To put it a different way: Apple's "walled garden" isn't worth much if the "wall" is really just hot air.
I'm not an Apple-hater. I like OS X and I develop on Macs. I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Because lots of Apple apps, guidelines or no, have been caught "phoning home" info that people certainly did not want known.
On Android, (A) you have to explicitly approve all such services that an app can access on your phone, in advance, and (B) unlike iOS, there are no "no competition" rules for Android apps. If you can find a better (or better for YOU) app than stock Android apps, just use it and stop using the stock Android app. Try that on Apple. You can't.
Granted, Apple asks for some permissions too but after some of the recent scandals it is obvious that isn't enough.
I'm afraid you're missing the fact that when Google, does apps for iOS, they need to stay within the app review guidelines,
...
You claim there is no difference, but that's a big one.
I didn't miss anything, and no there isn't.
Apple guidelines do not require apps to NOT phone home... in fact there was a big flap about that just recently... iOS apps tracking people in ways that they did not approve.
Android app guidelines are actually stricter than Apple's. You have to explicitly consent to EVERY phone service that is accessed by an app: not just location but accelerometers, compass, notifications, wifi, phone data, etc.
IN BOTH CASES you have to explicitly approve of Google Maps using your location data in order to use Google Maps. There is no practical difference.
"FYI Google bought Waze several months ago, and the two services are being integrated already. I'm seeing Google ads on Waze at times, and Waze alerts show up on Google Maps."
Google search has been added to Waze, and Waze alerts are now showing on Google Maps. That's it.
If Waze ever starts "calling home" to Google, I'll stop using it. It's that simple.
well it's hella convenient for location services to be on for core phone functions, like search and maps. you use these things in so many ways that it becomes very fluid. which is why i prefer to use a phone os from a company that doesn't sell my recorded locations to others.
Apparently you completely missed my point.
Location services on Android phones do NOT "call home" to Google. Google APPS do.
Don't use the Google apps, and it's not an issue. And by the way, this is is true for BOTH Android and iOS. Google apps will report your location the same amount and the same way, whichever phone you are using.
The only difference is that Google bundles their apps with Android. Apple doesn't bundle them with iOS.
"for android, you're kinda screwed, because it's baked into the OS."
No, it isn't. I'm getting pretty sick of these falsities being repeated.
It's baked into some APPS in the OS. You aren't obligated to use them. You can disable them and use 3rd-party tools like Waze or any of the many others.
My location tracking is off most of the time. When it is on, I use 3rd-party software. Network analysis shows that my Android phone isn't "phoning home" to Google with my location.
I sometimes use Google Maps to find things. But then I am not at the location I am trying to find.
"A tool by others, like facebook or google login?"
No, I meant tools like Authlogic and Devise.
Your authentication should be at a low level or you're wasting your time. And given a choice, I would never build a site to use 3rd-party authentication. I don't like what those 3rd parties do with customers' information.
No, I don't admit that I am wrong. The only thing I admit is that you're being an asshole.
What I stated was: even if there is some stretch of the imagination by which you could be considered correct, it's so thin that calling it "nitpicking" would be a complement.
What is wrong with you, anyway? Because something is.
Ah, never mind. I've already been feeding the troll too much, methinks.
Software developer should NEVER try to roll their own authentication, just like they shouldn't try to roll their own encryption.
Security is the domain of PROFESSIONALS and EXPERTS only. Your average softdev should NEVER EVER EVER try to roll their own authentication.
It's better to use existing software written by PROFESSIONALS and EXPERTS. Like OpenSSH. That's what everybody should use for authentication.
Wow. How wrong could this be? Let me count the ways...
Nah. I have better things to do. I'll just say that a "real" developer uses tools developed by others to "roll their own" authentication. Nobody said you should to invent your own hashing algorithm or anything. Just follow recommended practices, use a known-to-be decent hash method, and be sure to salt.
I have to wonder why government thinks public shaming will make any difference.
When it's happened to Obama, they've just pretended it didn't exist and tried to wish it away. So why should we do any different when it comes to companies?
