In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).
Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash.
I knew they would be bad researchers when I heard they wanted to play Facebook games 24/7.
None of the limitations under discussion are hardware issues. Removing Bluetooth was through an alternate firmware, as is the lock-in on the Apple App Store, and the Backflip store lock-in.
If you think the Bible/Quran is the literal truth rather than a spiritual guideline, then yes, god hates fags, and wants you to kill non-believers.
While The Bible indeed does call homosexuality a sin, it calls many other things sins as well. It also gives everyone forgiveness for their sins, should they ask (New Testament, of course). Note that Jesus ate dinner with prostitutes, rather than condemning them for their sins. The WBC ignores this point for the sake of pushing their agenda.
Similarly, my understanding is that the Quran has similar prohibitions against killing of innocents, women, children, or any soldier who is not holding a weapon. This would similarly preclude terrorism.
It's not due to using a more literal translation (although they are more likely to do so than those in the mainstream), that just makes them conservative. Their 'fundamentalist extremism' comes from taking individual teachings, while ignoring the rest.
While plausible, it fails to fit within the preterist viewpoint, which says that the events of Revelation took place before it was written, which was significantly prior to the 1930's.
But I am on Verizon, the company that makes Apple look "free and open."
Verizon placed few limits on the Droid (only one I am aware of is forcing Skype calls to go through their voice network), whereas AT&T's latest Android phone (the Backflip) is loaded with crap-ware and prevented from installing non-market apps.
I'd agree that Verizon can be overpriced now, but they've significantly improved from the days of placing their custom firmware on everything to cripple features like Bluetooth.
Right, but despite what they say that's exactly what's happening.
Regardless, my intent was to point out that no good can come from interpreting a religious text differently because it made something more convenient or to further one's own purposes. Why promote an interpretation for a reason other than its truth?
So? Myself and GGGP only point to it as a driving factor. China didn't have the same kinds of growing pains, but their coping mechanism was a strong-arm totalitarian communist government. I wouldn't exactly call that perfectly well adjusted.
Just adapt the preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelation and you'll be fine.
Shouldn't a religious interpretation be based on what you believe the applicable holy book actually says, not what you want it to mean? The 'just interpret it like this' method is what brings us Muslim terrorism and the Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Fags" go-out-and-protest-a-funeral tactics.
Personally, I find the preterist view fails to explain many bits, not least of which was the mark of the beast. When were Jews forced to receive a phyiscal marking in order to perform commerce?
The 'Muslim world', for the most part, didn't have the scale of change as the 'western world' did during the Industrial Revolution. They basically missed it. Now in the last several decades, we have countries trying to go from the Industrial Revolution to the Information age (and we hope skipping the Nuclear Age) all at once.
In other words, they had the same amount of time since OUR modernization started, but they only recently started their process. Thus, they get what was 2 centuries-worth of growing pains for us, packed into just a few decades.
Don't forget that modern Operating Systems are able to store the contents of windows in the Graphics memory, leaving more room in system RAM for other items. This also speeds up the loading of less recently viewed windows (by having them cached less often).
Nigel Tufnel: Look at this pin... still has the old tag on, never even used it.
Marty DiBergi: [points his finger] You've never used...?
Nigel Tufnel: Don't touch it!
Marty DiBergi: We'll I wasn't going to touch it, I was just pointing at it.
Nigel Tufnel: Well... don't point! It can't be used.
Marty DiBergi: Don't point, okay. Can I look at it?
Nigel Tufnel: No. no. That's it, you've seen enough of that one.
Zero Punctuation, a humorous weekly game review video that became quite popular after enough 'dude, you have to watch this' publicity. It was the series that made likely 99% of the Escapist's viewers visit in the first place, they've simply been able to make many of them stay for their other content.
I think the implication of GP to this post is that a if you separated yourself from a political party every time they did one thing you didn't like, you would eiter end up in a rotating door of party affiliation, or with no party to affiliate to (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
You admit that GP's assertion that not supporting Libertarians or Republicans for a single decision is silly. Why is GGP's assertion of not supporting Democrats for a single decision equally silly?
GP's point stands that a single decision by a political party probably shouldn't change your political allignment. GGP's point also stands, if you don't agree with something, either change it or stop supporting it.
is it immoral for them to tell you how you can use it?
