> Seems like the sort of place you'd use it would also be the sort of place where you could trust no one.
It's worse. There ain't no such thing as a 'darknet' to your ISP. If you are in the sort of place that needs Freenet you can be certain your ISP will report you to the government for using freenet. In the sort of places that need Freenet, possession of Freenet will get you shot. In places that having freenet won't get you shot the only people who will bother setting it up is pedophiles and others who are doing things that would get them imprisoned or shot.
These are hard facts. Yes it would be great if a critical mass of non illegal activity could get on Freenet to provide the chaff to provide cover for the occasional whistleblower who really needs it, but getting from here to there is all but impossible. Freenet will, by design, underperform a normal straight connection so there is a strong disincentive for legit content to use it. The only possible hope is if the *IAA goons drive piracy[1] far enough underground that the file traders adopt Freenet. But I really doubt Freenet in it's current form will be able to scale anywhere near large enough to handle the warez scene, especially in the age of full HD ripping we are hurtling towards. The limited size of the local data cache and cable/DSL upload speeds just won't suffer the inefficiencies involved.
[1] Yes, 'pirated' movies are illegal just like kiddieporn but as a practical matter they differ in one vital aspect. 90+% of Internet users currently trade movies, songs, etc. and thus would likely trade them on Freenet if Bittorrent becomes too dangerous, whereas few will currently install a freenet node due to the popular perception is that having one currently is tantamount to admitting being into, or at least a willing faciliator of kiddieporn.
> Ah well. Given Vista, Windows security issues, and Apple's consistent attempts to sell their computers to the high-school and college-age markets...
No. Just no. Get a freaking clue dude. Apple is still, even after a decade of resurgence, a single digit niche player for the latte sipping set and graphic artists. Most people aren't even nerds/geeks and rarely think much about their PC. But once upon a time the legend of Bill Gatus of Borg/Microsoft was engrained into everyone from little old ladies who couldn't find the power switch on a PC to schoolchildren as a "Great American Success Story." Now things are more realistic, i.e. Microsoft is seen as just another big company. To think Apple had ANYTHING to do with that is just silly, considering their tiny slice of the marketplace.
Well they are just applying Brooks' Law... a bit late but better late than never.
Mosiac begat IE. The original Mosiac authors begat Netscape which begat Mozilla which finally (with a few namechanges we can skip) begat Firefox. Now with over a decade to see just how those original designs failed to scale to what the Internet became it is about time to toss the whole codebase and start over with the knowledge of what didn't work.
Hope they can do it faster than the whole Mozilla rewrite ended up taking.
> If you grew up being told you were subhuman, having to accept being spit on, and under constant fear of lynching...
Nice try. But the historical record differs. Rev. Wright grew up upper middle class in Philly, went to an integrated school and served (honorably as best I can find) in the military, one of the least racist instituitions of the period. It was after the military that he apparently went through an Islamic phase (Can't find whether it was Islam or Nation of Islam, important difference) before hooking up with Cone and the Black Liberation Theology movement.
In other words more like a typical 60's reject leftist who happens to be black. And Obama has even less excuse for associating himself with crazies.
> How does "God damn America" in the middle of a long sermon become "I hate white folks so much that you could call me a reverse-color KKK member" ?
Because I don't depend on CNN (or Fox) for all of my news. "God Damn America" is the "Money shot" in Rev. Wright's hit parade of hate but it isn't the only incident and it isn't even the worst of it. And since the media wing of the Democratic party is working so hard to supress this story it just means it will keep dripping out little by little over the months ahead. Hint: You might want to start at the Wayback Machine's copy of tucc.org from last year. And unless Obama never actually attended services, never visited his church's website or read the church newsletter he did indeed know he was hanging out with the Klan with a Tan. And giving money. Hard to disclaim a relationship when you have a money trail.
I know Obama supporters want to believe this will blow over because they invested so much in the cipher without doing any due diligence, but move on already the guy is toxic. Imagine Bush getting caught donating to Stormfront. The pain would never end. (rightly I'd add) Same here, you guys can either cut your loses now or lose in November after dragging the whole country through a painful examination of the hate, intolerance and filth circulating in the left's fever swamps. Go for the Goracle, he is loony in my view but a viable candidate for a Democrat.
> McCain may not follow Pat Robertson, but his spiritual advisor Rod Parsley may be as bad or worse.
Ok, that quote (I'd doubt the accuracy considering the source but I'm pretty sure I have seen video on Fox or CNN) is quite the pander coming outta McCain but nobody believed it when he said it. Still a pretty desperate attempt at defining a moral equivalence where none exists tjough. Had McCain attended that church for decades, tithed it, been married in it, ok then would have roughly equal degrees of closeness. BUt you would still be lacking the crazy.
> After all, he advocates war against Muslims, prosecuting adulterers and more. Oh, but he's a conservative, so I guess this is acceptable?
I'd say a reasoned case could be made that Islam is already at war with us. For all the talk of moderate voices in Islam they seem to be more rare than Democrats denouncing Wright instead of justifing and excusing him. And as the guys is a Christian minister I'd expect him to be against adultery, I'm an agnostic and I certainly ain't in favor of it either. Marriage is a contract, we should not be in the habit of encouraging the breaking of contracts without consequences. So are YOU in favor of it? Hope you ain't married and yer spouse doesn't read/.:)
Ya see, that guy isn't what I'd be looking at for a moral instructer but he ain't even close to the levels of crazy Rev. Wright represents. Let me give you a hint, his greatest hits haven't made the airwaves yet, even on Fox. Wait until we get to truly indepth discussions of "Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of Cone. Rev. Wright chastized Sean Hannity for daring to criticise him until he read the writings of Cone. Google is yer bud on Cone, I won't quote it here in polite company.
> I don't think he's the second coming and disagree with his solutions. But can't we keep at least this site apolitical, more or less?
You must be new here... or weren't reading much in '04. Slashdot will look pretty much like dailykos in another couple of months when we hit prime election season.
> Did you not listen to his speech on the matter? It was probably the most well thought out speech on race from a politician ever.
It was a thing of beauty. Carefully crafted to answer every question that WAS NOT being asked while ignoring the elephant in the room. And with lots of help from the media wing of the Democratic party it might succeed. The question that wasn't answered was, phrased bluntly, "Were you just hanging out with this clown for political reasons or do you actually believe that insane crap?" Or even more bluntly, "It is patently obvious Rev. Wright is a bigot. Are you?"
> Everyone knows someone that is a racist, and really, truth be told, we are all probably racist on some level.
