Funny. This doesn't turn up on the active discussion on Babble section on Rabble. Is it because it is in the reactions section?
Introducing the rabble.ca app for iPhone, iTouch and iPad! And how you can win an iTouch!
Mon, 2010-04-19 14:25
#52
Mon, 2010-04-19 17:01
#53
iPAQ (HP) allows for alternative OS, like Linux and netBSD. I think it will even dual boot. Are there any more handheld devices or phones like iPAQ? There has to be. I wouldn't get too attached to your handheld these days. There should be lotsa competition in the next few years from Nokia and Motorola. Personal devices will become smaller and more capable than current versions, we can count on it. Droid phones look pretty cool.
Mon, 2010-04-19 17:26
#54
Refuge
The main question for me is whether or not you as a user have the maximum possible control
over your devices.There are other GNU/Linux based mobile computer operating systems such as Google Android,
WebOS, Maemo, Moblin, Open Moko etc. which even if the device manufacturers impose digital
restrictions management (DRM) at least offer the possibility of an open mobile computing
platform.The Apple mobile computing platform offers the end user the least open smartphone/tablet
computing platform.In an open mobile platform users would be able to install their own apps from wherever
they happened to get them, and developers could create apps without having to seek
permission from the smartphone vendor. There would never be a concern that the device
vendor could remotely wipe an application off your mobile computing device that they didn't
happen to like.That IMHO is what progressives should be aiming for in an open mobile computing platform.
Crowing about the new Apple iPhone app and offering an Apple device in a contest makes it look like rabble.ca is "endorsing" a particularly nasty model for mobile computing.
What most of us come to rabble.ca for is critical analysis from a progressive point of view.
That critical analysis needs to apply to the world of computers, technology and the internet.This app and the promo around it represents the opposite of that.
Actuallly I think that the question should be whether or not you as a user have the maximum possible control over your devices that you want to have.
Personally I am a small time programmer. I can do basics like HTML and fool around with coding. Once it gets beyond that I don't have the ability. I got screwed by open source programming on my last phone - I am not sure if it had a virus or if it just didn't work properly and ended up interfering with the rest of the phone. But it wiped my phone clean three times before I figured out which of the three open source programs was the one that was wrecking my phone's programming. I like being able to know that the programs that I download are safe, something that I could never do with my last smartphone unless I was willing to pay IBM big money for their programs (the free ones were few and silly).
I have as much control over my iphone as I want to have. I understand that you would want more but that does not mean that everyone wants more and I thought the left was about providing choice to people. If they want to have security in downloading apps and don't care about the fact that the "safe" company they are downloading from has control over which are displayed as long because that control means they are safe to download without having to worry about being techy (and the programs I downloaded to my smartphone you had to be a little savy to figure out how to install and where to put them on the phone) people should be able to choose that. If people want more control than they can go to a different system which gives them more control. Now if there was a campaign to destroy all computers except the apples software which does not give control then, yes I would agree with you, not leftist at all but there is not. Apple is just one option for people who don't want or need the control of being able to create or download apps or programs because they don't know how to do it or how to fix it if something goes wrong.
The only possible Achilles' Heel of that plan would be if the people buying iPhones were satisfied with the million or so apps they have access to, or if they don't all hate using iTunes to load music on their device. But they do care, right? I mean, they're all pretty much miserable aren't they, and just waiting to jump ship to some other device?
Exactly. If you are happy with it stick with it or buy it, if not choose another option but please don't take this option away from people who are happy with the iphone and the way that it works, to me that would be very un-leftist.