Immoral, well I'll leave that to the theologians, it is however wrong (in a legal sense) for them to tell me what I can and cannot do with hardware that I own. Lease is quite different but Apple aren't "leasing" the hardware to me, they are just trying to act in that fashion.
My understanding is that they are only controlling the software, specifically the Operating System. Since there is an encryption and methods to prevent installing custom OSs, to circumvent them violates the DMCA. It sucks, but right now they're legally allowed to prevent it.
Except that it is a general purpose computer, or PC as they are commonly known. Please see here and here for definitions.
At least link to the PC article. I would also argue that the definition 'has an ALU, logic controller, I/O, and memory' is far too broad, as it doesn't define 'general purpose'. Is you car a general purpose computer? It has multiple ALUs, logic controllers, I/Os, and memory. No, because it performs only a limited number of tasks (accepting driver inputs, controling the wheels and electronics, car stuff). Similarly with an alarm clock: it has I/O to set and display the time, memory to store the time, an ALU and a logic contoller to function. What it misses is general-purpose.
My definition? The ability to run general user software. That would put the iPad somewhere on the broad end of purpose-built computer, and the narrow end of general-purpose.
I know that you and Apple want so very desperately to escape the PC comparison because when you look at the Ipad compared to a notebook, with the Ipad's limitations and restrictions it is such a terrible comparison. Unfortunately you cant escape the definition and more so, are trying to occupy the same space in the market.
Let's get this out of the way first: I don't want the iPad to succeed, nor do I want one personally. I agree that the lock-in to the App Store makes it less desirable, it's one of the big reasons I own an Android phone and not an iPhone. I do, however, understand that there is a market segment the device fills: basically the I-want-a-big-iPod-touch market. The only thing I disagree with is people treating it like it were something else, and railing on it for that reason. There's plenty of things to be disappointed with without assaulting it for doing things it was never intended to do. That just makes it a less useful product or disappointing, not 'evil' or 'wrong' or 'unacceptable'.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to compare it with PCs, only to expect it to do everything that a PC does. It's equally wrong to expect a netbook (or worse, a desktop) to be capable of everything the iPad does. Sure, the iPad doesn't allow user programs without Apple's approval or have multi-tasking, but a netbook doesn't have multi-touch or as long of a battery life. There's overlap in the markets, but pretending it should do everything a netbook or laptop does is fallacious. If what a laptop does is what's important to you, get one, obviously others (including Leo Laporte) have decided that the iPad performs some tasks better than a full PC and use it for them. Who are you to say they can't have a use for it?
Again, I'm fine with fair criticism, but not with bashing for the sake of bashing. I find it funny that when it was convenient to do so, Apple haters derided the iPad for being 'just a big iPod touch'. Now, since that's too usefull, it's bashed for being 'a terrible PC'. Well of course it is, it's just a big iPod Touch!
Let's stick with criticising the things that are actually wrong with it (like the price!), instea
The iPad is portrayed as this glorious revolutionary thing that will wipe everything else away until people start calling bullshit on it.
Apple and it's flunkies are most certainly pushing this thing as a more general purpose device than just an Archos 9 with a better web browser.
They do, in fact, call it a "magical and revolutionary product", but not a computer. Where do you see them claiming it will 'wipe everything else away'? I see them explicitly saying it requires your computer, so it can't be the One Product to replace all others. It seems clearly marketed to the "I want a big iPhone or iTouch, with all the limitations that come with that" crowd. It's only marketed as a replacement for a PC for the functions people don't need a PC for already (e-mail, videos, books, etc).
Do you have a quote from Apple that says the iPad does something it does not that needs to be debunked? If so, I'll cry bollocks with you. If not, then STFU.
Note the very clever "just about anything". There is no guarantee that there will be an 'App' for your task, let alone any specific application. It only implies that you can probably find one.
Again, how is this different from the way other companies advertise? Sony specifically said "hey, check out this version of PS3 Linux!" Apple only advertises the ability to download apps, not to write them.
Hell, let's call it a taxi, then. The analogy is more apt.
It can't tow a trailer, it can't drive you everywhere, it might make it less convenient to get certain places. If you want a car, you shouldn't take a taxi.