There is some truth in what you say. We have made much progress towards a colorblind society but aren't there yet. On the other hand it is a matter of degree, just like any other toxic substance the poison is in the dose. There IS a difference between Obama's grandmother being creeped out by black panhandlers (which detail is in Obama's book but left out of the speech) and having a sheet in her closet. Oh, she didn't have a sheet? Hmmmm. Rev. Wright would be right at home wearing one though. Not a goddamned bit of difference in the wild syed insanity, hate and intolerance between Wright, Duke, Farrakan, etc. except in who they hate.
> Honestly, I don't care if the Obamas don't like white people in their core, and crack "cracker jokes" over family outings, > so long as they run the country well when they are in there.
It is the insanity part that bugs me the most. Especially when contemplating the next Leader of the Free World.
Oh, and you are a damned liar. Thought experiment: TV captures Bush dropping the N bomb. How many milliseconds until you and every other kos kid call for his head? That is the annoying part, Obama was the first candidate to call for Imus's head and he has been warming a pew at the Klan with a Tan for two decades.
> Do we even need to look at the things the religious right has said that John McCain embraces?
Ok, get out yer flamebait mods... I'm full of Karma anyway and itchin to burn off a bit.
No. Just no. You assholes got that talking point out within minutes of the Wright scandal breaking and it is just bullshit. If you can't see the difference you are just too retarded to be allowed to walk around loose so I won't even go there and just assume you are a political hack who knows he is lying his ass off and doesn't care because 'the ends justify the means.' No it doesn't. Only bad things come from that kind of thinking.
There is a world of difference between allowing someone slightly dodgy to endorse you and you endorsing them. Mr. McCain was NOT my preferred candidate (conservative leaning non-idiotarian libertarian who can't forgive McCain-Feingold) but lets keep some honesty in the political debate shall we? Hagee is a bit of a twit from what I can find but it isn't THAT bad. McCain simply negotiated and obtained an endorsement from the guy. It would be no more fair to assume McCain agrees with Hagee on that basis than to assume Obama agrees with with Kos's more insane notions because dailykos is supporting Obama with Obamas knowledge and lack of repudiation.
Now on the other hand, if you attend a church for two decades, are baptized into Christianity in that Church, are married in that church and have your two daughters baptized there, donate non-trivial sums of tithes to a church, etc. it is reasonable for people to assume that the person doing these things endorses the views of that particular church.... otherwise they would have picked a different church. Ok, can everyone see the difference now? See why this problem isn't going to go away with one (admittedly pretty darned good) speech?
Imagine John McCain being discovered to be a regular viewer of and contributer to Pat Robertson. Still think a person't choice of religious instructor doesn't matter? That it wouldn't affect his political views? And Robertson, while a genuine asshole, hasn't even approached the levels of insanity and hate the Rev. Wright managed to attain. To make the comparison valid you would have to have McCain slumming at Stormfront as well.
But it gets worse. Just warming a pew was bad enough, Obama claims Wright to be a mentor. But even that isn't the bad part. Obama's whole reason to exist is to bring "Change, Hope and Unity." He has no documented political accomplishments to point to. He promises to transcend race and be a uniter but he had a perfect, made to order, opportunity to lead a depraved, bigoted minister and a congregation deep into conspiracy madness and self destructive beliefs to healing and back to the teachings of Jesus. Leadership iz Fail. And we are expected to believe (i.e. take on faith with less evidence than there is behind any religion) that if we but elevate this cipher to President of the United States and Defender of Western Civilivation that only then will his unbound skills be revealed.
> If he's been there for 20 years and never heard him say that kind of thing, isn't it logical to assume > that he didn't say that kind of thing a whole lot?
Only if you get all of your news from the MSM. Some of us look beyond. I had been to TUCC's over the top bigoted webpage a year ago and saw more than I needed to know about the company Sen. Obama keeps. After reading that page all I needed to know was what the heck a 'Black Values System" was and what the hell it could possibly have to do with a church purporting to be devoted to Jesus's teachings. Google knows. Google tells all who ask the right questions. Barack Obama is my sworn enemy, thus while I see no reason to hate him back I will oppose his political ambitions.
> Look at when he said it. It was right after 9/11. Everybody was saying crazy shit for a few weeks after 9/11.
It isn't what he said. You are right, the days after 9/11 were a bit crazy. Pat Robertson comes to mind..... No, the problem with Rev. Wright and TUCC was HOW it was said. A transcript coesn't do it justice. It took the DVD to blow things to hell. It was the rejoicing going on, both at the pulpit and in the pews. While every sane person was mourning (even Robertson, loon that his is) those fucktards were happy as hell that whitey was getting his. Even worse was the total lack of shame that would drive them sell dvds of such perverted cavortings in the name of the dark powers.
> What I liked to hear in the speech was that he has many friends and loved ones that he disagrees with, > and that is all right. Can you imagine a politician who only surrounds himself with people he completely > agrees with 100% on every issue?
While you have a good point... up to a point.:) I'd like to offer up a different but equally valid take on the same facts. Obama's theme, his entire reason for running, is that He is an agent of Change, Hope and Unity. That he is the chosen one to heal our divided land. So where is the evidence that he can heal? Where is the evidence he can lead foaming mouthed crazies to enlightenment? He warmed a pew at TUCC for two decades, up to his ass in hate, bigotry and unreasoning conspiracy theories. Has he even made the claim to have lead any sort of reform movement? Rev. Wright isn't a problem because of decade old rants. The defense isn't that Rev. Wright used to be full of hate... until he felt the touch of the Obamessiah and found Peace. Had Obama been making the claim to have a proven record (even assuming, that like any politician, he was claiming results than actually delivered) of bringing people together I'd at least give the Marxist the time 'o day.
Sorry, Here is reality. Despite living the charmed life of the upper class, editing the Harvard Law Review, etc. Barack Obama has no major public policy accomplishments to date. Yet we are expected to (and you apparently do) believe that if we but elevate this cipher to the office of President of the United States and Leader of the West, that only then we he deign to reveal the limitless talents that He has elected to keep hidden, that only then, with Ultimate Power (or as Ultimate as it gets) to back him up can His Plan for us be revealed. Yea, right.
> Libertarianism is about removing all restrictions. And that, because of the human nature, > is a really, really, really bad idea.
Except it isn't about removing ALL restrictions. You would be hard pressed to find a Libertarian who doesn't subscribe to the concept of "Rule of Law." Some of the less developed minds dream of a stateless utopia but most realize that laws imply law givers and law enforcers. The non initiation of force doctribe implies some outside agency enforcing it, after all if I shoot you and take your possessions you aren't going to be in a position to object anymore. Libertarians believe in a minimal state, just not in the all powerful socialist state.