Taxation on profit does not equal taxation on production.
Ah... now you are saying something different. Earlier, you were saying production does not equal profit.
But either way, you're still trolling, and I caught you at it. For all practical purposes, yes taxing profits is a tax on production. Even if it isn't technically, it still has the same economic effect: discouraging production.
So you can continue trolling or spinning or nitpicking or whatever it is you think you're doing: it's still just trolling. You've had nothing genuine to add to the conversation.
"Aren't they obligated (by law) to protect their trademark, or risk loosing it?"
No. The "obligation" is rhetoric. If you don't protect your trademark, then others may get away with using it, but you don't "lose" it.
But more specifically, in the context of THIS situation: no, you are not "obligated" (or even legally entitled, for that matter) to "protect" your trademark from "fair use".
Fair use includes news reporting (by just about anybody), criticism, and humor (especially parody). There is no legal "protection" from these.
Sorry, it won't wash. Let's refer back to the original comments, shall we?
Maybe if taxes were on consumption rather than production, productive people wouldn't have to shelter their funds.
---
Most of the taxes sheltered by people are on profits.
Companies are the ones who shelter money from production and consumption.
What you missed is that taxing profits is taxing production. I did NOT write "production and profits are the same things". But when you tax the benefits of production (profits), you are in effect taxing production... you are taxing the very incentive for which most people engage in production in the first place.
Profits are the result of production. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, and the like are taxes on production. They are therefore, by definition, counter-productive.
---
All human actions result in death. Therefore by definition, all human action are counter-productive.
Hey, that works for everything!
No, it doesn't, and there are numerous reasons why. But first and foremost, the very first sentence is false. Not "all human action" results in death. In fact the vast majority of human action does not result in death. You are conflating an eventuality with a consequence, but they are not the same things. Death eventually occurs, in all recorded cases so far. But most human actions do not cause it. Therefore death is not the "result" of that action. Action can sometimes result in death, but usually it does not. So "all human action results in death" is just plain false.
If anything, the opposite is true: most human action supports life or quality of life, in defiance of death.
Then you go on to claim that the same logic -- which was NOT my logic, it was your feeble attempt at logic -- works for everything. But it doesn't. It didn't even work for the original case on which you tried to apply it.
Your argument just didn't fly, and not matter how many times you try to repeat it or explain it, it still doesn't. It was simply wrong.
And I have nothing further to say. You can blather on all you like about my failure to understand, but the failure most certainly was not mine.
I didn't say that. My point was that libertarian ethics are incompatible with utilitarianism, as Ayn Rand herself pointed out.
You implied it. But let me address this point. First, Rand is hardly an expert on Libertarians. Keep in mind that Libertarians, as a group, rejected Rand... don't confuse Objectivists with Libertarians! They are not the same at all.
But more importantly, second: you have gotten your own point wrong. Rand despised what she called Utilitarianism. Saying that Libertarianism is incompatible with it is actually a compliment.
"I made no mention of Keynes. Modern economic theory was founded by John Stuart Mill, and others, using the techniques of the utilitarian calculus to describe rationality and create a framework for modelling rational interactions."
Wrong again. Certain economic philosophy -- not to be confused with the science of economics -- was promoted by Mill. And subscribed to by few. "Most modern economists" -- especially those involved in government -- neither believe in or follow Mill's philosophy. Rather they are dyed-in-the-wool Keynesians, and most even admit it.
Much of modern mathematical economic theory on the other hand, as opposed to philosophy, was formulated by the early Austrian school. Early Austrians proposed a great deal of the math that is not a part of "mainstream" economic theory, and was "borrowed" by the proto-Keynesians (interventionists) and later Keynes himself, and made Gospel. (It should be noted that Mill's philosophy also included interventionism, but again we have to distinguish between political economic philosophy and "economics". They are not the same things.)
Later Austrians have argued that the math is only conceptual and does not actually model the real world, and that interventionism only interferes destructively with, rather than supports, free markets. That concept is still rejected by Keynesians, even though 80+ years of experience shows it to be fundamentally true.
"1. Unable to argue logically about his points: check.
