It's a bad idea because blowing up a few satellites may make low Earth orbit a field of debris dense enough that it is impossible to keep the other satellites intact/quote.
And lack of satellites is more painful than being beaten by Pakistan army and being converted/assmiliated into another Islamic dictatorship? Not to mention huge human/infrastructural/financial losses during the war.
Pakistan does not have military satellites in the first place
Yet. Note that the Chinese are known to provide military help to Pakistan. The USA unconditionally provides billions of dollars to Pakistan in the name of the so-called "war on terror". Pakistan strongly objected to US attempts to make the aid conditional on Pakistan's performance in war-on-terror, and this objection was heeded seriously by the US and conditional-ness was removed. If you have the money, it takes less than a month to launch a satellite and deploy it to gather intelligence required to strike an enemy country better. It takes years to develop anti-satellite warfare capability. You want India to start when Pakistan already have a satellite in place, and call it a good strategy from the Indian point-of-view?
Which ICBMs are you talking about? India-Pakistan wars haven't needed ICBMs during last 62 years of hostility. Mostly it is conventional wars on the border. Even after both countries became capable of multi-thousand-km nuclear missiles. In conventional, low-tech wars, information about mobilization of enemy forces is crucial in deciding when, where, whether to strike.
If their Chinese overlords help Pakistan launch some satellites to spy on mobilization of Indian forces, anti-satellite warfare sounds very practical. If Pakistan is denied intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of Indian troops, India can do with less troops mobilization. This actually goes on to save money for India.
Note that India is a renowned expert in satellites. If it utilizes that expertise in anti-satellite warfare, expenses may not be that big.
.... I couldn't care less if you believe me....... I don't owe you anything...
Right. Which is why you made this reply. Cool.
Tell me, when you have a conversation with someone and they tell you something you didn't already know
It wasn't this. You told me something that I strongly suspected to be false and subsequent research proved that it was even more likely to be false than I thought earlier. Never got an exact reliable study to directly prove/refute it. Add to it your refusal to give links, pointing to google groups which gave somewhat opposite results. Enough time to spend on an idiot trying to appear smart.
Just wanted it to be put on record because modders are at times affected by bluff like yours.
In general, I agree that creativity helps. In fact, some creative people in a tribe are enough to help it compete against other, less creative tribes.
The way I see it, fire was a revolutionary discovery. The other examples that you point out, could have "evolved". Still take some creativity, but not necessarily the wild creativity / single person's genius.
1. Throwing a stone? Dogs kick things to make way for themselves. Even cows know to pick up an irritating kid (me, 15 years ago) and put it elsewhere. Chimpanzees have been known to be full scale military generals - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/1458241, and use missiles. With opposable thumb of humans (most primates would have somewhat useful hand) and intellect superior in this sense than dogs/cows/chimpanzees, it can be asserted with confidence that stone throwing was not a revolutionary "discovery" and it would very likely have evolved. Possibly independently evolved in many different tribes, with no communication between themselves.
2. Similarly, the spear. First it might have been "choosing" the right stick to beat another guy / prey. Incremental advance in better skill in choosing correct stick (not too thin from the pointed edge, or it would break when struck. Not too thick, or it would not be sharp anymore). With characteristic human (not exclusively human, but still) skill to modify our environment, some person might have noticed he could make a slightly sharper stick by some "operations" on the stick.
Though, by spear if you mean metallic spear, I totally agree. Metal would have been a revolutionary discovery, just like fire.
This is irrelevant. GP never said that this kind of power plant heats up the atmosphere more than it would have been if CO2 emitting methods were being used to generate the same power. GP only said that it might heat up the atmosphere, as opposed to GGP's claim that it would cool it.
Somebody pointing out heat generation in atmosphere cannot automatically be said to not have a "sense of scale".
Sandboxing also consumes computing resources: processor cycles, extra memory. He might be saying that all this sandboxing might be causing the slow-ness?
Maybe he was killed, but somebody was watching his antics. If so, keen observation (and being at the right place at the right time, but I maybe you can't evolve that ability) trumps creativity.
But the software, that is the product, is sold by the company. Then the product goes to make the customer's computers* do what they are supposed to do. So software development is also IT.