Part of the problem is that pure libertarianism (Ms. Rand's pure version for example) is stateless. But we don't actually have libertarian philosophy developed enough to be able to even imagine the details of a stateless society. Kind of like physicists are pretty sure now that all of the forces of nature can be reconciled in a "Grand Unified Field Theory" of some sort.... now if had any sort of inkling what that Theory actually might be we could make some predictions what sort of earth shattering implications it would have.
> However, most systems have built-in restrictions limiting this predation. Libertarianism doesn't.
Yes it does. Non-Initiation of Force.
> No it doesn't. It's always the rational choice for Joe Freerider to not contribute to such groups, > since the degradation in the level of good that comes Joe's way will be less than the gain from > having more personal resources available.
Not at all. Reputation is such a powerful motivator precisely because it has such a powerful SELFISH impulse at the core.
>..and even if it doesn't, it creates a huge pressure to conform to the viewpoints of whoever gives the aid, > which is bad for the society
I really want to explore this one line. By definition, people/groups who have excess resources to be handing out for PR reasons are successful. Why is it so bad for society you feel the point to be so self evident as to not even need justifying? Don't we want successful social structures to propagate and displace unsuccessful ones?
> The enlightened, caring individuals are already out there helping. Removing state-sponsored welfare > does not make more magically appear.
No magic needed. When the State is seizing far more than the biblical 10% and wasting most of it on useless or outright counter productive programs that at best keep the Democrat Party in power, why is it unreasonable to believe that if those resources were left in the hands of those who created them that they wouldn't return to historical patterns of charitable giving? Remember that history is on our side. In the past there was plenty of charity. And we now have a half century of the Welfare State's abject failure to compare and contrast with.
> Besides, we are talking about the richest nations in the world and all of history thus far. It would > be utterly shameful to force part of the population to beg for food in the streets, or otherwise depend > on the mercy and goodwill of others, never knowing when it might run out.
And I would say that anybody who can't manage to support themselves (longterm, remember that short term charity for tragedy/disaster, etc. is a long established tradition in Western Civilization) in the wealthiest nation in human history, with the greatest record for upward mobility, etc. is a waste of protoplasm. That the uncertainty of continued charity is a very powerful motivator. That removing that uncertainty leads to multi-generational welfare cases. That encouraging/tempting Free People to degrade themselves so is the far greater insult to the dignity of Man.
Of course there is you insensitive clod. Watch what ya say lest they send you to the camps. Gender identity is whatever the hell you say it is and if anybody questions you yell that they are bigots, homophobes, etc. until they get scared and shut up. Jeeze, keep talkimg silly stuff like "is there such a thing as a...." and people will think you are a Republican or worse.
And there is always the example of "Mrs." Garrison on South Park.:)
> A lens can diffuse the beam, and they currently exist in red, green, and blue forms that could > be combined into the proper color temperature.
That won't work. There is a good reason white LEDs aren't just tri-color LEDs without seperate leads. See the slashdot story from this weekend about the artist exploiting the monochromatic light of LEDs to produce interesting effects when illuminating paintings. If you mix primary colors to get yellow paint, paint something with it and shine a yellow LED on it you see black. Oops! Guess that is why white LEDs use a deep blue or UV LED with a fluorescent coating inside the package. A LASER diode would of course be an even more extremely monochromatic light source than a normal LED, plus the unexpected problems of illuminating ordinary scenes with coherent light.
From Congresscritters all the way down to Walmart, everybody jumped on the CFL bandwagon to appease the greens. Nobody cared about discussing consequences then, it was all about shutting up the greens and being able to put a little halo on yer head and tell everybody how much better you were because YOU cared about 'saving the earth.'
But there ain't no hollow earth, no happy ever after and no free lunch. Everything is a balance, a trade off. Yes CFLs save energy, but there were lots of reasons why they weren't flying off store shelves. But none of that mattered, if people wouldn't rationally make the choices greens thought they should be then there was obviously something wrong with 'ordinary people' and the government would just have to make the 'right' decision for em and outlaw incandescent bulbs. And the lesson we can now take is that trying to appease greens will never work, because we aren't even a year out from their great 'success' in forcing CFLs down our throats and they are pissed all over again.
> We have to come to do something about overpopulation.
So far we only know one solution. War, pestilence, famine, only slow population growth a bit. When the four horsemen ride we respond by breeding faster. Bring the rule of law, freedom and the rising standard of living that goes with it and we can stop the population bomb. Go look up the numbers yourself if ya don't believe me. Find me one country which has had freedom, peace and prosperity for a generation that is growing. (Barring immigration)
It didn't used to work that way. But starting sometime in the 20th Century the growth curve in every industrialized country went flat to down. The US has the best birth rate but we wouldn't be growing without immigrants. Both the immigrants themselves and for the fact new arrivals still have the higher birth rates common in the 3rd world pestholes (i.e. Mexico) they came from.
> Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel? > Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history?
Yes it is tied to the dumbing down of everything, but it is also something else. Not sure what the drive is, but look at the cable channels today vs a decade or so back. In the beginning the promise of cable/sat was lots of focused channels catering to niches that broadcast TV couldn't serve. So we had news channels that just did news, music channels that were 24 hours of music, science channels, etc. That was the promise, we would drive towards the 500 channel systems and it wouldn't matter what your interest, one of those channels would have something for you.
But what happened? We got 500 channels that increasingly are just mirrors of the three networks. Game shows (reality) everywhere, celebrity worship and gossip. Flip to a random channel and without looking at the bug in the corner you won't be able to tell what channel you are on. MTV runs fewer music videos in a week than network TV did back before MTV opened with "Video killed the radio star." CNN abandoned it's news all the time format and launched Headline News to compensate... only to make a mockery by turning 'headline news' into celebrity and tabloid trash in the evening and now a me too perky anchors in the morning show. So when will CNN - Really the News be launched like MTV3 was launched when the music died on MTV2 and VH1? Or take your example of Discovery, History and TLC becoming just crappy reality shows and searches for UFOs and Bigfoot. How about AMC running sitcoms and crap. Or TV Land running movies and original series instead of sticking to their mandate to keep classic TV series alive. And you can count the hours the SciFi channel runs SciFi on one hand these days. Guys, ghost hunters ain't SciFi. Jason vs Freddy ain't SciFi. Even Cartoon Network has morphed into a Nick clone with general (no requirement it be cartoon) kids programming by day and edgy 'adult' programming at night.
> One thing is if you think humans can be useful, another thing is if you think they can "hold their own" > compared to robots.
We are decades (probably more) away from designing a robot that can even compete with a human when it comes to doing the sort of work needed to explore a new world, build a base, etc. Sending some cute little radio controlled cars to Mars is interesting and all, but a team of real scientists would produce more information in a month than all the probes sent to data and likely to be sent in the next decade.
