Well, if we are reduced to calling each other idiots, let me point out that a budget is composed of resources - those that you take in and those that you outlay. If your outlays exceed your income, that is deficit spending. You either need to raise taxes or reduce spending. We gave back taxes we had already collected or were already set, by law, to collect. Bush spent those funds assuaging his base and his ideology and so we existed in a fantasy world where you can spend all you want on the military, allow health care costs to skyrocket, not fix social security, not veto any spending from your fellow Republican and Democrat whores and still have a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the expense of the interest on the national debt is becoming bigger and bigger. We did spend that money - we spent it on Second homes in the Hamptons, Ivy league tuition, yachts, etc. It did not result in more job creation - in fact, the economy cratered. There's a sucker born every minute - or should I say, an idiot.
Um... when did we stop spending on that? The Fed has also been using highway funding as a way to do unconstitutional things to the states for 50 years
I would prefer we transition to mostly high-speed rail ( which will require government investment ), but what is your alternative for the highway system? Have a private company run it? Like BP? Good luck with that.
Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,
Would you prefer we hadn't gone to space? I will give you a great example of "space activities": satellite technology. If it weren't for government spending, we would not have gone to space. I admit that there is lots of room for private funding now, but that is because government funding showed that it was feasible.
Um.. The fed didn't spend all that much "creating" the internet. But I'll give you that DARPA is a good example for you to use.
OK, so it was cheap. But private industry wouldn't have done it because it was a project that benefitted other people than the companies themselves.
Really? At what cost? EPA? HUD? DepEnergy? DepAgri? DeptEdu? DepDefence? FHLMC? FNMA? Health and Human Services? DepInterior? Medicare? Welfare? Social Security?
Well, we're going to have to make some tough choices - and not just on the spending side, also on revenue collection. Corporations who use tax shelters should be punished for doing so, I would reduce the size of the military by 1% a year for the next 5 years, leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop sending billions of dollars to countries like Israel and Egypt, raise the retirement age for Social Security and make government more transparent to the people so we can see where the hell the money is going.
BTW, taxing the wealthy is no way to balance the budget. A wealthy is paying my paycheck, and I'm paying taxes. Much better to induce the wealthy to create jobs. It's a multiplicative effect. Besides, I WANT to be wealthy.
I think this is part of the problem - the identification with extremely rich people. You are right, that there is a sweet spot beyond which corporations will be less inclined to spend money and create jobs. We are way, way, past that point. I just want the taxes on the wealthy restored to what they were during the Reagan years. The "conservatives" seem to think those were the good old days of economic expansion, so let's get back there. What jobs does a company create with profit above and beyond what they invest back into their companies? Do you really think Exxon Mobil would explore less if their profits were reduced from $45 billion a year to $40 billion a year?
Is it more important to give money to really rich people or to pay down the debt? The interest on the debt is killing us. The rich people will survive.
The problem is faulty accounting. I don't know if you guys have a real or perceived economic stake in the current energy production systems, you just like to argue, or you are just bad at math.
The cost to build a new coal-fired power plant in Cassville or Portage has soared because of higher construction prices, Alliant Energy Corp. said Friday.
The 300-megawatt power plant, which would generate enough power to supply 150,000 homes, is now projected to cost $1.1 billion if it is built in southwestern Wisconsin and $1.2 billion if it is built in Portage, the utility said.
But this is just the construction costs of the plant. How much will be spent over the course of the plant's lifetime in mining coal, transporting coal, processing coal, managing the burning of coal, performing maintenance on boilers and turbines, managing the waste products of coal, etc.? And that doesn't even take into account the huge costs we pay for respiratory diseases caused by coal, climate change, the environmental damage caused by mountain top removal and by the wastes products, etc. etc. I think if you are honest and thorough in your accounting, you will see that the overall costs to society from burning coal is huge - much more expensive than solar. With the exception of maintenance ( which should be much lower ), none of these reoccurring expenses are present with solar and this is just the beginning of solar research and efficiency gains.
