Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How to promote without really promoting (Score 5, Insightful) 147

by harperska (#49774681) Attached to: Apple Design Guru Jony Ive Named Chief Design Officer

He might have been a disaster as a manager. Now they want to replace him.

That's a good thing. He's a creative genius, but probably sucks as a manager. And it sucks that in the corporate business world, often the only way to advance in your career is to manage people who now do for you what you used to love doing yourself but can't because now you're too busy managing. It looks like Apple recognized all of that, and so to keep their most valuable employee happy and of most use to the company they created a position to promote him to that would allow him to just be the head creative director of design and let the people-managing responsibilities fall to someone else who actually wanted that role.

Comment: Re:Compelling? (Score 1) 243

by harperska (#49733057) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

When Apple decided to be benevolent and allowed iOS 4 to run on the iPhone 3G, the result was honestly the most painful technology experience of my life. But if they had cut it off and only let iOS 4 be installed on the 3GS or newer, there would have been the same conspiracy theory crap of supposed forced obsolescence. Having lived through that hell, I am much more likely to give Apple the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what devices they support with which OS versions.

In your case, it is likely that those 3rd party shims helped somewhat beyond just cracking the restrictions, or you lucked out with a specific hardware combination that just happened to work. They may have decided to make the cutoff at some major hardware feature because some instances below that cutoff would be dogs with the new OS and it's not worth their time to figure out exactly which combinations of hardware would work and which wouldn't.

Comment: Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible (Score 1) 186

Ok, copyright is by definition a right. Hence the name clearly meaning "the right to copy". And I will buy your argument that piracy is taking away somebody's right in that sense. However, taking away somebody's right to something is not theft. If it was, copyright violations could be prosecuted under larceny laws. If Slashdot turned off your account, preventing you from soapboxing about piracy, they would be taking away your free speech right. Likewise, they can't be prosecuted for larceny in that case. In fact, in the general sense there is no prohibition whatsoever for private entities to infringe on other private entities' rights. That is why it is perfectly legal for businesses to ban guns on their premises, despite the second amendment, and internet forums can ban members for saying stuff they don't like, despite the first amendment.

Since piracy is not theft, an entirely separate section of laws have been written to address it. If it was theft, those laws would be unnecessary. Let's all stop calling it theft now, alright?

Comment: Unsupported obsolete OS (Score 5, Informative) 368

by harperska (#49537899) Attached to: iTunes Stops Working For Windows XP Users

To be fair, Apple supported XP longer than Microsoft did. Microsoft has already stated that if you choose to continue using XP, you do so at your own risk. That not only means potential exposure to malware, but also the distinct possibility that third party stuff may at any time stop working. I don't see this a fault of Apple in any way whatsoever.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 356

Also, this is still relevant. If you are going to punish sites for not having mobile versions, are they also going to punish sites for forcing visitors onto worthless mobile versions? I appreciate added readability if the content is all still the same, but with the resolution on today's smartphones, I can view a desktop site just fine.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous article title (Score 1) 629

Felony burglary, no, as re-arranging potted plants is not itself a crime. It would be perfectly reasonable to charge that person with criminal trespass, however. Knowledge that the key is hidden under the doormat does not mean that you have the right to enter. In fact, the fact that it was hidden, even if weakly so, would imply that the intent is the opposite.

Comment: Re:Falsify the Big Bang (Score 1) 96

by harperska (#48948931) Attached to: ESA: No Conclusive Evidence of Big Bang Gravitational Waves

If you come up with a different theory that can explain doppler shift and the cosmic microwave background, as well as all other phenomena predicted by the big bang theory, while simultaneously correctly predicting observations that the big bang theory fails to predict, then yes, it is possible.

Comment: Re:Demonstrates the need... (Score 1) 220

by harperska (#48929425) Attached to: Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away

Even when following a coding style guide 100%, there is still generally enough leeway to allow for plenty of personal style. There's the words you use to name things, use of whitespace and grouping of statements, basically everything about a piece of source code that's lost if you compile and then decompile a program. Just like the prose from two different authors are distinct from one other, even if they go through the same copy editor to fit a publisher's style guide. And if your corporate style guide requires your code to be indistinguishable from decompiled code, you need to find a new job.

Comment: Re:Bye_bye, Blackberry (Score 1) 307

by harperska (#48882339) Attached to: Blackberry CEO: Net Neutrality Means Mandating Cross-Platform Apps

Yes, not enough people understand net neutrality. No, what he is saying is completely illogical and is in fact 180 degrees backwards. His argument isn't wrong due to any libertarian idea about government interference. To understand why his argument is wrong requires understanding a distinction between platforms vs users of said platform.

Net neutrality is about classifying ISPs as common carriers. Common carrier laws state that the providers of certain platforms (e.g. shipping companies, ISPs) must treat all users of that platform (e.g. customers who want to ship a product, websites serving content) equally. The law says nothing about the opposite, and a user of a platform is perfectly within their rights to give preferential treatment to a particular provider over another. If you buy something and have it shipped to you, that retailer will usually either have FedEx or UPS as options, but rarely both.

The Blackberry CEO is arguing two things. First, he is arguing that app platforms should be treated as common carriers. That is a fair argument. I could get behind mandating that app platforms should treat all apps equally (e.g. not give some apps access to certain APIs while restricting access to those APIs for other apps. Such a classification might be necessary if for example Apple started giving access to GPU acceleration only to big game studios that could afford to pay a fee, while small indie game studios that couldn't afford the fee would be forced to use a slower GPU mode). But where he is being completely batshit illogical is where he argues that once app platforms are common carriers, the users must give equal treatment to the platforms rather than the other way around. To use the previous example, it would be as if the government mandated that if you offered to ship something via UPS, you must also offer to ship it via FedEx. Such a mandate has never happened, and probably never will. And arguing that there should be such a mandate for app platforms shows either a complete misunderstanding of common carriers and net neutrality on the part of the Blackberry CEO, or a deliberate obfuscation and intentional confusion of net neutrality in an attempt to gain sympathy.

Comment: Re:Treason is one reason for the existence of 2nd (Score 2) 385

by harperska (#48858533) Attached to: FBI Seeks To Legally Hack You If You're Connected To TOR Or a VPN

First off, the Declaration of Independence was a call to arms, not a legally binding precedent. Only the Constitution can be used as the source of what is considered legal. Second, Using the second amendment to rationalize treason is absurd. The second amendment and the treason clauses are both within the framework of the US government. If you are planning on using the Declaration of Independence as precedent, you are talking about overthrowing the US government, which means throwing out the Constitution and starting over. So if you consider what the Constitution has to say about treason to be moot, you likewise must consider what the Constitution has to say about bearing arms to be moot as well, as you are declaring the Declaration of Independence to supersede the Constitution in its entirety.

Comment: Re:Why is this post even here? (Score 1) 786

by harperska (#48785357) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

On the contrary I would argue that it does, if only because the Slashdot community is largely made up of intelligent people who value reason and rationality, except in the one odd case where there is an inexplicable propensity to climate change denialism. So it is cathartic, if nothing else, to occasionally stir the hornet's nest on this one issue where ordinarily scientifically-minded people throw reason out the window to defend a genuinely anti-science political stance.

Logic doesn't apply to the real world. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...