First because any mission big enough to have humans will also have the space to carry a crapload of instruments instead of a few pounds on a rover. (Excluding the rover, power system, drive, radio, etc that just gets the little bugger able to move and send pictures back) A manned expedition will be carrying TONS of mass already, a few thousand pounds of instruments will be a given. And instead of seeing something interesting and sending an instrument on the NEXT probe to collect more information, a real expedition would be able to test ideas on the spot. Also don't underestimate the difference between having several pairs of human eyes actually on the scene vs some slow scan TV pictures and a few high res shots to work from.
> I guess that depends on what you think humans' role in space will be.
Hint: Not just to collect some samples and go home. Had Chris Columbus came, saw and went home the discovery ofthe new world wouldn't have had much of an impact on history. We go, we look and eventually we STAY. Put a few people out there and give em some time to really explore and it is a virtual certainty they discover something valuable. Space is chock-a-block full of natural resources.
> I think a "drydock" expeditiion would be a nice start... create a biosphere that's supposed to contain > humans, send up some plants and animals... if you can't keep a controlled atmosphere, temperature, > humidity, water and food supply etc. then there's no point at all.
Not a very valid test. Since if you have humans many of the failure modes can be corrected. One blown relay in a critical place doesn't wipe everything out like happens to most of our robot probes eventually. Which is why those guys playing in the desert with biospheres is a good idea, since if something goes wrong that the humans CAN'T fix they don't have to die for science. But eventually ya hafta go and do it for real.
> Also, remember that if you want a "backup" solution to earth the colony has to be self-sustained, > and I mean really self-sustained. If it'd die within say 100 years due to lack of spare parts, > resources or energy without support from earth then it'd be no backup at all - it'll be the last > fraction of humanity dying.
True enough. But if one takes the longer term view it isn't important. Yes a colony might be dependent for a fairly long time, but without beginning the effort success isn't possible. Fortune favors the bold. Besides, the expense of getting cargo out of the Earth's gravity well will be a pretty big incentive for colonists to discover local ways to take care of as many of their needs as possible unless they find something pretty friggin valuable to trade... in which case it's all good.
No, their position is that government should play no role in sending men into space.
No, read the article. As a Libertarian sort I'd be down with that part about not stealong my money to blast somebody else into space. But yhey are spewing propaganda to British school children. To quote the article:
2. Make the case for ending human space flight. Outline the advantages of using satellites and the disadvantages and dangers of manned missions. Include an explanation as to why manned missions have continued despite the cost and loss of life.
That is a sign of a civilization that has lost not only the will to live, it isn't even all that curious anymore. If you aren't ever planning on roving over the mountain eventually, why waste the money sending a robot to look around?
If one takes the British position that 'man has no business in space' then there isn't a point to sending robots beyond geostationary orbit either. The whole point of sending robots is that they are cheaper and more expendable to send than humans, thus they are good for the early scouting missions. But if humans aren't eventually going, what is the freaking point?
Pirates can only operate on the fringes of civilization. Too far out and the prey be too scarce to keep a pirate in booty. And ye be wanting enough civilization to have ports to put in for supplies, to spend de booty on grog and whores and such. The Spanish Main was an all too brief time, when booty was plentiful for the takin' but the Navy wasn't. The good times came to and end, but not before bold men made their fortunes.
This here Intarnet tube thing was a new frontier for a bit and some good times were had, sharing da booty. But civilization is quickly catchin up here and the good times of sharing yer booty like a drunken slut with anybody who can manage to hail ya just ain't gonna remain viable.
So remember back (or ask the old pirate rascals how a Commodore 'Users Group' worked) how it was done in the old days. Swap only with folk ye know to be good and true pirates. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a portable hard drive. Small interlocking networks of scp servers where only folk ye have meet and looked in thar eyes have access to yer booty.
Talk about someone who would suffer if stupidity could be made more painful......:)
Dude! Newsflash: AT&T doesn't give a pair of fetid dingos's kidneys what you do with your AT&T data service just so long as you pay your bill on time and aren't a bandwidth hog. PalmOS is a totally open platform and AT&T allows phones running it to connect to both the slow data service Apple is using and their modern 3G service. Windows Mobile/WindowsCE is a reasonably unlocked (SDK isn't a free download but is fairly easy to obtain) platform that AT&T sells service to, regardless of which browser you want to install. Symbian's SDK doesn't restrict you from replacing the bundled browser in phones on that platform. Apple is the only asshole control freak in this story, not AT&T.
> Jonathan Schwartz owes his success (as CEO of Sun) to Steve Jobs.
Ok, I'm willimg to admit I might be mistaken, but I always believed that OpenOffice was a descendent of Star Office which was an old OS/2 app. But since nothing would exist in the computer world without Steve to create it, i'm sure you will find some way to retell the OO.o creation story.
> Meanwhile, you will be running whatever/where-ever/ as in the original promise of Java.
Except for the couple million marching morons who buy the shiny handcuffs Steve sells. Java survived it's whole life so far ignoring Linux/BSD/etc because we have never been anything more than an asterisk in the deployed desktop (notice that Java on the server has worked much more reliably on Linux) statistics. Apple, unfortunately, isn't an asterisk. Condemed to always remain under 10% to avoid the wrath of Microsoft, but a real viable player that Java can't ignore and claim "write once, run everywhere" with a straight face.
> Apple will need Java, not the other way around. There's no way that Apple's SDK alone will meet the > demands of Enterprise as it goes headlong into Blackberry territory,
Steve has never yet shown any signs of wanting or needing ANYONE else with the sole exception of doing whatever it takes to keep Microsoft Office available for the Mac. So no, they won't 'need' Java. Because Apple knows something you obviously don't; Apple will never play in the Enterprise space. Luxury boutique goods are never going to be picked by the green eyeshades types. Kewl industrial design means nothing. Price performance, wide compatibility with Microsoft's 'standards', conformance with actual standards, durability, stable product availibility for long periods of tume, etc. are what corporate types make purchasing decisions based on.
The limit of Apple's desire to 'operate' in the Enterprise space is to have just enough compatibility with enterprise apps that iPhones that employees purchase themselves aren't banned from corporate networks and/or replaced with a company issued phone/pda.
> The firefox issue seems to be dealing with the fact that no interpreted languages are accepted (javascript I assume), and no plugin arch. are allowed.
In other words, no sneaky selling web based apps or Firefox plugins to get around the requirement they everything be sold through the iTunes store and cut Apple in for a taste.
Fudge em! This sort of crappy attitude is why I'll probably never own an Apple product. They are pretty, (usually) well built, a littel pricy for the featureset but that's the price for boutique luxury goods targeted at the untechnical... however the attitude problem that comes in every box is totally unacceptable for a Free Software diehard like me to ever accept.
