My experience with the Quickcam line is that the drivers are intrusive.
Say for example you set the exposure settings to look good in your specific lighting conditions (ex: 1/300th of a second) because the automatic correction features are really screwed up for your specific lighting conditions...
..you would expect that the next time a program grabs a snapshot off the camera (or starts recording video), that those exposure settings would have been remembered.. nope.. back to 1/30th of a second.
It proved impossible for me to easily schedule a task to take a picture once per day at 6pm with the QuickCam pointed outside my window, because the automatic exposure setting get the exposer completely wrong (nearly 100% white screen over-saturation), and there is nothing that can easily be done about it because the drivers insist of reverting the exposure setting every single time the camera is opened. Even within GraphEdit, simply stopping and then restarting capture causes the exposure setting to revert.
Try replacing "Unverifiable" with "Unverified" in your argument...
Does it still hold? Yeah. It doesn't.
The summary of the TFA states quite clearly what I have been saying for years, that there arent any experts in statistics going over the work of these climate scientists.
The fact is that most of these climate scientists are not experts in the field that they are practicing. Most climate scientists are practicing statistics, not performing experiments or collecting data. Who reviews their papers? Why other climate scientists who are also not experts in statistics. We've got what are effectively laymen using very advanced techniques such as Principle Component Analysis, something that even experts find tricky to use correctly, and the work is reviewed by other laymen..
..and the verification of their work by actual experts in statistics is obstructed, and thats OK?
I have stated NOTHING about the validity of the AGW theory, yet you are blasting out the "denialist" crap at me.
Is your belief system really this fucked up?
Do you realize that its quite possible that both "AGW is real" and "CRU is guilty of intentionaly restricting access to the data entirely on the basis of the views of those requesting access to the data" are true statements?
Yeah.. didn't think so.
You know whats worse than a denialist? A fucking asshat that unquestionally defends people who agree with them.
If you want one example in which doing the equivalent of typing "make" would allow your app to multitask, just go back to MacOS around the time of classic MacOS 6 or so. The multitasking was cooperative, and needed to be supported by each application in order to work properly. If you recompiled your program, the libraries and linkage and such could have the hooks all inserted automatically, enabling much better multitasking support without the programmer changing a single line of code, simply by recompiling and re-linking the application.
Ahem, not too bright, are ya? In coorperative multitasking, yielding only within library calls isnt good enough and will almost certainly create an unresponsive craptastic sytemm. Yielding is done specifically during long processing, not within UI calls and the like.
You have just described why Apple should NOT be doing what its doing, that in fact "just rebuilding" should be disallowed.
Any time you have a multitasking system that's not just a simplistic pure preemptive one, you can improve multitasking by using APIs and system calls that cooperate with the multitasking implementation (even if it's not "cooperative" mulltitasking).
Modifications to API and system calls do not require a recompile unless the interface to them changes, and if the interface to them changes, you can't simply recompile.
It is clear to me that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Several degrees of warming is not trivial, it would result in sea level rises large enough to wipe out many coastal areas which are currently heavily populated - parts of Florida, Bangladesh, India, Bangkok, etc, etc, quite apart from other changes possibly precipitated by the loss of the ice caps.
My alarm bells went off because you used alarmist wording.. "wipe out many coastal areas".. well, sure.. you could talk about something that takes 100+ years to happen a "wipe out".. so benefit of the doubt until..
Changes to mitigate the sea level rise after the fact will be hugely expensive, more so than adjusting our behaviour now in my opinion.
See the problem? You have painted the picture that the rising sea level would be so fast that it cannot be mitigated until after the fact. Theres more than one country in the world mitigating sea level rise right now, as we speak. They have been doing it for decades.
..and if they didn't?
Well, then I guess that they would have to run away, from the unforgiving onslaught of 0.48cm per year rise in sea levels.
Are you picking up what I'm putting down? Don't paint a picture that is inaccurate, even if the accurate picture doesn't support the theory that you are selling.
There will be no global catastrophe from sea level rise. Period. Don't appeal to it, because it cannot happen.
From the report "CRU accepts with hindsight that they should have devoted more attention in the past to archiving data and algorithms and recording exactly what they did."
That's not an exoneration. It's an indictment.
