But all of us live on the achievements of those before us. You and I by ourselves if dropped into a rainforest, a desert, or a beach with no one around would die quickly. I can neither build a fire, catch my food, make a shelter, know what herbs to eat, or stitch clothes. From that perspective I'm a loser who doesn't deserve to survive. I'm a freelance writer. Useless.
So I'm not sure how exactly I'm such a superior being...
India has 1.14 billion people - and the area is smaller too. Both have done a decent job so far at reducing slums and poverty given their restraints. So how come China needs to censor the Internet and remove freedom of expression when India is more or less ok with it?
How can China prevent Google from making its maps available? You don't need to be a Chinese company to make a map of China, so if even if Google continues to show the of China, how is it bound by Chinese laws?
Oh please. By that logic, all discussion on the Internet is useless because they're "just words". I quite understand if you feel you're nothing, but not everyone is you.
Incidentally pakistan is so upset by someone sitting and "playing on a computer" that they're risking their dignity by ridiculously calling for an execution.
So once again - YOU are nothing. The REST of us are aware of what we're worth.
Just because it's publicly available doesn't mean that it won't be enforced in the future. To my mind, the very fact that Apple wants jailbreaking to be illegal shows me their mentality. I don't want to do associate with a company that tries to stifle competition by using purely technological means. Also, at some point in time, the government should come down on Apple for restrictive practices. They're already on their ass for other things so I can dream...
Have you considered that we might be like bacteria thriving on an organism and ultimately killing it off? That's natural too right? The only difference is that bacteria know how to spread from one person to another, while we're stuck on this planet. Killing it finishes us off too.
Evolution and natural selection aren't some external agencies like gods that we have to follow. There is no "big scheme of things." We're in this universe. Everything around us is dead and doesn't give a fuck what happens. We're the only ones that care. We have the ability to look ahead and modify our behavior unlike the other animals who finished of certain species.
Just because you need to look it up doesn't mean they're not clearly defined.
You know that well enough by the time you get out of grade school.
Prevarication
Just to really earn my Troll mod, who was the last President who was neither Republican, nor Democrat? Who gets to choose the candidates for those parties? And most importantly, who were the last two candidates who received all their campaign contributions from *entirely* different sets of corporations?
Apple should allow developers to set up an alternative app store for the iPhone. Let the users decide where to go. After all, if it's my device I should have the right to put whatever the fuck I want on it.
No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.
Or something you hadn't implied.
Here is what you said:
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal. If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.
No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.
This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.
You're not afraid, you're just wrong.
Irrelevant and trying to score silly points. You're running out of real arguments here.
Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.
You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal
"Please quote where I said otherwise"
In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.
Then you said this:
"They aren't trying to make it illegal." (Here's your comment - line 4.)
Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.
So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.
Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?
Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.
They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.
And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that? (Cause they're not). In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.
Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category...
Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this. Since neither of us can look into the future, we'll just have to wait and see. But I have faith that common sense will win out in the long run.
To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.
If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this:
"Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.
Actually when I decided to buy my iPod Touch as an impulse purchase, I didn't know about the app approval process. If I had, I might not have made the purchase.I just assumed that it would be a mini computer like my PC where I can visit any site I want and download and install anything I want. Like adults do.
I have a problem because Apple wants to dictate what I can run on my device. Don't you see this? Once I buy it it's not apple's anymore. That's why I paid money for it.
By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.
I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.
Nice fleshing out of the analogy! But in this case, Apple's preventing anyone else from building their own halogen billboard somewhere else. They say they're the only ones allowed to build halogen billboards anywhere and that's why I have an issue.
Basically they're not allowing anyone else to have an app store for the iPhone. As a person who's just bought the phone, suppose I want to have nothing more to do with Apple after I legally own my device...I should be able to give permission to a third party to install their applications on my device.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read the article, and then object.
For every scientist you can produce who makes this claim I'm sure I can produce one who advises maybe we should take a longer look at the "evidence"
No you can't.
No one's denying there's a long way to go. But to compare India's censorship with China's is fairly absurd...
China's censorship is systemic and institutional. India's is on knee jerk basis. And it can always be challenged in court as well.
But all of us live on the achievements of those before us. You and I by ourselves if dropped into a rainforest, a desert, or a beach with no one around would die quickly. I can neither build a fire, catch my food, make a shelter, know what herbs to eat, or stitch clothes. From that perspective I'm a loser who doesn't deserve to survive. I'm a freelance writer. Useless.
So I'm not sure how exactly I'm such a superior being...
India has 1.14 billion people - and the area is smaller too. Both have done a decent job so far at reducing slums and poverty given their restraints. So how come China needs to censor the Internet and remove freedom of expression when India is more or less ok with it?
How can China prevent Google from making its maps available? You don't need to be a Chinese company to make a map of China, so if even if Google continues to show the of China, how is it bound by Chinese laws?
i'm not saying you are anything... you are NOTHING.
And you don't know what you're saying.
Oh please. By that logic, all discussion on the Internet is useless because they're "just words". I quite understand if you feel you're nothing, but not everyone is you.
Incidentally pakistan is so upset by someone sitting and "playing on a computer" that they're risking their dignity by ridiculously calling for an execution.
So once again - YOU are nothing. The REST of us are aware of what we're worth.
Seems like I keep hearing of breakthroughs, but nothing ever seems to fucking change!
since when did the right to display content on your mobile device become a first amendment right?
