Ah, it's a comprehension problem on your part. "Excuse" is NOT the same thing as "defence". Any EVIDENCE for the defence is certainly relevant. However having bought stolen property, calling the money part of the transaction "For the exclusive story" is, as I said irrelevant. It's an excuse, not a defence.
The reality is that it isn't an excuse at all, you just called it that, it is him clarifying his actions. He is not excusing the action of selling the property, he is actually disputing the issue of whether or not he sold it. And since you don't have the full story or know any facts of the case you can't pass judgement that his side of the story is irrelevant. An excuse would be 'it was ok for me to sell stolen property because...' however he is disputing that he sold it. So regardless of how you feel about that the fact is you don't know the full story and cannot deem his side of the story irrelevant. You already judged him a criminal, but you don't know the full story, that is wrong and the legal system does not work that way.
The point is that here's a large class of users (I mean much larger than the iPad market share) who no longer need Flash and can do (if they're clever or their software gets more clever) the same dumb stuff that Flash users can do. Win for everyone.
So all those amazing vector-animated websites just become unviewable for that large class of users? Im not a flash advocate, im not even a web developer, but it certainly isn't obsolete yet.
Well thank god most of the western world doesn't use that system.
The "believe anything the accused says, despite the evidence against them" system. Yes you're right, no one but you uses that one.
I never said that, read before you make idiotic statements like that. I just said that the accused's defence - or excuse as you put it - is not irrelevant, which is correct.
I agree! Im in australia too and i get all my snow gear from the US using a mail forwarding service since brands like Burton, K2, etc... don't allow their US retailers to ship internationally so they can discriminate on price, im not paying a 300% markup for no good reason!
If BMW's were sold for $5000 each, would they still be classified as a luxury car? No. Ironically, the increased price is the biggest selling point of the BMW. When you buy a BMW, you are buying status and prestige as much as you are buying a car. If you could buy them for cheap so that everyone could have them, nobody would really care that much about them, hence the brand loses status. No status, no reason to buy a beamer.
But that is how it goes in the UK, the Ford Mondeo was the most popular midsize average car, it is now outsold by the BMW 3-series. BMW certainly maintains it's prestige and luxury car status though.
As a result, their competitors will save millions of dollars by not going down a course that they are now able to prevent.
You really think their competitors will come up with an idea, figure Apple is probably implementing it, plan to do it themselves and now, seeing Apple isn't doing it, decide not to do it themselves? Other companies don't imitate Apple like that, infact Apple is often playing catchup with the features of other manufacturers' phones, this is prime example too, front-facing camera.
I doubt it, this is the first time there has been a breach of this kind and even if the device hadn't been sold to gizmodo it's pretty fair to assume it would've fallen into the hands of the media on it's way back to apple anyway, or the student would have documented it before returning it and there's nothing apple can do to stop that.
How so? Sure he may get done for selling stolen property but apparently the money was for exclusivity, so who knows, everything is pretty circumstantial and really what would Apple get out of this? Maybe a bit of money, but even that's unlikely since he is a student, what would be the point of pursuing it?
that's different. the software license agreement prevents you using OSX on non-apple hardware, not only that they were re-selling it that way. here he is using software on the hardware he bought, nothing they can do about that.
It isn't a tax, it's a fee, for the cost of the operating system that you bought with the computer. And you can get a refund for this if you don't want it.
Why do you approve of the significantly stricter controls and higher development that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony place on their Wii, XBox, and PS developers, but hold Apple to a different standard for their consumer electronics device?
What stricter controls do those companies exercise over their platforms? I haven't seen any of them telling developers what languages they must write their code in, telling them they can't use intermediate abstraction layers, etc...
Note that the iPhone has more than just a "processor [that] can run arbitrary code" -- it has a CPU, memory, a general user interface, and could, in the absence of deliberate software restrictions on the part of Apple, be used as a small mobile computer (which happens to have the ability to connect to a cell phone network).
You mean like just about every other smartphone on the market? A particularly good example being nokia's n900.
A) Because that tool is inherently buggy and exploitable, and thus a security risk.
Inherently? How so? It's compiling to native code, not running on the flash player. And remember this is not just flash, it's any additional tools like that.