The kicker is that there were plenty of people trying to get them to do that exactly that, all this time.
They swept FOI requests under the rug and kept right on trucking, business as usual.
If they did not comply with the FOI's out of malice, then they are in the wrong.
If they did not comply with the FOI's due to incompetence, then they are in the wrong.
I can't think of any other reason for not complying with the FOI requests. Either they were hiding something for one reason, or hiding something for another reason. At the end of the day they never made things any better, so even if general incompetence was the culprit then they in fact felt entitled to that incompetence.
Average Joe does not even LOOK for a camera, let alone buy one.
You are projecting your own lifestyle onto others. The average person does not own a digital camera, and most of the ones that do are sporting one integrated into their pay-as-you-go $30 cell phone.
The average person does not have a smart phone. The average person does not have a camcorder. The average person does not have a digital camera. The average person doesnt even have a game console. They have a laptop which they send email with. Thats it. A laptop for email.
Controlling the SDK that way ensures that the hardware manufacturers will get their cut of the profits for any game that's released for their console. Meanwhile, you want to whine that Apple is restricting their toolchain while they're giving the SDK away FOR FREE, to private citizens, with only a couple hundred bucks and an "approval process" between them and millions of customers? I find your lack of perspective disturbing.
I find your two-wrongs-make-a-right theory informative. It informs me that you are too pigheaded to be honest with yourself about your obvious fanboi-driven psychosis.
Excuse me sir, you begin with the argument that a programs binary can be compiled to run on a new architecture..
..but then go on and on about feature additions.
If Apple changes the architecture for new iDevices such that a C++ application can be recompiled, then so too could a Flash-To-C++ compiled application. Either the C++ compiler exists, or it doesn't. You dont get to have it in one scenario but not the other.
As far as your on and on diatribe about feature additions..
IF MY APPLICATION IS ALREADY IN THE STORE, THEN IT BY DEFINITION DOES NOT NEED NEW FEATURES
Are you saying iFart is coded with the lowest common denominator in mind, that it would be enhanced with new features?
"It works" is important. But having every app able to switch to full multitasking support by doing little more than typing "make" once 4.0 comes out is also important.
Why would typing 'make' enable an application to multitask?
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
Being able to switch from Arm to x86 or any other CPU architecture by doing little more than typing "make is also important.
umm, and a Flash to C compiler wouldn't allow switching between an x86 and ARM compiler? Really?
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
Maybe those are not important to a given app developer. Maybe those are not important to a given user.. This is harsh, but none of those folks get a say. They're important enough to Apple to form the kernel of a technical basis for the restrictions. (Restrictions which I've already agreed probably go too far.)
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
You made the whole thing up, based entirely on complete and thorough stupidity.
IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, DONT ACT LIKE YOU KNOW.
I can translate your entire post here: "I am completely wrong about all these things, hell I don't even know what half these words really mean, but they justify the argument that Apple has technical reasons"
Current parallel processing efforts are hardly interconnected at all, with interprocessor communication being a huge bottleneck.
yes, but this is because we demand accuracy and determinism from our silicon.
Even in the case of individual neurons, the same inputs dont always throw the same output, or at least not within a predictable time-frame. Its sloppy/messy stuff happening in our brain. The 'trick' to AI may in fact be the sloppy/messy stuff forcing the need for high (but also sloppy/messy) redundancy.
The Core i7 965 using 7zip as a benchmark rates out at 18 billion instructions per second. That would be 18.4 trillion instructions per second after 10 more doublings.
To put this in context, high definition 1080p30 video throws 62.2 million pixels per second. That i7 965 could use 289 instructions per pixel, while that 1024x computer could use 295936 instructions per pixel.
Translation: The future is still a hell of a lot better.
In the world of home storage, 75% is definitely way too low. The average personal desktop probably has 20 to 40 gigabytes of used storage, with far less than 1 gigabyte being original content. If they also back up this data, the fraction grows even lower.
Everything on their DVR is also not original.
Now, in the business world things are a bit different. Here you can expect the same 20 to 40 gigabytes of used storage on the median machine, but backed by a massive networked database of original uptime-critical content with at least a couple mirrors.
It is this second category that is clearly driving their estimate.
I am not talking about limiting political speech at all. I'm talking about how to make sure everybody gets a fair chance at the podium.