I am really starting to think that a large percentage of my fellow humans are just insane. Do you guys really think that we will be burning toxic shit to get out power in the future? Is that the best we can do? For a bunch of technophiles, this is an awfully Luddite-like position.
This money has already been allocated as part of the stimulus package according to TFA. As others are pointing out, this is chump change compared to what we are spending daily to "keep us safe". It may be anathema to "Conservatives", but sometimes it takes government funding to change economic realities that are harmful or to create economic realities that are good for all and not just one company. The Internet comes to mind, the national highway system, the space program, etc. Once the government can create a network effect through jumpstarting an infrastructure, private companies can move in and create huge economic ripple effects - again, I will use The Internet as a good example. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get back to a balanced budget, unfortunately, the last president actually was a drunken sailor ( or at least a dry drunk Vietnam evader ) who ran the country into the ground and amassed huge debts by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and engaging in two wars of choice.
Yeah - we're not talking about what the competition can "catch up with", we're talking about what is. When the competition catches up, Apple will have improved again.
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
I wish I had mod points to give you. Apple comes along and blows open the completely evil and locked-down ecosystem that was the cell phone ecosystem and two years later they are too closed - despite producing a hugely popular product and slowly relaxing control where and when it makes sense to do so in the context of a smooth user experience.
It is in our own interest to save the species. Seems odd that that would have to be explained. Besides, we poisoned the ocean out of carelessness and greed. Yes, we should worry that we may have endangered a magnificent species that can help us survive and help the oceans be healthy. Again, it is really weird having to explain such a basic fact.
as Finder and quite a few other parts of OS X were still Carbon until Snow Leopard...
Irrelevant. Apple was providing the best service they could to to their customers while balancing internal resources. And Snow Leopard was $29. Apple is doing fine. It was Adobe's place to step up to the plate and show some love to OS X - and they didn't. Instead they fed us crap and charged us thousands of dollars over the years for it. Now they are suffering the consequences. I am looking forward to what's next. If Adobe had one single clue left in the company somewhere, they would bend over backwards to win back my loyalty. I am their bread and butter and I am bored with them.
Wow. I think I will go to a dark room and off myself. Seriously dude, lighten up. The market can't be compared to the PC market of 20 years ago. The start up and material costs are waaay lower for hardware these days - especially in the mobile space. Unlike a PC, a user changes his/her cellphone frequently. The cost of smart phone software is minuscule compared to Windows software - people don't lose huge investments when they switch platforms.There are plenty of companies competing with Apple. If it turns out to be the death march you make it out to be, people will switch to HP's Pre or Android or Windows Mobile Genuine Phone Series 7 or whatever.
Good idea. You should take a moral stance and deprive yourself of a really cool product so that Apple will finally stop eating live babies. It's just insane. How long do they think they can eat live babies before people wake up to how incredibly evil they are.
"Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?"
Cause it would be more satisfying to rip their balls off with a plastic fork.
"the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped"
If you are going to have drilling in the gulf, and, as the oil apologists tell us, "there will be accidents", then we need all the data we can gather on this event so that we can use it to assess the correlation between the amount of oil at that depth and all kinds of other things - like movement of the oil column underwater, fractionation of the oil, effects on sea life, the proper amount of dispersant to use, danger of migration to the loop current, etc. etc. Also, since most of the oil doesn't seem to be floating, we need to know how much of it is down there because we have no idea of the effects on the ocean and the wildlife. There are a million reason to collect accurate data and you can bet your ass that BP has the tech to judge the amount of oil being released. Obama should have convened this panel to accurately measure the flow two weeks ago. BP is obviously happy to repeat the 5,000 gallons per day bullshit figure, but it really shows their stripes, doesn't it?
This is an excellent response. I see someone down thread has posted the fucking proper fucking booming video. Hysterical, but sad. BTW - you should skip to 1:54, I think, that's when the relevant part is. The other problem with the booms is that this is not a spill from above, this is a leak from below - waaaay below. Because the dispersant is being shot into the high pressure stream at depth and because of the fractionation as it rises through the water column, this oil acts differently than usual spills. It seems to be some sort of foam - or emulsification. I think there is probably a lot of oil that goes right under the booms.
