I would make some snarky comment about Apple fans' inability to grasp basic logic, but fortunately, Apple fan Old_dOg has helped me track down the incompatibility to section 7.3 of the Apple IOS developer's agreement, so clearly, not all Apple fans live in a logic-free zone. How you can possibly blame the FSF for section 7.3 of Apple's own document is beyond me. Nor has anyone yet offered any reasonable justification for the terms of section 7.3.
You're correct that Apple is entititled to run their app store any way they wish. That doesn't mean that someone cannot criticize the way they run their store, however.
7.3 of the Ios Program Standard Agreement looks like it may be the bone of contention. It's not clear if that applies to signed or unsigned apps. If the former, then I wouldn't see a problem with it, but if it's the latter, then it clearly conflicts even with the GPLv2 and seems utterly pointless, since anyone who is still limiting their phone to signed apps (anyone who hasn't deliberately rooted it) wouldn't be able to use unsigned apps in any case.
My understanding was that developers had to agree not to distribute the binaries independently. That's entirely separate from whatever a user may do with his personal copy (which, as you point out, is a useless "freedom").
Can you provide a link to the app store policy? My understanding is that the developer has to agree not to make the binaries available through other channels, which, of course, has nothing to do with source code, but is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. So you were looking for the wrong thing (after being misinformed by the OP). Note that we need to look at the developer's agreement, not an end user policy.
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the App Store as well. It has nothing to do with Tivoization, and everything to do with not adding any additional restrictions. Apple doesn't allow independent distribution of binaries that appear in the App Store, which is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. The DRM stuff may be an additional issue that only applies to the GPLv3, but they're already incompatible with any flavor of GPL to start with.
Oh nonsense. The "would need specific accomodation" requirement totally cuts both ways. The GPL would need to change to allow Apple to add their extra restrictions on binary distributions. So how is that not Apple's fault? Why do they even have such stupid restrictions? It's not like the iPhone supports side-loading in any case.
It's not the source code they ban. It's their restrictions on how you can distribute binaries that's incompatible with the Apple store. You can't provide the binaries any other way. Which is incompatible with the GPLs requirement that you add no further restrictions, period.
Of course, those who are trying to blame the GPL for the incompatibility seem to misunderstand causality. It would require a time machine for any claim that the GPL is at fault here to stand. And it's not like Apple's new restriction makes any sense. The iPhone doesn't allow side-loading, so who cares if the binary is available on another site? Especially if it's free in both cases. Nor can they reasonably plead ignorance. Really, I can't see any way to claim that Apple is doing anything other than being an ass here.
It's potentially entertaining, and you can win free prizes like bizarre pictures if you do it right. One guy even managed to get a dollar out of one of the scammmers. See 419eater.com for examples and helpful tips (including how to avoid getting in any trouble yourself).
Well, I've got an SDID that is a thousand times smaller, and I agree with the OP. This is barely news, let alone news for nerds. The bubonic plague is not-uncommon among the west coast's rodent population, and is easily treatable, and there's nothing particularly nerdy going on here.
Yeah, it's pretty common throughout the western US (at least). Several years ago, some friends and I went camping at a California State Park, and were perplexed to see signs posted saying that there was risk of bubonic plague. We asked a ranger, who basically told us it was no big deal, and not all that unusual. They weren't even bothing to send campers home. It did make the night feel a little spookier, somehow.:)
Calling it "The Black Death" in this day and age borders on histrionics (though I admit it's historically accurate).
If you're running a box on your own network inside your own house, why even have public-facing sshd at all? Just limit ssh access to machines on your own network.
You said LAMP--well, most L distros have a security list you can subscribe to to keep up-to-date on this sort of thing. Also, Linux Weekly News (lwn.net) regularly posts security announcements from most major distros
And people bought Vista because they felt they had to, but many stuck with XP. Now its several years later, and sticking with XP is a much more difficult option, which basically means people are forced to use Win7. I know many people using Win7 who have no particular fondness for it. I know a couple of people who think it's a mild improvement on XP. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about it.
Not as big of deal as you're making it out to be, otherwise Windows 7 wouldn't have been such a hit.