*Mobile phones, embedded devices, mainframes all are "computers" for some valid definitions of computer.
GGGP was saying about "in context". As posted by yourself, the context was not about storing search queries. So stop changing subject like an ADD patient and learn to read.
Of course there are problems with Eric. I don't like his name. That doesn't mean he was not right in context.
Search engines aren't "required to keep this information." Case in point - scroogle.
No. Scroogle is about - not storing the information of the person who is making the search request. But the context is not this, like the snippet from Eric you yourself posted. The context is
Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's.
If there is scandalous information about you, scroogle cannot do anything. Search engines are required to crawl the web and store information in an easy to search format. At least until technology advances to the point that search engines can crawl the whole web on the fly and give the search results. Technology may never reach this point, and even if it does, the privacy concerns are the same: your scandalous information that is publicly available will just as easily (maybe more) searchable.
Jainism and Buddhism are less-bad than the larger religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.), in that they take a more-outwardly passive stance than those religions. But that is probably due in part to the relatively-fewer followers; no sense in raising the ire of other religions whose members might try to stomp them out if they become too uppity
This is why I felt that you don't understand Jainism/Buddhism at all. You make it appear like the reason why Jainism/Buddhism are less-bad is that they have less followers. It is also a misrepresentation that these religions "claim to be peaceful". A big reason for Jainism/Buddhism (and most other branches of Indic philosophy) being non-confrontational and less bad than Abrahamic religions is that these religions are not history centric (http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm ; where hindu loosely means all Indic religions).
This lack of history-centricity of Indic religions enables a person to be honestly Buddhist as well as Christian. Most Japanese consider themselves both Buddhist and Shintoist. Buddhism can also co-exist with Atheism, because in Buddhist philosophy there is no such thing as God or an equivalent.
In Jain philosophy, there is an equivalent of God. But this God just created the Universe. He does not interfere in day to day human life. Role of God is negligible in Jain philosophy. So one can be a Jain and an (almost) Atheist together.
I agree that these religions are also instances of "faith in the unprovable". But your argument about confrontationism is wrong because that springs from history centricity.
Yeah, that is why you are unable to point out the differences where I asked for them in my GP post.
Aside from the "forcing" issue
Exactly. That is what I am saying for 2 days. Obviously they are different companies. Next, you will start pointing out that Apple and Microsoft are different because spellings of company names are different! What I took exception to was that by idiotic reasoning, you were trying to make it appear as if Apple was not forcing others like Microsoft forced others. That iphone developers can switch to other business, this somehow makes Apple's "forcing" different from Microsoft's. The 2 instances of "forcing" are alike in the following aspects:
1. People have greater than zero investment (time/money/energy) in them (Apple/Microsoft) before they are "forced". 2. Only option to not be forced is to not do business with them (Apple/Microsoft) anymore losing the aforementioned investment.
I know that Apple starts with an A, and Microsoft starts with an M; thank you very much.
For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm".... Most C02 emissions are not man-made.... it will continue to change in new ways.
You are measuring the effect (CO2 levels in atmosphere). But altering the quantity that you admit to be not a cause (man-made CO2). And expect your measure to change?
If you are bothered with man-made CO2, define clean to be something pertaining to man-made CO2. E.g. tonnes of CO2 per GW-year generated by power plants. Or, tonnes of man-made CO2 per million population per year. Or total number of tonnes of man-made CO2 per year.
So technology can only win if it counters the natural process
If you define clean as some CO2 level in atmosphere, to maintain clean, of course technology might have to do any of the following: 1. Introduce more CO2 into atmosphere to keep it clean; OR 2. Remove CO2 from atmosphere because natural sources have started belching CO2 like there was no tomorrow. 3. Release less/more CO2 by industrial processes
What is so surprising about it?
I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.
Wow. Genius. Except that you forgot to define "natural". What use is this definition? Can you measure the cleanliness of anything with it? Or can you verify and prove to an impartial audience that something is clean with this defnition?
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded?
Depends on the definition of PC, PC hardware industry, and "imploded". But I said it much more clearly, without so many ambiguous words. Why would I say it in this less clear manner?
And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.