Mon, 2010-04-19 18:17
#55
N.Beltov
Why iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad Owners Should Use Linux.
iTunes drives me mad. It's an incredibly weighty application and runs
like an asthmatic sloth.But that's not the unbearable part. The big problem for me is that using
it makes me feel like I've paid for a luxury holiday in an exotic land,
but when I get to the hotel, they lock you inside - you can enjoy the
fantastic amenities provided by the hotel, and they are fantastic, but
you have to pay every time you wanna use them - and you can't go outside
and see the exotic land you've come to, and I like to explore when I
travel to an exotic land! It feels like you're inside a jail, where
you're not allowed to step outside the door, and everything's on
lockdown. I know that "Apple PR" says the purpose of tying the
iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad to iTunes is to provide a seamless user
experience, however, I can't help but think it's really to allow Apple
to control my user experience for the purpose of selling me stuff,
rather than getting the most out of MY device.
Mon, 2010-04-19 20:24
#56
I have as much control over my iphone as I want to have. I understand that you would want more but that does not mean that everyone wants more and I thought the left was about providing choice to people. If they want to have security in downloading apps and don't care about the fact that the "safe" company they are downloading from has control over which are displayed as long because that control means they are safe to download without having to worry about being techy (and the programs I downloaded to my smartphone you had to be a little savy to figure out how to install and where to put them on the phone) people should be able to choose that. If people want more control than they can go to a different system which gives them more control. Now if there was a campaign to destroy all computers except the apples software which does not give control then, yes I would agree with you, not leftist at all but there is not. Apple is just one option for people who don't want or need the control of being able to create or download apps or programs because they don't know how to do it or how to fix it if something goes wrong.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that Apple shouldn't exist, or that computing shouldn't be user-friendly, or that they shouldn't have an app store filled with "safe" apps. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if they did what Android does: allow apps to be loaded from outside the app store, but with the option turned off by default. If you don't want to take the risk, don't load any apps from outside the app store. If Apple doesn't want to sell an app, that's fine, it's their store. Consumers can go elsewhere to get it if they want to. Everyone wins, right?
And sure, people are happy with their iPhones. I was quite happy with mine, it did most of what I wanted and it did it quite well. But what if, tomorrow, someone came out with some new app that would make your life better? If Apple rejected it for whatever reason, you wouldn't have the option to take the chance. Sure, you could buy a different phone and get it that way, if you can afford to drop hundreds of dollars on a phone. If the app store only model becomes the industry standard (and Microsoft is copying it in their new phone OS), you may not even have that option.
Maybe the people driving Hummers are quite happy with them too. That's not the problem - the problem is what they do to the world around them. This is the same thing.
Mon, 2010-04-19 20:42
#57
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The whole open source thing has little if any political significance. It's not "progressive" to use Linux. Moreover, open source software generally would be a disaster on devices like the iphone/ipad, which need to keep things exceedingly simple and the possibility of "things getting screwed up" to a bare minimum. But what's the use? This isn't a rational debate. 
(Anyway, I downloaded the app. And I'm as geeky as anyone else here.)
Mon, 2010-04-19 20:58
#58
Marx would say let the capitalists build it and even globalize it. Because the workers will take possession one day in the future regardless. At that point we will truly decide what we want the internet to be.
Mon, 2010-04-19 21:05
#59
Refuge
I don't think anyone here is arguing that Apple shouldn't exist, or that computing shouldn't be user-friendly, or that they shouldn't have an app store filled with "safe" apps. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if they did what Android does: allow apps to be loaded from outside the app store, but with the option turned off by default. If you don't want to take the risk, don't load any apps from outside the app store. If Apple doesn't want to sell an app, that's fine, it's their store. Consumers can go elsewhere to get it if they want to. Everyone wins, right?
I disagree with this. The way every other computer works is that you have to pay for the security of downloading or buying software from safe sources such as IBM. The way the apple model works is they entice customers with free apps. I have about 60 apps on my phone and I paid for 2. Are there apps out there that would make my life better that I would have to pay for? Undoubtable yes. But I didn't buy the phone so that I could get apps that would make my life better in ways I never imagined. I bought it for the features it came with that are a necessity for running my business. Everything else is just cake.
