As much as I am wary of Google's data mining shit, there does seem to be a flood of anti-Google articles recently, if you use your imagination you can almost visualize the hand of Redmond pulling the strings. That said, they are delaying it, not abandoning it. The advantage they have here is that by keeping that $10m in the bank a bit longer they can make some more interest from it before paying it out. Having an overload of applications does seem feasible to me, and a realistic excuse / reason to delay too. For me this is a "watch this space" and call them on it if they do try to sneak a "we decided to cancel the offer" post out.
I can see this being an issue for niche skills / markets. The more you are engaged in building knowledge / skills etc on a particular niche service the more likely you're going to go to a competitor where your knowledge is an asset you'll be paid extra for. You're not likely to switch career paths, throw out much of what specialist knowledge you have to start at a lower level and build a new path. In that case I'd refuse point blank to sign a non-compete clause.
In general the concept of a non-compete clause seems morally wrong to me. You are loyal to your employer while you are an employee. You are expected to be honest, hard working and a valuable asset to their business. You are expected to respect their private property while an employee. The day you stop becoming an employee, those commitments vanish. You are then free to market your skills to another employer, regardless of who they are. If your previous employer no longer wants to employ you, they have no say over your future abilities to earn a living.
I have to agree, "Twitter" has entered the mainstream big time, along with "iPod" & "Google" etc to mean generic things. Every online media outlet both professional & amateur use terms like this all the time to interact with their users. It has brand value. It's also proprietary which suits Apple down to the ground. How they can monetize it enough to make the acquisition worthwhile is another matter altogether.
You have a valid point there, it also does not help that packages which are simple lib files or dependencies for other applications are listed too. I have grown used to the applications I install on every system that I forget sometimes what it's like searching for something I've never heard of, let alone compare them. I do sometimes look in the information section for a site to visit, but you're right, even that involves opening a browser, copy & paste etc.
Some package managers do have a star system which goes a little way towards addressing this but not all. Debian have started their screenshot program, but that's hosted on a site, not inside the package manager, and it is only screenshots. Package managers are most certainly the best option available but they do need refined still.
Forgot to add, that it's gonna vary from country to country too, just like Firefox numbers. Some countries have more resistance to Microsoft bullies than others.
I tend to think of Mac's & *nix being around the same market share, perhaps around 7-8% but both growing by the month as Microsoft piss off more and more people. It will be a while before either get to a significant chunk of what Microsoft once had but took for granted, but slowly it's getting there.
Most of these types of figures are always done with sales, and since Windows is the only pre-installed option on a new PC and counts as a Windows sale when you buy it (even though you were buying a PC, not Windows) it's always gonna skew the figures. Even when your PC leaves the store with XP on it, it's on the books as a Vista sale. The game is rigged. The fact that Linux is not available in many outlets as a purchase it will never gain any parity.
You could look at downloads, but not every download is installed, not every install stays that way. Some are installed on many PC's with the same CD. Each distro has their own counts and ways of counting / estimating. Personally I like the Fedora way of counting the number of unique IPs hitting their repos.
Even if there was an accurate way of estimating, it'd be bought by Microsoft to ensure it knew who to make the winner.
Maybe we should invent the concept of a "package manager" just for you.....wait...they already exit, damnit. Many Linux distros already have very good dependency checking done for you automatically, those which don't tend to be in distros not aimed at the newbie. With a package manager it's like a single store where you use the built in search engine to find what you want, tick it and search for the next package. When you're finished "shopping" a single click to apply the changes and another to confirm and they all get installed......oh yeah, and you won't have to reboot either. That seems much easier to me than having to install each.exe individually with plenty of reboots.
Not to mention the package manager keeps track of EVERY package on your PC (as long as it was installed via the package manager) as well as the core system itself, so updates are a one-click deal. With Windows the Windows updates system only does WINDOWS updates, nothing else. You have to do every application separately, which means a LOT of clicks, with a LOT of different GUI's to interact with to stay updated.