What do you mean "flat-out bullying". 1. Microsoft sent gunmen? I doubt it. 2. Threats to not do business with those PC OEMs? This is exactly you solution for iphone developers too: don't do business with Apple. So, what is the difference?
It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.
It was a foolish business decision to sell only Microsoft OS loaded PC hardware too. So? Whatever the threats from Microsoft, they could have taken one of the 4 approaches that I listed in my GP post. PC OEMs didn't and just complained. Similarly, some App store developers didn't move to other businesses and just complain. What is the difference?
1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.
2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.
3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.
Whether or not iphone applications are easily portable, Apple has a power over those developer's livelihood similar to the power of Microsoft on PC OEMs. Iphone developers invested in a Mac, learned new development tools, invested in the App Store one time fee, maybe yearly fee, I am not sure. PC OEMs invested in Microsoft fee, bulk license, developed expertise in Microsoft OSes to sell hardware loaded with them. Both can/could move away. Yet both complain instead of doing something. What is the difference?
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).
Repeated for you in bold. Hope you can at least read bold font. Also, there were 3 other options I mentioned along with this one. You missed the other 3. I am not repeating them.
WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.
What is the point of your/my discussing law on Slashdot? I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs. I earlier had been, and will from now on again, ignore all your statements about law. I only mentioned it once to make it clear that I don't intend to discuss law on Slashdot but you seem to have a mania for discussing law.
They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.
Exactly. Which is why everyone should condemn Apple now, rather than wait until/unless they have "massive power to abuse".
What? I've never supported Microsoft
I didn't say you are supporting Microsoft. I said people like you supported Microsoft. Just like you are supporting Apple now.
But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
2. I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered. To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business? It is not my business to tell them what new business they could start so I gave wild ideas, but there are plenty within their own field of expertise if they are so averse to new genres of business:
2a. PC OEMs could together form/acquire a company to create new OS. Like mobile phone companies used Symbian. 2b. If that is too much work, instead of new OS, they could adapt already available free OSes like *BSD, linux etc. to their purpose. 2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are. 2d. Think for a change. It is not my business to think for them, is it? You are not doing the thinking for "displaced" iphone developers either.
3. "Microsoft became so powerful". Do you know why Microsoft became so powerful? Because its initial abuse of power was tolerated. Just like you are tolerating Apple's abuse of power. Whatever power Apple currently has on developers.
To violate anti-trust law
1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others. 2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted. But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.
Such poor memory. 2 of your statements in your post:
It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did.
I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all
You were confronted with the fact that Apple is "forcing" iphone developers to comply to arbitrary and unwritten rules for not rejecting their apps. Same as Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs to do what Microsoft wanted (which you agreed with, first quote above). You said (second quote above) that Apple does not force iphone developers to remain iphone developers; and hence apple is not forcing anyone. Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.
If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. Android, symbian...), Microsoft didn't force either (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. oil-exploration, resorts...).
Slashdot Mirror
You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
That's what she said.
It's a bad idea because blowing up a few satellites may make low Earth orbit a field of debris dense enough that it is impossible to keep the other satellites intact /quote.
And lack of satellites is more painful than being beaten by Pakistan army and being converted/assmiliated into another Islamic dictatorship? Not to mention huge human/infrastructural/financial losses during the war.
Pakistan does not have military satellites in the first place
Yet. Note that the Chinese are known to provide military help to Pakistan. The USA unconditionally provides billions of dollars to Pakistan in the name of the so-called "war on terror". Pakistan strongly objected to US attempts to make the aid conditional on Pakistan's performance in war-on-terror, and this objection was heeded seriously by the US and conditional-ness was removed. If you have the money, it takes less than a month to launch a satellite and deploy it to gather intelligence required to strike an enemy country better. It takes years to develop anti-satellite warfare capability. You want India to start when Pakistan already have a satellite in place, and call it a good strategy from the Indian point-of-view?
Which ICBMs are you talking about? India-Pakistan wars haven't needed ICBMs during last 62 years of hostility. Mostly it is conventional wars on the border. Even after both countries became capable of multi-thousand-km nuclear missiles. In conventional, low-tech wars, information about mobilization of enemy forces is crucial in deciding when, where, whether to strike.
