How are you defining "usable" here? If I download the "normal" XPilot source I cannot do f all with it either unless I have GCC, make and X11. Should the makers of the original XPilot be required to come to my home and install all of these
You get the source. What you actually can or cannot do with it is not their problem, and never has been. That you then need a Mac and XCode to build the iPhone version does NOT restrict any freedoms. There is no virality in the GPL that says that you need to use GPL-ed compilers, editors or operating systems to build from the source.
*Sigh* Yes you can distribute it, but only other devs can compile and upload it outside of the iTunes store restrictions. I do not think the GPL has any requirement that what you distribute under it actually has to be usable by the recipient...:)
Also, you CANNOT compare the iTunes store restrictions to semi-unrestricted desktop Windows apps, the closer one would be Mac apps, which are just as unrestricted as Windows.
I bet they will never push for a law against violent MOVIES, what with Hollywod present in the state. Games, however, are mostly made out-of-state, e.g. Austin TX has a lot of video game companies.
Unlike Sony, Microsoft chose to kill off its existing line when they introduced the 360. So for the purpose of current-day market, "Xbox" and "XBox 360" are the same.
I am getting bored with all these technological breakthroughs that mysteriously never seem to actually lead to something I can pay money for and get in my hands. Plastic optical memory, I am looking at you, too.
Well, there were companies making CP/M clones, IBM could have gone there. I seem to recall one called "Quick and Dirty Operating System" from Seattle Computer Systems for instance.
Meanwhile, coal power plants are spewing out radioactive isotopes by the bushel because noone outside of geologists even bother that coal holds many radioactive elements.
So instead of charging their cuswtomers, they start charging non-customers? Isn't that like if some grocery product became so popular that a grocery chain had lots of expenses shipping it around to stores that they started charging the producers for being "too popular"?
It is perhaps rather BT that should pay BBC to provide the content that people become their customers to access, much like a grocery store pays farmers for their vegetables. BT needs to learn that they are simply an intermediate chain between a consumer and what they want to consume.
The alternative to net neutrality is "protection money" where content providers who do not pay for "preferred access" mysteriously becomes inaccessible to potential visitors.
They do not have an intermediate ISP sitting between them and the "backbone", but they compensate by themselves having all the techs and equipment that an ISP would have charged them bandwidth costs to finance.
It all comes down to the BBC and J. Random ISP (i.e. BT) having different business models. It is not mandatory to use an ISP any more than it is mandatory to use a restaurant to eat.
When your body stops reacting it's called diabetes.
And even when it doesn't go that far, training your brain into associating less food with a given amount of "sweet taste" can make you eat more than you otherwise would have because nothing then triggers the "I am full" messages that make you stop eating before the last mouthful has reached the stomach. At least from the research I have seen on it.
That is because BMI (Bullshit Meaningless Idoicy) is considered a bloody yardstick pushed in people's faces. It does not matter that poo-poo heads like you know it is limited in use as long as the masses are told it is universal.
Simple: that's the country that created the Internet.
And Germany created cars. Follow their regulations much? Why should the contry of origin of an invention decide something everyone uses when the country is the USA while the same does not apply when the country is another one?
I can buy Blownload's "Ultravulgar" from iTunes. All songs are, naturally, labeled Explicit in red letters, warning me the lyrics may be objectionable.
Why couldn't the exact same system be applied to the App Store?
Slashdot Mirror
How are you defining "usable" here? If I download the "normal" XPilot source I cannot do f all with it either unless I have GCC, make and X11. Should the makers of the original XPilot be required to come to my home and install all of these
You get the source. What you actually can or cannot do with it is not their problem, and never has been. That you then need a Mac and XCode to build the iPhone version does NOT restrict any freedoms. There is no virality in the GPL that says that you need to use GPL-ed compilers, editors or operating systems to build from the source.
*Sigh* Yes you can distribute it, but only other devs can compile and upload it outside of the iTunes store restrictions. I do not think the GPL has any requirement that what you distribute under it actually has to be usable by the recipient... :)
Also, you CANNOT compare the iTunes store restrictions to semi-unrestricted desktop Windows apps, the closer one would be Mac apps, which are just as unrestricted as Windows.
Stop drinking the Model-Driven Development Kool-Aid.
I bet they will never push for a law against violent MOVIES, what with Hollywod present in the state. Games, however, are mostly made out-of-state, e.g. Austin TX has a lot of video game companies.
Unlike Sony, Microsoft chose to kill off its existing line when they introduced the 360. So for the purpose of current-day market, "Xbox" and "XBox 360" are the same.
The only kid you can program via the XBox is that creepy one from the Natal (motion sensor thingy) demos at this year's E3.
I am getting bored with all these technological breakthroughs that mysteriously never seem to actually lead to something I can pay money for and get in my hands. Plastic optical memory, I am looking at you, too.
My wife's an insensitive clod, you ignorant buffoon!
you took the words right out of my mouth
... it must have been while you were kissing me.
Well, there were companies making CP/M clones, IBM could have gone there. I seem to recall one called "Quick and Dirty Operating System" from Seattle Computer Systems for instance.
Wonder what happened to that.
I sincerely doubt Australians want to kill off online banking and VPN (two other uses for encryption) in order to stop Japanese rape-sim downloads.
Then again it is Australia. "Hello, Bruce! Are you a pooftah?"
Ah, proof by using the word probably; that will stand up in any debate.
Please stop feeding them ideas.
Hey, in case you missed it, it is precisely people who think of the children we want to stop! :P
They are there as a tag system so that our alien slave masters can register their property. Don't everyone know that?
Meanwhile, coal power plants are spewing out radioactive isotopes by the bushel because noone outside of geologists even bother that coal holds many radioactive elements.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Nuclear power plants are built to deal with radioactive materials, coal plants - not so much.
So instead of charging their cuswtomers, they start charging non-customers? Isn't that like if some grocery product became so popular that a grocery chain had lots of expenses shipping it around to stores that they started charging the producers for being "too popular"?
It is perhaps rather BT that should pay BBC to provide the content that people become their customers to access, much like a grocery store pays farmers for their vegetables. BT needs to learn that they are simply an intermediate chain between a consumer and what they want to consume.
The alternative to net neutrality is "protection money" where content providers who do not pay for "preferred access" mysteriously becomes inaccessible to potential visitors.
They do not have an intermediate ISP sitting between them and the "backbone", but they compensate by themselves having all the techs and equipment that an ISP would have charged them bandwidth costs to finance.
It all comes down to the BBC and J. Random ISP (i.e. BT) having different business models. It is not mandatory to use an ISP any more than it is mandatory to use a restaurant to eat.
... but most of the merch revenue went to Disney.
Yeah, GPL (the license covering OpenJDK) is sooo weird.
And even when it doesn't go that far, training your brain into associating less food with a given amount of "sweet taste" can make you eat more than you otherwise would have because nothing then triggers the "I am full" messages that make you stop eating before the last mouthful has reached the stomach. At least from the research I have seen on it.
"Artificial sweeteners(*) - for your artificial life!"
(*) Not tested on humans, it was cheaper to bribe the regulators
That is because BMI (Bullshit Meaningless Idoicy) is considered a bloody yardstick pushed in people's faces. It does not matter that poo-poo heads like you know it is limited in use as long as the masses are told it is universal.
And Germany created cars. Follow their regulations much? Why should the contry of origin of an invention decide something everyone uses when the country is the USA while the same does not apply when the country is another one?
I can buy Blownload's "Ultravulgar" from iTunes. All songs are, naturally, labeled Explicit in red letters, warning me the lyrics may be objectionable.
Why couldn't the exact same system be applied to the App Store?