I've been a full time Linux user for a few years and have never needed to compile anything. I do sometimes have to use the command line but not for everyday common user level tasks.
As far as wireless support is concerned, this gets better by the week. This is not the device driver devs fault, blame the proprietary vendors, many of whom are enticed by Microsoft to make sure their hardware ONLY works with Windows. Even then, some drivers supplied by vendors are shit too, depending on the version of Windows & service pack.
If you're gonna compare Linux with Windows at least use a version of Linux that's not a decade old.
This is a prime example of Microsoft's intentions. They never intended it to be anything more than lip service and a smoke screen to hide their real intentions. It seems to be an ideal smoking gun to dismiss all appeals by Microsoft shills to "give them more time" or "give them freedom to compete" etc. Microsoft are well practiced and deeply entrenched organized criminals but this seems like a simple cut & dried case even a layman can understand.
Methinks it's time to banish Microsoft products from government contracts in the EU, adopt ODF as the standard document format but exclude M$ Office on the grounds of "intentional incompatibility". Maybe being locked out of being able to sell to governments will teach them a lesson, although I doubt it.
It is astounding at just how much Microsoft can get away with despite all the evidence.
Did anyone predict any other outcome when Microsoft announced that they'd be including odf support in M$ Office that it wasn't anything more than a token half-assed, broken implementation to try and ease the punishment against them for anti-competitive behavior? I read somewhere that they chose 1.0 when everyone else was on 2.0 too.....I wonder why. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that there will be any effort to make it work properly in M$ Office, let alone keep it up to date?
So you can use other app stores with your iPhone? Developers have the choice of different outlets to sell their iPhone applications if Apple reject them? Does the iPhone need to be jail-broken to access these other stores? Have Apple suddenly decided to "live and let live" with the people who assist users to defy the Apple lock in to their revenue stream?
To my knowledge Apple have done everything possible technically (DRM) and legally (EULA) to ensure that NO competition to iTunes and the app store is available to Apple gadget users. This kinda defines "monopoly" to me. This also extends to the applications you are allowed to use to interact with the gadgets YOU own. Every time another software project finds a way around Apple's lock-in, Apple release an update and break it again.
Microsoft are rightly deemed to hold a monopoly in several areas, when they control more than say 85% of the market share. Does holding 100% of the market share suddenly trigger some hidden clause in the definition of "monopoly" which renders it non-applicable?
I'd be curious to hear of the alternative outlets iPhone users & developers have.....the ones Apple have not issued a C&D order too or are not currently in legal proceedings against.
Apple do need to be hauled through the same anti-competitive regulators as Microsoft and Intel on several issues. Microsoft need to be hauled through on many more counts than they currently have been. Until the US regulators start doing their jobs, the only people I see willing to take a stand is the EU. We need BOTH sides to slam them, not just one. It is shameful that this tends to be US companies doing the dirty, while the US regulators turn a blind eye.
I know, you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite for now.....
"when you use FOSS you're still relying on somebody", and in a sense you're locked-in: if you haven't spent years learning code, who gives if it's FOSS?"
If the maintainer decides not to do it anymore, that person you're relying on vanishes. If you're not a programmer you're screwed right? Wrong. You can hire someone to work on that code if it's vital to your business. Chances are that most mature FOSS projects will have plenty of transient developers so that will never be an issue.
"FOSS's idea of computer freedom is code--Joe the Plumber's is "click the.exe"
Yep, click the.exe to enroll in our botnet.....in fact, we'll use a dipshit filter on your OS to make it even easier and click it for you, can't say fairer than that can we?
"I use Linux: *buntu user for years. Have liked it, but it's starting to get waaay too time-consuming to coax the dang box into working with it."
"why aren't there any linuxes as functional, with GUIs, and easy to use, demanding as much or little hardware, and as fast as Win 2000?"