Slashdot Mirror
> Seems like the sort of place you'd use it would also be the sort of place where you could trust no one.
It's worse. There ain't no such thing as a 'darknet' to your ISP. If you are in the sort of place that needs Freenet you can be certain your ISP will report you to the government for using freenet. In the sort of places that need Freenet, possession of Freenet will get you shot. In places that having freenet won't get you shot the only people who will bother setting it up is pedophiles and others who are doing things that would get them imprisoned or shot.
These are hard facts. Yes it would be great if a critical mass of non illegal activity could get on Freenet to provide the chaff to provide cover for the occasional whistleblower who really needs it, but getting from here to there is all but impossible. Freenet will, by design, underperform a normal straight connection so there is a strong disincentive for legit content to use it. The only possible hope is if the *IAA goons drive piracy[1] far enough underground that the file traders adopt Freenet. But I really doubt Freenet in it's current form will be able to scale anywhere near large enough to handle the warez scene, especially in the age of full HD ripping we are hurtling towards. The limited size of the local data cache and cable/DSL upload speeds just won't suffer the inefficiencies involved.
[1] Yes, 'pirated' movies are illegal just like kiddieporn but as a practical matter they differ in one vital aspect. 90+% of Internet users currently trade movies, songs, etc. and thus would likely trade them on Freenet if Bittorrent becomes too dangerous, whereas few will currently install a freenet node due to the popular perception is that having one currently is tantamount to admitting being into, or at least a willing faciliator of kiddieporn.
> Ah well. Given Vista, Windows security issues, and Apple's consistent attempts to sell their computers to the high-school and college-age markets...
No. Just no. Get a freaking clue dude. Apple is still, even after a decade of resurgence, a single digit niche player for the latte sipping set and graphic artists. Most people aren't even nerds/geeks and rarely think much about their PC. But once upon a time the legend of Bill Gatus of Borg/Microsoft was engrained into everyone from little old ladies who couldn't find the power switch on a PC to schoolchildren as a "Great American Success Story." Now things are more realistic, i.e. Microsoft is seen as just another big company. To think Apple had ANYTHING to do with that is just silly, considering their tiny slice of the marketplace.
Well they are just applying Brooks' Law... a bit late but better late than never.
Mosiac begat IE. The original Mosiac authors begat Netscape which begat Mozilla which finally (with a few namechanges we can skip) begat Firefox. Now with over a decade to see just how those original designs failed to scale to what the Internet became it is about time to toss the whole codebase and start over with the knowledge of what didn't work.
Hope they can do it faster than the whole Mozilla rewrite ended up taking.
> If you grew up being told you were subhuman, having to accept being spit on, and under constant fear of lynching...
Nice try. But the historical record differs. Rev. Wright grew up upper middle class in Philly, went to an integrated school and served (honorably as best I can find) in the military, one of the least racist instituitions of the period. It was after the military that he apparently went through an Islamic phase (Can't find whether it was Islam or Nation of Islam, important difference) before hooking up with Cone and the Black Liberation Theology movement.
In other words more like a typical 60's reject leftist who happens to be black. And Obama has even less excuse for associating himself with crazies.
> How does "God damn America" in the middle of a long sermon become "I hate white folks so much that you could call me a reverse-color KKK member" ?
Because I don't depend on CNN (or Fox) for all of my news. "God Damn America" is the "Money shot" in Rev. Wright's hit parade of hate but it isn't the only incident and it isn't even the worst of it. And since the media wing of the Democratic party is working so hard to supress this story it just means it will keep dripping out little by little over the months ahead. Hint: You might want to start at the Wayback Machine's copy of tucc.org from last year. And unless Obama never actually attended services, never visited his church's website or read the church newsletter he did indeed know he was hanging out with the Klan with a Tan. And giving money. Hard to disclaim a relationship when you have a money trail.
I know Obama supporters want to believe this will blow over because they invested so much in the cipher without doing any due diligence, but move on already the guy is toxic. Imagine Bush getting caught donating to Stormfront. The pain would never end. (rightly I'd add) Same here, you guys can either cut your loses now or lose in November after dragging the whole country through a painful examination of the hate, intolerance and filth circulating in the left's fever swamps. Go for the Goracle, he is loony in my view but a viable candidate for a Democrat.
> McCain may not follow Pat Robertson, but his spiritual advisor Rod Parsley may be as bad or worse.
/. :)
Ok, that quote (I'd doubt the accuracy considering the source but I'm pretty sure I have seen video on Fox or CNN) is quite the pander coming outta McCain but nobody believed it when he said it. Still a pretty desperate attempt at defining a moral equivalence where none exists tjough. Had McCain attended that church for decades, tithed it, been married in it, ok then would have roughly equal degrees of closeness. BUt you would still be lacking the crazy.
> After all, he advocates war against Muslims, prosecuting adulterers and more. Oh, but he's a conservative, so I guess this is acceptable?
I'd say a reasoned case could be made that Islam is already at war with us. For all the talk of moderate voices in Islam they seem to be more rare than Democrats denouncing Wright instead of justifing and excusing him. And as the guys is a Christian minister I'd expect him to be against adultery, I'm an agnostic and I certainly ain't in favor of it either. Marriage is a contract, we should not be in the habit of encouraging the breaking of contracts without consequences. So are YOU in favor of it? Hope you ain't married and yer spouse doesn't read
Ya see, that guy isn't what I'd be looking at for a moral instructer but he ain't even close to the levels of crazy Rev. Wright represents. Let me give you a hint, his greatest hits haven't made the airwaves yet, even on Fox. Wait until we get to truly indepth discussions of "Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of Cone. Rev. Wright chastized Sean Hannity for daring to criticise him until he read the writings of Cone. Google is yer bud on Cone, I won't quote it here in polite company.
> I don't think he's the second coming and disagree with his solutions. But can't we keep at least this site apolitical, more or less?
You must be new here... or weren't reading much in '04. Slashdot will look pretty much like dailykos in another couple of months when we hit prime election season.
> Did you not listen to his speech on the matter? It was probably the most well thought out speech on race from a politician ever.
It was a thing of beauty. Carefully crafted to answer every question that WAS NOT being asked while ignoring the elephant in the room. And with lots of help from the media wing of the Democratic party it might succeed. The question that wasn't answered was, phrased bluntly, "Were you just hanging out with this clown for political reasons or do you actually believe that insane crap?" Or even more bluntly, "It is patently obvious Rev. Wright is a bigot. Are you?"
> Everyone knows someone that is a racist, and really, truth be told, we are all probably racist on some level.
