innovate [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vated, -vating. verb (used without object) 1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
-------
Society has already established the definition of the word 'innovate'. You don't like that term being applied to Apple so you try to redefine it so that it no longer applies to Apple. You might as well say the definition of innovate is "everything that other companies do but that Apple doesn't do".
As someone who design computers for a living--I do consider Apple to be innovative and I am consistently shocked at how many "technical" people genuinely don't understand the point of technology.
and I like my over-priced shiny Apple products. If it doesn't meet your needs then buy something else; I don't see why you have to insult hundreds of millions of people just because their needs are different from yours.
Security has always been and will always be a question of reducing the frequency and impact of escapes--anyone who thinks otherwise is "not very technical and not qualified to comment."
Macs are safer than Windows PCs. IOS is safer than Android.
"Warnock left with Chuck Geschke and founded Adobe Systems in December 1982. They created a simpler language, similar to InterPress, called PostScript, which went on the market in 1984. At about this time they were visited by Steve Jobs, who urged them to adapt PostScript to be used as the language for driving laser printers.
In March 1985, the Apple LaserWriter was the first printer to ship with PostScript, sparking the desktop publishing (DTP) revolution in the mid-1980s. "
There's no way to defend oneself against hypotheticals, which is entirely what your argument is based on. Yes, of course, if Apple breaks out of character and decides for the first time ever to restrict access to an open and standards-compliant web from their IOS web browser, and they then yank other web browsers from the App Store (yes, there are others), and they then extend these policies [for the first time ever] to Mac OSX, and they then form their own military and use it to destroy all non-Apple devices so that they only way you can access the web is through an Apple device, then yes--that would certainly compromise the freedom of the web. My point is that they've never shown any inclination towards doing any of these things. The fact that you interpret Apple's focus on customer experience (especially for nontechnical users) as a threat to your way of life says something about you and your grasp of the point of technology.
Fundamentally the web is built on top of technologies provided by profit-making companies. If Google decided to start acting badly then that would have a far greater and more immediate impact on the freedom of the web. But, like with Apple, there is a check against that because there are multiple companies. If Apple or Google or Cisco or whoever starts messing with the web then people will go to Samsung, Bing, etc.
this thread started with the accusation that Apple was aggressive about restricting access to the internet from their devices and now we are debating whether they offer the "most" standards-compliant web browsing experience on a mobile device or whether they are a "leader" in this field.
Don't you see how that looks like a bait and switch argument to me? It's basically:
"You are a pedophile" "No I'm not" "Well, you aren't the least sexually active person in the world, I mean, you aren't the pope" "I guess not" "I win."
what version of webkit is the android mobile browser based on? I honestly don't know.
regardless, you wanna check and see how many of the changes between 535.21 and 534.53.10 were contributed by Apple? the point is that you are bragging about code largely written by Apple--that kinda shoots a hole in the meta-point that Apple is somehow against a free open and standards-based web. It's just one big lie.
The web is accessed through a web browser. Those are the applications like Safari or Firefox or Chrome. The web is governed by standards-based protocols which don't require that you install "a special application". You probably shouldn't install random applications you download from the web given your limited understanding of technology.
Apple is adding yet another layer of warning (which can be overridden) on Mac OS to prevent nontechnical people (like yourself) from doing this accidentally.
Wow, who taught you about "sandboxed emulators"? Good for you. Keep at it.
Apple has never even hinted at restricting access to the free and open internet--they have probably the most standards compliant mobile web browser in existence. In fact, whenever they talk about software development--they are clear to say there are two platforms for apps, "uncurated web apps" and "curated native apps".
There's a walled garden for native apps because native apps can do far more damage. Take a look at the malware/trojan/virus-laden PC world--that's what they are trying to prevent. This isn't some grand scheme for Apple to control all access to everything. They aren't making coats out of puppies or anything. I honestly don't understand how nerds can claim to understand technology when they can't grasp this basic concept.
Governments set labor and trade policies. Public companies are obligated (by law) to maximize profit. Boycotts about this kind of thing never work--if they did then Nike wouldn't sell so many shoes.
Go vote for some better laws. Blaming Apple misses the point, misses the root of the problem, and above all showcases what an idiot you are.
the vector to change runs through petitioning the governments (US or China) to enact legislation. Apple isn't breaking any laws and they aren't [arguably] doing anything unethical--which is why most people don't care.
Most people on Slashdot didn't care about "worker conditions" when Dell was the biggest computer company in the world using third world labor--but now they care because they hate Apple because Apple won't let them compile the Linux kernel or run SETI on an iPhone. Just like most people on Slashdot couldn't care less that their beloved Android phone is made in the same or worse factories as iPhones.
is legally restricted to not be used for commercial purposes--in nearly exactly the same way that iBook Author is. I assume you are going to start protesting that now?
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't he rather famously pan the iPod?
From dictionary.com:
innovate [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vated, -vating.
verb (used without object)
1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
-------
Society has already established the definition of the word 'innovate'. You don't like that term being applied to Apple so you try to redefine it so that it no longer applies to Apple. You might as well say the definition of innovate is "everything that other companies do but that Apple doesn't do".
