Fuck Beta?

I've tried fuckbeta.slashdot.org - I recommend that as the starting point on /., makes the logs send a message.

It's ok, the UK transport network has already been enhanced in such a way that escape is impossible. In other words, delays and congestion are commonplace. Plus trains are too expensive if you don't book weeks in advance.

Now we know why the UK doesn't have cheap turn up and go long distance rail fares - it's to stop criminals escaping! I feel better now ;)

Yes, I'm on giffgaff and have turned off all restrictions. It's mostly to do with Camoron wanting all UK ISPs to 'think of the children' and opt out of censorship.

If our Prime Minister gets what he wants it's going to be an awkward time for people who host a lot of different types of website. Many that allow users to submit their own content such as forums may be blocked too, perhaps even slashdot.

That said, if the blocks are too tight then most people will opt out, but this censorship needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets too out of control. At the beginning it's marketed as a way of keeping children safe from porn and other possible controversial content, but when the infrastructure is in place it'll be easy to block anything the government doesn't want.

No, although Sky already tried to sue them for that! They failed on that count.

I think the decision is fair in the UK. Most people wouldn't think Skype had anything to do with Sky, but Sky Drive does sound like a product Sky might release to its broadband customers.

They've branched out from Sky Broadband and offered other internet services under the Sky brand before. One failed attempt was Sky Songs, I thought Sky Tunes would have sounded better but perhaps they were advised not to.

In the UK it's a fact that people associate the Sky brand with BSkyB particularly in the entertainment and broadband industries. Sky was well known in the UK before most people owned computers.

I hope you knew BSkyB own "The Cloud" too :)

http://www.thecloud.net/

Marquee was an IE tag, although Netscape were to blame for blink!

As all Macs have been Intel based since 2005 why not install Windows 7 on your 2008 MacBook. You can replace macosx or dual boot using Boot Camp.

Note this bit in the same Reg article:
All three issues also affect native iOS web applications that uses Apple's UIWebView API – i.e., native applications that tap the web in a big way.

So it's saying apps available through the app store are also affected if they use the built in HTML renderer. Doesn't this show that it wasn't an intentional way to make apps look better, otherwise apps would have access to the new faster engine too,

The Reg is just trolling for pageviews.

If it's a shortcut on your homescreen then safari will open and the app will run at normal speed using the 4.3 Javascript engine.

If there's a special meta tag it will open full screen like a separate app, this is currently using the old 4.2 Javascript engine.

So basically - webapps with the meta tag will currently run the same speed as they did before the iOS upgrade, whereas web pages can use the new faster Javascript engine.

We'll see as time progresses whether this is intentional or not, but the fact is nothing is being slowed down it's just using a different javascript engine.

We're not talking about these apps which were native apps and not web apps.

I'm just saying that most webapps are free and so it doesn't affect apples profits whether they're distributed as webapps or through the app store.

Remember, when the iPhone was launched web apps were the only way to get your app on the phone. The app store came later.

Why would it be about 30%, most web apps are free and 30% of zero is zero. Apple allow free apps in their store.

This bug only occurs when you launch a web app that contains a meta tag of name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"

If your 'web app' is just a shortcut to Safari on your homescreen then you won't see this bug.

Basically this web app meta tag launches the app fullscreen without any Safari chrome. To the user it looks like a separate app rather than it's running in the browser.

The slow behaviour is just using the iOS 4.2 JavaScript engine. It's possible that this is either an oversight or that Apple deliberately kept the old JavaScript engine for web apps in case it broke functionality that the app was depending on.

We'll see in the coming weeks I'm sure.

The article questions whether Macs in the Apple store will be configured in factory condition (without Flash) or would have flash installed causing possible confusion for buyers. They then go on to state that a Macbook Air they've seen in store did indeed not have Flash installed.

However, one of the benefits of the Apple store is you're generally free to play around with the machines. I've often installed Firefox on these machines, so what's to stop a customer installing flash on the demo machines too. Also some demo machines have MS Office installed on it but you don't hear about confusion from buyers when they find out they need to buy Office separately although I'm sure it happens sometimes.

I don't see the fuss on this issue. There's a plugin out there and it's easy to install, it makes sense for Apple to make Flash opt-in rather than opt-out.

Me, I've installed flash on my Mac and use Firefox and Safari Flash free and I open up Google Chrome (that has its own built in flash plugin) whenever I need flash.

Why don't I use a flash blocker? Because if you remove flash entirely then many sites will display alternative content where the flash used to be rather than an annoying click to play box.

I can't stand the WP7S UI, it just seems irritating. It's designed so nothing fits on the screen, even the date displayed on the pic in the article is truncated. To access anything you'll need to move horizontal and vertical.

It reminds me back in the days of 14" monitors. I remember that in Linux I could set up X to use a much higher resolution than the monitor supported and then you'd use the mouse to pan around the screen. I hated that then, I hate it now.

Make things fit on the screen where possible, scroll only when necessary.

Microsoft is just trying to look fancy with no thought on usability. You'd get tired of all this very quickly.

We do, it's used to (mostly) fund the BBC. I think it provides decent value for what we get, but it does seem wrong that even those who don't watch the BBC or use any of there services still have to pay it if they want to own a TV in the UK.