The problem here is that you just don't like that YOUR views arent representative of what the media is talking about, not that you want ALL views to have a shot, and I further declare that fair chances are alive and well.
FOX News is balanced by the existence of MSNBC. Sure, MSNBC doesnt get the ratings that FOX does, but their message is just as extreme on the other end.
Do the NAMBLA's of the world deserve a "fair chance at the podium" through a government mandate that GIVES them a podium?
In a true lassiez faire system of political discourse, the big content producing companies would be able to shove the smaller ones off of the network entirely without facing any legal consequence.
Correct, but they would not enjoy a monopoly mandated by the local governments like they do today.
They might have a monopoly in some or even many instances, but if there is money to be made then someone should be allowed to come in and compete with them.
Remember that the cable network was accidental. The coax the cable company is using was layed down decades ago, but even still coincentally supports a much greater speed than the company is willing to provide me. The last mile cost argument is obviouslly bullshit.
After having installed this MTX 1.0.3.5, and never having any other MTX thing installed, ever...
The claim that it doesnt require a web server to function is bullshit. Just running it for the first time causes a blocking http request prior to its window having any controls/buttons rendered to it.. since this blocking request isnt responded to in a timely fashion (many minutes!) the blank window goes (Not Responding) because MTX is also apparently single-threaded such that it can never service its message queue. When that request finally gets serviced, well its not done.. it now renders skeletons of the controls it intends to eventually display and then goes on to another blocking request.
It took half an hour to navigate to the area where I can initiate the download of MW4, and its been saying "Contacting MekTek tracker. Please wait 2-3 minutes" for an hour now. It is again in a blocking call, the process and its window is completely hung but using 0% CPU.
The programmer who wrote this MTX thing is a complete moron in terms of writing things that are supposed to do what this MTX thing is supposed to do. There pretty much are no words to describe the level of crap this is, so I instead had to actually describe my observations of its spectacular failure.
You are imagining it. Microsoft doesnt care what toolchain you use. Sony doesn't care what toolchain you use. Nintendo doesn't care what toolchain you use.
Only Apple gives a fuck what toolchain you use, and it is quite obvious to everyone that its to prevent flash apps from being compiled into native iphone applications.
So we have (A) Apple prevents the flash interpreter thats available everywhere else, and (B) Apple also prevents the flash compiler built specifically because of (A)
How long would it take Adobe to release an update that handles background services, voip and other new features?
Why does it matter how long? Hell, I contend that they dont ever have release an update.
How long until the iFart App I have in the App store magically updates itself to support background services, voip, and other new features? Thats right, it wont, yet its still going to work.
You are imagining that using C++ somehow makes programs upgradable-via-magic.
I know a bunch of people are going to say I'm some kind of fanboy or something, but: there are reasons to believe this restriction is not entirely business-driven. That is, there's reason to believe there's some technical reasoning behind it.
If only your wall of text justified your opening statements.
There is no reason to believe that there is a technical reason behind it. Either the application works, or it doesn't. Thats supposed to be the end of the discussion on the technical aspect of this, but I'll go one further.
Apple is preventing applications written in arbitrary languages from being translated to C++. If there was merit to "technical reasoning" then surely the translated code would be acceptable to Apple, because after all, its C++ and thats acceptable. THis also is supposed to be the end of the discussion on the technical aspect of this.
No sir, you wall of text does not support your assertations. You are suggesting technical reasons, but are not describing any. Most of your wall of text is a "me too" appeal, where if Microsoft does it then its magically also OK for Apple to do it. You are wrong on several counts with that one, because A) Microsoft isnt doing it, and B) even if they were, that doesnt mean it would be OK for Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
They can shape everything that they cant inspect.
My experience with the Quickcam line is that the drivers are intrusive.
..you would expect that the next time a program grabs a snapshot off the camera (or starts recording video), that those exposure settings would have been remembered.. nope .. back to 1/30th of a second.
Say for example you set the exposure settings to look good in your specific lighting conditions (ex: 1/300th of a second) because the automatic correction features are really screwed up for your specific lighting conditions...