2. Unable to grasp the difference between profit and production: check.
3. Calling those who point these two fact to him trolls: check."
I know I stated I wouldn't reply, but you have amazed me with your depth of misunderstanding. I am truly impressed. It's really more like this:
1. Unable to understand logic. Period. Check.
2. Unable to grasp that profit is the result of production. Check, check, and check again.
3. Calling repeated failures to understand item 2 "pointing out facts". Check.
"I see you have no sense of self-criticism when it comes to your beliefs. Even when they are absurd, like claiming that taxes on profits equal taxes on production."
It has nothing to do with "belief". It has to do with whether your comment made any logical sense.
You can debate all day about belief. But I do know logic, and that wasn't it.
Don't bother to reply. I won't feed any more trolls today.
"The difference between this and thought crime is that one involves thinking about doing it and one involves doing it.
Idiot."
No shit, Sherlock.
The situation *I* was referring to, was making it a crime to possess "artificial depictions" of children as though it were really somehow harming children.
Precisely the difference between thinking about it, and actually doing it.
So take your "idiot" comment and stuff it up your own idiot ass.
Most of you are akin to chimpanzees jumping at the behest of memes to strip freedoms in the support of your meme's attempt at dominance.
And you are not? I am reminded of a newpaper cartoon I saw that was penned in the '60s. There was a whole row of young people, all wearing beads, vests, bell-bottom jeans, and long hair, saying in unison: "Look! We're non-conforming!"
Grow up and leave that tens of millenia old crap on the dustheap of history where it belongs. We, who do not recognize consenting crimes, are currently twisting the dagger in the corpse of anti-gay and anti-marijuana laws.
How about you grow up and read the philosophers who got there long before you? Like Lysander Spooner, who wrote "Vices Are Not Crimes" in 1875?
"Of course, this is where libertarianism falls flat on its face. Your transaction incurs costs on others, and you are irrational if you do not take those costs into account."
I would agree with you if GP's comment were actually a reflection of "libertarianism", but it's not.
Where do you get the idea that libertarians (or an even more egregious error, Libertarians) have no ethics?
Oh, yeah... the liberal media that paints them all as anarchists. Well, I have news for you: [A] what you call "modern" economics is largely bunk (seriously... Keynes and his "interventionist" theories have been so thoroughly discredited over the last 4 decades, it's just ridiculous), but that's kind of beside the point, so on to [B] libertarians are not anarchists. If they were, there would be no need for the word "libertarian". Further, anarchists have their own party (called, appropriately enough, the Anarchist Party). They have run candidates for President.
Libertarians (small "L") and Libertarians (large "l") in America are, by and large, supporters of the Constitution. They are also supporters of free markets, but that doesn't mean "anything goes". One of the fundamental principles of libertarian philosophy is that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In other words, you don't have the right to harm others.
Therefore, if trade does harm to others, it is not libertarian, by definition. You might be thinking of anarchy, but you sure as hell aren't referring to libertarians.
The Libertarian party, in particular is definitely constitutionalist, definitely supports the rule of law, and specifically denounces doing harm to or initiating force against others.
"wow, that's a douchey thing to do! you probably made her feel really bad. how was she to know it wasn't allowed on your public network - you have a toc?"
You like talking down to people, don't you?
Yes, I probably made her feel bad, but she had it coming. How would she know she was not supposed to download music via BitTorrent? Simple: a broadcast network name of Keep It Legal, and a warning message when you log in to the effect of: "Please keep this community network alive by not doing anything naughty."
Slashdot Mirror
To put it a different way: Apple's "walled garden" isn't worth much if the "wall" is really just hot air.
I'm not an Apple-hater. I like OS X and I develop on Macs. I just don't like the tradeoff on iOS between "security" and freedom, because like nearly all such trades, it turns out the security is largely illusory.
Frankly, Android.
Because lots of Apple apps, guidelines or no, have been caught "phoning home" info that people certainly did not want known.
