I consider this a very cool use of 3d printing... And love the idea that we can help an injured animal somewhat.
But bird beaks count as one of the structural marvels of the world - They weigh nothing, last a lifetime, and have incredible strength. A printed plastic beak, even ignoring issues like how it fits, will break and fall off within a few months, leaving the poor thing to starve to death.
So unfortunately, as well intentioned as it sounds, I have to consider this nothing short of cruel. Save the ones we really can, but when an eagle gets shot in the face - Put the damned thing out of its misery, don't use it as a science fair project!
If he was capable of acquiring the botnet to begin with, there is not a lot that could convince me that he was not aware that the access to the individual machines could yield personal information about the owners of them.
I would have to say that, IMO, "intent" has a lot to do with my opinion of this - And don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with the sentence he received.
Yes, you have it entirely correct that he could have caused more damage than he intended. I don't feel comfortable with laws based on what "could" have happened, though - The classic example, DUIs for sleeping it off in the back seat with the keys in the ignition. Either you committed the crime, or you didn't.
It sounds like you took my comment far too seriously, however. I meant it not as a real defense of his actions, but as more of a lighthearted half-true one-liner. I evidently failed in communicating my tone.:)
Playing devil's advocate but he did not access the personal information, he provided access. Should an ISP be liable for their customer's actions?
In fairness, this had nothing to do with identity theft. He literally just rented out time on a "stolen" supercomputer, of sorts.
Still doesn't make him less worthy of giving Grandma one free whack at him, but I wouldn't really consider him as all that bad, as that sort of scum goes.
World of difference between "unregulated" and "so many petty rules that we dictate whether or not you can use a smartphone to book a cab".
I have no problem with basic conditions on getting a taxi license - Background check, area knowledge test, more stringent than normal insurance and inspection requirements, things of that nature. When a city starts dictating where/when/how/why an otherwise-legit cab can operate, though, we have left the realm of "safety" and entered solid "a government hand in every till" territory.
LOLs aside, I imagine if you actually had a better system in mind you would have posted it
We have this really radical system where I live... You open this magical yellow book, turn to the "T"'s, and find a "Taxi" company in the area. You call them, they send a car, and you get in.
Some of them charge a bit more than others. None of them, not even the worst of the worst, charge as much as a NY taxi. They take you where you ask them to, you pay them, and the Earth continues spinning on its axis.
These laws exist to keep people safe from gypsy cabs that may extort or kidnap you.
Umm... Come again?
Forgive me for suspecting you as an NYC "Taxi and Limousine Commission" shill, but seriously? Kidnapping???
And seriously, as a resident of lower Manhattan, I can tell you that Boston and LA have nothing on NYC!
Yeah, no kidding! Apparently, they lack the same risk of kidnapping, that taxi companies can have a government-sponsored monopoly as a way to minimize the risk to people in need of a ride. Daaaamn, remind me never to visit NYC again!
I realize that in some parts of the world (Middle East, Africa, Central America) you may well end up kidnapped and ransomed. I've taken plenty of unregulated cabs in the US, however, and at worst, I've found they take a slightly longer route than optimal - Which still comes out way cheaper than the average NYC cab ride. Can you sense my lack of sympathy here?
We don't care what you "want". If you block us from using your services as we want - Not as you see the maximum opportunity for profit from us - We will go somewhere else. NYC has nothing notable that Boston or LA or London doesn't. Get the hint?
What hint would that be, that you want the site to be run by magic pixies that don't have any server costs, don't have any bandwidth costs and don't have any costs creating the content?
Nice strawman, but I have my own website. And not a crappy LiveJournal blog, but a real, live, actual website. Costs me a whopping $10 a year.
Does YouTube differ somewhat from my own website? Sure it does! Do I, however, give the least fuck about whether or not Google makes a profit on a collection of content provided for free by its community
Nope.
See the disconnect here? People will provide content. The internet existed before its "monetization". Advertisers want to cash in on us, but honestly, we have very little use for them.
I wonder why ads bother people so much. Especially on the kindle where the ads are unobtrusive (you only see them on the power-off screensaver).
Has some of my bandwidth gone to downloading those ads? Has some of my electricity gone to displaying them? Did I lose a tenth of a second of my life hesitating on unlocking it because I thought I saw boobies in the ad?