However, it will be easier to use, your driver Steve Jobs will take you on what he expects is the best route to your destination without needing your input. You will get to your destination easily, as long as it's in the driver's area of service.
So why are people complaining that this taxi (which they haven't even used) should do everything that their car does? Some people want a taxi, that doesn't hurt the people who want to own their own car. So why are they screaming about it?
No one should pretend that this device is general purpose or even a general purpose web device.
Who said it was? It's NOT a PC, that's the whole point of this discussion. It's just that people can't comprehend something in the form-factor of a general-purpose computer that isn't a general-purpose computer.
Most of us saying Apple can do whatever the hell they want agree with you: the iPad is just a souped-up DS, not a PC. That's precisely why they can do whatever the hell they want.
It's a case of mistaken expectations. People want the iPad to be a PC so they get angry when it isn't.
The big problem is that the "unsuspecting users" might not fully understand what they are getting into.
Since Apple isn't hiding this, I don't see how it's their fault that users aren't researching their purchase with due diligence.
Really, isn't every company hoping to 'prey on the clueless'? Isn't the point of marketing to make your desirable qualities more apparent than the others? What about the iPad is suddenly so unique and different that Apple is suddenly any more 'immoral' than any other company? Since when has 'informed consent' been a part of retail purchases?
Apple is just selling their product the way any other company would. The only reason people on/. are up in arms about it is that it's not a device they want to buy. Why not just accept it's not a geek product and let it go, instead of making silly attacks on Apple for the same business practices we've seen and accepted a thousand times?
They’d have to know one of the phones was missing first, and if they knew one was missing, they knew which one, and who.
Your explanation is more likely than the one I'm about to propose, but I think it's also possible that all of the prototypes brick if not synced at the Apple Mothership frequently enough.
Slashdot Mirror
In the last couple weeks, I've chatted with folks that play such games, and all of them based their purchase of the iPhone based upon their ability to play their facebook games 24/7 (at any hour of the day).
Your friends are poor researchers because the iPhone and iPod Touch have never supported Flash.
I knew they would be bad researchers when I heard they wanted to play Facebook games 24/7.
...he says while posting to Slashdot...
None of the limitations under discussion are hardware issues. Removing Bluetooth was through an alternate firmware, as is the lock-in on the Apple App Store, and the Backflip store lock-in.
You seem to think it's about bureaucracy. Just because many (or most) treat it as such doesn't make it the primary purpose.
If you think the Bible/Quran is the literal truth rather than a spiritual guideline, then yes, god hates fags, and wants you to kill non-believers.
While The Bible indeed does call homosexuality a sin, it calls many other things sins as well. It also gives everyone forgiveness for their sins, should they ask (New Testament, of course). Note that Jesus ate dinner with prostitutes, rather than condemning them for their sins. The WBC ignores this point for the sake of pushing their agenda.
Similarly, my understanding is that the Quran has similar prohibitions against killing of innocents, women, children, or any soldier who is not holding a weapon. This would similarly preclude terrorism.
It's not due to using a more literal translation (although they are more likely to do so than those in the mainstream), that just makes them conservative. Their 'fundamentalist extremism' comes from taking individual teachings, while ignoring the rest.
While plausible, it fails to fit within the preterist viewpoint, which says that the events of Revelation took place before it was written, which was significantly prior to the 1930's.
But I am on Verizon, the company that makes Apple look "free and open."
Verizon placed few limits on the Droid (only one I am aware of is forcing Skype calls to go through their voice network), whereas AT&T's latest Android phone (the Backflip) is loaded with crap-ware and prevented from installing non-market apps.
I'd agree that Verizon can be overpriced now, but they've significantly improved from the days of placing their custom firmware on everything to cripple features like Bluetooth.
Right, but despite what they say that's exactly what's happening.
Regardless, my intent was to point out that no good can come from interpreting a religious text differently because it made something more convenient or to further one's own purposes. Why promote an interpretation for a reason other than its truth?
So? Myself and GGGP only point to it as a driving factor. China didn't have the same kinds of growing pains, but their coping mechanism was a strong-arm totalitarian communist government. I wouldn't exactly call that perfectly well adjusted.
Just adapt the preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelation and you'll be fine.