Right, and of course Windows 7's success has nothing to do with the fact that people aren't willing to abandon their investment in Windows software and thus really feel like they have no choice. Microsoft could have released a system that made fart sounds every time you moved the mouse, and required you to bang your head on the desk to start an app, and people would still have bought it. And journalists would be praising it because it isn't Vista.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people swearing at MS, but when you suggest they try something else, they look at you like you're crazy. But give them a whole new platform to consider....
Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
Yeah, it kinda does, unless they've been around long enough to have developed different rates of genetic drift, which would be extremely unlikely in species that have diverged so recently. I'm not sure what you mean by a "genetic distance map", but a standard clade map, as shown here should make it clear why bonobos and chimps are equadistant from humans (and why humans/bonobos/chimps are almost certainly equadistant from gorillas).
Yes, but in science we still test what we expect to be true.
Yeah, I've got absolutely no problem with that. Glad to see it done, in fact. I'm just a little puzzled why a seemingle mundane confirmation of an expected result made slashdot's front page.
It's not by definition--one species could have experienced an unexpected level of genetic drift. It is, however, the expected result, barring something weird going on. As for why TFA is notable, I have no idea. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Still, it's nice to have experiment confirm theory.
It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
And I don't understand how you can possibly contend something so ridiculous if you actually, as you claim, "understand a broad range of sciences just fine". Would you care to elaborate? I thought the earlier example of two cousins who are equally closely related to the poster illustrated it perfectly.
Bonobos and Chimps are equally closely related to humans because they both spring from a small branch that is all equally closely related to humans. In fact, together, they constitute all existing members of that branch. (Some might even claim that they're more-or-less the same species.)
Um, you seem to be the "OP" in this thread. Do you mean TFA or TFS? And I'm not really sure what the point of your original post is, but that may be because I don't keep careful track of the distinctions between the delusions of science deniers. But I really have no idea what point you're trying to make now. When it comes to comparing how closely related species are, bonobos and chimps should be expected to be equally close to humans. If you had any understanding of science, you wouldn't find that controversial or confusing, so apparently you don't, but since I have no idea what sort of nonsense you actually believe, it's hard for me to address your specific points of confusion and misapprehension. This unsuprising study has confirmed an expected result, which is not exactly earth-shattering news (unless you somehow believe it threatens your pseudo-scientific views), but it's nice to know.
Since there is (obviously) variation within a single species' genome, "equally close" can only refer to a statistical model in any case. And I'm not sure what your comment about "descendents" has to do with anything. Chimps and bobobos both come from a common ancestor that had already split from the human branch, so it's seems fairly obvious that they would be equally close within any reasonable approximation of closeness.
Doesn't the evidence show that bonobos and chimps split from their common ancestor long after protohumans split from the common ancestor of all three? In which case, isn't this more-or-less exactly what you'd expect?
Like most such schemes (and this is not the first), this won't help against patent trolls, as they don't use patents, and are thus immune to the threat of countersuits. A patent troll is sort of the equivalent of what the SCO Group has become: a company which makes nothing, and whose entire purpose is litigation.
do you really disconnect your computer from the internet often when gaming?
The last time I had a Windows partition (for gaming), I deliberately disabled the ethernet drivers so it couldn't access the Internet. Of course the computer itself (and my workaday Debian partition) were still able to access the Internet just fine, but Windows couldn't. It would whine at me every time I booted it, but there was no way I was letting a Microsoft product anywhere near the Internet.
Of course, that was many years and many versions of Windows ago; I don't know if that's even possible anymore. But my game console definitely doesn't auto-login, and I certainly won't be getting Diablo III for it for just this reason.
Americans also say (write) "4 June 1989", but don't make the next step that you imply is so obvious and write "4 6 89" to represent the same date, so your "logic" fails.
Slashdot Mirror
I would make some snarky comment about Apple fans' inability to grasp basic logic, but fortunately, Apple fan Old_dOg has helped me track down the incompatibility to section 7.3 of the Apple IOS developer's agreement, so clearly, not all Apple fans live in a logic-free zone. How you can possibly blame the FSF for section 7.3 of Apple's own document is beyond me. Nor has anyone yet offered any reasonable justification for the terms of section 7.3.