There is some truth in what you say. We have made much progress towards a colorblind society but aren't there yet. On the other hand it is a matter of degree, just like any other toxic substance the poison is in the dose. There IS a difference between Obama's grandmother being creeped out by black panhandlers (which detail is in Obama's book but left out of the speech) and having a sheet in her closet. Oh, she didn't have a sheet? Hmmmm. Rev. Wright would be right at home wearing one though. Not a goddamned bit of difference in the wild syed insanity, hate and intolerance between Wright, Duke, Farrakan, etc. except in who they hate.
> Honestly, I don't care if the Obamas don't like white people in their core, and crack "cracker jokes" over family outings,
> so long as they run the country well when they are in there.
It is the insanity part that bugs me the most. Especially when contemplating the next Leader of the Free World.
Oh, and you are a damned liar. Thought experiment: TV captures Bush dropping the N bomb. How many milliseconds until you and every other kos kid call for his head? That is the annoying part, Obama was the first candidate to call for Imus's head and he has been warming a pew at the Klan with a Tan for two decades.
> Do we even need to look at the things the religious right has said that John McCain embraces?
Ok, get out yer flamebait mods... I'm full of Karma anyway and itchin to burn off a bit.
No. Just no. You assholes got that talking point out within minutes of the Wright scandal breaking and it is just bullshit. If you can't see the difference you are just too retarded to be allowed to walk around loose so I won't even go there and just assume you are a political hack who knows he is lying his ass off and doesn't care because 'the ends justify the means.' No it doesn't. Only bad things come from that kind of thinking.
There is a world of difference between allowing someone slightly dodgy to endorse you and you endorsing them. Mr. McCain was NOT my preferred candidate (conservative leaning non-idiotarian libertarian who can't forgive McCain-Feingold) but lets keep some honesty in the political debate shall we? Hagee is a bit of a twit from what I can find but it isn't THAT bad. McCain simply negotiated and obtained an endorsement from the guy. It would be no more fair to assume McCain agrees with Hagee on that basis than to assume Obama agrees with with Kos's more insane notions because dailykos is supporting Obama with Obamas knowledge and lack of repudiation.
Now on the other hand, if you attend a church for two decades, are baptized into Christianity in that Church, are married in that church and have your two daughters baptized there, donate non-trivial sums of tithes to a church, etc. it is reasonable for people to assume that the person doing these things endorses the views of that particular church.... otherwise they would have picked a different church. Ok, can everyone see the difference now? See why this problem isn't going to go away with one (admittedly pretty darned good) speech?
Imagine John McCain being discovered to be a regular viewer of and contributer to Pat Robertson. Still think a person't choice of religious instructor doesn't matter? That it wouldn't affect his political views? And Robertson, while a genuine asshole, hasn't even approached the levels of insanity and hate the Rev. Wright managed to attain. To make the comparison valid you would have to have McCain slumming at Stormfront as well.
But it gets worse. Just warming a pew was bad enough, Obama claims Wright to be a mentor. But even that isn't the bad part. Obama's whole reason to exist is to bring "Change, Hope and Unity." He has no documented political accomplishments to point to. He promises to transcend race and be a uniter but he had a perfect, made to order, opportunity to lead a depraved, bigoted minister and a congregation deep into conspiracy madness and self destructive beliefs to healing and back to the teachings of Jesus. Leadership iz Fail. And we are expected to believe (i.e. take on faith with less evidence than there is behind any religion) that if we but elevate this cipher to President of the United States and Defender of Western Civilivation that only then will his unbound skills be revealed.
> If he's been there for 20 years and never heard him say that kind of thing, isn't it logical to assume
> that he didn't say that kind of thing a whole lot?
Only if you get all of your news from the MSM. Some of us look beyond. I had been to TUCC's over the top bigoted webpage a year ago and saw more than I needed to know about the company Sen. Obama keeps. After reading that page all I needed to know was what the heck a 'Black Values System" was and what the hell it could possibly have to do with a church purporting to be devoted to Jesus's teachings. Google knows. Google tells all who ask the right questions. Barack Obama is my sworn enemy, thus while I see no reason to hate him back I will oppose his political ambitions.
> Look at when he said it. It was right after 9/11. Everybody was saying crazy shit for a few weeks after 9/11.
It isn't what he said. You are right, the days after 9/11 were a bit crazy. Pat Robertson comes to mind..... No, the problem with Rev. Wright and TUCC was HOW it was said. A transcript coesn't do it justice. It took the DVD to blow things to hell. It was the rejoicing going on, both at the pulpit and in the pews. While every sane person was mourning (even Robertson, loon that his is) those fucktards were happy as hell that whitey was getting his. Even worse was the total lack of shame that would drive them sell dvds of such perverted cavortings in the name of the dark powers.
> What I liked to hear in the speech was that he has many friends and loved ones that he disagrees with,
:) I'd like to offer up a different but equally valid take on the same facts. Obama's theme, his entire reason for running, is that He is an agent of Change, Hope and Unity. That he is the chosen one to heal our divided land. So where is the evidence that he can heal? Where is the evidence he can lead foaming mouthed crazies to enlightenment? He warmed a pew at TUCC for two decades, up to his ass in hate, bigotry and unreasoning conspiracy theories. Has he even made the claim to have lead any sort of reform movement? Rev. Wright isn't a problem because of decade old rants. The defense isn't that Rev. Wright used to be full of hate... until he felt the touch of the Obamessiah and found Peace. Had Obama been making the claim to have a proven record (even assuming, that like any politician, he was claiming results than actually delivered) of bringing people together I'd at least give the Marxist the time 'o day.
> and that is all right. Can you imagine a politician who only surrounds himself with people he completely
> agrees with 100% on every issue?
While you have a good point... up to a point.
Sorry, Here is reality. Despite living the charmed life of the upper class, editing the Harvard Law Review, etc. Barack Obama has no major public policy accomplishments to date. Yet we are expected to (and you apparently do) believe that if we but elevate this cipher to the office of President of the United States and Leader of the West, that only then we he deign to reveal the limitless talents that He has elected to keep hidden, that only then, with Ultimate Power (or as Ultimate as it gets) to back him up can His Plan for us be revealed. Yea, right.
> Libertarianism is about removing all restrictions. And that, because of the human nature,
..and even if it doesn't, it creates a huge pressure to conform to the viewpoints of whoever gives the aid,
> is a really, really, really bad idea.
Except it isn't about removing ALL restrictions. You would be hard pressed to find a Libertarian who doesn't subscribe to the concept of "Rule of Law." Some of the less developed minds dream of a stateless utopia but most realize that laws imply law givers and law enforcers. The non initiation of force doctribe implies some outside agency enforcing it, after all if I shoot you and take your possessions you aren't going to be in a position to object anymore. Libertarians believe in a minimal state, just not in the all powerful socialist state.
