Have you ever been to Best Buy? Apple is not the only company that sells over priced adaptors. In fact, look around you... aside from the electronics, chances are that a majority of everything on your desk and that you wearing was produced for a tiny fraction of what you paid for it (when you don't include the cost of executives and ad agencies).
As much as commenters on
If it were just a concern of the pervasiveness of CB radios, then most trucking companies would have already banned their use by their employees. In that case, the percentage of CB users (drivers for the trucking company) would be close to 100%. If the logic of a cellphone ban also applies to talking on any electronic device, then any large trucking company that pays attention to its bottom line (insurance costs, getting the loads there on time, etc.) would have banned them.
My guess is that it comes down to the judgement of the user. The choices made by a trucker with a CB radio is different than the choices made by a teenager on a cellphone. In the 70s, the general population used CB radios, so clearly there is the ability for an average person to learn responsible use of the device in a moving vehicle. Perhaps it just comes down to teaching people that it is ok to have a slower exchange and pauses during a phone conversation while in the car to make driving the priority.
When I was a kid in the 70s, nearly everyone I knew had a CB radio in their cars and trucks (I grew up in a family of truckers in the country). So how are hands-free phones different than CB radios? Actually, CBs aren't even hands free. Is there something different behind the mentality of using a CB radio vs a cellphone? Or was using a CB always dangerous and just not used by as many people? I can't remember any conversations ever about the possible dangers of using a CB radio.
Suppose I put my phone on speaker and then pugged in a mic that had a curly wire and button I pressed to talk, making it basically function like a CB radio. Would the danger level of using it decrease (when compared to using it entirely hands free)?
Does your mom have this choice? I know mine would have no clue. The most tech-savvy of the population aren't the ones we should be concerned about. The people that this affects the most are the ones that receive a device that is set to log their keystrokes and never really know to ask about it.
The open source community, of which I am part of, expresses the benefits of using of open source software, but when something like this negatively affects the masses, their answer is always one that is not readily known and/or available to the masses. The simple fact is that secret default key logging in inexcusable in any consumer software, open source or not. For those that really care about promoting the use of their favorite software, instead of making excuses for it or offering complicated fixes, you should be raising holy hell.
Back in the day, I remember a setting on iBrowse (Amiga) that caused the browser to ask before accepting each and every cookie. I don't see that setting on my current browsers, though I may just be overlooking it. Surely the better solution is at the browser level. Default it on to ask, give the user a way to turn it off. Or, default it to not ask, but show the user information about cookies and instructions to change the setting the first time they run their browser.
Education is an amazing thing. Web developers should not be subject to laws that are open to interpretation just because some people don't want to learn how to use something they are operating. Imagine if we applied the same philosophy to driving a car -- all owners of buildings need to post warnings that running into the building with your car can cause harm.
Yes, going on the internet takes a tiny bit of responsibility on the user's part. If the user is not smart enough to exercise responsibility with cookies when educated about them, imagine what they are doing with facebook, four square, hook-up dating sites, and so on.
By definition, this malware is 3rd party software. Users have to enter their admin password to install it. Just like any other third party software, I am not sure why people think that Apple should provide any support for it. For example, if I install some 3rd party shareware program that turns my pointer into a naked girl with bouncy boobs and it causes conflicts with other software or eats up system resources or sends out emails on my behalf, then I have zero expectation for Apple to supply support for the situation I got myself into.
Just because Apple sells both the hardware and OS doesn't mean they have to provide support for or have their staff trained to deal with every piece of software that could possibly run on that machine. The same is true of any computer with any OS. If you are typing in your password to install something, know what you are installing first. Duh.
Is there any chance at all that Slashdot might make a tiny amount of effort to report about Apple and Google in the same tone when they are sitting side by side talking about essentially the exact same stuff?
When you present a story like this in such an slanted way, it begins to reek of the technics used by right-wing radio hosts about stuff they consider liberal. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Apple for, that you don't have to reconstruct reality to create new ones.
