The fallacy in your logic lies in the purpose of a 'corporation'. When someone joins the ACLU or some other political action group, they go in knowing the general dictates of the group they are joining. They join such groups knowing that their time, donations, and energy will be forwarding their own goals. it's also trivial for people to leave such groups, stop donating, ect. Not so for a place of employment. For example, someone joining the ACLU would generally know what that group stands for and know what sorts of objectives the group has in mind. A corporation is a black box when it comes to political donations for the most part.
Also, as I pointed out elsewhere, you assume that each shareholder gets a vote, when the real power lies in a very small number of shareholders who hold a majority of shares, not the general population. A corporations primary shareholder may be a single individual, who can speak to the direction of the company regardless of the wishes of lesser shareholders.
I dont' see where you came to the conclusion that a political action group would be barred from free speech. Those are made up of like minded individuals who sought out the group, and donated time and/or money to further it's agenda. Such groups are allowed both before and after the most recent SCOTUS decision. An employer on the other hand is someone you need to pay your bills, etc. They primary purpose isn't to promote it's employees political goals but to make money. The political campaigns are typically run under the radar unless they create a stink. The recent Target and Best Buy donations are a good example of PR backlash. Only after the fact that their political donations were not well received in communities that typically supported those companies did the boards decide that future political donations should be reviewed prior to approval.
The two types of 'corporations' ARE vastly different. Stating that a place of employment and a political action group are the same is disingenuous at best.
Indirectly, in as much as the voter makes decisions for the country. That never seems to be a clear 1:1 'vote', and you are still ruled by percentage of share, meaning the small voices are buried beneath those billionaires holding majorities of stock. The end result is the same. in either case No control over a corporations political 'voice' as that is left to the view who hold majority shares.
No, it's a warning shot. Eventually the patent holders, should they decide to proceed, will have to bring a case to trial and specifically name the patents in question. To suggest that they can somehow proceed with a legal case without naming such patents, is patently (pardon the pun), ridiculous.
Yes, but in your example, the group of people all have a voice. I have no voice in where my corporation spends it's dollars. That is the CEO and the Boards decision. Vastly different than a political group who's entire purpose is to voice the political opinion of it's members.
The ATV2 will play Main Profile 3.1 which is 720P. It will do Netflix rentals and iTunes rentals although I've never tried the iTunes rental bit. It also streams from iTunes installed on any PC or Mac but it must be 3.1 compliant. I'm wondering how long before they add a streaming server to various streaming platforms to convert other formats like MKV and whatnot.
I realize in your haste to try for first post you neglected to glance at TFA, so here you go:
It uses a 700MHz ARM11 processor coupled with 128MB of RAM and runs OpenGL ES 2.0, allowing for decent graphics performance with 1080p output confirmed.... We can expect it to run a range of Linux distributions, but it looks like Ubuntu may be the distro it ships with. That means it will handle web browsing, run office applications, and give the user a fully functional computer to play with as soon as it's plugged in.
Yes, because every user reads the TOS. If Google wanted to be transparent and up front about this, they would warn users right on the signup page that falsifying your user name can result in immediate termination of all Google services. Instead they rely on someone reading a TOS. I won't argue that it is within their right, as it obviously is, but I would argue that in their need to strive to connect yet more and more users personal data to a real 'identity' so that they can then turn around and set it for yet more profit, they are doing real damage to their name, and generating real ill will towards their services in general.
I'm guessing you do, since it's not August, nor has August past on the calendar (meaning in your world it's already September?). I should also note that I said Apple would sell it which you apparently read as "Apple will sell it in a brick and mortar store in a month prior to the month I mentioned."
Not to point out the obvios but it is currently July, just an fyi...
Substitute "iPhone" for "Google" as a general topic and re-read that statement. It speaks volumes about Google and its fan base as opposed to general pessimism towards others like Apple and Microsoft. I never would have thought I'd see so many people repeating almost verbatim the same answers that Apple users give when topics like Jailbreaking and App Stores are being tossed about. The similarities are striking.
THANK YOU! I'm seriously sick of this entitled attitude where a company/person/group puts tremendous effort into some system only to have a chunk of users go "WHY CAN'T I USE IT THE WAY I WANT THAT WASN'T INTENDED FOR!?"
Not judging your particular post. It just struck me as funny when I read it.
Do you realize you sound strikingly like a Mac user when they tell you "if you don't like it, then don't buy it.". I hate to break it to you, but Anti-Apple folks never seem to like that answer either.