If their Chinese overlords help Pakistan launch some satellites to spy on mobilization of Indian forces, anti-satellite warfare sounds very practical. If Pakistan is denied intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of Indian troops, India can do with less troops mobilization. This actually goes on to save money for India.
Note that India is a renowned expert in satellites. If it utilizes that expertise in anti-satellite warfare, expenses may not be that big.
India and Russia both have this habit of announcing these awesome things
Is there a problem with that? Vaporware works well to drive off Microsoft's business competitors. It might work in military arms race as well.
Can you elaborate on that?
Right. Which is why you made this reply. Cool.
Tell me, when you have a conversation with someone and they tell you something you didn't already know
It wasn't this. You told me something that I strongly suspected to be false and subsequent research proved that it was even more likely to be false than I thought earlier. Never got an exact reliable study to directly prove/refute it. Add to it your refusal to give links, pointing to google groups which gave somewhat opposite results. Enough time to spend on an idiot trying to appear smart.
Just wanted it to be put on record because modders are at times affected by bluff like yours.
Keep searching. And I'm sure you'll be searching and reading for while
I find it more likely (and simpler) to assume that you just lied to appear smart. Burden of proof is on you.
If I want to show that I dislike something, and you can tell from what I write, then my writing is clear, lucid and simple.
In general, I agree that creativity helps. In fact, some creative people in a tribe are enough to help it compete against other, less creative tribes.
The way I see it, fire was a revolutionary discovery. The other examples that you point out, could have "evolved". Still take some creativity, but not necessarily the wild creativity / single person's genius.
1. Throwing a stone? Dogs kick things to make way for themselves. Even cows know to pick up an irritating kid (me, 15 years ago) and put it elsewhere. Chimpanzees have been known to be full scale military generals - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/1458241, and use missiles. With opposable thumb of humans (most primates would have somewhat useful hand) and intellect superior in this sense than dogs/cows/chimpanzees, it can be asserted with confidence that stone throwing was not a revolutionary "discovery" and it would very likely have evolved. Possibly independently evolved in many different tribes, with no communication between themselves.
2. Similarly, the spear. First it might have been "choosing" the right stick to beat another guy / prey. Incremental advance in better skill in choosing correct stick (not too thin from the pointed edge, or it would break when struck. Not too thick, or it would not be sharp anymore). With characteristic human (not exclusively human, but still) skill to modify our environment, some person might have noticed he could make a slightly sharper stick by some "operations" on the stick.
Though, by spear if you mean metallic spear, I totally agree. Metal would have been a revolutionary discovery, just like fire.
This is irrelevant. GP never said that this kind of power plant heats up the atmosphere more than it would have been if CO2 emitting methods were being used to generate the same power. GP only said that it might heat up the atmosphere, as opposed to GGP's claim that it would cool it.
Somebody pointing out heat generation in atmosphere cannot automatically be said to not have a "sense of scale".
Sandboxing also consumes computing resources: processor cycles, extra memory. He might be saying that all this sandboxing might be causing the slow-ness?
Maybe he was killed, but somebody was watching his antics. If so, keen observation (and being at the right place at the right time, but I maybe you can't evolve that ability) trumps creativity.
But the software, that is the product, is sold by the company. Then the product goes to make the customer's computers* do what they are supposed to do. So software development is also IT.
*Mobile phones, embedded devices, mainframes all are "computers" for some valid definitions of computer.
Ok, I see. So you can change the context, but you never get the correct one. Have you tried Ritalin? All the best.
THAT is the context, and THE issue for this decade.
Thanks you told me, now I know. Tell this to Obama too, he is wasting his time on irrelvant things like recession, economic stimulus etc.
GGGP was saying about "in context". As posted by yourself, the context was not about storing search queries. So stop changing subject like an ADD patient and learn to read.
Of course there are problems with Eric. I don't like his name. That doesn't mean he was not right in context.
Search engines aren't "required to keep this information." Case in point - scroogle.
No. Scroogle is about - not storing the information of the person who is making the search request. But the context is not this, like the snippet from Eric you yourself posted. The context is
Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's.
If there is scandalous information about you, scroogle cannot do anything. Search engines are required to crawl the web and store information in an easy to search format. At least until technology advances to the point that search engines can crawl the whole web on the fly and give the search results. Technology may never reach this point, and even if it does, the privacy concerns are the same: your scandalous information that is publicly available will just as easily (maybe more) searchable.