It's also different in that it is being released from a mile down - as opposed to 150 feet down - ands being hit with dispersants that weight it down and fractionate it at depth. Add to that the fact that it is drifting into the loop current which will carry it down to Cuba and the Keys. It seems like it is definitely going to affect fisheries for decades to come - particularly oysters and shrimp.
He didn't say that. He said you wouldn't want to jump into a nuclear reactor just because the sun is also a source of radiation. See, it was about quantity and concentration.... Oh, never mind.
Any amount of oil we release due to negligence IS bad. The stuff that seeps out is bad too - but it seeps out slowly and there are colonies of bacteria which have sprung up to deal with it. Volcanos, earthquakes and hurricanes are natural also, but we wouldn't want to do anything to replicate their affects. I didn't bother to click on your link, but I will get no capital from this mess and it deeply offends me.
I would rather have had safeguards and contingency plans in place - or better yet, an electric transportation system, conservation and alternative fuels - including nuclear. This spill is what peak oil looks like.
Giant plumes is not hyperbole. They estimate they are as much as 10 miles long by 4 miles wide and hundreds of feet thick. And there are a lot of them. This is different than your normal micron-measured surface event. We have never had this much oil come up from depth before.
I don't know if the dispersants are a good idea or not, but they aren not benign and they may or may not facilitate bacterial ingestion of the oil. What they DO do is cause 800,00 gallons of, essentially Windex, to be dumped in addition to the spill and cause oil to hang around at depth where it will be sucked into the Gulf loop current and interact with the environment in ways we haven't seen before.
Also, the press says whatever they think will make BP happy - cause BP is one of their major advertisers. BP kind of set it up that way, you know? I have seen very little about this spill in the news and everyone is quoting the bullshit 5,000 BPD figure. CNN and their ilk knows that the public will start yawning if the oil isn't actually on the beach. Everything else is too abstract for all the Homers out there. BP knows this too.
I don't want someone deciding what they like or dislike, no. But, I would hope there are some consistent guidelines. The Mark fiori App was liberal, so it isn't a liberal/conservative thing. But, this is the single point I would agree on is too much editorial control by Apple. Having said that, I think 99.9% of what you want will be there and the rest is available freely on the Web. Still, the call for multiple app stores is asking for perfection - when prior to the app store you couldn't really get anything for your phone - the carriers had shitty apps available for huge prices and all kinds of roadblocks and controls ( not to mention the phones sucked too). Now you can download 200,00 apps - many of them free - and run them on as many tablets and phones as you wish. Where is the love for Apple for making this happen? Like they did with music, they stepped in and fixed a really bad situation.
I don't think it is practical to expect Apple to fix everything and then to allow for multiple app stores - which introduces all kinds of issues involving the model for how apps are distributed, downloaded, installed, backed up, etc. Besides, it dilutes value. Everyone who wants to make a buck will be ion the App store. Now I only have one place to look. If APple get kooky, people will talk and the marketplace will fix it. Until Apple has a monopoly, it is a non issue - go to Android.
So, I don't sit around moping about a few poor app rejection decisions. Philosophically yes, practically, no. And I don't feel oppressed by any tyranny. Apple will evolve. Competition is coming. Apple is a hell of a lot better than what we had and everyone is hard at work trying to copy them.
As for Apple showing the way, I don't consider Blackberries and Windows Mobile 6.5 to really be "smart phones" and there was nothing like the App store prior to Apple's. All I know is all the phones pretty much sucked, then Apple came out with the iPhone and now we have all sorts of cool, touch screen phones with decent browsers. People always discount Apple's vision.
"This whole "if you don't like them, don't buy them, but for God's sake, don't tell anyone about your opinion" is pure BS"
That's not what the parent is talking about. He is talking about the whole irrational fascination with a few tech choices Apple has made and the extrapolation that Apple is a bunch of baby-eating nazis. There is a hell of a lot of hysteria and anger directed at Apple for a few simple decisions. 1) not to allow porn. 2) control over app submissions 3) not running FLash plug in 4) no cross-compiled apps.