Maybe it's time you upgraded it, or better yet.....wipe it and do a fresh install. If Ubuntu is getting slow (I sympathize btw) then extend beyond the poster child and learn how to be leaner. Plenty of distros cater to just that, by leaving out stuff you don't need it will be faster and snappier. You've been running it for "years", you should have learned something by now. Since you're trolling for suggestions (you're not really but since I said I'd play along it only seems fair) try Wolvix, Puppy, DSL, Debian, Slitaz etc for fast lightweight distros. All it needs is eyes, a few blank CDs and some patience and you'll find them.
Incidentally, why are we comparing OS's you can't buy now? Where can you buy Windows 2000? Where can you buy XP for that matter? Sure if Microsoft feels your company are in danger of switching to a malware free platform they'll allow you to spend extra to get Vista downgraded to XP but it still counts as Vista. A fair comparison should be on OS's you can get NOW.
A FOSS project / OS lives while people are willing to code for and use it, proprietary projects die when the vendor decides they die.
The concept of "just works" is an illusion. You're gonna have issue no matter what OS you use. Apple do have less excuses in that they control both the hardware AND the software, so when it don't work you have incompetence. Both Windows and Linux have to deal with a HUGE range of hardware. When the vendors decide to abandon some hardware in Windows, the FOSS / *nix open source version of the driver lives on, which means it's gonna be working in Linux, not in Windows. This is against the backdrop of vendors intentionally trying to lock Linux out (often at Microsoft's bidding) or just staying VERY proprietary and forcing the Linux device driver coders to reverse engineer everything, where the Windows drivers are done in-house by the same people who make the device.....and often their drivers are buggy as hell, despite the advantage they have.
Apple control EVERYTHING, their revenue stream is all about giving you a seamless experience as long as you buy ALL Apple products and use them in a way they see fit to their revenue stream. Try using non-Apple products on an Apple, see how it "just works". Try using Apple products outside OSX, see how that also "just works".
Final thoughts.....have you submitted bug reports of your issues? I'm guessing not.
That would be down to whether or not their lobbyists have been bribing the right people in the right positions, or whether they have the goods on the people making the decisions.
Hienie flu? Is that not caused by diet? Just because someone farts a lot does not make them contagious. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past companies like Merck to sell placebo cures for a non-existent problem.
I dunno, I'd rather be sentenced to something non-existent than something which actually does exist.....and hurts.....a lot. Personally I want my coffin packed with marshmallows just in case I'm going somewhere with a lot of fire.
I understand why Apple want to be a gatekeeper for their gadgets but they use it as an excuse for blocking competition and censoring what it's users may or may not want.
I see only two legit reasons for the role of gatekeeper.
1 - Prevent any application with malicious code finding it's way onto a users unit. ie if it invades someones privacy, data or security it's out. 2 - If it's written to interfere with other competitor applications
Preventing customers from using applications which compete with your in-house ones is NOT a legit reason (AKA anti-competitive practices). Preventing applications which don't fit your views on morality is NOT a legit reason. Preventing applications which block or circumvent your revenue streams is NOT a legit reason.
While the iPhone has a substantial lead, the Android will catch up and overtake the iPhone primarily because of the open and uncensored development model. At which point Apple will have to make a decision; either continue to be an exclusive niche option, or start giving their users and developers more freedom to use the gadgets they bought as they see fit.
While Android is irrelevant right now in terms of user base, remember that it's still a very new project and is still building mass. Give it a couple of years, when several phone manufacturers have Android OS on their models and in most stores. At that point the iPhone balance will be seriously cut back. The more Apple restrict while Android is open, the more it will turn some people towards Android. Some will always stick to Apple, that will only change if Apple go bankrupt.
If it's simply a case of adult lyrics, mark the content as such and allow it. Let the people decide for themselves if they want adult content or not. They do already have an "explicit" tag in iTunes.