In all seriousness, I first started blocking ads because of bandwidth, back in the days of dialup. Oddly enough, the ads have kept pace with technology, and you'll still see a noticeable speedup (whether actually my network, or just because they can't be assed to pay for decent hosting so the load takes about 10x longer than the rest of the page combined).
At some point, I came to consider the ads as no different than your run-of-the-mill spammer - They go out of their way to waste my time, get me to look at their crap, try to con me into spending money, all on something in which I have no interest to start with. They fight back against ad-blocking technology with ever more subtle ways of getting around our filters, and yet they still can't take the goddamned hint.
So, you want to know why I loathe ads so much? Because marketers don't know how to take a polite "no" for an answer.
It's like the "Baby on Board" car signs: If I place one in my car's windowpane, polite drivers should see that sign and grant me additional driving space and courtesies
Wait, people buy those because they actually believe it will make other drivers more courteous???
Heh... Personally, I take it as a warning - "This car will go way too slow and has a frequently-distracted driver. Please pass me ASAP, and treat me as you would a potential drunk driver".
The alliance has revealed that it will only honor DNT if and only if it is not switched on by default.
Dear Digital Advertising Alliance - No one* wants you to track them. MSIE enabling DNT by default means nothing more radical than defaulting US releases of Windows to use English.
Since you have decided you know better than we do, I will therefore block all ads and tracking technologies until you make them "opt-in" only.
And then I will opt out.
* Morons who consider Facebook as somehow "better" than the worst of you marketing parasites aside.
Not everyone needs to know how to code, which I consider a Very Good Thing(tm), for one simple reason...
Most people either can not or will notever learn to code. I'd say the mode of thinking itself automatically rules out a good third (at least) of the population simply for raw capacity to learn the necessary skills; on top of which, the vast majority of people who could learn to code find it unbearably tedious and boring. Most people see coding as roughly on par with doing their taxes for "fun".
Employers like to spew a lot of BS about OSHA and "fire codes". Virtually none of it has the slightest basis in reality.
That said, you generally can't "win" battles like that. Even if you brought in a notarized statement from your town's fire marshal ok'ing your use of a cardboard box, your petulant HR "make up codes as we go" weenie would just make your life hell as payback.
So... Make 'em spend the money, simple as that. And don't get just a stand-up desk, get one of the ones that has the glidey hydraulic things to smoothly give you any height you want (standing all day will do you almost as much harm as sitting all day, you want to change it up every now and then).
Yes, the FBI runs like mad to grab the server the bitcoins dropped into
What server? A lot of comments in this thread seem to assume that "sending" Bitcoins requires someone to "receive" them - Which doesn't hold true. When I pay someone in BTC, I basically just tag some portion of a block as now belonging to a new address. The recipient never needs to acknowledge receipt of them, never needs to "go" somewhere to retrieve them, hell, you don't even need a "real" recipient (you could conceivably create a BTC address for which no valid private key exists, though you couldn't realistically prove that).
The recipient doesn't "do" anything until they actually spend those BTC. At that point, the FBI may have at least a chance of working back to the recipient by old-school methods ("You sold someone a hefty chunk of gold, tell us who or we break your fing... I mean, harmlessly waterboard you!"), but a clever recipient could avoid that threat entirely by using a QR-encoded one-off wallet and a drop site such as a bus station pay-locker (the kind that you can take the key and then get to open it exactly once before it locks). By the time the block chain records an actual transfer, the recipient has their chunk o' gold and the seller knows nothing at all about the buyer.
The real problem here has nothing to do with privacy, or conflicts of interest, or even really anything at all about the sources and magnitude of Romney's income. The real problem here comes from focusing on Mit's taxes, from demands for birth certificates, from stains on blue dresses, from the Swift Boat Veterans Against Obama, from all the myriad piddling little distractions, that dominate the media coverage of arguable one of the most important choices the world makes every four years.
We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich... And we quibble over whether fabulously-rich-guy made "disgusting" or "-obscene" amounts of money by outsourcing jobs to China???
I support these guys releasing Mit's taxes solely because it will take one (of many) non-issues out of the spotlight.
Oil works great until you have to remove something...
You realize, of course, that datacenters don't "remove" anything smaller than an entire blade (or depending on the scale involved, they pull an entire rack). Then they rotate a spare into place, ship the bad one out the door, and let the vendor screw around with figuring out "why" it failed.