On Android, (A) you have to explicitly approve all such services that an app can access on your phone, in advance, and (B) unlike iOS, there are no "no competition" rules for Android apps. If you can find a better (or better for YOU) app than stock Android apps, just use it and stop using the stock Android app. Try that on Apple. You can't.
Granted, Apple asks for some permissions too but after some of the recent scandals it is obvious that isn't enough.
I'm afraid you're missing the fact that when Google, does apps for iOS, they need to stay within the app review guidelines,
...
You claim there is no difference, but that's a big one.
I didn't miss anything, and no there isn't.
Apple guidelines do not require apps to NOT phone home... in fact there was a big flap about that just recently... iOS apps tracking people in ways that they did not approve.
Android app guidelines are actually stricter than Apple's. You have to explicitly consent to EVERY phone service that is accessed by an app: not just location but accelerometers, compass, notifications, wifi, phone data, etc.
IN BOTH CASES you have to explicitly approve of Google Maps using your location data in order to use Google Maps. There is no practical difference.
"FYI Google bought Waze several months ago, and the two services are being integrated already. I'm seeing Google ads on Waze at times, and Waze alerts show up on Google Maps."
Google search has been added to Waze, and Waze alerts are now showing on Google Maps. That's it.
If Waze ever starts "calling home" to Google, I'll stop using it. It's that simple.
well it's hella convenient for location services to be on for core phone functions, like search and maps. you use these things in so many ways that it becomes very fluid. which is why i prefer to use a phone os from a company that doesn't sell my recorded locations to others.
Apparently you completely missed my point.
Location services on Android phones do NOT "call home" to Google. Google APPS do.
Don't use the Google apps, and it's not an issue. And by the way, this is is true for BOTH Android and iOS. Google apps will report your location the same amount and the same way, whichever phone you are using.
The only difference is that Google bundles their apps with Android. Apple doesn't bundle them with iOS.
"for android, you're kinda screwed, because it's baked into the OS."
No, it isn't. I'm getting pretty sick of these falsities being repeated.
It's baked into some APPS in the OS. You aren't obligated to use them. You can disable them and use 3rd-party tools like Waze or any of the many others.
My location tracking is off most of the time. When it is on, I use 3rd-party software. Network analysis shows that my Android phone isn't "phoning home" to Google with my location.
I sometimes use Google Maps to find things. But then I am not at the location I am trying to find.
"A tool by others, like facebook or google login?"
No, I meant tools like Authlogic and Devise.
Your authentication should be at a low level or you're wasting your time. And given a choice, I would never build a site to use 3rd-party authentication. I don't like what those 3rd parties do with customers' information.
No, I don't admit that I am wrong. The only thing I admit is that you're being an asshole.
What I stated was: even if there is some stretch of the imagination by which you could be considered correct, it's so thin that calling it "nitpicking" would be a complement.
What is wrong with you, anyway? Because something is.
Ah, never mind. I've already been feeding the troll too much, methinks.
Software developer should NEVER try to roll their own authentication, just like they shouldn't try to roll their own encryption.
Security is the domain of PROFESSIONALS and EXPERTS only. Your average softdev should NEVER EVER EVER try to roll their own authentication.
It's better to use existing software written by PROFESSIONALS and EXPERTS. Like OpenSSH. That's what everybody should use for authentication.
Wow. How wrong could this be? Let me count the ways...
Nah. I have better things to do. I'll just say that a "real" developer uses tools developed by others to "roll their own" authentication. Nobody said you should to invent your own hashing algorithm or anything. Just follow recommended practices, use a known-to-be decent hash method, and be sure to salt.
It ain't rocket science.
"Now everyone knows you basically have no penis and scrotum any longer. That's embarrassing!"
Wow. That's a pretty graphic example. But you make it sound very believable. Almost as though you were actually there!
I have to wonder why government thinks public shaming will make any difference.
When it's happened to Obama, they've just pretended it didn't exist and tried to wish it away. So why should we do any different when it comes to companies?
Taxation on profit does not equal taxation on production.
Ah... now you are saying something different. Earlier, you were saying production does not equal profit.