As someone who design computers for a living--I do consider Apple to be innovative and I am consistently shocked at how many "technical" people genuinely don't understand the point of technology.
and I like my over-priced shiny Apple products. If it doesn't meet your needs then buy something else; I don't see why you have to insult hundreds of millions of people just because their needs are different from yours.
right?
Your move, genius.
Doesn't make any sense at all by your logic.
My prediction is that you are about to make a pretty funny response.
Security has always been and will always be a question of reducing the frequency and impact of escapes--anyone who thinks otherwise is "not very technical and not qualified to comment."
Macs are safer than Windows PCs. IOS is safer than Android.
they are different electrical devices, FPGAs only allow you to implement different logical functions.
to push driverless printing.
"Warnock left with Chuck Geschke and founded Adobe Systems in December 1982. They created a simpler language, similar to InterPress, called PostScript, which went on the market in 1984. At about this time they were visited by Steve Jobs, who urged them to adapt PostScript to be used as the language for driving laser printers.
In March 1985, the Apple LaserWriter was the first printer to ship with PostScript, sparking the desktop publishing (DTP) revolution in the mid-1980s. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript
There's no way to defend oneself against hypotheticals, which is entirely what your argument is based on. Yes, of course, if Apple breaks out of character and decides for the first time ever to restrict access to an open and standards-compliant web from their IOS web browser, and they then yank other web browsers from the App Store (yes, there are others), and they then extend these policies [for the first time ever] to Mac OSX, and they then form their own military and use it to destroy all non-Apple devices so that they only way you can access the web is through an Apple device, then yes--that would certainly compromise the freedom of the web. My point is that they've never shown any inclination towards doing any of these things. The fact that you interpret Apple's focus on customer experience (especially for nontechnical users) as a threat to your way of life says something about you and your grasp of the point of technology.
Fundamentally the web is built on top of technologies provided by profit-making companies. If Google decided to start acting badly then that would have a far greater and more immediate impact on the freedom of the web. But, like with Apple, there is a check against that because there are multiple companies. If Apple or Google or Cisco or whoever starts messing with the web then people will go to Samsung, Bing, etc.
this thread started with the accusation that Apple was aggressive about restricting access to the internet from their devices and now we are debating whether they offer the "most" standards-compliant web browsing experience on a mobile device or whether they are a "leader" in this field.
Don't you see how that looks like a bait and switch argument to me? It's basically:
"You are a pedophile"
"No I'm not"
"Well, you aren't the least sexually active person in the world, I mean, you aren't the pope"
"I guess not"
"I win."
what version of webkit is the android mobile browser based on? I honestly don't know.
regardless, you wanna check and see how many of the changes between 535.21 and 534.53.10 were contributed by Apple? the point is that you are bragging about code largely written by Apple--that kinda shoots a hole in the meta-point that Apple is somehow against a free open and standards-based web. It's just one big lie.
Chrome is based on Webkit, the same rendering engine that Safari uses (largely written/supported by Apple).
standards compliant than Safari.
This will be hilarious.
The web is accessed through a web browser. Those are the applications like Safari or Firefox or Chrome. The web is governed by standards-based protocols which don't require that you install "a special application". You probably shouldn't install random applications you download from the web given your limited understanding of technology.
Apple is adding yet another layer of warning (which can be overridden) on Mac OS to prevent nontechnical people (like yourself) from doing this accidentally.
Wow, who taught you about "sandboxed emulators"? Good for you. Keep at it.
then that is a relevant comment?
Buy something other than Apple if it doesn't suit your needs. Don't crap all over other people for having different needs.
people going to realize this?
Apple has never even hinted at restricting access to the free and open internet--they have probably the most standards compliant mobile web browser in existence. In fact, whenever they talk about software development--they are clear to say there are two platforms for apps, "uncurated web apps" and "curated native apps".
There's a walled garden for native apps because native apps can do far more damage. Take a look at the malware/trojan/virus-laden PC world--that's what they are trying to prevent. This isn't some grand scheme for Apple to control all access to everything. They aren't making coats out of puppies or anything. I honestly don't understand how nerds can claim to understand technology when they can't grasp this basic concept.
morons. Where the fuck do you think the Xoom and Droids are made?
Fucking idiot.
you would be correct.
Do you?
edge of bankruptcy due to all this loud complaining about working conditions in China--so I guess you win the argument.
Governments set labor and trade policies. Public companies are obligated (by law) to maximize profit. Boycotts about this kind of thing never work--if they did then Nike wouldn't sell so many shoes.
Go vote for some better laws. Blaming Apple misses the point, misses the root of the problem, and above all showcases what an idiot you are.
the vector to change runs through petitioning the governments (US or China) to enact legislation. Apple isn't breaking any laws and they aren't [arguably] doing anything unethical--which is why most people don't care.
Most people on Slashdot didn't care about "worker conditions" when Dell was the biggest computer company in the world using third world labor--but now they care because they hate Apple because Apple won't let them compile the Linux kernel or run SETI on an iPhone. Just like most people on Slashdot couldn't care less that their beloved Android phone is made in the same or worse factories as iPhones.
is legally restricted to not be used for commercial purposes--in nearly exactly the same way that iBook Author is. I assume you are going to start protesting that now?