And here is the sad tale of an Android Twitter client running out of of their 100,000 tokens despite having only about 40,000 paid downloads. So even for something as useless as a Twitter client, you have 60% pirates,
In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
They can live without the multitude of fart apps too, but it seems Apple doesn't think much of its customers given they don't get rejected on the clause "Apps that are not very useful, unique, are simply web sites bundled as Apps, or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected."
You'd have to be a naive idiot to think they are doing anything but preventing competition in a space they will undoubtedly enter shortly.
Apple hasn't accepted new fart apps since September 2010. Google still does gladly.
The funny thing is, supposedly, Blink really is named after the obnoxious HTML tag! This CNET article has an interesting explanation:
Quoting from the article:
The Blink name is a reference to the despised and now extinct blink tag of early HTML that made text blink off and on. It follows the pattern of Google naming projects after what it deems relics from the past: Chrome is designed to minimize user-interface "chrome" that surrounds Web pages; the Chromebook Pixel's high-resolution screen is designed to make pixels disappear; and Blink is designed to do away with browser engine irritations.
I hope that others will see Blink as I do: as a chance to take the WebKit codebase to exciting new places. I hope someday that many of the ideas we pursue in Blink will find their way into many platforms, including WebKit.
For those interested in the technical details, we’ll be posting more of our thoughts and plans to blink-dev at chromium.org.
WebKit and Chromium have a long, shared history, and we hope to continue our relationship. We will be available on #webkit and webkit-dev and hope to continue our connections with this great community for years to come.
Thank you again.
Eric
p.s. Adam and I are happy to work with other reviewers to remove PLATFORM(CHROMIUM) code and other messes we may have caused over the years from webkit.org. Adam and I are still running queues.webkit.org and associated EWS/CQ/sherriff-bot and plan to do so for the next few weeks as we work to transition them to new owners.
Funny that you didn't keep the title (I put back again)...
You travel to work in a tank, and have a fully armored environmental suit on at all times right?
That's the best description of *nix I've seen in a while, thanks.
Because anyone can walk up to you and show you how vulnerable you are at any time.
I've no doubt they try. So far, so good. What'd you pay for that foot high walled garden you put your trust in?
I don't know what is more facepalmier about your post, that fact that you seem to be ignorant to the fact that Mac OS X is *nix, or that you think that thanks to *nix you are safe from harm despite the fact that several people have been "doing you a service showing you how vulnerable you really are", as you put it.
Then again, the second is certainly it. The smugness of a Linux user proclaiming how smug Mac users are about security just can't be beaten.
Wow, I just didn't expect anybody could be as lazy and ignorant as you. Since you are evidently incapable of doing a simple Google search, here's the story:
Look, I don't care what Udo and his sock puppet think. Anybody with an open mind can find and read up on the history of how Apple attempted to violate open source licenses. You obviously don't have an open mind, so you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
Just like anyone can read up on the hollow flat Earth - thanks for proving my point, you half-informed cretin.
The original problem was that Apple kept all of their WebKit changes private right up until they did a new release of Safari, then they published a massive diff against KHTML..
Sure - that's why they released the first changes over half a year before even announcing Safari. The problem was of course that the KDE developers didn't want to keep up with the development speed coming from Apple, creating a huge backlog of patches not being merged into the main code base, despite having to admit that the changes made by Apple vastly improved KHTML. The fun part is that at least they were able to realize that unlike hateboys like you. The fact that they now pretty much use the fork instead of their own version is proof of that.
IOW Google is forking before the already announced move from WebKit to WebKit2 will come into effect. Because else they would look like they are using old code.
Which of course has nothing to do with others trying to trademark "WebKit" to actually do what you claim Apple wants to do. http://www.webkit.com/ filed for US Trademark 77758669 on June 12, 2009
Google's main problem with WebKit was not rendering, but the legacy code included by Apple for support of old Macs, most importantly the networking code, which was thousands of lines of bug-inducing insanity.
By which you mean code that hasn't been used by any Apple browser for years. And that was hard for Google to ignore, while it wasn't for Apple?
While it would be bad to have many standards (like HTML, MS-ML, ORACLE-ML, etc.) it's good to have many implementations of that standard (WebKit, Gecko, Blink).
The ability to "delete more than 7,000 files—comprising more than 4.5 million lines—right off the bat" is justification alone to fork the project.
Who'll be the first one to call Apple a poopy head when people start removing Chromium cruft from Webkit?
The summary says: "It was the malware which affected as many Apple computers as the Conficker worm affected Windows PCs..." This is obviously inaccurately rewritten from what Krebs said, which is "...Flashback [was] roughly as common for Macs as the Conficker Worm was for Windows PCs."
Those are not equivalent statements. The summary is equating raw numbers, while TFA is equating percentages.
Sorry, I just read that sentence and thought "no way in hell is that true." As confirmation, Wikipedia says Flashback hit 600,000 Macs, while Conficker infected between 9 and 15 million PCs.
It should also be noted that Conficker wasn't the malware with the largest number of infections (which has often been claimed when that comparison was first made a year ago), let alone percentage of infected computers. That honor belongs to the ILOVEYOU virus from 2000.