Shouldn't a religious interpretation be based on what you believe the applicable holy book actually says, not what you want it to mean? The 'just interpret it like this' method is what brings us Muslim terrorism and the Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Fags" go-out-and-protest-a-funeral tactics.
Personally, I find the preterist view fails to explain many bits, not least of which was the mark of the beast. When were Jews forced to receive a phyiscal marking in order to perform commerce?
The 'Muslim world', for the most part, didn't have the scale of change as the 'western world' did during the Industrial Revolution. They basically missed it. Now in the last several decades, we have countries trying to go from the Industrial Revolution to the Information age (and we hope skipping the Nuclear Age) all at once.
In other words, they had the same amount of time since OUR modernization started, but they only recently started their process. Thus, they get what was 2 centuries-worth of growing pains for us, packed into just a few decades.
Don't forget that modern Operating Systems are able to store the contents of windows in the Graphics memory, leaving more room in system RAM for other items. This also speeds up the loading of less recently viewed windows (by having them cached less often).
Nigel Tufnel: Look at this pin... still has the old tag on, never even used it.
Marty DiBergi: [points his finger] You've never used...?
Nigel Tufnel: Don't touch it!
Marty DiBergi: We'll I wasn't going to touch it, I was just pointing at it.
Nigel Tufnel: Well... don't point! It can't be used.
Marty DiBergi: Don't point, okay. Can I look at it?
Nigel Tufnel: No. no. That's it, you've seen enough of that one.
And, as BadAnalogyGuy said, that's precisely the reason why he no longer supports them.
Zero Punctuation, a humorous weekly game review video that became quite popular after enough 'dude, you have to watch this' publicity. It was the series that made likely 99% of the Escapist's viewers visit in the first place, they've simply been able to make many of them stay for their other content.
I think the implication of GP to this post is that a if you separated yourself from a political party every time they did one thing you didn't like, you would eiter end up in a rotating door of party affiliation, or with no party to affiliate to (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
You admit that GP's assertion that not supporting Libertarians or Republicans for a single decision is silly. Why is GGP's assertion of not supporting Democrats for a single decision equally silly?
GP's point stands that a single decision by a political party probably shouldn't change your political allignment. GGP's point also stands, if you don't agree with something, either change it or stop supporting it.
Immoral, well I'll leave that to the theologians, it is however wrong (in a legal sense) for them to tell me what I can and cannot do with hardware that I own. Lease is quite different but Apple aren't "leasing" the hardware to me, they are just trying to act in that fashion.
My understanding is that they are only controlling the software, specifically the Operating System. Since there is an encryption and methods to prevent installing custom OSs, to circumvent them violates the DMCA. It sucks, but right now they're legally allowed to prevent it.
Except that it is a general purpose computer, or PC as they are commonly known. Please see here and here for definitions.
At least link to the PC article. I would also argue that the definition 'has an ALU, logic controller, I/O, and memory' is far too broad, as it doesn't define 'general purpose'. Is you car a general purpose computer? It has multiple ALUs, logic controllers, I/Os, and memory. No, because it performs only a limited number of tasks (accepting driver inputs, controling the wheels and electronics, car stuff). Similarly with an alarm clock: it has I/O to set and display the time, memory to store the time, an ALU and a logic contoller to function. What it misses is general-purpose.
My definition? The ability to run general user software. That would put the iPad somewhere on the broad end of purpose-built computer, and the narrow end of general-purpose.
I know that you and Apple want so very desperately to escape the PC comparison because when you look at the Ipad compared to a notebook, with the Ipad's limitations and restrictions it is such a terrible comparison. Unfortunately you cant escape the definition and more so, are trying to occupy the same space in the market.
Let's get this out of the way first: I don't want the iPad to succeed, nor do I want one personally. I agree that the lock-in to the App Store makes it less desirable, it's one of the big reasons I own an Android phone and not an iPhone. I do, however, understand that there is a market segment the device fills: basically the I-want-a-big-iPod-touch market. The only thing I disagree with is people treating it like it were something else, and railing on it for that reason. There's plenty of things to be disappointed with without assaulting it for doing things it was never intended to do. That just makes it a less useful product or disappointing, not 'evil' or 'wrong' or 'unacceptable'.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to compare it with PCs, only to expect it to do everything that a PC does. It's equally wrong to expect a netbook (or worse, a desktop) to be capable of everything the iPad does. Sure, the iPad doesn't allow user programs without Apple's approval or have multi-tasking, but a netbook doesn't have multi-touch or as long of a battery life. There's overlap in the markets, but pretending it should do everything a netbook or laptop does is fallacious. If what a laptop does is what's important to you, get one, obviously others (including Leo Laporte) have decided that the iPad performs some tasks better than a full PC and use it for them. Who are you to say they can't have a use for it?