If the model were to change so that you could download software from anywhere, and for free, then they would have to go to the current model of providing safe apps, that are user friendly - for a fee. Right now the incentive to explore paid apps is to get the free version or look for free version and then move to paid versions of software. I like the model the way that it is because I have so many useful apps on my phone that I did not have to pay for. If you want to get apps downloaded to your phone that is not provided by the company (in this case apple) don't buy apple, buy something else that you can get whatever you program you want. My old smart phone was a windows based smart phone and I could have downloaded whatever I wanted onto it. But because I had this freedom if I wanted safe, reliable downloads I had to pay because IBM had no incentive for providing them for free because you could get downloads from anywhere for free. But those downloads may have bugs, be hard to install, hard to use for a non tech person or have viruses. To avoid that you had to go to IBM (or other similarly safe company which makes programs for Windows based systems) and pay for the privilege to have downloads or programs free of bugs, easy to install and without viruses.
I am not saying that the apple way of providing things is for everyone. For people who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on programs for their smart phone it might be better to buy another device that they can download programs from anywhere if they want safe, easy software. For techy people who find it easy to figure out how to do things on a computer or if something goes wrong how to fix it it might be better for them to get another phone that they can fool around with to put stuff on. The list goes on. But for me this system works perfectly by providing free apps that are easy to use and secure. So please don't take that away from me because it doesn't suit your needs.
Tue, 2010-04-20 02:16
#60
Whowwwow I've gotta have [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18784-innovation-robots-look-to-th... app.[/url] Because I just can't tell the diff between a Modaglini and a Leonard Devinsee
Tue, 2010-04-20 09:19
#61
Snert
I've always thought that Linux tinkerers and the pious followers of the Church of St. Richard of Stallman are a bit like those guys who tinker with their cars on a Saturday afternoon. Thing is, those car guys really just can't wrap their head around why anyone would take their car to some STRANGER for an oil change! What kind of undeserving car owner would let some other man handle their car's oilpan like that?? And if one or another car has a really easy-to-access timing belt, why don't people care about that? That's really important when you go to adjust your timing! How are people so wilfully blind?
And so it is that the FOSS crowd just can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that most people like "Free as in 'I don't have to pay money'" and that's about it? If you manufactured a car (and I'm not sure this hasn't been done) whose electronic fuel injection can only be repaired by a professional, people would still buy that car. Because they don't really care about tuning their own injectors. I'll make it simple: it's just not important to them. Driving their car is.
Tue, 2010-04-20 09:24
#62
N.Beltov
Well, to continue with the car metaphor, some people may know that at one time Rolls-Royce would sell cars with locks on the front hood. If you wanted to have any maintenance done, RR would fly out a mechanic to do the work. Lots of this unfree, proprietary software is like having one of those Rolls Royces. You can't look under the hood even if you want to.
No thanks. I'll stay with my dual boot OS, etc.
Tue, 2010-04-20 10:06
#63
Le T
I've always thought that Linux tinkerers and the pious followers of the Church of St. Richard of Stallman are a bit like those guys who tinker with their cars on a Saturday afternoon. Thing is, those car guys really just can't wrap their head around why anyone would take their car to some STRANGER for an oil change! What kind of undeserving car owner would let some other man handle their car's oilpan like that?? And if one or another car has a really easy-to-access timing belt, why don't people care about that? That's really important when you go to adjust your timing! How are people so wilfully blind?
You're forgetting though that your "Windows car" has door that don't really lock. While your in the grocery store people can just get in and take it for a ride. They can even commit crimes with it and then just leave it in the parking lot and you won't even know it was gone. Until you find some blood splatter in the trunk a week later.
Linux is not about tinkering. You can install a version of Linux and never tinker. I worked at a place where we all used linux and nothing ever went wrong.
There is a reason that there is a whole industry around teaching people how to use Windows and a whole Help Desk industry around fixing peoples crappy Windows computers.
Again, people should try Linux and not listen to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Sven tell you how difficult it is or that it is just for developers.