The Democrat / church sentence was probably flamebait in hindsight, perhaps I should have thought through my point to find more appropriate wording before posting. The deeply religious conservative people living in small towns who fear and reject most of the modern world tend to be the strong voting support of the Republicans, who would rather do just about anything than even listen to an alternate option, let alone vote for an alternate.
A better way of putting it is that some people like to live in a bubble where the real world does not enter. There is no swearing anywhere near them, nobody mentions the existence of sex, there is no violence unless it's the bad guys getting a whoopin' from the good guys on some repeat of a 50's western drama, there is no real injuries / blood etc. I grew up in this type of household, I know how it feels. It's also devoid of reality where many people enjoy legal consensual porn, even if they do it in secret and won't let anyone else know in case they are condemned as a pervert and fired from their jobs.
This conservative mindset seems to want to live in a world that time forgot rather than accept that most of us have moved on. They seem content to have all their censored for their own good, rather than risk seeing something which distorts their time bubble.
Now Trent has publicly stated the reason for it's rejection, does that not break Apple's NDA rules on "don't talk about rejection"? Will Apple throw more PR petrol on themselves by fighting Trent with a lawsuit instead of trying to let the embers die out?
Is anyone really surprised with another Apple rejection on dubious grounds? Perhaps the real message is that Apple design their products for good church going people who would rather vote Democrat than see anything with a little adult content. The way I see it, is that there are a LOT more "adult" users who would rather have the choice of content, even if they wouldn't consume it themselves. This means that Apple are seemingly intentionally cutting themselves off from that spending power.
We complain rightly about government treating us like children, making our decisions for us with little right of reply, yet it seems if you stick a flashy interface on it and apply some PR brainwashing it's all good and dandy.
For the Apple fanbois, feel free to mod me down for speaking ill of the almighty......the power of Jobs compels thee.
Whatever the reason, the dude has reacted to the controversy and updated NoScript along with an apology. What more do people want? Sure I was pissed at the ABP change, and the redirects upon restart but that aside NoScript (or it's function at least) is still a valuable line of browser security. Can we give the dude the benefit of the doubt, forgive him and move on? It's not in the Microsoft league of "shafting people as a business model".
Flip this on it's tail and look at it. This knowledge could be used as a WMD in a modern redefinition of the "poison the well" strategy employed by generals since Rome at least. It'd save taxpayers money on bombs and bullets if the bad guys would just kill themselves; well not counting the nutters with bomb belts out for a hug at a checkpoint.
If changing the presentation of a web page on a users browser is wrong, what do we do about those who need to apply custom CSS or increase the font size to be able to read the page? Do we block those features and damn those with accessibility needs to only surfing sites with the right combination of color scheme and font size?
The only people arguing the angle that adverts shouldn't be blocked are the advertisers, and those who rely on them for a living. Regardless of what your market research shows you, people don't like adverts. People do (for the most part) understand that advertising helps (at least in part) subsidize services, and accept that if it's not too intrusive and on topic, then they will put up with it in exchange for the service. When that balance goes over too much they will rebel and block or skip it, often leaving a negative impression of greed in the operators of that service.
Advertisers were able to get away with a lot when the consumer PC and home internet were new, but with each year that passes more and more people are growing up PC / net savvy; well enough that many older tricks are now seen as offensive. Like any greed centered industry, they will always seek ways to exploit the spirit of the law while using a PR campaign and lobbying to be perceived to be staying within the letter of the law. If all else fails, rebrand your ruined company and start again doing the same as before.
"illegally manipulating the author's content to remove ads designed to produce revenue?"
Well it's legal in the UK (for now), Phorm wrote the UK governments advice on the subject for them. They don't remove adverts, they just replace them with adverts from their partners in crime so they get the advert revenue. To me, this is even more outrageous.