There's your answer
Just because it's publicly available doesn't mean that it won't be enforced in the future. To my mind, the very fact that Apple wants jailbreaking to be illegal shows me their mentality. I don't want to do associate with a company that tries to stifle competition by using purely technological means. Also, at some point in time, the government should come down on Apple for restrictive practices. They're already on their ass for other things so I can dream...
They why does Apple claim that jailbreaking is illegal?
Have you considered that we might be like bacteria thriving on an organism and ultimately killing it off? That's natural too right? The only difference is that bacteria know how to spread from one person to another, while we're stuck on this planet. Killing it finishes us off too.
Evolution and natural selection aren't some external agencies like gods that we have to follow. There is no "big scheme of things." We're in this universe. Everything around us is dead and doesn't give a fuck what happens. We're the only ones that care. We have the ability to look ahead and modify our behavior unlike the other animals who finished of certain species.
Are they now?
Just because you need to look it up doesn't mean they're not clearly defined.
You know that well enough by the time you get out of grade school.
Prevarication
Just to really earn my Troll mod, who was the last President who was neither Republican, nor Democrat? Who gets to choose the candidates for those parties? And most importantly, who were the last two candidates who received all their campaign contributions from *entirely* different sets of corporations?
Red Herring.
Apple should allow developers to set up an alternative app store for the iPhone. Let the users decide where to go. After all, if it's my device I should have the right to put whatever the fuck I want on it.
No, a straw man just means you were attacking something I hadn't said as though I did.
Or something you hadn't implied. Here is what you said:
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
In this you're implying that you agree with my assertion that apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal. If you're not implying this, then you agree with my statement and it isn't a strawman anymore since then I'm not putting words in your mouth, but simply reflecting what you actually imply.
No, it was a straw man. That doesn't change if later I do say that thing. If you eat a steak which you later crap out, that doesn't it goes back in time and becomes crap when you ate it. It was still steak then, and will always have been.
This is a red herring. You haven't explained how you can justify making two completely different statements when nothing has changed in the time between making them.
You're not afraid, you're just wrong.
Irrelevant and trying to score silly points. You're running out of real arguments here.
Are you done trying to score a silly point? Logic is not on your side on this one, and neither is context.
You started the nitpicking with your "trying to make"/making legal distinction. Don't pick a fight unless you can go all the way. And as far as logic goes, you pretty much landed yourself in a soup trying to appear cleverer than you really are.
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal
"Please quote where I said otherwise"
In effect, you agree that Apple is trying to make Jailbreaking illegal. Otherwise your strawman refutation is invalid.
Then you said this:
"They aren't trying to make it illegal." (Here's your comment - line 4.)
Since these are contradictory statements, the only way both your statements can be consistent and true is if your opinion of the fact in question has changed between the making of the two statements.
So yeah, it's pretty much a requirement I'm afraid.
To follow your logic, in the time since you made the two statements, apple has changed their policy and stopped trying to make jailbreaking illegal!
vs
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal
"Please quote where I said otherwise"
Context. That must be it...
They aren't trying to make it illegal.
Pardon me, but didn't you say this in an earlier comment?
Me - Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
You - Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
I'm quoting you now where you said otherwise. Not a strawman argument anymore. So let's go back to the first comment shall we? Incidentally, let me know which of your two statements you actually believe in.
They made the claim that it already is if you jailbreak to run pirated apps.
And if I jailbreak without running pirate apps? Surely you're not implying that apple is ok with that? (Cause they're not). In any case, jailbreaking and pirating apps need to be dealt with separately because I can jailbreak without pirating anything.
Apple's TOS almost certainly does not fall into the latter category...
Any part of their TOS that stops me from doing what I want with my device will not stand up to legal scrutiny - and I'm willing to bet on this. Since neither of us can look into the future, we'll just have to wait and see. But I have faith that common sense will win out in the long run.
To end this, filing comments as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking regarding jailbreaking constitutes "trying" in my book. If they just wanted to make a statement they could have issued a press release.
If you read Page 11 section A of their filing you'll see this: "Jailbreaking Results in Copyright Infringement". The subsection A makes no mention of pirated apps meaning that apple is against jailbreaking per se and not just in connection with pirated apps.
Actually when I decided to buy my iPod Touch as an impulse purchase, I didn't know about the app approval process. If I had, I might not have made the purchase.I just assumed that it would be a mini computer like my PC where I can visit any site I want and download and install anything I want. Like adults do.
I have a problem because Apple wants to dictate what I can run on my device. Don't you see this? Once I buy it it's not apple's anymore. That's why I paid money for it.
How are they stopping you?
By not allowing me to install applications that don't come through the app store? Have you ever used an iPhone?
By trying to make jailbreaking illegal, apple is trying to mess with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
Some things are, some aren't. Some are in some circumstances and not in others.
I'm saying in this case, Apple's TOS falls into the latter category. And I'm sure a court of law will uphold my inbuilt rights to do what I want with my device.
Nice fleshing out of the analogy! But in this case, Apple's preventing anyone else from building their own halogen billboard somewhere else. They say they're the only ones allowed to build halogen billboards anywhere and that's why I have an issue.
Basically they're not allowing anyone else to have an app store for the iPhone. As a person who's just bought the phone, suppose I want to have nothing more to do with Apple after I legally own my device...I should be able to give permission to a third party to install their applications on my device.
I like the billboard analogy!