Tue, 2010-04-20 20:01
#64
radiorahim
Actuallly I think that the question should be whether or not you as a user have the maximum possible control over your devices that you want to have.
Once it gets beyond that I don't have the ability. I got screwed by open source programming on my last phone - I am not sure if it had a virus or if it just didn't work properly and ended up interfering with the rest of the phone. But it wiped my phone clean three times before I figured out which of the three open source programs was the one that was wrecking my phone's programming.
You didn't mention what programmes you downloaded and installed on your phone. I have no way of knowing whether these programmes were "open source" or not.
In any case, if you download and install software on your devices, you always are responsible for what you do...or don't do...whether you are running on a proprietary platform or a free software platform.
I like being able to know that the programs that I download are safe, something that I could never do with my last smartphone unless I was willing to pay IBM big money for their programs (the free ones were few and silly).
As far as I know IBM hasn't produced a "smartphone" since 1992. They did produce some PDA's.
I have as much control over my iphone as I want to have. I understand that you would want more but that does not mean that everyone wants more and I thought the left was about providing choice to people.
Not always. For example its illegal to drive a car without having auto insurance. You can't "choose" not to have insurance.
Also, the right-wing often promotes the idea of "choice" in healthcare services...choices that often undermine the public medicare system.
If they want to have security in downloading apps and don't care about the fact that the "safe" company they are downloading from has control over which are displayed as long because that control means they are safe to download without having to worry about being techy (and the programs I downloaded to my smartphone you had to be a little savy to figure out how to install and where to put them on the phone) people should be able to choose that. If people want more control than they can go to a different system which gives them more control. Now if there was a campaign to destroy all computers except the apples software which does not give control then, yes I would agree with you, not leftist at all but there is not. Apple is just one option for people who don't want or need the control of being able to create or download apps or programs because they don't know how to do it or how to fix it if something goes wrong.
The dominant way of doing things is still "big daddy corporation knows best". It's in no danger of disappearing any time soon. I just don't think that a progressive organization should buy into this way of doing things...any more than they should buy into "big corporations know best" when it comes to environmental protection or workplace occupational safety.
I've always thought that Linux tinkerers and the pious followers of the Church of St. Richard of Stallman are a bit like those guys who tinker with their cars on a Saturday afternoon.
No you've got it wrong. When you buy a car, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota
and Moskvitch for that matter don't make you sign a license that forbids you from
"tinkering" with your car.
You don't have to tinker, but you should have the freedom to tinker if you want to.
Also, nobody says that you personally have to do the tinkering with your computer. Just
recently I did a GNU/Linux installation on someone's laptop and they paid me for my
labour.
This individual was quite happy to part with some hard earned cash to make sure their
system was setup right.
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The whole open source thing has little if any political significance. It's not "progressive" to use Linux. Moreover, open source software generally would be a disaster on devices like the iphone/ipad, which need to keep things exceedingly simple and the possibility of "things getting screwed up" to a bare minimum. But what's the use? This isn't a rational debate.
I will agree that the "open source" movement isn't all that political. But the free
software movement from which the "Open Source Initiative" (OSI) emerged, very definitely is.
The Free Software Foundation was setup in 1985 for some very political reasons...namely
to fight for freedom for computer users.
Specifically when it comes to software it means:
Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the software as you wish
Freedom One: The freedom to study the source code of the software and change it to
meet you needs (access to the source code is a pre-condition for this)
Freedom Two: The freedom to help your neighbour by distributing exact copies of the
software
Freedom Three: The freedom to help your community by modifying the software and
releasing your own version of it (access to the source code is a pre-condition for
this)
When all four of these freedoms exist and are not limited in any substantive way the
software is considered "free software". When these freedoms are restricted in any substantive way the software is considered "non-free software" or "proprietary software".
Whenever I use the term "free software" I am using this definition. You'll note that I did not say "free as in doesn't cost anything".
The GNU General Public License, created by the FSF in 1991 goes a step further than most free software licenses in "copylefting" software issued under this license to ensure that free software remains free.
