Not trying to take anything away from your script, it has a use-case, but just pointing out that there are alternate solutions for systems that don't have your script installed.
98 karma · joined February 2, 2011
Not trying to take anything away from your script, it has a use-case, but just pointing out that there are alternate solutions for systems that don't have your script installed.
python -m http.server 8000http://keyboardp.tumblr.com/post/38976790879/send-webpage-fr...
What's right for consumers may not be, and often isn't, right for the business so it's not a case of "right" or "wrong" (because that can vary depending on who's point of view you're looking from) but a case of explaining why the strategy was taken.
>Denying every single "good" action in our professional lifes because it could cheat a shareholder somewhere ... that would definitively be a strawman.
No one said every single good action can be denied and, in fact, I explicitly said that I don't believe the people involved didn't have good intentions. However, if there was a choice to be made between increasing profits or "being good", a public company would often choose the profit route.
I understand what you mean regarding the accountability to the shareholders but I think it's used more as a euphemism to say that they are required to make a profit. They're more than welcome to have a philanthropic branch to their company but if you're investing millions of investor funds without financial gain, questions will be asked; that's the reality.
You're looking at it from the angle of a tech consumer, not a business. They've done very well with their Android strategy considering the marketshare it has. Pretty much all Android users will be using at least one Google service which generates revenue or signed up to Google services that will tie them to their ecosystem.
The people who brought Linux, Vim etc.. had a different motive from the outset. A public company spending millions, if not billions, on a project needs to see return on that investment. I'm not saying that the people involved were not doing it for the sake of improving technology for humanity, and they certainly have, but when you're accountable to shareholders profits often take higher priority.
No one is forcing you to use it but it still has potential to positively affect your tablet experience, even if it's indirectly.
General use of karma is basically saying "what goes around, comes around". It's a derivative of the concept from dharmic religions.
Having said that, that's what the market's all about so I'm not really complaining but just saying that the article isn't always true from first hand experience. I think a lot depends on the nature of the app (i.e. web app, game, smartphone app etc..) and what parts are "copied".
But, to me, if I was told that my app can't access location information, I would assume that it's because the user doesn't want my app to access location information and have my app run with that mindset.
You want your iPhone's camera to access location for one app, but not for another. What would you do? What you're saying is that the user has no choice and it's all or nothing. Give location data to all apps requiring photos or disable it completely.
That's not the point at all. Your example is of someone explicitly announcing their location. The issue at hand, which may or may not be a bug, is that the metadata is being used to publish the user's location even after they've said that they don't want the app accessing the Location Services.
Technically, there's nothing wrong in that because the app isn't accessing the Location Services. However, I'm pretty sure most users would assume the app won't use any location data by turning that setting off. If you denied an app location data, would you be happy that they still managed to get location data via a means that's not necessarily obvious?
As you said, Location Services and Photo access are different permissions. Users are therefore likely to assume that location data is not being retrieved if they deny permission to it. If I deny location data to an app, it's because I don't want that app to have my location data. It seems somewhat underhanded, to me at least, to assume that the user wouldn't mind me accessing location data from their photos, knowing full well that the majority of users will not know what EXIF data is. I'd go so far as to say that I would explicitly ask the user if EXIF data should be read alongside the standard location services.
Not sure what you mean here. If my app loaded a user's picture, and they said they don't want location data to be used in my app, a simple if check will decide whether or not EXIF data should be read. This is hardly "every imaginable length".
Of course, this may just be a bug, so I don't think we can jump to any conclusions about Path's intentions.
My current project contains some non-trivial code so there was a lot of prototyping. If I spent time ensuring this code was also well written, I doubt the problems would've been solved because half of my energy and concentration would be spent on scaffolding and not the actual building.
Having said that, I still find documenting the prototype as important as real code. When it comes to refactoring the code, it helps a lot.