Because Google holds a majority of the search engine market, making them the market leader, and by restricting (or removing search results from Apple, or any other company for that matter, they would definitely fall into the 'abuse' area of competition, as that could directly impact Apple sales). In contrast, Apple requiring apps to remove links to external app purchases outside of the app store is leveraged against all developers, not just some, and it could easily be considered a justifiable expense. These purchases are still allowed, but this allows Apple to take it's cut. They most likely justify this as a cost of the service itself (bandwidth, storage, distribution, credit transactions, etc), all of which they provide to the developer for a %30 percent cut. For many developers, the price is worth it since they don't have to deal with storage, distribution, credit, etc. Those that don't like it have a healthy market of competition to go to in Android.
Now Google could do something like prevent iOS apps from being ported into the Google market and rightly so since they pay infrastructure costs to support, distribute, etc.
Odd thing. Now that it's officially released, the installer is on longer being deleted after the install completes. It appears the deletion was done outside of the installer. I've used the same GM seed on 3 other macs in my house and none of them has since deleted the installer.
Go figure. Perhaps it was just a beta thing. Anyone else seeing the same result?
What would you be saying if for two weeks apple.com disappeared from search results?
Is there any reason not to believe that this was not just a little pissing contest between the masters of the high-tech universe?
So I seriously doubt that making sure the app developer gets his "shit together" was any part of the equation in the matter of Apple's approval of a free Google+ app.
If you don't suck Steve Jobs' dick, your apps will be rejected.
Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.
Because Apple maliciously chose to block Google's previous apps (Voice, Latitude etc) due to their spat with google, abusing their power over the iOS marketplace to attempt to shut out a competitor./blockquote
I can confirm this in the GM release, the installer is deleted after a successful reinstall. Make a copy of it, lock the original, and use the copy to install if you have multiple Mac's to put it on.
If you want to burn the installer to a bootable disk, then open the installer.App, right click it to show the pkg contents, expand the "SharedSupport" folder, and burn the InstallESD.dmg image to DVD.
The Google+ app also crashes immediately after signing in and clicking on Stream under iOS5. Apparently version 1.0.1.1809 was supposed to be more stable. Unfortunately that's the version that's also crashing for me under iOS 5.
Actually they do. It's right in the developer guidelines that they verify if apps are stable (aren't crashing all the time and they do what they are supposed to do).
If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.
2.1 Apps that crash will be rejected 2.2 Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected 2.3 Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected 2.4 Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected
Actually, according to the article, he does continue to use it. He simply uses it via bluetooth in his truck.
Even though it may still make calls, as claimed in the article, I wouldn't go so far as to say it "survived..." Nobody would continue to use a phone in this condition..
Slashdot Mirror
The fallacy in your logic lies in the purpose of a 'corporation'. When someone joins the ACLU or some other political action group, they go in knowing the general dictates of the group they are joining. They join such groups knowing that their time, donations, and energy will be forwarding their own goals. it's also trivial for people to leave such groups, stop donating, ect. Not so for a place of employment. For example, someone joining the ACLU would generally know what that group stands for and know what sorts of objectives the group has in mind. A corporation is a black box when it comes to political donations for the most part.
Also, as I pointed out elsewhere, you assume that each shareholder gets a vote, when the real power lies in a very small number of shareholders who hold a majority of shares, not the general population. A corporations primary shareholder may be a single individual, who can speak to the direction of the company regardless of the wishes of lesser shareholders.
I dont' see where you came to the conclusion that a political action group would be barred from free speech. Those are made up of like minded individuals who sought out the group, and donated time and/or money to further it's agenda. Such groups are allowed both before and after the most recent SCOTUS decision. An employer on the other hand is someone you need to pay your bills, etc. They primary purpose isn't to promote it's employees political goals but to make money. The political campaigns are typically run under the radar unless they create a stink. The recent Target and Best Buy donations are a good example of PR backlash. Only after the fact that their political donations were not well received in communities that typically supported those companies did the boards decide that future political donations should be reviewed prior to approval.
The two types of 'corporations' ARE vastly different. Stating that a place of employment and a political action group are the same is disingenuous at best.
Indirectly, in as much as the voter makes decisions for the country. That never seems to be a clear 1:1 'vote', and you are still ruled by percentage of share, meaning the small voices are buried beneath those billionaires holding majorities of stock. The end result is the same. in either case No control over a corporations political 'voice' as that is left to the view who hold majority shares.
No, it's a warning shot. Eventually the patent holders, should they decide to proceed, will have to bring a case to trial and specifically name the patents in question. To suggest that they can somehow proceed with a legal case without naming such patents, is patently (pardon the pun), ridiculous.
Yes, but in your example, the group of people all have a voice. I have no voice in where my corporation spends it's dollars. That is the CEO and the Boards decision. Vastly different than a political group who's entire purpose is to voice the political opinion of it's members.
