Why? Is there some US Government regulation(s) that impede the ability of US banks to setup direct bank-to-bank transfers?
Quite likely it's the other way around. Europe is more "socialist" than America much to our (America's) detriment. But no, regulations would deny banks the right to charge $25 for something that Europeans get for pennies, and would lead to "unfair" competition with such upstanding companies like PayPal! Ugh.
I think he means in terms of being something consumers are aware of, like they are with Intel and AMD. Yeah, I think the contrast is being exaggerated more than a little bit here, as a lot of people don't really know about Intel or AMD, and vice versa it's not like nobody knows about ARM, but there definitely is a difference in mindshare here.
If you mean it should compete with Intel CPUs for PC processors, on the other hand, one impediment may be that ARM is (at least at present) a 32-bit architecture.
I can't speak for AC, but I think ARM netbooks would do the trick. Unfortunately, the longevity of the netbook market isn't exactly clear, and ARM netbooks implies Linux, which is even more uncertain a consumer market than Windows netbooks is.
But yeah, phones and tablets, ARM is where it's at for now.
What's sticking it to Apple about releasing open source in a "non certified" state? That's the whole point of open source, that users can choose how it works.
You're just being deliberately confrontational here. When you go in with the attitude, "hey, fuck you, I'll do whatever the hell I want", you're not starting off with a very cooperative attitude is all I'm saying. It's Apple's store, if you're asking them to sell your product, walking in with your middle finger in the air isn't the most rational way of getting things off the ground.
If Apple thinks they can exert control here they aren't really open source compatible except via the tivo-loophole and they need to be more honest about it.
GPL != open source, it's just one license. Apple is very open source compatible. The core of their OS is open source. WebKit, and literally dozens of other things are open source at Apple.
Their App Store also supports the inclusion of open source software. The GPL, for all its benefits, is notoriously non-compatible. It's not even compatible with other open source licenses. You can't say that Apple isn't compatible with open source just because it's not compatible with the GPL (an unclear statement itself, but let's go ahead and assume it for the moment). BSD isn't compatible with the GPL. In fact, very few open source licenses are compatible with the GPL.
And yeah, it's called "cooperation" in those air-quotes because it goes one way only. You sit and wait while Apple does who the hell knows what, leaves you hanging, and you "cooperate" by not discussing the issue on your blog where it might make them look bad.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Appidium is discussing it right now. But going in with a "fuck you, I'll do what I want" attitude, while your right, isn't starting things off on the right foot.
That's not even remotely accurate. Apple's business model is to make money on the hardware. The App Store exists to make the hardware more appealing, *not* as a direct profit source.
The reason behind this is to prevent remotely exploitable apps. With 250,000 third party apps, this helps keep inadvertent security issues off of the iPhone.
Sure, something like a BASIC interpreter doesn't seem like it's going to be much of a problem, but the simplest solution is for Apple to just outright disallow *all* interpreters, which is what they've done.
As for web-based interpreters, this isn't a "work around". Apple explicitly allows any javascript/html the user wishes to run. A web-based C64 emulator is not an end-run around Apple, it's doing it exactly the way Apple would prefer.
It's called "cooperation". Whats so wrong about that?
Applidium has other apps on the App Store, and thus have a relationship with Apple. I'm not sure exactly what you think that sticking it to Apple has to gain for them. Even if this were some lone developer with no other app and no desire to ship any other app, I don't see what starting out from a non-cooperative position is meant to accomplish.
Because the USA, unlike the rest of the world, is immune to the idea that investing in education and infrastructure yields tangible benefits for society!
just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways.
how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?
By definition, when you give something away, you aren't asking for something in exchange.
Ignoring that for a moment, just because it's reasonable for Google to ask for something when they provide a service, that doesn't mean people can't criticize what they are asking for. This is made even worse by the way the thing Google is asking (really, just taking) is difficult to realize up front. Most people don't realize the privacy implications of using something like Gmail, or even just visiting a site that uses Google Analytics.
Maybe they'd still use those services if they fully understood the implications. Maybe they'd not if they had a choice, but living as an Internet hermit isn't exactly a fair choice. Google is gathering a lot of information on every single one of us.
Right now it's a fact of life. You can't avoid Google. But if you don't like the way things are heading, you fucking speak up. What you don't do is just say, "well, they do deserve something in return!"
That doesn't matter. *Right now*, a spambot (or whatever) could just change your password on you and lock you out. What you're suggesting is just the same thing (otherwise, remote logging you out isn't going to do anything except make you re-enter your password). Presumably, spambots aren't doing this now.
Maybe spambots will add this to their repertoire, who knows. But as of right now, this fixes a specific problem that actually *does* exist. If the spammers do start doing that, Facebook will have to come up with something to counter *that*. In the meantime, this solves a real problem.
And even if they do start doing this, heck, even if they are doing this right now, this will still help people where this isn't happening. Every little bit helps.
You're still overpaying. A 50% premium on hardware compared to a PC is definitely a drawback.