There is a limit on the number of "r"'s allowed and the pirates seem to go through them at quite a rate. Perhaps we could allow them in if they paid for each additional "r", but then we'd be seen as profiting from one party and not another so we can't win either way.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I am wary of Google's data mining shit, there does seem to be a flood of anti-Google articles recently, if you use your imagination you can almost visualize the hand of Redmond pulling the strings. That said, they are delaying it, not abandoning it. The advantage they have here is that by keeping that $10m in the bank a bit longer they can make some more interest from it before paying it out. Having an overload of applications does seem feasible to me, and a realistic excuse / reason to delay too. For me this is a "watch this space" and call them on it if they do try to sneak a "we decided to cancel the offer" post out.
I can see this being an issue for niche skills / markets. The more you are engaged in building knowledge / skills etc on a particular niche service the more likely you're going to go to a competitor where your knowledge is an asset you'll be paid extra for. You're not likely to switch career paths, throw out much of what specialist knowledge you have to start at a lower level and build a new path. In that case I'd refuse point blank to sign a non-compete clause.
In general the concept of a non-compete clause seems morally wrong to me. You are loyal to your employer while you are an employee. You are expected to be honest, hard working and a valuable asset to their business. You are expected to respect their private property while an employee. The day you stop becoming an employee, those commitments vanish. You are then free to market your skills to another employer, regardless of who they are. If your previous employer no longer wants to employ you, they have no say over your future abilities to earn a living.
I have to agree, "Twitter" has entered the mainstream big time, along with "iPod" & "Google" etc to mean generic things. Every online media outlet both professional & amateur use terms like this all the time to interact with their users. It has brand value. It's also proprietary which suits Apple down to the ground. How they can monetize it enough to make the acquisition worthwhile is another matter altogether.
You have a valid point there, it also does not help that packages which are simple lib files or dependencies for other applications are listed too. I have grown used to the applications I install on every system that I forget sometimes what it's like searching for something I've never heard of, let alone compare them. I do sometimes look in the information section for a site to visit, but you're right, even that involves opening a browser, copy & paste etc.
Some package managers do have a star system which goes a little way towards addressing this but not all. Debian have started their screenshot program, but that's hosted on a site, not inside the package manager, and it is only screenshots. Package managers are most certainly the best option available but they do need refined still.
Forgot to add, that it's gonna vary from country to country too, just like Firefox numbers. Some countries have more resistance to Microsoft bullies than others.
I tend to think of Mac's & *nix being around the same market share, perhaps around 7-8% but both growing by the month as Microsoft piss off more and more people. It will be a while before either get to a significant chunk of what Microsoft once had but took for granted, but slowly it's getting there.
Most of these types of figures are always done with sales, and since Windows is the only pre-installed option on a new PC and counts as a Windows sale when you buy it (even though you were buying a PC, not Windows) it's always gonna skew the figures. Even when your PC leaves the store with XP on it, it's on the books as a Vista sale. The game is rigged. The fact that Linux is not available in many outlets as a purchase it will never gain any parity.
You could look at downloads, but not every download is installed, not every install stays that way. Some are installed on many PC's with the same CD. Each distro has their own counts and ways of counting / estimating. Personally I like the Fedora way of counting the number of unique IPs hitting their repos.
Even if there was an accurate way of estimating, it'd be bought by Microsoft to ensure it knew who to make the winner.
Maybe we should invent the concept of a "package manager" just for you.....wait...they already exit, damnit. Many Linux distros already have very good dependency checking done for you automatically, those which don't tend to be in distros not aimed at the newbie. With a package manager it's like a single store where you use the built in search engine to find what you want, tick it and search for the next package. When you're finished "shopping" a single click to apply the changes and another to confirm and they all get installed......oh yeah, and you won't have to reboot either. That seems much easier to me than having to install each .exe individually with plenty of reboots.
Not to mention the package manager keeps track of EVERY package on your PC (as long as it was installed via the package manager) as well as the core system itself, so updates are a one-click deal. With Windows the Windows updates system only does WINDOWS updates, nothing else. You have to do every application separately, which means a LOT of clicks, with a LOT of different GUI's to interact with to stay updated.