If you read the article I linked to, you might find it better to start reading from section 2: II: History-Centrism
Jainism and Buddhism are less-bad than the larger religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.), in that they take a more-outwardly passive stance than those religions. But that is probably due in part to the relatively-fewer followers; no sense in raising the ire of other religions whose members might try to stomp them out if they become too uppity
This is why I felt that you don't understand Jainism/Buddhism at all. You make it appear like the reason why Jainism/Buddhism are less-bad is that they have less followers. It is also a misrepresentation that these religions "claim to be peaceful". A big reason for Jainism/Buddhism (and most other branches of Indic philosophy) being non-confrontational and less bad than Abrahamic religions is that these religions are not history centric (http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm ; where hindu loosely means all Indic religions).
This lack of history-centricity of Indic religions enables a person to be honestly Buddhist as well as Christian. Most Japanese consider themselves both Buddhist and Shintoist. Buddhism can also co-exist with Atheism, because in Buddhist philosophy there is no such thing as God or an equivalent.
In Jain philosophy, there is an equivalent of God. But this God just created the Universe. He does not interfere in day to day human life. Role of God is negligible in Jain philosophy. So one can be a Jain and an (almost) Atheist together.
I agree that these religions are also instances of "faith in the unprovable". But your argument about confrontationism is wrong because that springs from history centricity.
The two situations are not even remotely similar.
Yeah, that is why you are unable to point out the differences where I asked for them in my GP post.
Aside from the "forcing" issue
Exactly. That is what I am saying for 2 days. Obviously they are different companies. Next, you will start pointing out that Apple and Microsoft are different because spellings of company names are different! What I took exception to was that by idiotic reasoning, you were trying to make it appear as if Apple was not forcing others like Microsoft forced others. That iphone developers can switch to other business, this somehow makes Apple's "forcing" different from Microsoft's. The 2 instances of "forcing" are alike in the following aspects:
1. People have greater than zero investment (time/money/energy) in them (Apple/Microsoft) before they are "forced".
2. Only option to not be forced is to not do business with them (Apple/Microsoft) anymore losing the aforementioned investment.
I know that Apple starts with an A, and Microsoft starts with an M; thank you very much.
For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm" .... Most C02 emissions are not man-made. ... it will continue to change in new ways.
You are measuring the effect (CO2 levels in atmosphere). But altering the quantity that you admit to be not a cause (man-made CO2). And expect your measure to change?
If you are bothered with man-made CO2, define clean to be something pertaining to man-made CO2. E.g. tonnes of CO2 per GW-year generated by power plants. Or, tonnes of man-made CO2 per million population per year. Or total number of tonnes of man-made CO2 per year.
So technology can only win if it counters the natural process
If you define clean as some CO2 level in atmosphere, to maintain clean, of course technology might have to do any of the following:
1. Introduce more CO2 into atmosphere to keep it clean; OR
2. Remove CO2 from atmosphere because natural sources have started belching CO2 like there was no tomorrow.
3. Release less/more CO2 by industrial processes
What is so surprising about it?
I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.
Wow. Genius. Except that you forgot to define "natural". What use is this definition? Can you measure the cleanliness of anything with it? Or can you verify and prove to an impartial audience that something is clean with this defnition?
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
So, you're saying that the PC hardware industry should have just imploded?
Depends on the definition of PC, PC hardware industry, and "imploded". But I said it much more clearly, without so many ambiguous words. Why would I say it in this less clear manner?
And there is was "agreeing to new terms," it was flat-out bullying, nothing that was in a contract agreement.
What do you mean "flat-out bullying".
1. Microsoft sent gunmen? I doubt it.
2. Threats to not do business with those PC OEMs? This is exactly you solution for iphone developers too: don't do business with Apple. So, what is the difference?
It was a foolish business decision base your business on selling iPhone apps full-time, based on this assumption that they wouldn't reject applications for arbitrary reasons.