Time after time people say this, but when you actually try to build a truly similar PC to a Mac, you find the prices are extremely similar, oftentimes with the Mac coming in cheaper. NEVER do you find a "50% premium".
Sure, you can build a MiniITX PC the same as a Mac mini for less, in a case that is over 4x larger. Or you can build a Core i7 PC similarly specced to a Core i7 iMac for about $500-$700 less, but you won't have a 27" IPS display, and you'll have a separate, noisy, ATX case.
On the other hand, if you don't care about such things as size and noise, such that you see no difference between a Shuttle PC and a Mac mini, then a PC is quite the value.
Sounds like you're coming down with something there PC.
Less threats, sure. But far from completely secure.
Please quote where I said Macs are "completely secure".
That list you linked to is bogus. There are no viruses for Mac OS X AT ALL. And there are only a handful of actual trojans/malware, none of which is widespread, and none of which is of the level of concern where a Mac user should feel compelled to run anti-virus/anti-malware software.
If this is your idea of Mac's comeuppance, you're really stretching it.
it [Windows] is more secure than any other operating system
Um...
Prime example, in 2006 Mac OS X had 3 known viruses written for it
Wrong. There are *no* viruses for Mac OS X. There are a handful of trojans, none of which are even remotely wide-spread (even adjusting for OS X's relative install base) and all of which require the user to enter in their admin password (a huge governor which helps limit the rate at which malware can spread).
Snow Leopard has antivirus embedded in the OS
Wrong. Snow Leopard checks for a handful of trojans/malware. There are no viruses for Mac OS X. Embedding anti-virus would be pointless, unless you just want to be nice and scan for Windows viruses.
People have been saying this about the Mac for a decade now, too. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for this supposed apocalyptic day of comeuppance...
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Is there some US Government regulation(s) that impede the ability of US banks to setup direct bank-to-bank transfers?
Quite likely it's the other way around. Europe is more "socialist" than America much to our (America's) detriment. But no, regulations would deny banks the right to charge $25 for something that Europeans get for pennies, and would lead to "unfair" competition with such upstanding companies like PayPal! Ugh.
How much more mainstream can it get?
I think he means in terms of being something consumers are aware of, like they are with Intel and AMD. Yeah, I think the contrast is being exaggerated more than a little bit here, as a lot of people don't really know about Intel or AMD, and vice versa it's not like nobody knows about ARM, but there definitely is a difference in mindshare here.
If you mean it should compete with Intel CPUs for PC processors, on the other hand, one impediment may be that ARM is (at least at present) a 32-bit architecture.
I can't speak for AC, but I think ARM netbooks would do the trick. Unfortunately, the longevity of the netbook market isn't exactly clear, and ARM netbooks implies Linux, which is even more uncertain a consumer market than Windows netbooks is.
But yeah, phones and tablets, ARM is where it's at for now.
What's sticking it to Apple about releasing open source in a "non certified" state? That's the whole point of open source, that users can choose how it works.
You're just being deliberately confrontational here. When you go in with the attitude, "hey, fuck you, I'll do whatever the hell I want", you're not starting off with a very cooperative attitude is all I'm saying. It's Apple's store, if you're asking them to sell your product, walking in with your middle finger in the air isn't the most rational way of getting things off the ground.
If Apple thinks they can exert control here they aren't really open source compatible except via the tivo-loophole and they need to be more honest about it.
GPL != open source, it's just one license. Apple is very open source compatible. The core of their OS is open source. WebKit, and literally dozens of other things are open source at Apple.
Their App Store also supports the inclusion of open source software. The GPL, for all its benefits, is notoriously non-compatible. It's not even compatible with other open source licenses. You can't say that Apple isn't compatible with open source just because it's not compatible with the GPL (an unclear statement itself, but let's go ahead and assume it for the moment). BSD isn't compatible with the GPL. In fact, very few open source licenses are compatible with the GPL.
And yeah, it's called "cooperation" in those air-quotes because it goes one way only. You sit and wait while Apple does who the hell knows what, leaves you hanging, and you "cooperate" by not discussing the issue on your blog where it might make them look bad.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Appidium is discussing it right now. But going in with a "fuck you, I'll do what I want" attitude, while your right, isn't starting things off on the right foot.
Since I don't naturally associate it with Apple's OS I just call it iphone OS to remove the ambiguity.
I doubt anyone here is going to think you are talking about Cisco's IOS here. Context removes ambiguity.
You used plenty of words with multiple definitions. Here are a few:
act
about
case
sound
first
mind
since
associate
Apple
noted
None of which were ambiguous, because of context.
That's not even remotely accurate. Apple's business model is to make money on the hardware. The App Store exists to make the hardware more appealing, *not* as a direct profit source.
The reason behind this is to prevent remotely exploitable apps. With 250,000 third party apps, this helps keep inadvertent security issues off of the iPhone.
Sure, something like a BASIC interpreter doesn't seem like it's going to be much of a problem, but the simplest solution is for Apple to just outright disallow *all* interpreters, which is what they've done.