Intel doesn't mean for your average Mom n' Pop running Windows SBS in a half-rack mounted PowerEdge to use immersion cooling.
Actually, my terms of service forbid most of what you describe. Want to do that? Get a business subscription.
And that changes the situation how, exactly? Neither TFA, nor the FP, nor the GP, nor my post, say anything at all about residential vs "business class" service. Everything so far has talked only about knocking "infected" PCs off the net.
Good to see, though, what we really mean by that - Not actually kicking all misbehaving sites offline, just the ones that don't pay the "use it however you want" surcharge. Yet again, fuck mom-n'-pop, the Big Boys have money to make and our pesky traffic keeps getting in the way!
No kidding, it stuns me that anyone would even consider allowing this as a precedent.
Two major problems, as I see it:
First, how do you know my PC doesn't mean to send out thousands of emails an hour? That may come from an infection; I could works as a (semi-legitimate) spammer; or perhaps it just means I run a large listserv. How do you know that I don't mean to port-scan thousands of IPs per hour? That could come from an infection; I could work as a researcher collecting vulnerability statistics; or I might work as a consultant paid to do penetration testing for dozens of companies on an ongoing basis. Opting for a "solution" that would also block legitimate activity counts as a great big "no-no".
Second, who gets to define "malware"? The major ISPs in the US would love to have even the thinnest possible excuse to outright ban P2P traffic; for an example, look at what happened to NNTP - Once considered a "must-have" ISP service, as soon as Cuomo gave them an out (on the basis of a mere 88 out of 80k groups), they all ditched their USENET servers ASAP. And aside from the opportunity to ban legitimate but undesirable traffic, try explaining to Grandma that the "coupon program" she keeps reinstalling can and will use her machine like a Columbian prostitute. Some people will choose to use spyware, even knowing that fact, for whatever service it provides them; should the ISPs have the right to tell a adult what they can and can't do online?
All that said, I would still like to see it made legal to hunt down and painfully kill malware authors and spammers. Fix the problem at the source, not the destination.
So he can't be bothered to just copy his music out of iTunes and do whatever he wants with it?
What we can physically do, does not equal what we can legally do. You and I and 99% of Slashdot might not give two shakes of a rat's ass about what "they" will "let" us do, but you can't just leave blatantly illegal instructions in your will (and have them honored).
Also, iTunes contains more than just music these days, and their video content most assuredly does still have DRM.
More to the point, he probably doesn't really give a damn about his own collection, since fighting this battle will likely cost far more than just re-buying everything he has in his library three times over. I would have to suspect he wanted to pick a fight over what he perceives as an injustice, and "inheritance" gives him a possible standing to file suit.
Years ago I saw a guy who had built a hand-carryable boiler that shot pressurized steam down into anthills. Always wished I had one when I lived in Fireantland but never saw one for sale.
You just want a gas-powered "steam pressure washer"... Not usually hand-carryable (they usually mount to a frame very much like a dolly), but portable at least. You can get basic models for under $300, and can find them a lot cheaper on eBay or Craigslist (but caveat emptor).
Why the hell would I want to target a platform that limits devs to basically writing toys (no system level apps, no "arbitrary code execution", no duplication of "useful" apps that would compete with Apple-flavored)?
And then, even if I did have a great idea for the next "Angry Birds"... Why the hell would I want to target a platform known for giving devs the boot for reasons ranging from "editorial" to "petty" to "borderline illegal vindictive"?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll target iDevices as soon as they tear down the wall around the garden, and not before.
Since when do Slashdotters do ANYTHING outdoors? This isn't relevant to the/. community.
Since Hanta can remain asymptomatic for six weeks or so, someone who got it in Yosemite could spread it to the mice at the Cheetos factory and not even know it!
The problem being, let me reiterate yet again, is that the Iphone does what people need and want it to do.
I want to see a map of drone strikes in Pakistan. I want to tether my netbook to my cellular data plan. I want to run an NES emulator. I want to run a torrent client. I want to get music and apps but hate iTunes. I want to play games with violent and/or pornographic content.
The iGarden most certainly does not do what I need and want it to do, simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider this a very cool use of 3d printing... And love the idea that we can help an injured animal somewhat.
But bird beaks count as one of the structural marvels of the world - They weigh nothing, last a lifetime, and have incredible strength. A printed plastic beak, even ignoring issues like how it fits, will break and fall off within a few months, leaving the poor thing to starve to death.