B) Because apple has built it's brand to "just work" and often when flash is ported to a new platform, it "just doesn't work" quite right, which users could confuse with apple software being poorly written.
The core issue isn't just flash, infact this issue isn't to do with porting flash, it's any native apps built from any other languages.
People don't care about Flash, and they don't care about an open app store. The iPhone does what they want it to do.
Plenty of people care about flash. If the iphone did what everyone wanted it to do then there would be no jailbreaking, there would be no controversy with the changes to developer agreements. The issue here is that Apple sucked developers into writing apps for their platform based on a set of criteria, then they decided those criteria are now arbitrary through their inconsistent review process. Now they're deciding that it's bad luck if you were developing for their platform and stringently adhered to the developer agreement because we're changing it again and if that affects you then bad luck. No the end user doesn't care about this, but they will and should care about the trickle-down effect that these changes have. How many developers want to develop for a platform that can now have the agreement terms altered at any time? Sure there are thousands of useless ifart-style apps that are so quick and easy to develop that no-one cares about wasted time but if that's what the iphone becomes then that would be a real shame because it's a great platform.
And they have a giant pile of cash sitting around. Seriously F'ing giant. There is also the option they could grab Gimp or Krita and clean up the interface (like they did with BSD, Webkit, CUPS, etc, etc, etc).
Since GIMP is GPL'd Apple would really have to buy it if they were to create their own closed version, and I doubt it would be for sale, it isn't the same as BSD (since that's under the BSD license) but would be like CUPS (which they bought) and webkit is open source.
But that's not even the point. The point is that because of the amount of datamining Google does, no one can even compete with them. Bing can't get enough long-tail keyword data so they can improve their service. No one else can either.
So? They're big because people use them and people use them because they're big, it's not google being anti-competitive, they aren't engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, it's that the consumers are choosing google.
Apple seems to think H.264 is the one true codec to rule them all.
Well, Apple, Microsoft, every BluRay manufacturer, and the other 30+ members of the MPEG-LA H.264 group.
Bluray supports h.264, vc-1 and mpeg-2, so you're wrong there.
MS supports many different codecs on their platforms, in the context of phones they support embedded h.264 and wmv, probably others as well, so you're wrong there too.
Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web?! FLASH!?!
you're new to the internet aren't you? Back in the mid-late 90's Flash most certainly was innovative, with all it's easy vector animation functionality and such, sure now we have HTML5, SVG and other open standards that can do what flash does but back then the other open technologies just could not produce the same quality and interactivity that flash could. I agree it's long past the time to move on from flash but does that mean that people who created great interactive sites with brilliant vector animations years ago now have to re-write them just so new platforms can view them? Im not a flash dev so i can't say there's no reason to use flash anymore but it certainly seems like the new open technologies are flexible and powerful enough to supersede it.
Before apple switched to Intel, they warned developers they ought to stick to the cocoa coding guidelines uber strictly. Those that apps that did were nearly just a recompile away from being native fat binaries for intel/ppc after switch.
So you're saying we shouldn't do cross-platform because because it might take a while for that abstraction layer to be re-built for the new hardware? That's why hardware manufacturers partner with software platform developers.
Even if that was the reason, then how do you explain the no-code-generation issue? That would have no problem in the scenario you're suggesting but they banned that too, it's an anti-competitive move, not a technological barrier.
Ok, here's a car analogy since/. loves car analogies: "Well, I was at this bar and found these car keys, so I drove the car around and tried to find the owner. After a few weeks I couldn't, so I sold the car."
You didn't find the car, you found the keys, which you then used to take something that didn't belong to you and was not lost. Like if the finder of the phone had used the information within it to transfer money using the owner's internet banking.
Cars can get stolen. People can get mugged. Houses can get broken into. I don't wish any of those things on you, but if such a tragedy should occur, I also wouldn't wish you get fired for it as well.
That's a lot different to carelessly misplacing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, it's a comprehension problem on your part. "Excuse" is NOT the same thing as "defence". Any EVIDENCE for the defence is certainly relevant. However having bought stolen property, calling the money part of the transaction "For the exclusive story" is, as I said irrelevant. It's an excuse, not a defence.