It was a foolish business decision to sell only Microsoft OS loaded PC hardware too. So? Whatever the threats from Microsoft, they could have taken one of the 4 approaches that I listed in my GP post. PC OEMs didn't and just complained. Similarly, some App store developers didn't move to other businesses and just complain. What is the difference?
1. Because an iPhone application is easily portable to another platform.
2. Because there was no other viable OS for third-party PC manufacturers. Microsoft owned the market, and Linux was not a viable alternative at the time.
3. Because Apple does not control the smartphone market like Microsoft controlled the PC OS market.
Whether or not iphone applications are easily portable, Apple has a power over those developer's livelihood similar to the power of Microsoft on PC OEMs. Iphone developers invested in a Mac, learned new development tools, invested in the App Store one time fee, maybe yearly fee, I am not sure. PC OEMs invested in Microsoft fee, bulk license, developed expertise in Microsoft OSes to sell hardware loaded with them. Both can/could move away. Yet both complain instead of doing something. What is the difference?
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
No, there wasn't any other viable OS that was sold independently of hardware. Amiga and OS/2 were dead. Microsoft owned the entire market from the mid 90s, apart from a few percent of machines which were sold by Apple (with Apple's own OS).
Repeated for you in bold. Hope you can at least read bold font. Also, there were 3 other options I mentioned along with this one. You missed the other 3. I am not repeating them.
WTF? Law has been the issue all along. The initial question is "why is Apple treated with leniency, while Microsoft is treated as being bad?" - the answer is that Apple has not violated the law, while Microsoft has.
What is the point of your/my discussing law on Slashdot? I am just saying that Apple is forcing iphone developers in the same way as Microsoft did PC OEMs. I earlier had been, and will from now on again, ignore all your statements about law. I only mentioned it once to make it clear that I don't intend to discuss law on Slashdot but you seem to have a mania for discussing law.
They didn't abuse their power to the fullest extent, until they had massive power to abuse.
Exactly. Which is why everyone should condemn Apple now, rather than wait until/unless they have "massive power to abuse".
What? I've never supported Microsoft
I didn't say you are supporting Microsoft. I said people like you supported Microsoft. Just like you are supporting Apple now.
But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.
1. OEMs could quit before agreeing to new terms from Microsoft.
2. I can assure you that there are at least some developers who trusted on the reasonability of the App Store rejection and started creating iphone apps full time. Then their app got rejected unreasonably and their dreams were shattered. To these people you very easily say that they could now start "Symbian, Android, or not mobile phone applications at all". Why not to PC OEMs to start other business? It is not my business to tell them what new business they could start so I gave wild ideas, but there are plenty within their own field of expertise if they are so averse to new genres of business:
2a. PC OEMs could together form/acquire a company to create new OS. Like mobile phone companies used Symbian.
2b. If that is too much work, instead of new OS, they could adapt already available free OSes like *BSD, linux etc. to their purpose.
2c. They could go with other operating systems. Since it is "before Microsoft became so powerful" we are talking about, Amiga, OS/2 and various other proprietary OSes were not so beyond hope like they now are.
2d. Think for a change. It is not my business to think for them, is it? You are not doing the thinking for "displaced" iphone developers either.
3. "Microsoft became so powerful". Do you know why Microsoft became so powerful? Because its initial abuse of power was tolerated. Just like you are tolerating Apple's abuse of power. Whatever power Apple currently has on developers.
To violate anti-trust law
1. Law is not under discussion at all, so stop dragging it in. We are talking about companies "forcing" others.
2. "Before Microsoft became so powerful", anti-trust law would not have applied on them either, right? This is the period when their abuse of whatever little power they had on PC OEMs should have been resisted. But people like you supported Microsoft then, because you know, anti-trust law does not apply to them. Microsoft is not a monopoly, so let them do whatever they want.
Such poor memory. 2 of your statements in your post:
It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did.
I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all
You were confronted with the fact that Apple is "forcing" iphone developers to comply to arbitrary and unwritten rules for not rejecting their apps. Same as Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs to do what Microsoft wanted (which you agreed with, first quote above). You said (second quote above) that Apple does not force iphone developers to remain iphone developers; and hence apple is not forcing anyone. Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.
If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. Android, symbian ...), Microsoft didn't force either (by giving the freedom to do other business e.g. oil-exploration, resorts ...).