Yes, if you proclaimed loudly you wanted a midget bill and it was plain large companies would benefit more from falling midgets.
I see, so this only applies to legislation?::facepalm::
Sorry, but you did. You demanded the FCC act and so they have, in the way it was obvious they would.
Did I? I don't recall saying that. Show me where I said I wanted them to act without expanding on how.
Sorry but it doesn't matter what you said. It matters what you pushed for and what happens as a result.
What I pushed for is what I said: enact legislation that would prevent the ISPs and the FCC from controlling packets based on their origin and destination. I also pointed out that it was unlikely to happen, but it's still what I support.
What we are witnessing is the easily predictable consequences of your actions regardless of your intent.
I see. So it's worthless to express what I really think, and instead should just take up the opinion of what is most likely to happen? Great advice.
You want to abdicate responsibility because you are horrified at the results. But again the FCC would not be voting this in place without the full-on support of people like you, saying they wanted the FCC to regulate the internet.
Once again, they had my support as long as the legislation prevented ISPs AND the FCC from discriminating the origins and/or destinations of packets, which I've said since this topic started many years ago.
If they don't care what you actually said in support then I don't see why you are arguing about what you said since it's irrelevant.
I'm arguing about what I said because of you, not because of them. Otherwise, I wouldn't be talking to you, would I.
No, I am only pointing out what they believe they support is impossible so what they ACTUALLY are supporting is what is happening.
So if I support midgets flying, that means I actually support midgets falling off rooftops?
See? I can be stupid too!
The FCC would not be voting in favor of the regulation as it is without countless people like yourselves crying for them to pass network neutrality.
Fuck you very much. I have repeatedly stated, in this thread and others, that I do not support their implementation of it. How many times do I have to say it before you stop twisting what I'm saying?
So they decided what that meant and are voting for it with your "support".
Once again, I have repeteadly and explicitely stated that I do not support their implementation of net neutrality. How many more times are you going to twist what I'm saying into something I'm not?
I see, thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then I'm not all too surprised the app got pulled. One could argue that it shouldn't have been approved in the first case, but that's an entirely different conversation.
I guess we'll see if it gets resubmitted (and accepted) or not...
You claim you would give up an opportunity for vast amounts of money (and thus security for you and your loved ones) due to some deep-rooted need to serve humanity in a positive way...yet you insult a person rather than (or while) responding to their point. I mean, I guess you could try to argue that even heroes can be dickbags sometimes, but...
I wouldn't say my statement is a non sequitur, I'd say you are.
Even if it stated explicitly I would be paid a million dollars a year I would be against it, for the greater good.
So you're trying to tell us that you would forgo a seven figure income for "the greater good"...yet in casual conversation (online, no less) you attempt to attack someone rather than their argument?::eyeroll::
If you advocated any control by the FCC at all, this is in fact what you were advocating - to let them decide. You cannot paint your failure in terms of not understanding what they would write just as you cannot claim speeding is OK if you never saw a sign with the limit.
I never advocated control by the FCC, I advocating the ISPs not having it.
My ideal way to implement this would be legislation that would cut-off ISPs and the FCC from discriminating or judging based on the origin or destination of a packet. Unrealistic, I know, but there it is nontheless.
You, no. But in aggregate many people like you were calling for the FCC to regulate the internet. You each had fanciful ideas about what that meant, but it all boiled down to a large mass of people saying the FCC should regulate the internet as they saw fit. You were the ones that gave them the power to act.
Let me get this straight...you say "oh no, not you", but then turn around say "but wait, yes you"? Which one is it? Are you going to make the generalization or not?
Let this be a lesson on handing over power to a central authority. Not that you will learn anything as you will fall under the same delusion each and every time you hand over the whip.
I find it interesting you think you know my opinions on everything. Why don't you tell me more about how I think, since it's obvious you know me so well.
And I have strongly advocated against Net Neutrality, because I told everyone here time and time again that any regulation would be controlled by corporate lobbying.
I was the one who realized just what regulation would be written in the real world; you are a tool of those who wanted to use the regulation.
I wanted it to be done so long as it was done right. Never once did I advocate what the FCC is planning.