You're correct that Apple is entititled to run their app store any way they wish. That doesn't mean that someone cannot criticize the way they run their store, however.
Thanks!
7.3 of the Ios Program Standard Agreement looks like it may be the bone of contention. It's not clear if that applies to signed or unsigned apps. If the former, then I wouldn't see a problem with it, but if it's the latter, then it clearly conflicts even with the GPLv2 and seems utterly pointless, since anyone who is still limiting their phone to signed apps (anyone who hasn't deliberately rooted it) wouldn't be able to use unsigned apps in any case.
My understanding was that developers had to agree not to distribute the binaries independently. That's entirely separate from whatever a user may do with his personal copy (which, as you point out, is a useless "freedom").
Can you provide a link to the app store policy? My understanding is that the developer has to agree not to make the binaries available through other channels, which, of course, has nothing to do with source code, but is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. So you were looking for the wrong thing (after being misinformed by the OP). Note that we need to look at the developer's agreement, not an end user policy.
No, the GPLv2 is incompatible with the App Store as well. It has nothing to do with Tivoization, and everything to do with not adding any additional restrictions. Apple doesn't allow independent distribution of binaries that appear in the App Store, which is an additional restriction and thus forbidden by the GPL. The DRM stuff may be an additional issue that only applies to the GPLv3, but they're already incompatible with any flavor of GPL to start with.
Oh nonsense. The "would need specific accomodation" requirement totally cuts both ways. The GPL would need to change to allow Apple to add their extra restrictions on binary distributions. So how is that not Apple's fault? Why do they even have such stupid restrictions? It's not like the iPhone supports side-loading in any case.
It's not the source code they ban. It's their restrictions on how you can distribute binaries that's incompatible with the Apple store. You can't provide the binaries any other way. Which is incompatible with the GPLs requirement that you add no further restrictions, period.
Of course, those who are trying to blame the GPL for the incompatibility seem to misunderstand causality. It would require a time machine for any claim that the GPL is at fault here to stand. And it's not like Apple's new restriction makes any sense. The iPhone doesn't allow side-loading, so who cares if the binary is available on another site? Especially if it's free in both cases. Nor can they reasonably plead ignorance. Really, I can't see any way to claim that Apple is doing anything other than being an ass here.
It's potentially entertaining, and you can win free prizes like bizarre pictures if you do it right. One guy even managed to get a dollar out of one of the scammmers. See 419eater.com for examples and helpful tips (including how to avoid getting in any trouble yourself).
Well, I've got an SDID that is a thousand times smaller, and I agree with the OP. This is barely news, let alone news for nerds. The bubonic plague is not-uncommon among the west coast's rodent population, and is easily treatable, and there's nothing particularly nerdy going on here.
Yeah, it's pretty common throughout the western US (at least). Several years ago, some friends and I went camping at a California State Park, and were perplexed to see signs posted saying that there was risk of bubonic plague. We asked a ranger, who basically told us it was no big deal, and not all that unusual. They weren't even bothing to send campers home. It did make the night feel a little spookier, somehow. :)
Calling it "The Black Death" in this day and age borders on histrionics (though I admit it's historically accurate).
If you're running a box on your own network inside your own house, why even have public-facing sshd at all? Just limit ssh access to machines on your own network.
You said LAMP--well, most L distros have a security list you can subscribe to to keep up-to-date on this sort of thing. Also, Linux Weekly News (lwn.net) regularly posts security announcements from most major distros
Slashdot's so full of trolls and astroturfers that I hardly think that's relevant.
And people bought Vista because they felt they had to, but many stuck with XP. Now its several years later, and sticking with XP is a much more difficult option, which basically means people are forced to use Win7. I know many people using Win7 who have no particular fondness for it. I know a couple of people who think it's a mild improvement on XP. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about it.
Not as big of deal as you're making it out to be, otherwise Windows 7 wouldn't have been such a hit.