The Free BSD license for example gives you these four freedoms, but does not do the
same "copylefting". The MacOSX operating system is based on Free BSD Unix, which is
free software. But Apple has done some tweaks, put a pretty GUI on it and turned it
into some very locked up proprietary software.
The term "open source" originated with an organization created in 1998 called the
"Open Source Initiative" (OSI). The OSI was concerned that the radical "freedoms"
promoted by the FSF were "scarey" for big business. And so they downplayed the
ideas around user freedom and instead focused on development and cost issues.
Also,the "Open Source Definition" is much looser than the FSF's "Free Software Definition".
It's so loose that even Microsoft has some software that meets the
"Open Source Definition". IMHO, the term "open source" has very little meaning.
I'm not saying that "open source" is evil...just that it's weak and mushy.
The other things the FSF is involved in is the fight against DRM (Digital Restrictions
Management) and software patents. They also promote the "Open Document Format" for
office documents, promote the use of patent-free media formats like ogg vorbis, FLAC
and ogg theora video. And of course...they promote the development and use of free
software.
All of these things are "political" issues.
Rabble.ca should be part of this movement.
This particular "i-promo" sends the wrong message.
Tue, 2010-04-20 20:16
#65
N.Beltov
It might be helpful to point out the practical meaning/some practical applications of the four freedoms as outlined by radiorahim.
Let me just draw attention to one practical issue: security. If you have free software installed on your PC/phone/whatever then it is difficult (impossible?) for the vendor to be putting spyware or any other malware or crap on your machine. Microsoft Media Player is a case in point; the software sends reports to the corporation about the sites you visit. This is not just some cookies that you can delete. Given the Orwellian intentions and role of the capitalist state, a left wing website (and progressives in general) should be keenly interested in ensuring that that Big Brother is watching as little as possible. Perhaps I've expressed this somewhat clumsily but hopefully people get the idea.
Tue, 2010-04-20 20:20
#66
I've always thought that Linux tinkerers and the pious followers of the Church of St. Richard of Stallman are a bit like those guys who tinker with their cars on a Saturday afternoon.
And by the way, I have a small file of assembler code and circuit board design for a remote control car starter if anyone's interested. It's on a hard drive of another PC in the attic somewhere. The code's a bit spaghettini, as I was just tinkering at the time. But it works to start your car, shut off with key ring transmitter, and even beep the horn a couple times. With some more tinkering, one could add remote door and trunk locking and unlocking.
Tue, 2010-04-20 20:26
#67
radiorahim
It might be helpful to point out the practical meaning/some practical applications of the four freedoms as outlined by radiorahim.
Let me just draw attention to one practical issue: security. If you have free software installed on your PC/phone/whatever then it is difficult (impossible?) for the vendor to be putting spyware or any other malware or crap on your machine. Microsoft Media Player is a case in point; the software sends reports to the corporation about the sites you visit. This is not just some cookies that you can delete. Given the Orwellian intentions and role of the capitalist state, a left wing website (and progressives in general) should be keenly interested in ensuring that that Big Brother is watching as little as possible. Perhaps I've expressed this somewhat clumsily but hopefully people get the idea.
And not to pick on Microsoft...actually I understand that Real Player does the same thing...and did it first. (Microsoft has never been particularly innovative) ;)
Also, alot of very innovative software applications have emerged from the free software movement. One very important one is "Tor" The Tor Project's software allows web users to surf the web anonymously by bouncing your web traffic through a network of "Tor Servers" around the globe. This kind of thing is very important in countries with repressive regimes that monitor web traffic.
Tue, 2010-04-20 20:31
#68
radiorahim
And by the way, I have a small file of assembler code and circuit board design for a remote control car starter if anyone's interested. It's on a hard drive of another PC in the attic somewhere. The code's a bit spaghettini, as I was just tinkering at the time. But it works to start your car, shut off with key ring transmitter, and even beep the horn a couple times. With some more tinkering, one could add remote door and trunk locking and unlocking.