Part of the problem is that pure libertarianism (Ms. Rand's pure version for example) is stateless. But we don't actually have libertarian philosophy developed enough to be able to even imagine the details of a stateless society. Kind of like physicists are pretty sure now that all of the forces of nature can be reconciled in a "Grand Unified Field Theory" of some sort.... now if had any sort of inkling what that Theory actually might be we could make some predictions what sort of earth shattering implications it would have.
> However, most systems have built-in restrictions limiting this predation. Libertarianism doesn't.
Yes it does. Non-Initiation of Force.
> No it doesn't. It's always the rational choice for Joe Freerider to not contribute to such groups,
> since the degradation in the level of good that comes Joe's way will be less than the gain from
> having more personal resources available.
Not at all. Reputation is such a powerful motivator precisely because it has such a powerful SELFISH impulse at the core.
>
> which is bad for the society
I really want to explore this one line. By definition, people/groups who have excess resources to be handing out for PR reasons are successful. Why is it so bad for society you feel the point to be so self evident as to not even need justifying? Don't we want successful social structures to propagate and displace unsuccessful ones?
> The enlightened, caring individuals are already out there helping. Removing state-sponsored welfare
> does not make more magically appear.
No magic needed. When the State is seizing far more than the biblical 10% and wasting most of it on useless or outright counter productive programs that at best keep the Democrat Party in power, why is it unreasonable to believe that if those resources were left in the hands of those who created them that they wouldn't return to historical patterns of charitable giving? Remember that history is on our side. In the past there was plenty of charity. And we now have a half century of the Welfare State's abject failure to compare and contrast with.
> Besides, we are talking about the richest nations in the world and all of history thus far. It would
> be utterly shameful to force part of the population to beg for food in the streets, or otherwise depend
> on the mercy and goodwill of others, never knowing when it might run out.
And I would say that anybody who can't manage to support themselves (longterm, remember that short term charity for tragedy/disaster, etc. is a long established tradition in Western Civilization) in the wealthiest nation in human history, with the greatest record for upward mobility, etc. is a waste of protoplasm. That the uncertainty of continued charity is a very powerful motivator. That removing that uncertainty leads to multi-generational welfare cases. That encouraging/tempting Free People to degrade themselves so is the far greater insult to the dignity of Man.
> Is there such a thing as a male lesbian BTW?
...." and people will think you are a Republican or worse.
:)
Of course there is you insensitive clod. Watch what ya say lest they send you to the camps. Gender identity is whatever the hell you say it is and if anybody questions you yell that they are bigots, homophobes, etc. until they get scared and shut up. Jeeze, keep talkimg silly stuff like "is there such a thing as a
And there is always the example of "Mrs." Garrison on South Park.
> A lens can diffuse the beam, and they currently exist in red, green, and blue forms that could
> be combined into the proper color temperature.
That won't work. There is a good reason white LEDs aren't just tri-color LEDs without seperate leads. See the slashdot story from this weekend about the artist exploiting the monochromatic light of LEDs to produce interesting effects when illuminating paintings. If you mix primary colors to get yellow paint, paint something with it and shine a yellow LED on it you see black. Oops! Guess that is why white LEDs use a deep blue or UV LED with a fluorescent coating inside the package. A LASER diode would of course be an even more extremely monochromatic light source than a normal LED, plus the unexpected problems of illuminating ordinary scenes with coherent light.
From Congresscritters all the way down to Walmart, everybody jumped on the CFL bandwagon to appease the greens. Nobody cared about discussing consequences then, it was all about shutting up the greens and being able to put a little halo on yer head and tell everybody how much better you were because YOU cared about 'saving the earth.'
But there ain't no hollow earth, no happy ever after and no free lunch. Everything is a balance, a trade off. Yes CFLs save energy, but there were lots of reasons why they weren't flying off store shelves. But none of that mattered, if people wouldn't rationally make the choices greens thought they should be then there was obviously something wrong with 'ordinary people' and the government would just have to make the 'right' decision for em and outlaw incandescent bulbs. And the lesson we can now take is that trying to appease greens will never work, because we aren't even a year out from their great 'success' in forcing CFLs down our throats and they are pissed all over again.
> We have to come to do something about overpopulation.
So far we only know one solution. War, pestilence, famine, only slow population growth a bit. When the four horsemen ride we respond by breeding faster. Bring the rule of law, freedom and the rising standard of living that goes with it and we can stop the population bomb. Go look up the numbers yourself if ya don't believe me. Find me one country which has had freedom, peace and prosperity for a generation that is growing. (Barring immigration)
It didn't used to work that way. But starting sometime in the 20th Century the growth curve in every industrialized country went flat to down. The US has the best birth rate but we wouldn't be growing without immigrants. Both the immigrants themselves and for the fact new arrivals still have the higher birth rates common in the 3rd world pestholes (i.e. Mexico) they came from.
> Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel?
> Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history?
Yes it is tied to the dumbing down of everything, but it is also something else. Not sure what the drive is, but look at the cable channels today vs a decade or so back. In the beginning the promise of cable/sat was lots of focused channels catering to niches that broadcast TV couldn't serve. So we had news channels that just did news, music channels that were 24 hours of music, science channels, etc. That was the promise, we would drive towards the 500 channel systems and it wouldn't matter what your interest, one of those channels would have something for you.
But what happened? We got 500 channels that increasingly are just mirrors of the three networks. Game shows (reality) everywhere, celebrity worship and gossip. Flip to a random channel and without looking at the bug in the corner you won't be able to tell what channel you are on. MTV runs fewer music videos in a week than network TV did back before MTV opened with "Video killed the radio star." CNN abandoned it's news all the time format and launched Headline News to compensate... only to make a mockery by turning 'headline news' into celebrity and tabloid trash in the evening and now a me too perky anchors in the morning show. So when will CNN - Really the News be launched like MTV3 was launched when the music died on MTV2 and VH1? Or take your example of Discovery, History and TLC becoming just crappy reality shows and searches for UFOs and Bigfoot. How about AMC running sitcoms and crap. Or TV Land running movies and original series instead of sticking to their mandate to keep classic TV series alive. And you can count the hours the SciFi channel runs SciFi on one hand these days. Guys, ghost hunters ain't SciFi. Jason vs Freddy ain't SciFi. Even Cartoon Network has morphed into a Nick clone with general (no requirement it be cartoon) kids programming by day and edgy 'adult' programming at night.
> One thing is if you think humans can be useful, another thing is if you think they can "hold their own"
> compared to robots.
We are decades (probably more) away from designing a robot that can even compete with a human when it comes to doing the sort of work needed to explore a new world, build a base, etc. Sending some cute little radio controlled cars to Mars is interesting and all, but a team of real scientists would produce more information in a month than all the probes sent to data and likely to be sent in the next decade.