It proved impossible for me to easily schedule a task to take a picture once per day at 6pm with the QuickCam pointed outside my window, because the automatic exposure setting get the exposer completely wrong (nearly 100% white screen over-saturation), and there is nothing that can easily be done about it because the drivers insist of reverting the exposure setting every single time the camera is opened. Even within GraphEdit, simply stopping and then restarting capture causes the exposure setting to revert.
Try replacing "Unverifiable" with "Unverified" in your argument...
..and the verification of their work by actual experts in statistics is obstructed, and thats OK?
Does it still hold? Yeah. It doesn't.
The summary of the TFA states quite clearly what I have been saying for years, that there arent any experts in statistics going over the work of these climate scientists.
The fact is that most of these climate scientists are not experts in the field that they are practicing. Most climate scientists are practicing statistics, not performing experiments or collecting data. Who reviews their papers? Why other climate scientists who are also not experts in statistics. We've got what are effectively laymen using very advanced techniques such as Principle Component Analysis, something that even experts find tricky to use correctly, and the work is reviewed by other laymen..
Unverified.
See, right there.
I have stated NOTHING about the validity of the AGW theory, yet you are blasting out the "denialist" crap at me.
Is your belief system really this fucked up?
Do you realize that its quite possible that both "AGW is real" and "CRU is guilty of intentionaly restricting access to the data entirely on the basis of the views of those requesting access to the data" are true statements?
Yeah.. didn't think so.
You know whats worse than a denialist? A fucking asshat that unquestionally defends people who agree with them.
geocities is back... with a vengeance!
If you want one example in which doing the equivalent of typing "make" would allow your app to multitask, just go back to MacOS around the time of classic MacOS 6 or so. The multitasking was cooperative, and needed to be supported by each application in order to work properly. If you recompiled your program, the libraries and linkage and such could have the hooks all inserted automatically, enabling much better multitasking support without the programmer changing a single line of code, simply by recompiling and re-linking the application.
Ahem, not too bright, are ya? In coorperative multitasking, yielding only within library calls isnt good enough and will almost certainly create an unresponsive craptastic sytemm. Yielding is done specifically during long processing, not within UI calls and the like.
You have just described why Apple should NOT be doing what its doing, that in fact "just rebuilding" should be disallowed.
Any time you have a multitasking system that's not just a simplistic pure preemptive one, you can improve multitasking by using APIs and system calls that cooperate with the multitasking implementation (even if it's not "cooperative" mulltitasking).
Modifications to API and system calls do not require a recompile unless the interface to them changes, and if the interface to them changes, you can't simply recompile.
It is clear to me that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
You mean the FOI requests where they complied with Georgia Tech's request for the dataset, but denied the same request from skeptics?
Please.
Several degrees of warming is not trivial, it would result in sea level rises large enough to wipe out many coastal areas which are currently heavily populated - parts of Florida, Bangladesh, India, Bangkok, etc, etc, quite apart from other changes possibly precipitated by the loss of the ice caps.
My alarm bells went off because you used alarmist wording .. "wipe out many coastal areas" .. well, sure.. you could talk about something that takes 100+ years to happen a "wipe out" .. so benefit of the doubt until..
Changes to mitigate the sea level rise after the fact will be hugely expensive, more so than adjusting our behaviour now in my opinion.
See the problem? You have painted the picture that the rising sea level would be so fast that it cannot be mitigated until after the fact. Theres more than one country in the world mitigating sea level rise right now, as we speak. They have been doing it for decades.
..and if they didn't?
Well, then I guess that they would have to run away, from the unforgiving onslaught of 0.48cm per year rise in sea levels.
Are you picking up what I'm putting down? Don't paint a picture that is inaccurate, even if the accurate picture doesn't support the theory that you are selling.
There will be no global catastrophe from sea level rise. Period. Don't appeal to it, because it cannot happen.
From the report "CRU accepts with hindsight that they should have devoted more attention in the past to archiving data and algorithms and recording exactly what they did."
That's not an exoneration. It's an indictment.
The kicker is that there were plenty of people trying to get them to do that exactly that, all this time.
They swept FOI requests under the rug and kept right on trucking, business as usual.
If they did not comply with the FOI's out of malice, then they are in the wrong.
If they did not comply with the FOI's due to incompetence, then they are in the wrong.