But if there was such a thing as a (insert auto manufacturer here) "End User License Agreement", as there is with proprietary software, your device would be illegal! It's a good thing that Apple and Microsoft don't sell cars ;)
Tue, 2010-04-20 21:34
#69
Frustrated Mess
[nag mode]
You see, I can't participate. Why must Rabble promote a consumerist, eletronic gadget made in sweatshops, produced by a global corporation, using proprietery technologies? Why? Read this. I know you have to promote and fundraise, but Jebus!
[/nag mode]
Tue, 2010-04-20 21:55
#70
I raise this issue the last time Rabble offered Apple products as a prize:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/ipods-made-ikids
Juicy bits:
Posts 7-9
me:
-----------
I remember Rabble giving ipods away as gifts.
-----------
Michelle:
-----------
I don't think there are any electronics anywhere that aren't tainted by bad labour practices, or if there are, I'm not aware of them. Although the digital restrictions management is an issue that I'd also raise regarding Apple products.
E.Tamaran, just curious - what kind of computer are you using to read babble and do other online stuff? I'm assuming it's one that you were very careful to ensure was made by unionized North Americans, right?
me:
-----------
Michelle, you've fallen into the "oh well everybody does it" trap. Just because "every" piece of electronics has child labor in it doesn't mean it's ok for a progressive organization like Rabble to give it away as a prize. Did you consider perhaps, instead of a blood Ipod giving away a piece of FN art. That would have helped to support a native artist and it would have no child labor inputs.
Michelle:
-----------
Good point. I'll bring it up the next time we discuss a fundraising drive.
Is it okay for a progressive person to use electronics that have child labour in them, though? Especially one who makes a point of being critical of others for using them?
I'd be really interested in finding out how much discussion went on about offering FN art as a prize? Any mods want to answer?
Tue, 2010-04-20 22:00
#71
We haven't had a fundraising drive since then. But thanks for the reminder.
It wouldn't make sense to offer artwork as a prize in this case - the site is promoting an iPhone/iTouch/iPad app, so that's why they're offering the iTouch as a prize.
Tue, 2010-04-20 22:03
#72
Which raises the obvious question of "Why is Rabble continuing to deal in products which exploit children and workers?" Yes, FN art doesn't work on an iPad. I get it. Why offer an Apple app in the first place?
Tue, 2010-04-20 23:23
#73
Which raises the obvious question of "Why is Rabble continuing to deal in products which exploit children and workers?" Yes, FN art doesn't work on an iPad. I get it. Why offer an Apple app in the first place?
There are two ways to stop dealing with exploitive corporations: 1) you die 2) you overthrow capitalism. You can achieve 1) by shopping but not 2). Using or writing open source software will likewise lead to 1) in the end, but not 2).
Tue, 2010-04-20 23:37
#74
radiorahim
There are two ways to stop dealing with exploitive corporations: 1) you die 2) you overthrow capitalism. You can achieve 1) by shopping but not 2). Using or writing open source software will likewise lead to 1) in the end, but not 2).
Have a look at the dotCommunist Manifesto
Tue, 2010-04-20 23:53
#75
(He should probably remove the sexist language from that document 
But that's a relatively small issue.)
"In overthrowing the system of private property in ideas, we bring into existence a truly just society, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
The idea that this is the route to a just society is mind-boggling. (I think it will be part of a just society but it won't lead us there!)
Google's Android is just one small indication of what's wrong with this theory. (Mac OS X, of course, is built on FreeBSD.)
We need to overthrow the system of private property.
Wed, 2010-04-21 00:19
#76
[url=http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Canada-vs-Google-10... vs Canada[/url] Google and privacy issues
Wed, 2010-04-21 00:37
#77
Sven
The main question for me is whether or not you as a user have the maximum possible control
over your devices.
I think your sentence might be better written thusly: "The main question for me is whether or not I as a user have the maximum possible control over my devices."
