogy, I think it's more like walking into a bank, already under the control of bank robbers who happen to be standing in the teller booth, and the bank robbers tell you it's OK to grab a handful of money from the safe.
I don't think the "they told me it was OK" defense would impress a judge too much.
Looks like it's time to send the troops to dominate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ...er... *liberate* the people of Finland!
It's really for their own good.
Just to play devil's advocate, nowhere in the LinuxPlanet article or on the AclereX site (that I could find) does it say that there will be no downloads. As far as I could tell, this is complete conjecture on the part of the submitter.
:)
The most likley explanation is that the software isn't even ready for release yet. The site is only barebones at this point, anyway.
Give Transgaming's past history, the submitter is probably correct, but there's not enough information at this point to make such an accusation. The submission itself is flamebait!
Oops, I meant LinuxPlanet article. Sorry LP!
It doesn't say anywhere in the Linuxworld article that the source will not be available, or anything at all about downloads whatsoever. I'm not sure where the submitter got this information. Could be the Aclerex site, but it's already down.
I don't have information either way, but before jumping to conclusions and starting a witch hunt, I'd wait for the real facts. It's very possible that the reason their are "no downloads" is that's it's simply not done yet! Companies ususally announce products a fair amount ahead of their actual release.
This sounds like a typical knee-jerk reaction.
I don't think you got his point. Although this effects Trillian as well, it's even worse for the current Linux/Unix based solutions that are out there. That's because Trillian is a commericial developer, and has an infrastructure where they could pass the cost of the MSN license onto their customers. A free software project has no such ability to pay another entity for server costs. That's why he said it effectively blocks their access to the MSN protocol.
If MS really believed that it was all about the infrastructure cost of running servers, perhaps they should have designed a system where someone else could run their own server, like IRC. Or change the protocol to allow this. But I don't really think that's what this is about all. Other vendors in the IM business threaten their complete domination, so they must be converted to a revenue stream (and controlled by a license), or be removed.
Unfortunately, this market has become all about competing *companies*, not competing products. Whichever company has the most control of different markets, not necessarily the best product, is the one that stays alive and "wins". And certainly not the consumer. Netscape learned this the hard way.
The FCC restriction *did not* require them to cripple AIM! They decided to cripple it themselves instead of giving up some of their control on the market. The restriction they were put under said that if they wanted to add these features, they were free to do so, but they had to give access to their system to other companies so they could *compete*. Instead of doing this, they essentially decided to take their ball and go home. If market pressure to compete was so strong, how come they didn't feel pressured enough to make these improvements? Answer: These companies are so big, they don't have to care that much.
You could have the best IM client in the world be released today, and it will get crushed by MS and AOL/TW. I use Trillian, too, and I think it's great, but I doubt it'll ever have more than niche status.
Personally, I think the FCC mandate was a joke in the first place. Really just a way to placate critics of the AOL/TW merger. Now enough time has past, everyone seems to have forgotten that they were ever separate companies. Boo hoo, poor multinational corporation forced to play nice! Can't have that!
You missed the point entirely.
The thief (usually) wouldn't care about the data at the time he stole it, agreed. But the owner sure as hell cares.
That laptop ends up in someone's hands, and at some point gets booted up. You think they're not at least going to look at what's on it? Of course they are. That could be serious bad news, depending on the data and the person looking at it. Things like email and accounts could easily be taken advantage of.
Actually, I'd love this for my home computer. I have my most important data (accounts and stuff) encrypted in case of theft. It would be nice if it was automatically and transparently available when I sat down.
Yes, this is a good example of a "reasonable" easter egg compromise. The last easter egg I wrote in a project (awhile back, now) was a similar type of thing, but on a smaller scale. I notified QA what I was doing, and they tested it. I think this is quite uncommon, however. Especially the extremely thoughtful process you describe.