I've been a full time Linux user for a few years and have never needed to compile anything. I do sometimes have to use the command line but not for everyday common user level tasks.
As far as wireless support is concerned, this gets better by the week. This is not the device driver devs fault, blame the proprietary vendors, many of whom are enticed by Microsoft to make sure their hardware ONLY works with Windows. Even then, some drivers supplied by vendors are shit too, depending on the version of Windows & service pack.
If you're gonna compare Linux with Windows at least use a version of Linux that's not a decade old.
This is a prime example of Microsoft's intentions. They never intended it to be anything more than lip service and a smoke screen to hide their real intentions. It seems to be an ideal smoking gun to dismiss all appeals by Microsoft shills to "give them more time" or "give them freedom to compete" etc. Microsoft are well practiced and deeply entrenched organized criminals but this seems like a simple cut & dried case even a layman can understand.
Methinks it's time to banish Microsoft products from government contracts in the EU, adopt ODF as the standard document format but exclude M$ Office on the grounds of "intentional incompatibility". Maybe being locked out of being able to sell to governments will teach them a lesson, although I doubt it.
It is astounding at just how much Microsoft can get away with despite all the evidence.
Did anyone predict any other outcome when Microsoft announced that they'd be including odf support in M$ Office that it wasn't anything more than a token half-assed, broken implementation to try and ease the punishment against them for anti-competitive behavior? I read somewhere that they chose 1.0 when everyone else was on 2.0 too.....I wonder why. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that there will be any effort to make it work properly in M$ Office, let alone keep it up to date?
So you can use other app stores with your iPhone? Developers have the choice of different outlets to sell their iPhone applications if Apple reject them? Does the iPhone need to be jail-broken to access these other stores? Have Apple suddenly decided to "live and let live" with the people who assist users to defy the Apple lock in to their revenue stream?
To my knowledge Apple have done everything possible technically (DRM) and legally (EULA) to ensure that NO competition to iTunes and the app store is available to Apple gadget users. This kinda defines "monopoly" to me. This also extends to the applications you are allowed to use to interact with the gadgets YOU own. Every time another software project finds a way around Apple's lock-in, Apple release an update and break it again.
Microsoft are rightly deemed to hold a monopoly in several areas, when they control more than say 85% of the market share. Does holding 100% of the market share suddenly trigger some hidden clause in the definition of "monopoly" which renders it non-applicable?
I'd be curious to hear of the alternative outlets iPhone users & developers have.....the ones Apple have not issued a C&D order too or are not currently in legal proceedings against.
Technical goals are not licensing goals, yet the implication is that it was the choice of license that got it rejected.
Apple do need to be hauled through the same anti-competitive regulators as Microsoft and Intel on several issues. Microsoft need to be hauled through on many more counts than they currently have been. Until the US regulators start doing their jobs, the only people I see willing to take a stand is the EU. We need BOTH sides to slam them, not just one. It is shameful that this tends to be US companies doing the dirty, while the US regulators turn a blind eye.
I know, you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite for now.....
.exe"
.exe to enroll in our botnet.....in fact, we'll use a dipshit filter on your OS to make it even easier and click it for you, can't say fairer than that can we?
"when you use FOSS you're still relying on somebody", and in a sense you're locked-in: if you haven't spent years learning code, who gives if it's FOSS?"
If the maintainer decides not to do it anymore, that person you're relying on vanishes. If you're not a programmer you're screwed right? Wrong. You can hire someone to work on that code if it's vital to your business. Chances are that most mature FOSS projects will have plenty of transient developers so that will never be an issue.
"FOSS's idea of computer freedom is code--Joe the Plumber's is "click the
Yep, click the
"I use Linux: *buntu user for years. Have liked it, but it's starting to get waaay too time-consuming to coax the dang box into working with it."
"why aren't there any linuxes as functional, with GUIs, and easy to use, demanding as much or little hardware, and as fast as Win 2000?"