In short what on earth made you think the regulation you and others dreamed of was ever possible to have the government produce?
I never said it was, I said it's what I would support.
I take little solace in being right because I also have to live in the world you have crafted.
That's funny, I don't recall ever being in a position where I had power.
That would explain why we don't have 30MBps everywhere in the flyover states, but that doesn't explain why we have (comparatively) asstastic service in our major cities.
You know what's scary? I'm just kidding with this response, but there are people out there who would have responded to you that way, and actually meant it.::shudder::
Guess what? Nobody cares. If mobile users cared about openness, they *wouldn't have bought iPhones and Droids*. Those are closed and locked down devices.
lolwut? I fail to see how Android is "closed", since anyone can put what they want on the Android Market without going through an approval process. Not to mention pretty much every Android phone (except the ones on AT&T) can install apps from any source simply by ticking an option box.
Hell, even the iPhone isn't "closed", so long as you don't mind jailbreaking it (which, at this point, is super easy.)
No clue. yesterday, I was advocating Net Neutrality in a discussion here on Slashdot, and I continue to advocate for it. What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating. I think the first post has it right...money runs things.
PS: Sincere apologies to those who told me to read up yesterday...now that I have, I can see why you're calling bullshit. Please note that my support of Net Neutrality stands, but not this version of it.
Oh ok, so all this app should do then is also aggregate information from ESPN, and everything will be wine and roses since it won't be exclusively used for "illegal content"...right? I mean, The Guardian links to sports news IN ADDITION TO the cables, so I guess you can't focus only on the cables.::eye roll::
You do realize that The Guardian is one of the news agencies that has every single cable, and is also one of the news agencies responsible for actually releasing the information to the public...right?
The cables are just as easily searchable and well organized through them as it is through this app. So just because the app can ONLY display you the cables and not the score of yesterday's big rugby match, it's suddenly bad?
This is actually an accurate reflection of the whole Wikileaks thing in general...Wikileaks didn't "steal" any of this information, one or more people did. Yet, the witch hunt has been focused almost solely on Wikileaks, with little attention paid to the person who actually did the "stealing".
Does it matter? It's still capable of displaying the same information in an organized, easily searchable manner (just like the app in question), which is my entire point.
Now, the article says the author is sending $1 to Wikileaks for every copy of the app he sold, which is very different than the app itself explicitly soliciting donations. That little detail changes whether Apple is in the right or the wrong here...if the app does indeed solicit donations, then all the guy has to do is not charge for the application.
I guess if the thing shows back up in the app store in a week, we'll know.
Finally, the Guardian app isn't violating any terms of agreement that I can find. The mentioned Wikileaks app was (donations).
True, but you (or whoever posted it) said nothing about a violation of the TOS...they said that Apple had to distance itself from anything dealing with Wikileaks because it would be bad for their business/image if they didn't.
OK, but as I've said, the article (which could be wrong, of course) says the author is donating $1 of HIS OWN MONEY to Wikileaks, rather than explicitely stating in the app that he is doing so. Once it's his money, it's his money.
Everyone simply assumes this is some evil corporation looking to dominate the world, when a simple glance at the situation from a business perspective yields a much more likely scenario. It was imply a bad business risk to leave it in the app store.
You have yet to respond to me further up in the discussion.
Why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
El Muerte's point is that the artile makes it sound like the author is collecting his money for the application, then choosing to donate his money to Wikileaks...very different than actively soliciting a donation.
Once it's his money, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants with it. Or are you advocating otherwise?
As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations? From what I read, it looks like the author is donating the money, rather than soliciting for it. As in, once he's paid, it's his money to use however he wants to.
Besides, why did Apple approve it in the first place, if your post is accurate?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you proclaimed loudly you wanted a midget bill and it was plain large companies would benefit more from falling midgets.
I see, so this only applies to legislation? ::facepalm::
Sorry, but you did. You demanded the FCC act and so they have, in the way it was obvious they would.
Did I? I don't recall saying that. Show me where I said I wanted them to act without expanding on how.
Sorry but it doesn't matter what you said. It matters what you pushed for and what happens as a result.