1) Get your porn using safari - problem solved - or preload it 2) Some of us enjoy not weeding through tons of virus-laden, poor quality apps 3) There IS no Flash plug-in. 10.1 is not out yet - nor is the ARM version ready yet. Until then, it is all theoretical. Besides, Flash sucks. It is not an arbitrary decision. 4) Cross-complied apps don't allow Apple to add new features and switch processors mid stream, etc. Rely on Adobe for your company's direction when they can't even get 10.1 out the door? I don't think so.
The point is not that people are criticizing Apple. The point is that the criticism and the accompanying apocalyptic sense of doom is way out of proportion. This false doom is being picked up by every loser reporter on the Net and is being amplified to the point that the merits of Apple's tech and what they have done to move the entire industry forward is lost in this echo chamber of masturbating nerds . Me thinks though doth protest too much. Maybe it's cause the rest of the arena has zero new ideas and feels a little trapped that they are reduced to following Apple's lead. New Flash - there would be no Android phones had Apple not shown the way.
The question is not whether or not their will be accidents. The question is whether industry is willing to cut into their huge profits a little to have adequate safety, training, and response mechanisms commensurate with the challenging and environmentally sensitive areas that are left to drill in. This disaster shows they are not. And, if they are not, will the government do the right things and set reasonable regulations to ensure they do it against their will. Furthermore, since these accidents may very well happen, they need to be accounted for in the true price of oil and not be looked at as freak anomalies. Factoring in the billions of dollars and disruption to entire eco and economic systems starts to make the price point of solar and other alternative energy systems look much better.
Let us not forget that there IS no Flash that can run on the iPad, iPhone or Droid phones for that matter. Am I wrong? Adobe says it is coming in the second half of the year. When Adobe has a product that will run on the phones, then you can say APple doesn't support it. Until then, it is a theoretical discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if we are reduced to calling each other idiots, let me point out that a budget is composed of resources - those that you take in and those that you outlay. If your outlays exceed your income, that is deficit spending. You either need to raise taxes or reduce spending. We gave back taxes we had already collected or were already set, by law, to collect. Bush spent those funds assuaging his base and his ideology and so we existed in a fantasy world where you can spend all you want on the military, allow health care costs to skyrocket, not fix social security, not veto any spending from your fellow Republican and Democrat whores and still have a balanced budget. Meanwhile, the expense of the interest on the national debt is becoming bigger and bigger. We did spend that money - we spent it on Second homes in the Hamptons, Ivy league tuition, yachts, etc. It did not result in more job creation - in fact, the economy cratered. There's a sucker born every minute - or should I say, an idiot.
Sounds fun. Can't wait for the space elevator. If only we had spent that 2 trillion or so that we spent on tax cuts and wars on research.
Um... when did we stop spending on that? The Fed has also been using highway funding as a way to do unconstitutional things to the states for 50 years
I would prefer we transition to mostly high-speed rail ( which will require government investment ), but what is your alternative for the highway system? Have a private company run it? Like BP? Good luck with that.
Oh yes. That immediately led to all sorts of space activities by us citizens,
Would you prefer we hadn't gone to space? I will give you a great example of "space activities": satellite technology. If it weren't for government spending, we would not have gone to space. I admit that there is lots of room for private funding now, but that is because government funding showed that it was feasible.
Um.. The fed didn't spend all that much "creating" the internet. But I'll give you that DARPA is a good example for you to use.
OK, so it was cheap. But private industry wouldn't have done it because it was a project that benefitted other people than the companies themselves.
Really? At what cost? EPA? HUD? DepEnergy? DepAgri? DeptEdu? DepDefence? FHLMC? FNMA? Health and Human Services? DepInterior? Medicare? Welfare? Social Security?
Well, we're going to have to make some tough choices - and not just on the spending side, also on revenue collection. Corporations who use tax shelters should be punished for doing so, I would reduce the size of the military by 1% a year for the next 5 years, leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop sending billions of dollars to countries like Israel and Egypt, raise the retirement age for Social Security and make government more transparent to the people so we can see where the hell the money is going.