The reality is that it isn't an excuse at all, you just called it that, it is him clarifying his actions. He is not excusing the action of selling the property, he is actually disputing the issue of whether or not he sold it. And since you don't have the full story or know any facts of the case you can't pass judgement that his side of the story is irrelevant. An excuse would be 'it was ok for me to sell stolen property because...' however he is disputing that he sold it. So regardless of how you feel about that the fact is you don't know the full story and cannot deem his side of the story irrelevant. You already judged him a criminal, but you don't know the full story, that is wrong and the legal system does not work that way.
The point is that here's a large class of users (I mean much larger than the iPad market share) who no longer need Flash and can do (if they're clever or their software gets more clever) the same dumb stuff that Flash users can do. Win for everyone.
So all those amazing vector-animated websites just become unviewable for that large class of users? Im not a flash advocate, im not even a web developer, but it certainly isn't obsolete yet.
The "believe anything the accused says, despite the evidence against them" system. Yes you're right, no one but you uses that one.
I never said that, read before you make idiotic statements like that. I just said that the accused's defence - or excuse as you put it - is not irrelevant, which is correct.
I agree! Im in australia too and i get all my snow gear from the US using a mail forwarding service since brands like Burton, K2, etc... don't allow their US retailers to ship internationally so they can discriminate on price, im not paying a 300% markup for no good reason!
If BMW's were sold for $5000 each, would they still be classified as a luxury car? No. Ironically, the increased price is the biggest selling point of the BMW. When you buy a BMW, you are buying status and prestige as much as you are buying a car. If you could buy them for cheap so that everyone could have them, nobody would really care that much about them, hence the brand loses status. No status, no reason to buy a beamer.
But that is how it goes in the UK, the Ford Mondeo was the most popular midsize average car, it is now outsold by the BMW 3-series. BMW certainly maintains it's prestige and luxury car status though.
OBVIOUSly to discover what the evidence of illegal actions there are. Not to discover what peoples excuses are.
I see, so you believe it doesn't matter what a person says in their defence. Well thank god most of the western world doesn't use that system.
Criminals ALWAYS have an argument.
Thanks Captain Obvious.
His argument is irrelevant.
Then why bother with an investigation and just the maximum penalty at him straight out? His side of the story is not irrelevant.
As a result, their competitors will save millions of dollars by not going down a course that they are now able to prevent.
You really think their competitors will come up with an idea, figure Apple is probably implementing it, plan to do it themselves and now, seeing Apple isn't doing it, decide not to do it themselves? Other companies don't imitate Apple like that, infact Apple is often playing catchup with the features of other manufacturers' phones, this is prime example too, front-facing camera.
Selling something you don't own without the permission of the owner is an act of theft.
His argument is that he sold the exclusivity, not the device as it was intended for gizmodo to find and return it.
I doubt it, this is the first time there has been a breach of this kind and even if the device hadn't been sold to gizmodo it's pretty fair to assume it would've fallen into the hands of the media on it's way back to apple anyway, or the student would have documented it before returning it and there's nothing apple can do to stop that.
How so? Sure he may get done for selling stolen property but apparently the money was for exclusivity, so who knows, everything is pretty circumstantial and really what would Apple get out of this? Maybe a bit of money, but even that's unlikely since he is a student, what would be the point of pursuing it?
that's different. the software license agreement prevents you using OSX on non-apple hardware, not only that they were re-selling it that way. here he is using software on the hardware he bought, nothing they can do about that.
It isn't a tax, it's a fee, for the cost of the operating system that you bought with the computer. And you can get a refund for this if you don't want it.
Why do you approve of the significantly stricter controls and higher development that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony place on their Wii, XBox, and PS developers, but hold Apple to a different standard for their consumer electronics device?
What stricter controls do those companies exercise over their platforms? I haven't seen any of them telling developers what languages they must write their code in, telling them they can't use intermediate abstraction layers, etc...
Note that the iPhone has more than just a "processor [that] can run arbitrary code" -- it has a CPU, memory, a general user interface, and could, in the absence of deliberate software restrictions on the part of Apple, be used as a small mobile computer (which happens to have the ability to connect to a cell phone network).