As for web-based interpreters, this isn't a "work around". Apple explicitly allows any javascript/html the user wishes to run. A web-based C64 emulator is not an end-run around Apple, it's doing it exactly the way Apple would prefer.
It's called "cooperation". Whats so wrong about that?
Applidium has other apps on the App Store, and thus have a relationship with Apple. I'm not sure exactly what you think that sticking it to Apple has to gain for them. Even if this were some lone developer with no other app and no desire to ship any other app, I don't see what starting out from a non-cooperative position is meant to accomplish.
Because the USA, unlike the rest of the world, is immune to the idea that investing in education and infrastructure yields tangible benefits for society!
But it doesn't.
Congratulations on just proving his point.
Well, I wasn't talking to you.
That's not where he was going with this. He's saying the "real you" is not quite real...
When do we land a human on the Sun?
Are you serious? The Sun's way too hot. Humans can't survive on the surface, except at night.
People's concerns are not just about ads.
just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways.
how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?
By definition, when you give something away, you aren't asking for something in exchange.
Ignoring that for a moment, just because it's reasonable for Google to ask for something when they provide a service, that doesn't mean people can't criticize what they are asking for. This is made even worse by the way the thing Google is asking (really, just taking) is difficult to realize up front. Most people don't realize the privacy implications of using something like Gmail, or even just visiting a site that uses Google Analytics.
Maybe they'd still use those services if they fully understood the implications. Maybe they'd not if they had a choice, but living as an Internet hermit isn't exactly a fair choice. Google is gathering a lot of information on every single one of us.
Right now it's a fact of life. You can't avoid Google. But if you don't like the way things are heading, you fucking speak up. What you don't do is just say, "well, they do deserve something in return!"
Because it's not just about ads.
That doesn't matter. *Right now*, a spambot (or whatever) could just change your password on you and lock you out. What you're suggesting is just the same thing (otherwise, remote logging you out isn't going to do anything except make you re-enter your password). Presumably, spambots aren't doing this now.
Maybe spambots will add this to their repertoire, who knows. But as of right now, this fixes a specific problem that actually *does* exist. If the spammers do start doing that, Facebook will have to come up with something to counter *that*. In the meantime, this solves a real problem.
And even if they do start doing this, heck, even if they are doing this right now, this will still help people where this isn't happening. Every little bit helps.
You're still overpaying. A 50% premium on hardware compared to a PC is definitely a drawback.
Time after time people say this, but when you actually try to build a truly similar PC to a Mac, you find the prices are extremely similar, oftentimes with the Mac coming in cheaper. NEVER do you find a "50% premium".
Sure, you can build a MiniITX PC the same as a Mac mini for less, in a case that is over 4x larger. Or you can build a Core i7 PC similarly specced to a Core i7 iMac for about $500-$700 less, but you won't have a 27" IPS display, and you'll have a separate, noisy, ATX case.
On the other hand, if you don't care about such things as size and noise, such that you see no difference between a Shuttle PC and a Mac mini, then a PC is quite the value.
Not that HTML5 is any better. I tried to run a new "test" movie that Google created with HTML5, and it too ran like a snail.
For video HTML5 is significantly better. For vector and bitmap animations, Flash is probably better in all non-WebKit browsers.
Why would you think Ping is going to be used by non-Apple users?
Um, yeah, because the number of people who use iTunes is just so inconsequentially minuscule!
Yes, because words can have only one meaning and no more. They especially can't be used for products or company names.
Word, Tux, Oracle, Excel, Sun, Bing, Java, Gnome, Yahoo...
Wow, Apple is sure going to confuse people with this!
And if a fix is created, it will only be applied to some handsets as opposed to every handset.
Well, DUH! That's because not every handset will need it.
But not every handset that needs it will get it, which is the whole premise of this article.
It's worse than that. There are some people who are actually upset with Apple for fixing this security flaw.
*cough* sure*cough*
Sounds like you're coming down with something there PC.
Less threats, sure. But far from completely secure.
Please quote where I said Macs are "completely secure".
That list you linked to is bogus. There are no viruses for Mac OS X AT ALL. And there are only a handful of actual trojans/malware, none of which is widespread, and none of which is of the level of concern where a Mac user should feel compelled to run anti-virus/anti-malware software.
If this is your idea of Mac's comeuppance, you're really stretching it.
it [Windows] is more secure than any other operating system
Um...
Prime example, in 2006 Mac OS X had 3 known viruses written for it
Wrong. There are *no* viruses for Mac OS X. There are a handful of trojans, none of which are even remotely wide-spread (even adjusting for OS X's relative install base) and all of which require the user to enter in their admin password (a huge governor which helps limit the rate at which malware can spread).
Snow Leopard has antivirus embedded in the OS
Wrong. Snow Leopard checks for a handful of trojans/malware. There are no viruses for Mac OS X. Embedding anti-virus would be pointless, unless you just want to be nice and scan for Windows viruses.
The mistake of letting users interact with them. Users are the number one security flaw in any system.
Sure, a daemon would say that, wouldn't it?
People have been saying this about the Mac for a decade now, too. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for this supposed apocalyptic day of comeuppance...