But either way, you're still trolling, and I caught you at it. For all practical purposes, yes taxing profits is a tax on production. Even if it isn't technically, it still has the same economic effect: discouraging production.
So you can continue trolling or spinning or nitpicking or whatever it is you think you're doing: it's still just trolling. You've had nothing genuine to add to the conversation.
"I totally agree. What kind of an idiot gives their passowrd to an administrator?"
Funny. But it just goes to illustrate a fundamental truth:
No matter how secure you make your electronic system, at some point a human has to interact with it, and humans are fallible.
"Aren't they obligated (by law) to protect their trademark, or risk loosing it?"
No. The "obligation" is rhetoric. If you don't protect your trademark, then others may get away with using it, but you don't "lose" it.
But more specifically, in the context of THIS situation: no, you are not "obligated" (or even legally entitled, for that matter) to "protect" your trademark from "fair use".
Fair use includes news reporting (by just about anybody), criticism, and humor (especially parody). There is no legal "protection" from these.
2001, you really do have to get over her and move on...
Tell that to the loony "doctors" who still use the Rorschach Test.
"Not all production results in profit - correct. In fact the vast majority of production does not result in profit - also correct."
It still won't wash. The CONTEXT was economic production.
The vast majority of economic production does in fact product profit.
You can twist this as many ways as you like. You were still wrong.
And I am completely done. You're either an idiot or trolling. I really don't care which; I won't waste more of my time.
Maybe if taxes were on consumption rather than production, productive people wouldn't have to shelter their funds.
---
Most of the taxes sheltered by people are on profits.
Companies are the ones who shelter money from production and consumption.
What you missed is that taxing profits is taxing production. I did NOT write "production and profits are the same things". But when you tax the benefits of production (profits), you are in effect taxing production... you are taxing the very incentive for which most people engage in production in the first place.
Profits are the result of production. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, and the like are taxes on production. They are therefore, by definition, counter-productive.
---
All human actions result in death. Therefore by definition, all human action are counter-productive.
Hey, that works for everything!
No, it doesn't, and there are numerous reasons why. But first and foremost, the very first sentence is false. Not "all human action" results in death. In fact the vast majority of human action does not result in death. You are conflating an eventuality with a consequence, but they are not the same things. Death eventually occurs, in all recorded cases so far. But most human actions do not cause it. Therefore death is not the "result" of that action. Action can sometimes result in death, but usually it does not. So "all human action results in death" is just plain false.
If anything, the opposite is true: most human action supports life or quality of life, in defiance of death.
Then you go on to claim that the same logic -- which was NOT my logic, it was your feeble attempt at logic -- works for everything. But it doesn't. It didn't even work for the original case on which you tried to apply it.
Your argument just didn't fly, and not matter how many times you try to repeat it or explain it, it still doesn't. It was simply wrong.
And I have nothing further to say. You can blather on all you like about my failure to understand, but the failure most certainly was not mine.
s/that is not part of/that is NOW part of
I didn't say that. My point was that libertarian ethics are incompatible with utilitarianism, as Ayn Rand herself pointed out.
You implied it. But let me address this point. First, Rand is hardly an expert on Libertarians. Keep in mind that Libertarians, as a group, rejected Rand... don't confuse Objectivists with Libertarians! They are not the same at all.
But more importantly, second: you have gotten your own point wrong. Rand despised what she called Utilitarianism. Saying that Libertarianism is incompatible with it is actually a compliment.
"I made no mention of Keynes. Modern economic theory was founded by John Stuart Mill, and others, using the techniques of the utilitarian calculus to describe rationality and create a framework for modelling rational interactions."
Wrong again. Certain economic philosophy -- not to be confused with the science of economics -- was promoted by Mill. And subscribed to by few. "Most modern economists" -- especially those involved in government -- neither believe in or follow Mill's philosophy. Rather they are dyed-in-the-wool Keynesians, and most even admit it.
Much of modern mathematical economic theory on the other hand, as opposed to philosophy, was formulated by the early Austrian school. Early Austrians proposed a great deal of the math that is not a part of "mainstream" economic theory, and was "borrowed" by the proto-Keynesians (interventionists) and later Keynes himself, and made Gospel. (It should be noted that Mill's philosophy also included interventionism, but again we have to distinguish between political economic philosophy and "economics". They are not the same things.)