First because any mission big enough to have humans will also have the space to carry a crapload of instruments instead of a few pounds on a rover. (Excluding the rover, power system, drive, radio, etc that just gets the little bugger able to move and send pictures back) A manned expedition will be carrying TONS of mass already, a few thousand pounds of instruments will be a given. And instead of seeing something interesting and sending an instrument on the NEXT probe to collect more information, a real expedition would be able to test ideas on the spot. Also don't underestimate the difference between having several pairs of human eyes actually on the scene vs some slow scan TV pictures and a few high res shots to work from.
> I guess that depends on what you think humans' role in space will be.
Hint: Not just to collect some samples and go home. Had Chris Columbus came, saw and went home the discovery ofthe new world wouldn't have had much of an impact on history. We go, we look and eventually we STAY. Put a few people out there and give em some time to really explore and it is a virtual certainty they discover something valuable. Space is chock-a-block full of natural resources.
> I think a "drydock" expeditiion would be a nice start... create a biosphere that's supposed to contain
> humans, send up some plants and animals... if you can't keep a controlled atmosphere, temperature,
> humidity, water and food supply etc. then there's no point at all.
Not a very valid test. Since if you have humans many of the failure modes can be corrected. One blown relay in a critical place doesn't wipe everything out like happens to most of our robot probes eventually. Which is why those guys playing in the desert with biospheres is a good idea, since if something goes wrong that the humans CAN'T fix they don't have to die for science. But eventually ya hafta go and do it for real.
> Also, remember that if you want a "backup" solution to earth the colony has to be self-sustained,
> and I mean really self-sustained. If it'd die within say 100 years due to lack of spare parts,
> resources or energy without support from earth then it'd be no backup at all - it'll be the last
> fraction of humanity dying.
True enough. But if one takes the longer term view it isn't important. Yes a colony might be dependent for a fairly long time, but without beginning the effort success isn't possible. Fortune favors the bold. Besides, the expense of getting cargo out of the Earth's gravity well will be a pretty big incentive for colonists to discover local ways to take care of as many of their needs as possible unless they find something pretty friggin valuable to trade... in which case it's all good.
No, read the article. As a Libertarian sort I'd be down with that part about not stealong my money to blast somebody else into space. But yhey are spewing propaganda to British school children. To quote the article:
That is a sign of a civilization that has lost not only the will to live, it isn't even all that curious anymore. If you aren't ever planning on roving over the mountain eventually, why waste the money sending a robot to look around?
Pathetic whimperings of a dying civilization.
If one takes the British position that 'man has no business in space' then there isn't a point to sending robots beyond geostationary orbit either. The whole point of sending robots is that they are cheaper and more expendable to send than humans, thus they are good for the early scouting missions. But if humans aren't eventually going, what is the freaking point?
Ahoy all ye pirates, here be wisdom.
Pirates can only operate on the fringes of civilization. Too far out and the prey be too scarce to keep a pirate in booty. And ye be wanting enough civilization to have ports to put in for supplies, to spend de booty on grog and whores and such. The Spanish Main was an all too brief time, when booty was plentiful for the takin' but the Navy wasn't. The good times came to and end, but not before bold men made their fortunes.
This here Intarnet tube thing was a new frontier for a bit and some good times were had, sharing da booty. But civilization is quickly catchin up here and the good times of sharing yer booty like a drunken slut with anybody who can manage to hail ya just ain't gonna remain viable.
So remember back (or ask the old pirate rascals how a Commodore 'Users Group' worked) how it was done in the old days. Swap only with folk ye know to be good and true pirates. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a portable hard drive. Small interlocking networks of scp servers where only folk ye have meet and looked in thar eyes have access to yer booty.
> Wow, you bought AT&T's whole network?!?
:)
Talk about someone who would suffer if stupidity could be made more painful......
Dude! Newsflash: AT&T doesn't give a pair of fetid dingos's kidneys what you do with your AT&T data service just so long as you pay your bill on time and aren't a bandwidth hog. PalmOS is a totally open platform and AT&T allows phones running it to connect to both the slow data service Apple is using and their modern 3G service. Windows Mobile/WindowsCE is a reasonably unlocked (SDK isn't a free download but is fairly easy to obtain) platform that AT&T sells service to, regardless of which browser you want to install. Symbian's SDK doesn't restrict you from replacing the bundled browser in phones on that platform. Apple is the only asshole control freak in this story, not AT&T.
> Jonathan Schwartz owes his success (as CEO of Sun) to Steve Jobs.
/where-ever/ as in the original promise of Java.
Ok, I'm willimg to admit I might be mistaken, but I always believed that OpenOffice was a descendent of Star Office which was an old OS/2 app. But since nothing would exist in the computer world without Steve to create it, i'm sure you will find some way to retell the OO.o creation story.
> Meanwhile, you will be running whatever
Except for the couple million marching morons who buy the shiny handcuffs Steve sells. Java survived it's whole life so far ignoring Linux/BSD/etc because we have never been anything more than an asterisk in the deployed desktop (notice that Java on the server has worked much more reliably on Linux) statistics. Apple, unfortunately, isn't an asterisk. Condemed to always remain under 10% to avoid the wrath of Microsoft, but a real viable player that Java can't ignore and claim "write once, run everywhere" with a straight face.
> Apple will need Java, not the other way around. There's no way that Apple's SDK alone will meet the
> demands of Enterprise as it goes headlong into Blackberry territory,
Steve has never yet shown any signs of wanting or needing ANYONE else with the sole exception of doing whatever it takes to keep Microsoft Office available for the Mac. So no, they won't 'need' Java. Because Apple knows something you obviously don't; Apple will never play in the Enterprise space. Luxury boutique goods are never going to be picked by the green eyeshades types. Kewl industrial design means nothing. Price performance, wide compatibility with Microsoft's 'standards', conformance with actual standards, durability, stable product availibility for long periods of tume, etc. are what corporate types make purchasing decisions based on.
The limit of Apple's desire to 'operate' in the Enterprise space is to have just enough compatibility with enterprise apps that iPhones that employees purchase themselves aren't banned from corporate networks and/or replaced with a company issued phone/pda.
> The firefox issue seems to be dealing with the fact that no interpreted languages are accepted (javascript I assume), and no plugin arch. are allowed.
In other words, no sneaky selling web based apps or Firefox plugins to get around the requirement they everything be sold through the iTunes store and cut Apple in for a taste.
Fudge em! This sort of crappy attitude is why I'll probably never own an Apple product. They are pretty, (usually) well built, a littel pricy for the featureset but that's the price for boutique luxury goods targeted at the untechnical... however the attitude problem that comes in every box is totally unacceptable for a Free Software diehard like me to ever accept.