BTW, taxing the wealthy is no way to balance the budget. A wealthy is paying my paycheck, and I'm paying taxes. Much better to induce the wealthy to create jobs. It's a multiplicative effect. Besides, I WANT to be wealthy.
I think this is part of the problem - the identification with extremely rich people. You are right, that there is a sweet spot beyond which corporations will be less inclined to spend money and create jobs. We are way, way, past that point. I just want the taxes on the wealthy restored to what they were during the Reagan years. The "conservatives" seem to think those were the good old days of economic expansion, so let's get back there. What jobs does a company create with profit above and beyond what they invest back into their companies? Do you really think Exxon Mobil would explore less if their profits were reduced from $45 billion a year to $40 billion a year?
Is it more important to give money to really rich people or to pay down the debt? The interest on the debt is killing us. The rich people will survive.
$20,000 per home?"
The problem is faulty accounting. I don't know if you guys have a real or perceived economic stake in the current energy production systems, you just like to argue, or you are just bad at math.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html
But this is just the construction costs of the plant. How much will be spent over the course of the plant's lifetime in mining coal, transporting coal, processing coal, managing the burning of coal, performing maintenance on boilers and turbines, managing the waste products of coal, etc.? And that doesn't even take into account the huge costs we pay for respiratory diseases caused by coal, climate change, the environmental damage caused by mountain top removal and by the wastes products, etc. etc. I think if you are honest and thorough in your accounting, you will see that the overall costs to society from burning coal is huge - much more expensive than solar. With the exception of maintenance ( which should be much lower ), none of these reoccurring expenses are present with solar and this is just the beginning of solar research and efficiency gains.
I am really starting to think that a large percentage of my fellow humans are just insane. Do you guys really think that we will be burning toxic shit to get out power in the future? Is that the best we can do? For a bunch of technophiles, this is an awfully Luddite-like position.
This money has already been allocated as part of the stimulus package according to TFA. As others are pointing out, this is chump change compared to what we are spending daily to "keep us safe". It may be anathema to "Conservatives", but sometimes it takes government funding to change economic realities that are harmful or to create economic realities that are good for all and not just one company. The Internet comes to mind, the national highway system, the space program, etc. Once the government can create a network effect through jumpstarting an infrastructure, private companies can move in and create huge economic ripple effects - again, I will use The Internet as a good example. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get back to a balanced budget, unfortunately, the last president actually was a drunken sailor ( or at least a dry drunk Vietnam evader ) who ran the country into the ground and amassed huge debts by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and engaging in two wars of choice.
Yeah - we're not talking about what the competition can "catch up with", we're talking about what is. When the competition catches up, Apple will have improved again.
You have the choice to not buy the phone.
I wish I had mod points to give you. Apple comes along and blows open the completely evil and locked-down ecosystem that was the cell phone ecosystem and two years later they are too closed - despite producing a hugely popular product and slowly relaxing control where and when it makes sense to do so in the context of a smooth user experience.
It is in our own interest to save the species. Seems odd that that would have to be explained. Besides, we poisoned the ocean out of carelessness and greed. Yes, we should worry that we may have endangered a magnificent species that can help us survive and help the oceans be healthy. Again, it is really weird having to explain such a basic fact.
Irrelevant. Apple was providing the best service they could to to their customers while balancing internal resources. And Snow Leopard was $29. Apple is doing fine. It was Adobe's place to step up to the plate and show some love to OS X - and they didn't. Instead they fed us crap and charged us thousands of dollars over the years for it. Now they are suffering the consequences. I am looking forward to what's next. If Adobe had one single clue left in the company somewhere, they would bend over backwards to win back my loyalty. I am their bread and butter and I am bored with them.
Wow. I think I will go to a dark room and off myself. Seriously dude, lighten up. The market can't be compared to the PC market of 20 years ago. The start up and material costs are waaay lower for hardware these days - especially in the mobile space. Unlike a PC, a user changes his/her cellphone frequently. The cost of smart phone software is minuscule compared to Windows software - people don't lose huge investments when they switch platforms.There are plenty of companies competing with Apple. If it turns out to be the death march you make it out to be, people will switch to HP's Pre or Android or Windows Mobile Genuine Phone Series 7 or whatever.