Later Austrians have argued that the math is only conceptual and does not actually model the real world, and that interventionism only interferes destructively with, rather than supports, free markets. That concept is still rejected by Keynesians, even though 80+ years of experience shows it to be fundamentally true.
"1. Unable to argue logically about his points: check. 2. Unable to grasp the difference between profit and production: check. 3. Calling those who point these two fact to him trolls: check."
I know I stated I wouldn't reply, but you have amazed me with your depth of misunderstanding. I am truly impressed. It's really more like this: 1. Unable to understand logic. Period. Check.
2. Unable to grasp that profit is the result of production. Check, check, and check again.
3. Calling repeated failures to understand item 2 "pointing out facts". Check.
You're a real piece of work.
"I see you have no sense of self-criticism when it comes to your beliefs. Even when they are absurd, like claiming that taxes on profits equal taxes on production."
It has nothing to do with "belief". It has to do with whether your comment made any logical sense.
You can debate all day about belief. But I do know logic, and that wasn't it.
Don't bother to reply. I won't feed any more trolls today.
"The difference between this and thought crime is that one involves thinking about doing it and one involves doing it.
Idiot."
No shit, Sherlock.
The situation *I* was referring to, was making it a crime to possess "artificial depictions" of children as though it were really somehow harming children.
Precisely the difference between thinking about it, and actually doing it.
So take your "idiot" comment and stuff it up your own idiot ass.
A lefty wrote tbis.
Most of you are akin to chimpanzees jumping at the behest of memes to strip freedoms in the support of your meme's attempt at dominance.
And you are not? I am reminded of a newpaper cartoon I saw that was penned in the '60s. There was a whole row of young people, all wearing beads, vests, bell-bottom jeans, and long hair, saying in unison: "Look! We're non-conforming!"
Grow up and leave that tens of millenia old crap on the dustheap of history where it belongs. We, who do not recognize consenting crimes, are currently twisting the dagger in the corpse of anti-gay and anti-marijuana laws.
How about you grow up and read the philosophers who got there long before you? Like Lysander Spooner, who wrote "Vices Are Not Crimes" in 1875?
"Of course, this is where libertarianism falls flat on its face. Your transaction incurs costs on others, and you are irrational if you do not take those costs into account."
I would agree with you if GP's comment were actually a reflection of "libertarianism", but it's not.
Where do you get the idea that libertarians (or an even more egregious error, Libertarians) have no ethics?
Oh, yeah... the liberal media that paints them all as anarchists. Well, I have news for you: [A] what you call "modern" economics is largely bunk (seriously... Keynes and his "interventionist" theories have been so thoroughly discredited over the last 4 decades, it's just ridiculous), but that's kind of beside the point, so on to [B] libertarians are not anarchists. If they were, there would be no need for the word "libertarian". Further, anarchists have their own party (called, appropriately enough, the Anarchist Party). They have run candidates for President.
Libertarians (small "L") and Libertarians (large "l") in America are, by and large, supporters of the Constitution. They are also supporters of free markets, but that doesn't mean "anything goes". One of the fundamental principles of libertarian philosophy is that your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In other words, you don't have the right to harm others.
Therefore, if trade does harm to others, it is not libertarian, by definition. You might be thinking of anarchy, but you sure as hell aren't referring to libertarians.
The Libertarian party, in particular is definitely constitutionalist, definitely supports the rule of law, and specifically denounces doing harm to or initiating force against others.
"wow, that's a douchey thing to do! you probably made her feel really bad. how was she to know it wasn't allowed on your public network - you have a toc?"
You like talking down to people, don't you?
Yes, I probably made her feel bad, but she had it coming. How would she know she was not supposed to download music via BitTorrent? Simple: a broadcast network name of Keep It Legal, and a warning message when you log in to the effect of: "Please keep this community network alive by not doing anything naughty."
Gee, do you really think she misunderstood?