Maybe it's time you upgraded it, or better yet.....wipe it and do a fresh install. If Ubuntu is getting slow (I sympathize btw) then extend beyond the poster child and learn how to be leaner. Plenty of distros cater to just that, by leaving out stuff you don't need it will be faster and snappier. You've been running it for "years", you should have learned something by now. Since you're trolling for suggestions (you're not really but since I said I'd play along it only seems fair) try Wolvix, Puppy, DSL, Debian, Slitaz etc for fast lightweight distros. All it needs is eyes, a few blank CDs and some patience and you'll find them.
Incidentally, why are we comparing OS's you can't buy now? Where can you buy Windows 2000? Where can you buy XP for that matter? Sure if Microsoft feels your company are in danger of switching to a malware free platform they'll allow you to spend extra to get Vista downgraded to XP but it still counts as Vista. A fair comparison should be on OS's you can get NOW.
A FOSS project / OS lives while people are willing to code for and use it, proprietary projects die when the vendor decides they die.
The concept of "just works" is an illusion. You're gonna have issue no matter what OS you use. Apple do have less excuses in that they control both the hardware AND the software, so when it don't work you have incompetence. Both Windows and Linux have to deal with a HUGE range of hardware. When the vendors decide to abandon some hardware in Windows, the FOSS / *nix open source version of the driver lives on, which means it's gonna be working in Linux, not in Windows. This is against the backdrop of vendors intentionally trying to lock Linux out (often at Microsoft's bidding) or just staying VERY proprietary and forcing the Linux device driver coders to reverse engineer everything, where the Windows drivers are done in-house by the same people who make the device.....and often their drivers are buggy as hell, despite the advantage they have.
Apple control EVERYTHING, their revenue stream is all about giving you a seamless experience as long as you buy ALL Apple products and use them in a way they see fit to their revenue stream. Try using non-Apple products on an Apple, see how it "just works". Try using Apple products outside OSX, see how that also "just works".
Final thoughts.....have you submitted bug reports of your issues? I'm guessing not.
That would be down to whether or not their lobbyists have been bribing the right people in the right positions, or whether they have the goods on the people making the decisions.
Hienie flu? Is that not caused by diet? Just because someone farts a lot does not make them contagious. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past companies like Merck to sell placebo cures for a non-existent problem.
I dunno, I'd rather be sentenced to something non-existent than something which actually does exist.....and hurts.....a lot. Personally I want my coffin packed with marshmallows just in case I'm going somewhere with a lot of fire.
I understand why Apple want to be a gatekeeper for their gadgets but they use it as an excuse for blocking competition and censoring what it's users may or may not want.
I see only two legit reasons for the role of gatekeeper.
1 - Prevent any application with malicious code finding it's way onto a users unit. ie if it invades someones privacy, data or security it's out.
2 - If it's written to interfere with other competitor applications
Preventing customers from using applications which compete with your in-house ones is NOT a legit reason (AKA anti-competitive practices). Preventing applications which don't fit your views on morality is NOT a legit reason. Preventing applications which block or circumvent your revenue streams is NOT a legit reason.
While the iPhone has a substantial lead, the Android will catch up and overtake the iPhone primarily because of the open and uncensored development model. At which point Apple will have to make a decision; either continue to be an exclusive niche option, or start giving their users and developers more freedom to use the gadgets they bought as they see fit.
While Android is irrelevant right now in terms of user base, remember that it's still a very new project and is still building mass. Give it a couple of years, when several phone manufacturers have Android OS on their models and in most stores. At that point the iPhone balance will be seriously cut back. The more Apple restrict while Android is open, the more it will turn some people towards Android. Some will always stick to Apple, that will only change if Apple go bankrupt.
If it's simply a case of adult lyrics, mark the content as such and allow it. Let the people decide for themselves if they want adult content or not. They do already have an "explicit" tag in iTunes.