So unfortunately, as well intentioned as it sounds, I have to consider this nothing short of cruel. Save the ones we really can, but when an eagle gets shot in the face - Put the damned thing out of its misery, don't use it as a science fair project!
If he was capable of acquiring the botnet to begin with, there is not a lot that could convince me that he was not aware that the access to the individual machines could yield personal information about the owners of them.
:)
I would have to say that, IMO, "intent" has a lot to do with my opinion of this - And don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with the sentence he received.
Yes, you have it entirely correct that he could have caused more damage than he intended. I don't feel comfortable with laws based on what "could" have happened, though - The classic example, DUIs for sleeping it off in the back seat with the keys in the ignition. Either you committed the crime, or you didn't.
It sounds like you took my comment far too seriously, however. I meant it not as a real defense of his actions, but as more of a lighthearted half-true one-liner. I evidently failed in communicating my tone.
Playing devil's advocate but he did not access the personal information, he provided access. Should an ISP be liable for their customer's actions?
In fairness, this had nothing to do with identity theft. He literally just rented out time on a "stolen" supercomputer, of sorts.
Still doesn't make him less worthy of giving Grandma one free whack at him, but I wouldn't really consider him as all that bad, as that sort of scum goes.
9/10, and quite a few responses! Well played, sir!
Would you take an unregulated cab if you weren't?
World of difference between "unregulated" and "so many petty rules that we dictate whether or not you can use a smartphone to book a cab".
I have no problem with basic conditions on getting a taxi license - Background check, area knowledge test, more stringent than normal insurance and inspection requirements, things of that nature. When a city starts dictating where/when/how/why an otherwise-legit cab can operate, though, we have left the realm of "safety" and entered solid "a government hand in every till" territory.
LOLs aside, I imagine if you actually had a better system in mind you would have posted it
We have this really radical system where I live... You open this magical yellow book, turn to the "T"'s, and find a "Taxi" company in the area. You call them, they send a car, and you get in.
Some of them charge a bit more than others. None of them, not even the worst of the worst, charge as much as a NY taxi. They take you where you ask them to, you pay them, and the Earth continues spinning on its axis.
That about do it for ya?
These laws exist to keep people safe from gypsy cabs that may extort or kidnap you.
Umm... Come again?
Forgive me for suspecting you as an NYC "Taxi and Limousine Commission" shill, but seriously? Kidnapping???
And seriously, as a resident of lower Manhattan, I can tell you that Boston and LA have nothing on NYC!
Yeah, no kidding! Apparently, they lack the same risk of kidnapping, that taxi companies can have a government-sponsored monopoly as a way to minimize the risk to people in need of a ride. Daaaamn, remind me never to visit NYC again!
I realize that in some parts of the world (Middle East, Africa, Central America) you may well end up kidnapped and ransomed. I've taken plenty of unregulated cabs in the US, however, and at worst, I've found they take a slightly longer route than optimal - Which still comes out way cheaper than the average NYC cab ride. Can you sense my lack of sympathy here?
Dear NYC:
Kindly FOADIAF, 'kay?
We don't care what you "want". If you block us from using your services as we want - Not as you see the maximum opportunity for profit from us - We will go somewhere else. NYC has nothing notable that Boston or LA or London doesn't. Get the hint?
Cheers.
What hint would that be, that you want the site to be run by magic pixies that don't have any server costs, don't have any bandwidth costs and don't have any costs creating the content?
Nice strawman, but I have my own website. And not a crappy LiveJournal blog, but a real, live, actual website. Costs me a whopping $10 a year.
Does YouTube differ somewhat from my own website? Sure it does! Do I, however, give the least fuck about whether or not Google makes a profit on a collection of content provided for free by its community
Nope.
See the disconnect here? People will provide content. The internet existed before its "monetization". Advertisers want to cash in on us, but honestly, we have very little use for them.
Google may have a use for them. I... Do not.
I wonder why ads bother people so much. Especially on the kindle where the ads are unobtrusive (you only see them on the power-off screensaver).
Has some of my bandwidth gone to downloading those ads? Has some of my electricity gone to displaying them? Did I lose a tenth of a second of my life hesitating on unlocking it because I thought I saw boobies in the ad?