What I pushed for is what I said: enact legislation that would prevent the ISPs and the FCC from controlling packets based on their origin and destination. I also pointed out that it was unlikely to happen, but it's still what I support.
What we are witnessing is the easily predictable consequences of your actions regardless of your intent.
I see. So it's worthless to express what I really think, and instead should just take up the opinion of what is most likely to happen? Great advice.
You want to abdicate responsibility because you are horrified at the results. But again the FCC would not be voting this in place without the full-on support of people like you, saying they wanted the FCC to regulate the internet.
Once again, they had my support as long as the legislation prevented ISPs AND the FCC from discriminating the origins and/or destinations of packets, which I've said since this topic started many years ago.
If they don't care what you actually said in support then I don't see why you are arguing about what you said since it's irrelevant.
I'm arguing about what I said because of you, not because of them. Otherwise, I wouldn't be talking to you, would I.
No, I am only pointing out what they believe they support is impossible so what they ACTUALLY are supporting is what is happening.
So if I support midgets flying, that means I actually support midgets falling off rooftops?
See? I can be stupid too!
The FCC would not be voting in favor of the regulation as it is without countless people like yourselves crying for them to pass network neutrality.
Fuck you very much. I have repeatedly stated, in this thread and others, that I do not support their implementation of it. How many times do I have to say it before you stop twisting what I'm saying?
I wanted it to be done so long as it was done right. Never once did I advocate what the FCC is planning..
My ideal way to implement this would be legislation that would cut-off ISPs and the FCC from discriminating or judging based on the origin or destination of a packet. Unrealistic, I know, but there it is nontheless.
yesterday, I was advocating Net Neutrality in a discussion here on Slashdot, and I continue to advocate for it. What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating.
So they decided what that meant and are voting for it with your "support".
Once again, I have repeteadly and explicitely stated that I do not support their implementation of net neutrality. How many more times are you going to twist what I'm saying into something I'm not?
It's worth pointing out that you're twisting what people support into what people believe will actually happen.
Once again, you not only cherry pick what to respond to, but you attack me rather than what was said.
Yup. You're a shining example to us all.
I see, thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then I'm not all too surprised the app got pulled. One could argue that it shouldn't have been approved in the first case, but that's an entirely different conversation.
I guess we'll see if it gets resubmitted (and accepted) or not...
You claim you would give up an opportunity for vast amounts of money (and thus security for you and your loved ones) due to some deep-rooted need to serve humanity in a positive way...yet you insult a person rather than (or while) responding to their point. I mean, I guess you could try to argue that even heroes can be dickbags sometimes, but...
I wouldn't say my statement is a non sequitur, I'd say you are.
Even if it stated explicitly I would be paid a million dollars a year I would be against it, for the greater good.
So you're trying to tell us that you would forgo a seven figure income for "the greater good"...yet in casual conversation (online, no less) you attempt to attack someone rather than their argument? ::eyeroll::
If you advocated any control by the FCC at all, this is in fact what you were advocating - to let them decide. You cannot paint your failure in terms of not understanding what they would write just as you cannot claim speeding is OK if you never saw a sign with the limit.
I never advocated control by the FCC, I advocating the ISPs not having it.
My ideal way to implement this would be legislation that would cut-off ISPs and the FCC from discriminating or judging based on the origin or destination of a packet. Unrealistic, I know, but there it is nontheless.
You, no. But in aggregate many people like you were calling for the FCC to regulate the internet. You each had fanciful ideas about what that meant, but it all boiled down to a large mass of people saying the FCC should regulate the internet as they saw fit. You were the ones that gave them the power to act.
Let me get this straight...you say "oh no, not you", but then turn around say "but wait, yes you"? Which one is it? Are you going to make the generalization or not?
Let this be a lesson on handing over power to a central authority. Not that you will learn anything as you will fall under the same delusion each and every time you hand over the whip.
I find it interesting you think you know my opinions on everything. Why don't you tell me more about how I think, since it's obvious you know me so well.
And I have strongly advocated against Net Neutrality, because I told everyone here time and time again that any regulation would be controlled by corporate lobbying.
I was the one who realized just what regulation would be written in the real world; you are a tool of those who wanted to use the regulation.