The Democrat / church sentence was probably flamebait in hindsight, perhaps I should have thought through my point to find more appropriate wording before posting. The deeply religious conservative people living in small towns who fear and reject most of the modern world tend to be the strong voting support of the Republicans, who would rather do just about anything than even listen to an alternate option, let alone vote for an alternate.
A better way of putting it is that some people like to live in a bubble where the real world does not enter. There is no swearing anywhere near them, nobody mentions the existence of sex, there is no violence unless it's the bad guys getting a whoopin' from the good guys on some repeat of a 50's western drama, there is no real injuries / blood etc. I grew up in this type of household, I know how it feels. It's also devoid of reality where many people enjoy legal consensual porn, even if they do it in secret and won't let anyone else know in case they are condemned as a pervert and fired from their jobs.
This conservative mindset seems to want to live in a world that time forgot rather than accept that most of us have moved on. They seem content to have all their censored for their own good, rather than risk seeing something which distorts their time bubble.
Now Trent has publicly stated the reason for it's rejection, does that not break Apple's NDA rules on "don't talk about rejection"? Will Apple throw more PR petrol on themselves by fighting Trent with a lawsuit instead of trying to let the embers die out?
Is anyone really surprised with another Apple rejection on dubious grounds? Perhaps the real message is that Apple design their products for good church going people who would rather vote Democrat than see anything with a little adult content. The way I see it, is that there are a LOT more "adult" users who would rather have the choice of content, even if they wouldn't consume it themselves. This means that Apple are seemingly intentionally cutting themselves off from that spending power.
We complain rightly about government treating us like children, making our decisions for us with little right of reply, yet it seems if you stick a flashy interface on it and apply some PR brainwashing it's all good and dandy.
For the Apple fanbois, feel free to mod me down for speaking ill of the almighty......the power of Jobs compels thee.
Whatever the reason, the dude has reacted to the controversy and updated NoScript along with an apology. What more do people want? Sure I was pissed at the ABP change, and the redirects upon restart but that aside NoScript (or it's function at least) is still a valuable line of browser security. Can we give the dude the benefit of the doubt, forgive him and move on? It's not in the Microsoft league of "shafting people as a business model".
Flip this on it's tail and look at it. This knowledge could be used as a WMD in a modern redefinition of the "poison the well" strategy employed by generals since Rome at least. It'd save taxpayers money on bombs and bullets if the bad guys would just kill themselves; well not counting the nutters with bomb belts out for a hug at a checkpoint.
If changing the presentation of a web page on a users browser is wrong, what do we do about those who need to apply custom CSS or increase the font size to be able to read the page? Do we block those features and damn those with accessibility needs to only surfing sites with the right combination of color scheme and font size?
The only people arguing the angle that adverts shouldn't be blocked are the advertisers, and those who rely on them for a living. Regardless of what your market research shows you, people don't like adverts. People do (for the most part) understand that advertising helps (at least in part) subsidize services, and accept that if it's not too intrusive and on topic, then they will put up with it in exchange for the service. When that balance goes over too much they will rebel and block or skip it, often leaving a negative impression of greed in the operators of that service.
Advertisers were able to get away with a lot when the consumer PC and home internet were new, but with each year that passes more and more people are growing up PC / net savvy; well enough that many older tricks are now seen as offensive. Like any greed centered industry, they will always seek ways to exploit the spirit of the law while using a PR campaign and lobbying to be perceived to be staying within the letter of the law. If all else fails, rebrand your ruined company and start again doing the same as before.
"illegally manipulating the author's content to remove ads designed to produce revenue?"
Well it's legal in the UK (for now), Phorm wrote the UK governments advice on the subject for them. They don't remove adverts, they just replace them with adverts from their partners in crime so they get the advert revenue. To me, this is even more outrageous.
There is a limit on the number of "r"'s allowed and the pirates seem to go through them at quite a rate. Perhaps we could allow them in if they paid for each additional "r", but then we'd be seen as profiting from one party and not another so we can't win either way.