Right, and of course Windows 7's success has nothing to do with the fact that people aren't willing to abandon their investment in Windows software and thus really feel like they have no choice. Microsoft could have released a system that made fart sounds every time you moved the mouse, and required you to bang your head on the desk to start an app, and people would still have bought it. And journalists would be praising it because it isn't Vista.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people swearing at MS, but when you suggest they try something else, they look at you like you're crazy. But give them a whole new platform to consider....
Just because they're more closely related to each other than they are to us doesn't mean they're equally related to us. For insatnce, imagine the three in a line on a "genetic distance" map, with humans at one end of the line, one of (chimps, bonobos) at the other end, and the other nearly in the middle between us.
Yeah, it kinda does, unless they've been around long enough to have developed different rates of genetic drift, which would be extremely unlikely in species that have diverged so recently. I'm not sure what you mean by a "genetic distance map", but a standard clade map, as shown here should make it clear why bonobos and chimps are equadistant from humans (and why humans/bonobos/chimps are almost certainly equadistant from gorillas).
Yes, but in science we still test what we expect to be true.
Yeah, I've got absolutely no problem with that. Glad to see it done, in fact. I'm just a little puzzled why a seemingle mundane confirmation of an expected result made slashdot's front page.
It's not by definition--one species could have experienced an unexpected level of genetic drift. It is, however, the expected result, barring something weird going on. As for why TFA is notable, I have no idea. Doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Still, it's nice to have experiment confirm theory.
It is being noted that there are now a count of two "equally close" hominids. It remains my contention that this conceptually makes no sense on a literal level.
And I don't understand how you can possibly contend something so ridiculous if you actually, as you claim, "understand a broad range of sciences just fine". Would you care to elaborate? I thought the earlier example of two cousins who are equally closely related to the poster illustrated it perfectly.
Bonobos and Chimps are equally closely related to humans because they both spring from a small branch that is all equally closely related to humans. In fact, together, they constitute all existing members of that branch. (Some might even claim that they're more-or-less the same species.)
Um, you seem to be the "OP" in this thread. Do you mean TFA or TFS? And I'm not really sure what the point of your original post is, but that may be because I don't keep careful track of the distinctions between the delusions of science deniers. But I really have no idea what point you're trying to make now. When it comes to comparing how closely related species are, bonobos and chimps should be expected to be equally close to humans. If you had any understanding of science, you wouldn't find that controversial or confusing, so apparently you don't, but since I have no idea what sort of nonsense you actually believe, it's hard for me to address your specific points of confusion and misapprehension. This unsuprising study has confirmed an expected result, which is not exactly earth-shattering news (unless you somehow believe it threatens your pseudo-scientific views), but it's nice to know.
Since there is (obviously) variation within a single species' genome, "equally close" can only refer to a statistical model in any case. And I'm not sure what your comment about "descendents" has to do with anything. Chimps and bobobos both come from a common ancestor that had already split from the human branch, so it's seems fairly obvious that they would be equally close within any reasonable approximation of closeness.
Doesn't the evidence show that bonobos and chimps split from their common ancestor long after protohumans split from the common ancestor of all three? In which case, isn't this more-or-less exactly what you'd expect?
Like most such schemes (and this is not the first), this won't help against patent trolls, as they don't use patents, and are thus immune to the threat of countersuits. A patent troll is sort of the equivalent of what the SCO Group has become: a company which makes nothing, and whose entire purpose is litigation.
do you really disconnect your computer from the internet often when gaming?
The last time I had a Windows partition (for gaming), I deliberately disabled the ethernet drivers so it couldn't access the Internet. Of course the computer itself (and my workaday Debian partition) were still able to access the Internet just fine, but Windows couldn't. It would whine at me every time I booted it, but there was no way I was letting a Microsoft product anywhere near the Internet.
Of course, that was many years and many versions of Windows ago; I don't know if that's even possible anymore. But my game console definitely doesn't auto-login, and I certainly won't be getting Diablo III for it for just this reason.
Americans also say (write) "4 June 1989", but don't make the next step that you imply is so obvious and write "4 6 89" to represent the same date, so your "logic" fails.