In all seriousness, I first started blocking ads because of bandwidth, back in the days of dialup. Oddly enough, the ads have kept pace with technology, and you'll still see a noticeable speedup (whether actually my network, or just because they can't be assed to pay for decent hosting so the load takes about 10x longer than the rest of the page combined).
At some point, I came to consider the ads as no different than your run-of-the-mill spammer - They go out of their way to waste my time, get me to look at their crap, try to con me into spending money, all on something in which I have no interest to start with. They fight back against ad-blocking technology with ever more subtle ways of getting around our filters, and yet they still can't take the goddamned hint.
So, you want to know why I loathe ads so much? Because marketers don't know how to take a polite "no" for an answer.
It's like the "Baby on Board" car signs: If I place one in my car's windowpane, polite drivers should see that sign and grant me additional driving space and courtesies
Wait, people buy those because they actually believe it will make other drivers more courteous???
Heh... Personally, I take it as a warning - "This car will go way too slow and has a frequently-distracted driver. Please pass me ASAP, and treat me as you would a potential drunk driver".
The alliance has revealed that it will only honor DNT if and only if it is not switched on by default.
Dear Digital Advertising Alliance - No one* wants you to track them. MSIE enabling DNT by default means nothing more radical than defaulting US releases of Windows to use English.
Since you have decided you know better than we do, I will therefore block all ads and tracking technologies until you make them "opt-in" only.
And then I will opt out.
* Morons who consider Facebook as somehow "better" than the worst of you marketing parasites aside.
Not everyone needs to know how to code, which I consider a Very Good Thing(tm), for one simple reason...
Most people either can not or will not ever learn to code. I'd say the mode of thinking itself automatically rules out a good third (at least) of the population simply for raw capacity to learn the necessary skills; on top of which, the vast majority of people who could learn to code find it unbearably tedious and boring. Most people see coding as roughly on par with doing their taxes for "fun".
for OSHA and fire prevention reasons.
Employers like to spew a lot of BS about OSHA and "fire codes". Virtually none of it has the slightest basis in reality.
That said, you generally can't "win" battles like that. Even if you brought in a notarized statement from your town's fire marshal ok'ing your use of a cardboard box, your petulant HR "make up codes as we go" weenie would just make your life hell as payback.
So... Make 'em spend the money, simple as that. And don't get just a stand-up desk, get one of the ones that has the glidey hydraulic things to smoothly give you any height you want (standing all day will do you almost as much harm as sitting all day, you want to change it up every now and then).
Yes, the FBI runs like mad to grab the server the bitcoins dropped into
What server? A lot of comments in this thread seem to assume that "sending" Bitcoins requires someone to "receive" them - Which doesn't hold true. When I pay someone in BTC, I basically just tag some portion of a block as now belonging to a new address. The recipient never needs to acknowledge receipt of them, never needs to "go" somewhere to retrieve them, hell, you don't even need a "real" recipient (you could conceivably create a BTC address for which no valid private key exists, though you couldn't realistically prove that).
The recipient doesn't "do" anything until they actually spend those BTC. At that point, the FBI may have at least a chance of working back to the recipient by old-school methods ("You sold someone a hefty chunk of gold, tell us who or we break your fing... I mean, harmlessly waterboard you!"), but a clever recipient could avoid that threat entirely by using a QR-encoded one-off wallet and a drop site such as a bus station pay-locker (the kind that you can take the key and then get to open it exactly once before it locks). By the time the block chain records an actual transfer, the recipient has their chunk o' gold and the seller knows nothing at all about the buyer.
What could be simpler.
A third party making the entire issue moot.
The real problem here has nothing to do with privacy, or conflicts of interest, or even really anything at all about the sources and magnitude of Romney's income. The real problem here comes from focusing on Mit's taxes, from demands for birth certificates, from stains on blue dresses, from the Swift Boat Veterans Against Obama, from all the myriad piddling little distractions, that dominate the media coverage of arguable one of the most important choices the world makes every four years.
We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich... And we quibble over whether fabulously-rich-guy made "disgusting" or "-obscene" amounts of money by outsourcing jobs to China???
I support these guys releasing Mit's taxes solely because it will take one (of many) non-issues out of the spotlight.
Oil works great until you have to remove something...
You realize, of course, that datacenters don't "remove" anything smaller than an entire blade (or depending on the scale involved, they pull an entire rack). Then they rotate a spare into place, ship the bad one out the door, and let the vendor screw around with figuring out "why" it failed.