For you, radiorahim, having "maximum possible control" over your devices is obviously very important.
That just ain't so for most people.
I have a BlackBerry which I use all the time away from the office for work matters. Whether or not I have "maximum possible control" over that device is irrelevant to me. It just does what it's supposed to do...consistently, reliably, and without any futzing around with it.
Wed, 2010-04-21 00:43
#78
Sven
Who should control the devices that you paid good money for...you...or the vendor?Can you imagine buying a house where you were forbiden from doing any renovations and could not plant a tree in the backyard without the prior approval of the builder (who could come and cut down the tree if it didn't grow the way they wanted)?
Thread drift...actually...this kind of stuff does happen...particularly in the U.S. in new suburban developments where there are all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with the "outside" of your house.
Indeed. But, no one is forced to live in those housing developments. If living in cookie-cutter neighorhood happens to be someone's thing, then great. Have at it. If not, then don't.
Same with device choices. Don't like Apple? Then don't buy anything from them. Get something else.
Individual choice is a beautiful thing!
Wed, 2010-04-21 01:12
#79
Yeah millions are free to live in poverty in any old corner of America. And they're free to not to see a doctor on a regular basis, too. [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-tents18mar18,1,7073495.st... bands for residents of LA Hooverville[/url]
Wed, 2010-04-21 01:52
#80
And by the way, I have a small file of assembler code and circuit board design for a remote control car starter if anyone's interested. It's on a hard drive of another PC in the attic somewhere. The code's a bit spaghettini, as I was just tinkering at the time. But it works to start your car, shut off with key ring transmitter, and even beep the horn a couple times. With some more tinkering, one could add remote door and trunk locking and unlocking.
But if there was such a thing as a (insert auto manufacturer here) "End User License Agreement", as there is with proprietary software, your device would be illegal! It's a good thing that Apple and Microsoft don't sell cars ;)
I suppose so.
Wed, 2010-04-21 06:16
#81
Rabble, as a business, should be able to do what it wants. When I pay rabble my annual $50 I consider it just that - a payment. The service I get in return is generally worth the money. Rabble's performance dictates whether I send them money or not.
Having said that, I was surprised and disappointed to see rabble jump on the mobile app crap movement. And that leads me into the overhanging feeling that rabble has tried to do too much with technology and not enough with content. Rabble has decent editorials and a lot of content but it's so messily stuck around a big site I have trouble figuring out what to read, watch, listen to. It's great to have an app that ties in with a promotion... that's classic net marketing. But I think rabble's editorial staff needs to take a look at what's actually on the site.
Compare rabble with The Tyee. I read the Tyee and the articles are usually plain vanilla print... and they're outstandingly progressive while being newsy. I don't get the same experience with rabble. So maybe The Tyee will be getting $50 and rabble can keep riding the the app video commons tech train without my help in the future.
I don't think rabble is using its resources properly.
Wed, 2010-04-21 10:56
#82
Refuge
Actuallly I think that the question should be whether or not you as a user have the maximum possible control over your devices that you want to have.
Once it gets beyond that I don't have the ability. I got screwed by open source programming on my last phone - I am not sure if it had a virus or if it just didn't work properly and ended up interfering with the rest of the phone. But it wiped my phone clean three times before I figured out which of the three open source programs was the one that was wrecking my phone's programming.
You didn't mention what programmes you downloaded and installed on your phone. I have no way of knowing whether these programmes were "open source" or not.
In any case, if you download and install software on your devices, you always are responsible for what you do...or don't do...whether you are running on a proprietary platform or a free software platform.
I have no way of knowing if they were open source either, since, as I mentioned, I am not that techy but I was told they were open source. I know the three programs, one which was a game, one which allowed me to view PDF's and one which allowed me more control over editing Word documents on my smartphone, were not big name programs that you normally paid for and I got them for free. They were other versions which did the same thing that big name programs would have done. I don't know if they were open source and someone didn't do the programming correctly (because I don't know enough about programming to be able to fix those problems) or if they were programs that had viruses.