I wanted it to be done so long as it was done right. Never once did I advocate what the FCC is planning.
In short what on earth made you think the regulation you and others dreamed of was ever possible to have the government produce?
I never said it was, I said it's what I would support.
I take little solace in being right because I also have to live in the world you have crafted.
That's funny, I don't recall ever being in a position where I had power.
That would explain why we don't have 30MBps everywhere in the flyover states, but that doesn't explain why we have (comparatively) asstastic service in our major cities.
You know what's scary? I'm just kidding with this response, but there are people out there who would have responded to you that way, and actually meant it. ::shudder::
That'd be unAmurrickan! Redistributing wealth like that...are you with the terrorists? ARE YOU??? HUH??????
I agree with most of your post, but...
Guess what? Nobody cares. If mobile users cared about openness, they *wouldn't have bought iPhones and Droids*. Those are closed and locked down devices.
lolwut? I fail to see how Android is "closed", since anyone can put what they want on the Android Market without going through an approval process. Not to mention pretty much every Android phone (except the ones on AT&T) can install apps from any source simply by ticking an option box.
Hell, even the iPhone isn't "closed", so long as you don't mind jailbreaking it (which, at this point, is super easy.)
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.
No clue. yesterday, I was advocating Net Neutrality in a discussion here on Slashdot, and I continue to advocate for it. What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating. I think the first post has it right...money runs things.
PS: Sincere apologies to those who told me to read up yesterday...now that I have, I can see why you're calling bullshit. Please note that my support of Net Neutrality stands, but not this version of it.
Oh ok, so all this app should do then is also aggregate information from ESPN, and everything will be wine and roses since it won't be exclusively used for "illegal content"...right? I mean, The Guardian links to sports news IN ADDITION TO the cables, so I guess you can't focus only on the cables. ::eye roll::
You do realize that The Guardian is one of the news agencies that has every single cable, and is also one of the news agencies responsible for actually releasing the information to the public...right?
The cables are just as easily searchable and well organized through them as it is through this app. So just because the app can ONLY display you the cables and not the score of yesterday's big rugby match, it's suddenly bad?
This is actually an accurate reflection of the whole Wikileaks thing in general...Wikileaks didn't "steal" any of this information, one or more people did. Yet, the witch hunt has been focused almost solely on Wikileaks, with little attention paid to the person who actually did the "stealing".
Does it matter? It's still capable of displaying the same information in an organized, easily searchable manner (just like the app in question), which is my entire point.
Now, the article says the author is sending $1 to Wikileaks for every copy of the app he sold, which is very different than the app itself explicitly soliciting donations. That little detail changes whether Apple is in the right or the wrong here...if the app does indeed solicit donations, then all the guy has to do is not charge for the application.
I guess if the thing shows back up in the app store in a week, we'll know.
Finally, the Guardian app isn't violating any terms of agreement that I can find. The mentioned Wikileaks app was (donations).
True, but you (or whoever posted it) said nothing about a violation of the TOS...they said that Apple had to distance itself from anything dealing with Wikileaks because it would be bad for their business/image if they didn't.
So, genius. /burnt popcorn
Tell ya what: leave a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook on your passenger seat, and tell me how the police react next time you get stopped in traffic.
OK, but as I've said, the article (which could be wrong, of course) says the author is donating $1 of HIS OWN MONEY to Wikileaks, rather than explicitely stating in the app that he is doing so. Once it's his money, it's his money.
Again, this is assuming the article is accurate.
Everyone simply assumes this is some evil corporation looking to dominate the world, when a simple glance at the situation from a business perspective yields a much more likely scenario. It was imply a bad business risk to leave it in the app store.
You have yet to respond to me further up in the discussion.
Why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
El Muerte's point is that the artile makes it sound like the author is collecting his money for the application, then choosing to donate his money to Wikileaks...very different than actively soliciting a donation.
Once it's his money, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants with it. Or are you advocating otherwise?
As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations? From what I read, it looks like the author is donating the money, rather than soliciting for it. As in, once he's paid, it's his money to use however he wants to.
Besides, why did Apple approve it in the first place, if your post is accurate?