I can't think of any other reason for not complying with the FOI requests. Either they were hiding something for one reason, or hiding something for another reason. At the end of the day they never made things any better, so even if general incompetence was the culprit then they in fact felt entitled to that incompetence.
Average Joe does not even LOOK for a camera, let alone buy one.
You are projecting your own lifestyle onto others. The average person does not own a digital camera, and most of the ones that do are sporting one integrated into their pay-as-you-go $30 cell phone.
The average person does not have a smart phone. The average person does not have a camcorder. The average person does not have a digital camera. The average person doesnt even have a game console. They have a laptop which they send email with. Thats it. A laptop for email.
Are you kidding? I bought, at retail, a Sony cam, with 60GB internal drive and HD resolution 2 years ago for $900 from Costco.
Yeah.. thats means everyone has a Sony cam with a 60GB hard drive.. oh wait.. NO IT DOESNT
It means that you are a geek. Most people do not own *ANY* camcorder.
You heard me. Most people do not own a camcorder.
Let me repeat that one more time. Most people do not own any camcorder.
Controlling the SDK that way ensures that the hardware manufacturers will get their cut of the profits for any game that's released for their console. Meanwhile, you want to whine that Apple is restricting their toolchain while they're giving the SDK away FOR FREE, to private citizens, with only a couple hundred bucks and an "approval process" between them and millions of customers? I find your lack of perspective disturbing.
I find your two-wrongs-make-a-right theory informative. It informs me that you are too pigheaded to be honest with yourself about your obvious fanboi-driven psychosis.
Excuse me sir, you begin with the argument that a programs binary can be compiled to run on a new architecture..
..but then go on and on about feature additions.
If Apple changes the architecture for new iDevices such that a C++ application can be recompiled, then so too could a Flash-To-C++ compiled application. Either the C++ compiler exists, or it doesn't. You dont get to have it in one scenario but not the other.
As far as your on and on diatribe about feature additions..
IF MY APPLICATION IS ALREADY IN THE STORE, THEN IT BY DEFINITION DOES NOT NEED NEW FEATURES
Are you saying iFart is coded with the lowest common denominator in mind, that it would be enhanced with new features?
"It works" is important. But having every app able to switch to full multitasking support by doing little more than typing "make" once 4.0 comes out is also important.
Why would typing 'make' enable an application to multitask?
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
Being able to switch from Arm to x86 or any other CPU architecture by doing little more than typing "make is also important.
umm, and a Flash to C compiler wouldn't allow switching between an x86 and ARM compiler? Really?
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
Maybe those are not important to a given app developer. Maybe those are not important to a given user.. This is harsh, but none of those folks get a say. They're important enough to Apple to form the kernel of a technical basis for the restrictions. (Restrictions which I've already agreed probably go too far.)
It is clear to me that you have NO FUCKING IDEA what you are talking about.
You made the whole thing up, based entirely on complete and thorough stupidity.
IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, DONT ACT LIKE YOU KNOW.
I can translate your entire post here: "I am completely wrong about all these things, hell I don't even know what half these words really mean, but they justify the argument that Apple has technical reasons"
The average person doesnt have the ability to take HD home movies because they dont even own the equipment necessary.
I've seen you project your geek lifestyle onto the world before.
Current parallel processing efforts are hardly interconnected at all, with interprocessor communication being a huge bottleneck.
yes, but this is because we demand accuracy and determinism from our silicon.
Even in the case of individual neurons, the same inputs dont always throw the same output, or at least not within a predictable time-frame. Its sloppy/messy stuff happening in our brain. The 'trick' to AI may in fact be the sloppy/messy stuff forcing the need for high (but also sloppy/messy) redundancy.
10 more doublings (1024x) is a lot.
The Core i7 965 using 7zip as a benchmark rates out at 18 billion instructions per second. That would be 18.4 trillion instructions per second after 10 more doublings.
To put this in context, high definition 1080p30 video throws 62.2 million pixels per second. That i7 965 could use 289 instructions per pixel, while that 1024x computer could use 295936 instructions per pixel.
Translation: The future is still a hell of a lot better.
In the world of home storage, 75% is definitely way too low. The average personal desktop probably has 20 to 40 gigabytes of used storage, with far less than 1 gigabyte being original content. If they also back up this data, the fraction grows even lower.