Like you, I am gay and comfortable with it. The problem with this app is that it is not made for you and me. It is made to prey upon those that are depressed, confused, and suffering. Given the significantly higher suicide rates in gay youth, an app like this could be considered dangerous. I don't own an iPhone, but my guess is that Apple hasn't approved any apps that are specifically designed to incite self destructive behavior in depressed individuals.
We can debate whether or not Apple's policies are right, but they do exist and are applied, so they should at least be consistent within themselves. If Apple is going to have a policy of banning certain apps as being inappropriate, then this would seem to fall well within the realm of being inappropriate.
Selling lead-laced consumer goods is bad, but...
Child labor is bad, but...
Dealing in sex slaves is bad, but...
Just think of all of the other ways that the US is losing its competitive edge due to its complex and outdated regulatory regime. If only we could get rid of all of those pesky laws, we could finally make some real money... maybe even become the world's richest country.
While others focus on the definition of "open", I want to focus on the definitions of bright, long-winded and FUD. In defining these terms, I think you are a bit confused. You seem to be using the "bright" to imply having a reasonable amount of information or insight. After reading Mr. Bright's article, I learned a handful of things that I didn't know before, so I guess I would have to consider him at least a little bright. I imagine the rolling of your eyes while reading his article made you a bit dizzy, preventing you from having a similar experience. Or maybe you just know a lot more than I do.
When you define FUD, perhaps you mean that he has a different opinion than you. No matter which side of this argument a person is on, I think that it is easy to agree that this is going to make implementation of the video tag by web developers more difficult and less likely to happen in the next couple of years.
When you define long-winded, perhaps you mean "taking the time to build his position". Clearly from your submission, you are a man of few words. I can admire someone like you that doesn't let information get in the way of expression. I can only wish that life was that easy for me. I keep getting bogged down in considering positions other than my own.
One thing I can say that Mr. Bright has on you though... he was willing to put his name on his position. For all the effort you put into adding your own brand of color to your submission, I just can't understand why you wouldn't want to take full credit.
I was just working on my prototypes for a case made from sand paper and one made of hammers and I was appalled that Apple's poor iphone design has caused my two new cases to scratch and damage the phone.
Wait, "solid Flash support"? From all I have read, it is anything but solid. "Spotty, buggy, resource-hog" seems to be what is being said, even by people that aren't fans of Apple.
Wait, wait wait... there was a time when you *really* needed flash? As in, oh my god, I need flash right now or I might die or at least have some kind of fit? What the hell did you do a months ago before flash was released?
As a source of irony, Flash just crashed on my browser as I was writing this.
So I hope all of these manufacturers do the right thing and recall their phones. If it possible to do something to a phone to get it drop in signal, then the only right answer is a recall. Originally I thought that the only right answer was a free case for everyone that bought them, but then Apple gave out free cases and I had to revise my opinion. I haven't yet figured out how to make the signal drops on phones from other manufacturers somehow Apple's fault, but if I can, then I will again revise my opinion to demand that Apple recalls the phones on behalf os the other manufacturers as well. There has to be a class action lawsuit somewhere here that I can peg on Apple...
You have a point. Mom and pop shops like Google hardly ever advertise because they are just too small and don't have the money. Plus, on any ads that are about Google phones, they never make any bold claims at all. In fact, they are kind of down on themselves. I'm always writing them, saying "cheer up, ol' Goog, things ain't so bad!", but they never listen because they are just that modest. Not like those Apple jerks, always walking around all proud, puffing out their chests, spending money on advertising that says good things about their products. Where do they get off saying nice things about the stuff they are trying to sell? Apple should be happy that
On a more serious side, I don't own an iPhone either, and I agree that phones need pop-up antennas, but it is my understanding that the whole problem on all phones stems from FCC rules and the evil radiowaves being too close to your head. Given the choice, I am sure that pretty much all manufacturers would not put their antennas under a skin-bag of water.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