Unfortunately I'm seeing the same pattern with WD. When did Hitachi stop making drives? I bought one not long ago. I agree those were good drives.
The ATV2 will play Main Profile 3.1 which is 720P. It will do Netflix rentals and iTunes rentals although I've never tried the iTunes rental bit. It also streams from iTunes installed on any PC or Mac but it must be 3.1 compliant. I'm wondering how long before they add a streaming server to various streaming platforms to convert other formats like MKV and whatnot.
I realize in your haste to try for first post you neglected to glance at TFA, so here you go:
Yes, because every user reads the TOS. If Google wanted to be transparent and up front about this, they would warn users right on the signup page that falsifying your user name can result in immediate termination of all Google services. Instead they rely on someone reading a TOS. I won't argue that it is within their right, as it obviously is, but I would argue that in their need to strive to connect yet more and more users personal data to a real 'identity' so that they can then turn around and set it for yet more profit, they are doing real damage to their name, and generating real ill will towards their services in general.
I'm guessing you do, since it's not August, nor has August past on the calendar (meaning in your world it's already September?). I should also note that I said Apple would sell it which you apparently read as "Apple will sell it in a brick and mortar store in a month prior to the month I mentioned."
Not to point out the obvios but it is currently July, just an fyi...
Substitute "iPhone" for "Google" as a general topic and re-read that statement. It speaks volumes about Google and its fan base as opposed to general pessimism towards others like Apple and Microsoft. I never would have thought I'd see so many people repeating almost verbatim the same answers that Apple users give when topics like Jailbreaking and App Stores are being tossed about. The similarities are striking.
Not judging your particular post. It just struck me as funny when I read it.
Do you realize you sound strikingly like a Mac user when they tell you "if you don't like it, then don't buy it.". I hate to break it to you, but Anti-Apple folks never seem to like that answer either.
You mean in the same way other handset manufacturer's also told their own user the 'proper' way to hold a phone?
http://member.america.htc.com/download/Web_materials/Manual/HTC_Ozone/Ozone_Users+Manual.pdf
http://member.america.htc.com/download/Web_materials/Manual/DROID_ERIS_Verizon/DROID_ERIS_Verizon_English_UM_11_5.pdf
These types of instructions are common for any phone, smart or otherwise.
Because Google holds a majority of the search engine market, making them the market leader, and by restricting (or removing search results from Apple, or any other company for that matter, they would definitely fall into the 'abuse' area of competition, as that could directly impact Apple sales). In contrast, Apple requiring apps to remove links to external app purchases outside of the app store is leveraged against all developers, not just some, and it could easily be considered a justifiable expense. These purchases are still allowed, but this allows Apple to take it's cut. They most likely justify this as a cost of the service itself (bandwidth, storage, distribution, credit transactions, etc), all of which they provide to the developer for a %30 percent cut. For many developers, the price is worth it since they don't have to deal with storage, distribution, credit, etc. Those that don't like it have a healthy market of competition to go to in Android.
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2080003/May-2011-Search-Engine-Market-Share-from-comScore-Compete-Hitwise
Now Google could do something like prevent iOS apps from being ported into the Google market and rightly so since they pay infrastructure costs to support, distribute, etc.
This could be a boon to those that have to do the finger sticks. Also useful for those that are borderline diabetic, or hypoglycemic.
Odd thing. Now that it's officially released, the installer is on longer being deleted after the install completes. It appears the deletion was done outside of the installer. I've used the same GM seed on 3 other macs in my house and none of them has since deleted the installer.
Go figure. Perhaps it was just a beta thing. Anyone else seeing the same result?
Actually it was a reply to Anonymous (second in this thread), and an agreement with the third poser in the thread.
Actually they are all from this article (just read below), which is what makes it relevant.
Need I go on?
I can confirm this in the GM release, the installer is deleted after a successful reinstall. Make a copy of it, lock the original, and use the copy to install if you have multiple Mac's to put it on.
If you want to burn the installer to a bootable disk, then open the installer .App, right click it to show the pkg contents, expand the "SharedSupport" folder, and burn the InstallESD.dmg image to DVD.
Or just wait until August. Apple has already indicated they will release it on USB stick for a higher price ($59 if I recall).
The Google+ app also crashes immediately after signing in and clicking on Stream under iOS5. Apparently version 1.0.1.1809 was supposed to be more stable. Unfortunately that's the version that's also crashing for me under iOS 5.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20080767-501465.html
Actually they do. It's right in the developer guidelines that they verify if apps are stable (aren't crashing all the time and they do what they are supposed to do).
http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html
Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.
The article states that the case itself was broken by the fall as well.
From TFA:
Actually, according to the article, he does continue to use it. He simply uses it via bluetooth in his truck.