I know that I am responsible for anything that I download to my smartphone. That is the point. I didn't want to pay 150-200 to have a program to do those three things that was from a source which I knew would not affect my phone while at the same time being simple to use (and both programs minus the game cost that much if I were to download from a reliable source). With apple I get the same software for free, plus 55 other software programs for free without having to worry about my responsibility if something goes wrong because I know the apps I download or safe for the phone and easy to use.
I like being able to know that the programs that I download are safe, something that I could never do with my last smartphone unless I was willing to pay IBM big money for their programs (the free ones were few and silly).
As far as I know IBM hasn't produced a "smartphone" since 1992. They did produce some PDA's.
I didn't say that Windows made my smartphone I said that it was a Windows based smart phone (a version of the Pocket PC if you want to know specifics). Windows made applications that could be downloaded onto the smartphone mainly for a fee except for a very few and silly ones which were free. I only had one free one from a reliable sources - google maps. I tried adobe acrobat for smartphone but it never worked on my phone.
[/quote]I have as much control over my iphone as I want to have. I understand that you would want more but that does not mean that everyone wants more and I thought the left was about providing choice to people.Not always. For example its illegal to drive a car without having auto insurance. You can't "choose" not to have insurance.
Also, the right-wing often promotes the idea of "choice" in healthcare services...choices that often undermine the public medicare system.
You are comparing choosing a phone to use to choosing not to have car insurance on your car? I think that one is obvious in use of apples and oranges.
You are also comparing choosing to have no health care coverage over having health care coverage which is set up by people who don't need it for people that need it over choosing one of many types of phones that are available? As I mentioned earlier. If there was a campaign to get rid of all other phones which can have open source programming on them taken away to be only replaced by iphones I would agree, very unleftest but there are plenty of options to get the one that suits you. By taking away my iphone options you are the one that is actually being the "very rich" who doesn't need health insurance so why should you have to pay for what others need when you are not going to need access to it - ie the very techy person who doesn't need to worry about free, easy to use software that is safe so why give it as an option because then you have to pay for it by not being able to access it because it doesn't meet your needs. I am the "poor" one here who needs access to "computer insurance" that I am not going to have to worry about not being able to figure out how to use programs, that they won't wreck my system and that I won't have to pay an arm and a leg for. Apple provides that "insurance" for the same price that I would pay for a phone which I could download open source programming onto. The actual programs are free. Therefore it is free for me.
If they want to have security in downloading apps and don't care about the fact that the "safe" company they are downloading from has control over which are displayed as long because that control means they are safe to download without having to worry about being techy (and the programs I downloaded to my smartphone you had to be a little savy to figure out how to install and where to put them on the phone) people should be able to choose that. If people want more control than they can go to a different system which gives them more control. Now if there was a campaign to destroy all computers except the apples software which does not give control then, yes I would agree with you, not leftist at all but there is not. Apple is just one option for people who don't want or need the control of being able to create or download apps or programs because they don't know how to do it or how to fix it if something goes wrong.The dominant way of doing things is still "big daddy corporation knows best". It's in no danger of disappearing any time soon. I just don't think that a progressive organization should buy into this way of doing things...any more than they should buy into "big corporations know best" when it comes to environmental protection or workplace occupational safety.
I am not saying that we should just buy into what apple is doing. What I am saying is that given all the information I have on how apple is doing things versus how other computer systems and phones are doing things I think that apple is doing them the way that I want them to be done. They don't allow you to tinker with the phone, which doesn't matter to me, but it gives me added security of knowing the programs are easy to use, bug free and free so I prefer to do it that way, which does matter for me. I can't have a phone that gives me the ease of use, being bug free with free apps outside of the iphone but you, however can choose to have a phone that you can program how you like, fix up or change programming on, all for free. You said freedom zero on the policical open software is the freedom to run the software that you wish. Well what if I wish to run the this software?