Part of the problem I believe lies in the reasons why devs are writing eggs. I think it's usually because they are in some way unhappy with the project they're on. I've seen a few instances otherwise, but the vast majority seem to be a method of rebellion. That's not good, and is a symptom of a greater problem. If the developers were on a fulfulling project, I think they would be far less likely to be driven to develop easter eggs. If not, I really think they should find some other outlet that is less risky. Maybe even another job. At our company, the devs like the work they're doing, so giving up easter eggs wasn't a biggie, and they also do side projects that interest them.
I've helped create a number of easter eggs in the past, but these days, I've had a serious change in thinking about them.
This may sound extreme, but if a coder added an easter egg to a project that I was running, they would get in serious trouble, maybe even fired. Now, before you think that is just being too serious or flame-bait, here's my reasoning:
Simply put, easter eggs are for the developers, not for the customers, and they don't belong in commericial software developement. The risk almost always outweighs the benefits, especially in a project like a public site! That is incredibly dangerous.
One of the biggest problems with easter eggs is they almost always bypass the QA process. Think about that for a minute. The developers are writing code that hasn't been tested, and the QA department doesn't even know it exists! Granted, this isn't always true, but most of the time, it is. Bad, bad. Like potentially company-ruining-bad if the dev uses some bad judgement (gee, that never happens, late at night, at the end of a project, does it?).
The best course of action is that the devs know ahead of time that easter eggs are not tolerated unless they are totally above-board in the development cycle. Save your humorous inside jokes for internal little apps you give to your mates, and you and your company will be a lot better off. They're usually inside jokes, anyways, so putting them in a public software project is just a totally unecessary risk, IMO. A few yuk-yuks is not worth your company or your project being compromised by bad code or a PR hit from an embarassing easter egg.
You forget about the extra expenses incurred by the ISP. We all pay collectively for the extra infrastructure that the ISPs have to build up to handle the additional email and network bandwidth caused by spam. You can bet that they pass any such costs along to all their customers. They also have to pass on the costs of those email filter apps and the man hours it takes to monitor abuse@email.net type addresses.
The spammers make enough money so the extra costs don't matter to them, but it sure as hell matters to me.
I think Hollywood is definitely going down that road. Remember Titanic? They had "digital stuntmen" during the final sinking scenes. Remember the famous guy-that-falls-and-whacks-his-head-on-the-way-down when the ship became vertical? When I saw the film, the entire audience groaned. They totally bought it.
As the rendering and animation get better, I think audience empathy will follow automatically.
No, but thanks for the compliment -- that's how I'll take it. I don't agree with a some of the viewpoints that Katz spouts, but the man knows how to write!
Moderators, I prounounce this post wholeheartedly OT.
Yellow pages list companies. On the Web, sometimes you don't want that, you want to find non-commerical sites. Fan sites, non-biased reviews and information, etc. That's getting harder and harder to find via search engines. All the commerical sites appear first. Obviously, more and more sites are going commericial to cover costs, but there's still a lot of quality information on non-profit sites, and it's getting harder to find. At least, that's my experience, even with Google. Who knows, it might just be the harsh reality of the future of the 'net. Surfers standards' of quality have risen much higher, and non-commericial sites have a harder time keeping up with the companies that have a whole team running a site to make it look pretty. That doesn't mean the information won't be missed, though. So is it really a big deal? Yes, I think so.
Wow. If that's true, that's just incredible. Basically, MS has this account just so they can complain to Ebay, and so they can get the sellers' email addresses and send them legal notices. On top of that, the sellers have no way to give them feedback!
This is an incredibly important point. I'm really surprised this wasn't moderated up. That's really sad.
I thought MS just stopped their actions in March, because they wanted to avoid more bad PR near the DOJ hearings. Instead, they supposedly (with Ebay's acquiescence) just censored the people who would have given them that bad PR. Yikes.
BTW, did anyone notice the date of the original negative comment on Ebay? It was March 22, 1999. This has been going on for over a year. Over a year, and no press at all. That just floors me. How many other incidents of their corporate bullying have we missed? It's a sobering thought about the state of today's "corporate" Internet. Like information, Internet portals are now power.