Everything on their DVR is also not original.
Now, in the business world things are a bit different. Here you can expect the same 20 to 40 gigabytes of used storage on the median machine, but backed by a massive networked database of original uptime-critical content with at least a couple mirrors.
It is this second category that is clearly driving their estimate.
How the hell id it ever got to a version "1.x" state is beyond me. No rational person would even call that thing an alpha.
I am not talking about limiting political speech at all. I'm talking about how to make sure everybody gets a fair chance at the podium.
The problem here is that you just don't like that YOUR views arent representative of what the media is talking about, not that you want ALL views to have a shot, and I further declare that fair chances are alive and well.
FOX News is balanced by the existence of MSNBC. Sure, MSNBC doesnt get the ratings that FOX does, but their message is just as extreme on the other end.
Do the NAMBLA's of the world deserve a "fair chance at the podium" through a government mandate that GIVES them a podium?
In a true lassiez faire system of political discourse, the big content producing companies would be able to shove the smaller ones off of the network entirely without facing any legal consequence.
Correct, but they would not enjoy a monopoly mandated by the local governments like they do today.
They might have a monopoly in some or even many instances, but if there is money to be made then someone should be allowed to come in and compete with them.
Remember that the cable network was accidental. The coax the cable company is using was layed down decades ago, but even still coincentally supports a much greater speed than the company is willing to provide me. The last mile cost argument is obviouslly bullshit.
After having installed this MTX 1.0.3.5, and never having any other MTX thing installed, ever...
.. since this blocking request isnt responded to in a timely fashion (many minutes!) the blank window goes (Not Responding) because MTX is also apparently single-threaded such that it can never service its message queue. When that request finally gets serviced, well its not done.. it now renders skeletons of the controls it intends to eventually display and then goes on to another blocking request.
The claim that it doesnt require a web server to function is bullshit. Just running it for the first time causes a blocking http request prior to its window having any controls/buttons rendered to it
It took half an hour to navigate to the area where I can initiate the download of MW4, and its been saying "Contacting MekTek tracker. Please wait 2-3 minutes" for an hour now. It is again in a blocking call, the process and its window is completely hung but using 0% CPU.
The programmer who wrote this MTX thing is a complete moron in terms of writing things that are supposed to do what this MTX thing is supposed to do. There pretty much are no words to describe the level of crap this is, so I instead had to actually describe my observations of its spectacular failure.
No, they don't.
You are imagining it. Microsoft doesnt care what toolchain you use. Sony doesn't care what toolchain you use. Nintendo doesn't care what toolchain you use.
Only Apple gives a fuck what toolchain you use, and it is quite obvious to everyone that its to prevent flash apps from being compiled into native iphone applications.
So we have (A) Apple prevents the flash interpreter thats available everywhere else, and (B) Apple also prevents the flash compiler built specifically because of (A)
Nobody else is doing this. Nobody.
How long would it take Adobe to release an update that handles background services, voip and other new features?
Why does it matter how long? Hell, I contend that they dont ever have release an update.
How long until the iFart App I have in the App store magically updates itself to support background services, voip, and other new features? Thats right, it wont, yet its still going to work.
You are imagining that using C++ somehow makes programs upgradable-via-magic.
I know a bunch of people are going to say I'm some kind of fanboy or something, but: there are reasons to believe this restriction is not entirely business-driven. That is, there's reason to believe there's some technical reasoning behind it.
If only your wall of text justified your opening statements.
There is no reason to believe that there is a technical reason behind it. Either the application works, or it doesn't. Thats supposed to be the end of the discussion on the technical aspect of this, but I'll go one further.
Apple is preventing applications written in arbitrary languages from being translated to C++. If there was merit to "technical reasoning" then surely the translated code would be acceptable to Apple, because after all, its C++ and thats acceptable. THis also is supposed to be the end of the discussion on the technical aspect of this.
No sir, you wall of text does not support your assertations. You are suggesting technical reasons, but are not describing any. Most of your wall of text is a "me too" appeal, where if Microsoft does it then its magically also OK for Apple to do it. You are wrong on several counts with that one, because A) Microsoft isnt doing it, and B) even if they were, that doesnt mean it would be OK for Apple.