Good idea. You should take a moral stance and deprive yourself of a really cool product so that Apple will finally stop eating live babies. It's just insane. How long do they think they can eat live babies before people wake up to how incredibly evil they are.
"Please someone tell me, why shouldn't these soulless suits be lined up and shot, and the event televised for the education of other similar corporate psychopaths?"
Cause it would be more satisfying to rip their balls off with a plastic fork.
"the details can wait until AFTER the bugger has been capped"
If you are going to have drilling in the gulf, and, as the oil apologists tell us, "there will be accidents", then we need all the data we can gather on this event so that we can use it to assess the correlation between the amount of oil at that depth and all kinds of other things - like movement of the oil column underwater, fractionation of the oil, effects on sea life, the proper amount of dispersant to use, danger of migration to the loop current, etc. etc. Also, since most of the oil doesn't seem to be floating, we need to know how much of it is down there because we have no idea of the effects on the ocean and the wildlife. There are a million reason to collect accurate data and you can bet your ass that BP has the tech to judge the amount of oil being released. Obama should have convened this panel to accurately measure the flow two weeks ago. BP is obviously happy to repeat the 5,000 gallons per day bullshit figure, but it really shows their stripes, doesn't it?
"The biggest debt producing thing Bush passed was Medicare part D"
Ummm, what about the Tax cuts and the optional Iraq war? That's about 2.5 trillion right there.
This is an excellent response. I see someone down thread has posted the fucking proper fucking booming video. Hysterical, but sad. BTW - you should skip to 1:54, I think, that's when the relevant part is. The other problem with the booms is that this is not a spill from above, this is a leak from below - waaaay below. Because the dispersant is being shot into the high pressure stream at depth and because of the fractionation as it rises through the water column, this oil acts differently than usual spills. It seems to be some sort of foam - or emulsification. I think there is probably a lot of oil that goes right under the booms.
It's also different in that it is being released from a mile down - as opposed to 150 feet down - ands being hit with dispersants that weight it down and fractionate it at depth. Add to that the fact that it is drifting into the loop current which will carry it down to Cuba and the Keys. It seems like it is definitely going to affect fisheries for decades to come - particularly oysters and shrimp.
He didn't say that. He said you wouldn't want to jump into a nuclear reactor just because the sun is also a source of radiation. See, it was about quantity and concentration.... Oh, never mind.
Any amount of oil we release due to negligence IS bad. The stuff that seeps out is bad too - but it seeps out slowly and there are colonies of bacteria which have sprung up to deal with it. Volcanos, earthquakes and hurricanes are natural also, but we wouldn't want to do anything to replicate their affects. I didn't bother to click on your link, but I will get no capital from this mess and it deeply offends me.
I would rather have had safeguards and contingency plans in place - or better yet, an electric transportation system, conservation and alternative fuels - including nuclear. This spill is what peak oil looks like.
Giant plumes is not hyperbole. They estimate they are as much as 10 miles long by 4 miles wide and hundreds of feet thick. And there are a lot of them. This is different than your normal micron-measured surface event. We have never had this much oil come up from depth before.
I don't know if the dispersants are a good idea or not, but they aren not benign and they may or may not facilitate bacterial ingestion of the oil. What they DO do is cause 800,00 gallons of, essentially Windex, to be dumped in addition to the spill and cause oil to hang around at depth where it will be sucked into the Gulf loop current and interact with the environment in ways we haven't seen before.
Also, the press says whatever they think will make BP happy - cause BP is one of their major advertisers. BP kind of set it up that way, you know? I have seen very little about this spill in the news and everyone is quoting the bullshit 5,000 BPD figure. CNN and their ilk knows that the public will start yawning if the oil isn't actually on the beach. Everything else is too abstract for all the Homers out there. BP knows this too.