Again, I'm fine with fair criticism, but not with bashing for the sake of bashing. I find it funny that when it was convenient to do so, Apple haters derided the iPad for being 'just a big iPod touch'. Now, since that's too usefull, it's bashed for being 'a terrible PC'. Well of course it is, it's just a big iPod Touch!
Let's stick with criticising the things that are actually wrong with it (like the price!), instea
The iPad is portrayed as this glorious revolutionary thing that will wipe everything else away until people start calling bullshit on it.
Apple and it's flunkies are most certainly pushing this thing as a more general purpose device than just an Archos 9 with a better web browser.
They do, in fact, call it a "magical and revolutionary product", but not a computer. Where do you see them claiming it will 'wipe everything else away'? I see them explicitly saying it requires your computer, so it can't be the One Product to replace all others. It seems clearly marketed to the "I want a big iPhone or iTouch, with all the limitations that come with that" crowd. It's only marketed as a replacement for a PC for the functions people don't need a PC for already (e-mail, videos, books, etc).
Do you have a quote from Apple that says the iPad does something it does not that needs to be debunked? If so, I'll cry bollocks with you. If not, then STFU.
I've seen people have rooted and installed custom ROMs on their Android phones. Are you looking for source code, or something more?
Note the very clever "just about anything". There is no guarantee that there will be an 'App' for your task, let alone any specific application. It only implies that you can probably find one.
Again, how is this different from the way other companies advertise? Sony specifically said "hey, check out this version of PS3 Linux!" Apple only advertises the ability to download apps, not to write them.
How is this different from the way any other company advertises?
Can you give an example of a lawsuit where the company lost because the limitation of the product wasn't explicitly stated in the advertisement?
Hell, let's call it a taxi, then. The analogy is more apt.
It can't tow a trailer, it can't drive you everywhere, it might make it less convenient to get certain places. If you want a car, you shouldn't take a taxi.
However, it will be easier to use, your driver Steve Jobs will take you on what he expects is the best route to your destination without needing your input. You will get to your destination easily, as long as it's in the driver's area of service.
So why are people complaining that this taxi (which they haven't even used) should do everything that their car does? Some people want a taxi, that doesn't hurt the people who want to own their own car. So why are they screaming about it?
I think you missed the memo. We're supposed to hate this device because it's made by Apple.
No one should pretend that this device is general purpose or even a general purpose web device.
Who said it was? It's NOT a PC, that's the whole point of this discussion. It's just that people can't comprehend something in the form-factor of a general-purpose computer that isn't a general-purpose computer.
Most of us saying Apple can do whatever the hell they want agree with you: the iPad is just a souped-up DS, not a PC. That's precisely why they can do whatever the hell they want.
It's a case of mistaken expectations. People want the iPad to be a PC so they get angry when it isn't.
The big problem is that the "unsuspecting users" might not fully understand what they are getting into.
Since Apple isn't hiding this, I don't see how it's their fault that users aren't researching their purchase with due diligence.
Really, isn't every company hoping to 'prey on the clueless'? Isn't the point of marketing to make your desirable qualities more apparent than the others? What about the iPad is suddenly so unique and different that Apple is suddenly any more 'immoral' than any other company? Since when has 'informed consent' been a part of retail purchases?
Apple is just selling their product the way any other company would. The only reason people on /. are up in arms about it is that it's not a device they want to buy. Why not just accept it's not a geek product and let it go, instead of making silly attacks on Apple for the same business practices we've seen and accepted a thousand times?
Or, they remotely bricked all of them
They’d have to know one of the phones was missing first, and if they knew one was missing, they knew which one, and who.
Your explanation is more likely than the one I'm about to propose, but I think it's also possible that all of the prototypes brick if not synced at the Apple Mothership frequently enough.