You mean like just about every other smartphone on the market? A particularly good example being nokia's n900.
A) Because that tool is inherently buggy and exploitable, and thus a security risk.
Inherently? How so? It's compiling to native code, not running on the flash player. And remember this is not just flash, it's any additional tools like that.
B) Because apple has built it's brand to "just work" and often when flash is ported to a new platform, it "just doesn't work" quite right, which users could confuse with apple software being poorly written.
The core issue isn't just flash, infact this issue isn't to do with porting flash, it's any native apps built from any other languages.
People don't care about Flash, and they don't care about an open app store. The iPhone does what they want it to do.
Plenty of people care about flash. If the iphone did what everyone wanted it to do then there would be no jailbreaking, there would be no controversy with the changes to developer agreements. The issue here is that Apple sucked developers into writing apps for their platform based on a set of criteria, then they decided those criteria are now arbitrary through their inconsistent review process. Now they're deciding that it's bad luck if you were developing for their platform and stringently adhered to the developer agreement because we're changing it again and if that affects you then bad luck. No the end user doesn't care about this, but they will and should care about the trickle-down effect that these changes have. How many developers want to develop for a platform that can now have the agreement terms altered at any time? Sure there are thousands of useless ifart-style apps that are so quick and easy to develop that no-one cares about wasted time but if that's what the iphone becomes then that would be a real shame because it's a great platform.
And they have a giant pile of cash sitting around. Seriously F'ing giant. There is also the option they could grab Gimp or Krita and clean up the interface (like they did with BSD, Webkit, CUPS, etc, etc, etc).
Since GIMP is GPL'd Apple would really have to buy it if they were to create their own closed version, and I doubt it would be for sale, it isn't the same as BSD (since that's under the BSD license) but would be like CUPS (which they bought) and webkit is open source.
But that's not even the point. The point is that because of the amount of datamining Google does, no one can even compete with them. Bing can't get enough long-tail keyword data so they can improve their service. No one else can either.
So? They're big because people use them and people use them because they're big, it's not google being anti-competitive, they aren't engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, it's that the consumers are choosing google.
Apple seems to think H.264 is the one true codec to rule them all.
Well, Apple, Microsoft, every BluRay manufacturer, and the other 30+ members of the MPEG-LA H.264 group.
Bluray supports h.264, vc-1 and mpeg-2, so you're wrong there.
MS supports many different codecs on their platforms, in the context of phones they support embedded h.264 and wmv, probably others as well, so you're wrong there too.
Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web?! FLASH!?!
you're new to the internet aren't you? Back in the mid-late 90's Flash most certainly was innovative, with all it's easy vector animation functionality and such, sure now we have HTML5, SVG and other open standards that can do what flash does but back then the other open technologies just could not produce the same quality and interactivity that flash could. I agree it's long past the time to move on from flash but does that mean that people who created great interactive sites with brilliant vector animations years ago now have to re-write them just so new platforms can view them? Im not a flash dev so i can't say there's no reason to use flash anymore but it certainly seems like the new open technologies are flexible and powerful enough to supersede it.
Before apple switched to Intel, they warned developers they ought to stick to the cocoa coding guidelines uber strictly. Those that apps that did were nearly just a recompile away from being native fat binaries for intel/ppc after switch.
So you're saying we shouldn't do cross-platform because because it might take a while for that abstraction layer to be re-built for the new hardware? That's why hardware manufacturers partner with software platform developers.
Even if that was the reason, then how do you explain the no-code-generation issue? That would have no problem in the scenario you're suggesting but they banned that too, it's an anti-competitive move, not a technological barrier.
his name was going to come out anyway
How do you figure?
Ok, here's a car analogy since /. loves car analogies: "Well, I was at this bar and found these car keys, so I drove the car around and tried to find the owner. After a few weeks I couldn't, so I sold the car."
You didn't find the car, you found the keys, which you then used to take something that didn't belong to you and was not lost. Like if the finder of the phone had used the information within it to transfer money using the owner's internet banking.
Cars can get stolen. People can get mugged. Houses can get broken into. I don't wish any of those things on you, but if such a tragedy should occur, I also wouldn't wish you get fired for it as well.
That's a lot different to carelessly misplacing it.