-> lacoronus
I don't want someone deciding what they like or dislike, no. But, I would hope there are some consistent guidelines. The Mark fiori App was liberal, so it isn't a liberal/conservative thing. But, this is the single point I would agree on is too much editorial control by Apple. Having said that, I think 99.9% of what you want will be there and the rest is available freely on the Web. Still, the call for multiple app stores is asking for perfection - when prior to the app store you couldn't really get anything for your phone - the carriers had shitty apps available for huge prices and all kinds of roadblocks and controls ( not to mention the phones sucked too). Now you can download 200,00 apps - many of them free - and run them on as many tablets and phones as you wish. Where is the love for Apple for making this happen? Like they did with music, they stepped in and fixed a really bad situation.
I don't think it is practical to expect Apple to fix everything and then to allow for multiple app stores - which introduces all kinds of issues involving the model for how apps are distributed, downloaded, installed, backed up, etc. Besides, it dilutes value. Everyone who wants to make a buck will be ion the App store. Now I only have one place to look. If APple get kooky, people will talk and the marketplace will fix it. Until Apple has a monopoly, it is a non issue - go to Android.
So, I don't sit around moping about a few poor app rejection decisions. Philosophically yes, practically, no. And I don't feel oppressed by any tyranny. Apple will evolve. Competition is coming. Apple is a hell of a lot better than what we had and everyone is hard at work trying to copy them.
As for Apple showing the way, I don't consider Blackberries and Windows Mobile 6.5 to really be "smart phones" and there was nothing like the App store prior to Apple's. All I know is all the phones pretty much sucked, then Apple came out with the iPhone and now we have all sorts of cool, touch screen phones with decent browsers. People always discount Apple's vision.
"This whole "if you don't like them, don't buy them, but for God's sake, don't tell anyone about your opinion" is pure BS"
That's not what the parent is talking about. He is talking about the whole irrational fascination with a few tech choices Apple has made and the extrapolation that Apple is a bunch of baby-eating nazis. There is a hell of a lot of hysteria and anger directed at Apple for a few simple decisions. 1) not to allow porn. 2) control over app submissions 3) not running FLash plug in 4) no cross-compiled apps.
1) Get your porn using safari - problem solved - or preload it
2) Some of us enjoy not weeding through tons of virus-laden, poor quality apps
3) There IS no Flash plug-in. 10.1 is not out yet - nor is the ARM version ready yet. Until then, it is all theoretical. Besides, Flash sucks. It is not an arbitrary decision.
4) Cross-complied apps don't allow Apple to add new features and switch processors mid stream, etc. Rely on Adobe for your company's direction when they can't even get 10.1 out the door? I don't think so.
The point is not that people are criticizing Apple. The point is that the criticism and the accompanying apocalyptic sense of doom is way out of proportion. This false doom is being picked up by every loser reporter on the Net and is being amplified to the point that the merits of Apple's tech and what they have done to move the entire industry forward is lost in this echo chamber of masturbating nerds . Me thinks though doth protest too much. Maybe it's cause the rest of the arena has zero new ideas and feels a little trapped that they are reduced to following Apple's lead. New Flash - there would be no Android phones had Apple not shown the way.
The question is not whether or not their will be accidents. The question is whether industry is willing to cut into their huge profits a little to have adequate safety, training, and response mechanisms commensurate with the challenging and environmentally sensitive areas that are left to drill in. This disaster shows they are not. And, if they are not, will the government do the right things and set reasonable regulations to ensure they do it against their will. Furthermore, since these accidents may very well happen, they need to be accounted for in the true price of oil and not be looked at as freak anomalies. Factoring in the billions of dollars and disruption to entire eco and economic systems starts to make the price point of solar and other alternative energy systems look much better.
I agree. I was being half flippant. Advertising something as a "center of excellence" is propaganda. Titles don't define excellence.
Let us not forget that there IS no Flash that can run on the iPad, iPhone or Droid phones for that matter. Am I wrong? Adobe says it is coming in the second half of the year. When Adobe has a product that will run on the phones, then you can say APple doesn't support it. Until then, it is a theoretical discussion.