Intel doesn't mean for your average Mom n' Pop running Windows SBS in a half-rack mounted PowerEdge to use immersion cooling.
Actually, my terms of service forbid most of what you describe. Want to do that? Get a business subscription.
;)
And that changes the situation how, exactly? Neither TFA, nor the FP, nor the GP, nor my post, say anything at all about residential vs "business class" service. Everything so far has talked only about knocking "infected" PCs off the net.
Good to see, though, what we really mean by that - Not actually kicking all misbehaving sites offline, just the ones that don't pay the "use it however you want" surcharge. Yet again, fuck mom-n'-pop, the Big Boys have money to make and our pesky traffic keeps getting in the way!
/ Businesses are people too!
This will be abused.
No kidding, it stuns me that anyone would even consider allowing this as a precedent.
Two major problems, as I see it:
First, how do you know my PC doesn't mean to send out thousands of emails an hour? That may come from an infection; I could works as a (semi-legitimate) spammer; or perhaps it just means I run a large listserv. How do you know that I don't mean to port-scan thousands of IPs per hour? That could come from an infection; I could work as a researcher collecting vulnerability statistics; or I might work as a consultant paid to do penetration testing for dozens of companies on an ongoing basis. Opting for a "solution" that would also block legitimate activity counts as a great big "no-no".
Second, who gets to define "malware"? The major ISPs in the US would love to have even the thinnest possible excuse to outright ban P2P traffic; for an example, look at what happened to NNTP - Once considered a "must-have" ISP service, as soon as Cuomo gave them an out (on the basis of a mere 88 out of 80k groups), they all ditched their USENET servers ASAP. And aside from the opportunity to ban legitimate but undesirable traffic, try explaining to Grandma that the "coupon program" she keeps reinstalling can and will use her machine like a Columbian prostitute. Some people will choose to use spyware, even knowing that fact, for whatever service it provides them; should the ISPs have the right to tell a adult what they can and can't do online?
All that said, I would still like to see it made legal to hunt down and painfully kill malware authors and spammers. Fix the problem at the source, not the destination.
So he can't be bothered to just copy his music out of iTunes and do whatever he wants with it?
What we can physically do, does not equal what we can legally do. You and I and 99% of Slashdot might not give two shakes of a rat's ass about what "they" will "let" us do, but you can't just leave blatantly illegal instructions in your will (and have them honored).
Also, iTunes contains more than just music these days, and their video content most assuredly does still have DRM.
More to the point, he probably doesn't really give a damn about his own collection, since fighting this battle will likely cost far more than just re-buying everything he has in his library three times over. I would have to suspect he wanted to pick a fight over what he perceives as an injustice, and "inheritance" gives him a possible standing to file suit.
Years ago I saw a guy who had built a hand-carryable boiler that shot pressurized steam down into anthills. Always wished I had one when I lived in Fireantland but never saw one for sale.
You just want a gas-powered "steam pressure washer"... Not usually hand-carryable (they usually mount to a frame very much like a dolly), but portable at least. You can get basic models for under $300, and can find them a lot cheaper on eBay or Craigslist (but caveat emptor).
Why the hell would I want to target a platform that limits devs to basically writing toys (no system level apps, no "arbitrary code execution", no duplication of "useful" apps that would compete with Apple-flavored)?
And then, even if I did have a great idea for the next "Angry Birds"... Why the hell would I want to target a platform known for giving devs the boot for reasons ranging from "editorial" to "petty" to "borderline illegal vindictive"?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll target iDevices as soon as they tear down the wall around the garden, and not before.
Since when do Slashdotters do ANYTHING outdoors? This isn't relevant to the /. community.
Since Hanta can remain asymptomatic for six weeks or so, someone who got it in Yosemite could spread it to the mice at the Cheetos factory and not even know it!
The problem being, let me reiterate yet again, is that the Iphone does what people need and want it to do.
I want to see a map of drone strikes in Pakistan. I want to tether my netbook to my cellular data plan. I want to run an NES emulator. I want to run a torrent client. I want to get music and apps but hate iTunes. I want to play games with violent and/or pornographic content.
The iGarden most certainly does not do what I need and want it to do, simple as that.
Just got mine - Thanks for giving me the push to beat your lawyers to market, Apple!