" Within ten days, over fifty million infections had been reported,[6] and it is estimated that 10% of internet-connected computers in the world had been affected."
I love revisionist history. - The majority of PCs had USB in them prior to the iMac all-in-one computers.
You obviously do. Inside is the key word - most PCs had USB on the Intel motherboards but no actual ports. And the reason was because there was no real support in any PC OS.
True. I bet you could also say the same for Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg or most self made multimillionaires. There's a certain personality type that these people share. Part obsessive, part sociopath, part genius.
Heck, the same goes for half the posters here. Minus the being successful part.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is, most folks on Android are known to loathe "paying for any software."
This is an article about an Apple user being attacked for Piracy by an Apple developer by Hyjacking their twitter accounts and posting confessions of piracy :) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/ios-apps-hijack-twitter-accounts-post-false-confessions-of-piracy/. Perhaps you should should stop Demonising Android users. I'm personally willing to post screenshots of my Play account, showing all my purchases.
And here is the sad tale of an Android Twitter client running out of of their 100,000 tokens despite having only about 40,000 paid downloads. So even for something as useless as a Twitter client, you have 60% pirates,
Nah. Google is reacting to Apple's several lawsuits against Android.
By preparing for suing months ahead of them. Didn't know Google could Google the future.
He is entirely correct.
Except this game(sic) as you put it did not exist [in the mobile sphere], everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND,
Wow, you are so full of shit. Even if we ignore years of patent wars before the iPhone came out, both Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first.
The lawsuit is Apple vs. Motorola
Nope, it's Motorola vs. Apple.
And the Galaxies, despite all Apple's bullying, have started outselling iPhones.
And despite Samsung's marketing - no, they haven't.
This "no-promotion" and "no buying of rankings" is no different from Google's "no links for money" policy.
With the difference that Apple actually follows through - http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-paid-inclusion-13138
"It didn't say advertising, so it must have been paid for."
Are you advertising your own shitty Video Blog, or are you getting paid for it?
In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
They can live without the multitude of fart apps too, but it seems Apple doesn't think much of its customers given they don't get rejected on the clause "Apps that are not very useful, unique, are simply web sites bundled as Apps, or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected."
You'd have to be a naive idiot to think they are doing anything but preventing competition in a space they will undoubtedly enter shortly.
Apple hasn't accepted new fart apps since September 2010. Google still does gladly.
The Mac Pro is a niche system.
All high-end PCs are niche systems.
The first thing I though of was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_element/
And I was thinking about Bling. As in "Chrome, now with extra Bling!"
The funny thing is, supposedly, Blink really is named after the obnoxious HTML tag!
This CNET article has an interesting explanation:
Quoting from the article:
The Blink name is a reference to the despised and now extinct blink tag of early HTML that made text blink off and on. It follows the pattern of Google naming projects after what it deems relics from the past: Chrome is designed to minimize user-interface "chrome" that surrounds Web pages; the Chromebook Pixel's high-resolution screen is designed to make pixels disappear; and Blink is designed to do away with browser engine irritations.
Shouldn't it be called "BLING!" then?
Full text:
Funny that you didn't keep the title (I put back again) ...
You travel to work in a tank, and have a fully armored environmental suit on at all times right?
That's the best description of *nix I've seen in a while, thanks.
Because anyone can walk up to you and show you how vulnerable you are at any time.
I've no doubt they try. So far, so good. What'd you pay for that foot high walled garden you put your trust in?
I don't know what is more facepalmier about your post, that fact that you seem to be ignorant to the fact that Mac OS X is *nix, or that you think that thanks to *nix you are safe from harm despite the fact that several people have been "doing you a service showing you how vulnerable you really are", as you put it.
Then again, the second is certainly it. The smugness of a Linux user proclaiming how smug Mac users are about security just can't be beaten.
Wow, I just didn't expect anybody could be as lazy and ignorant as you. Since you are evidently incapable of doing a simple Google search, here's the story:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
Straight from the Flat Earth Society. Thanks for again proving my point.
Look, I don't care what Udo and his sock puppet think. Anybody with an open mind can find and read up on the history of how Apple attempted to violate open source licenses. You obviously don't have an open mind, so you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
Just like anyone can read up on the hollow flat Earth - thanks for proving my point, you half-informed cretin.
The original problem was that Apple kept all of their WebKit changes private right up until they did a new release of Safari, then they published a massive diff against KHTML. .
Sure - that's why they released the first changes over half a year before even announcing Safari. The problem was of course that the KDE developers didn't want to keep up with the development speed coming from Apple, creating a huge backlog of patches not being merged into the main code base, despite having to admit that the changes made by Apple vastly improved KHTML. The fun part is that at least they were able to realize that unlike hateboys like you. The fact that they now pretty much use the fork instead of their own version is proof of that.
IOW Google is forking before the already announced move from WebKit to WebKit2 will come into effect. Because else they would look like they are using old code.
I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that "WebKit" became a registered trademark of Apple less than a month ago.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/03/apples-webkit-is-now-a-registered-trademark-in-the-us.html
Which of course has nothing to do with others trying to trademark "WebKit" to actually do what you claim Apple wants to do. http://www.webkit.com/ filed for US Trademark 77758669 on June 12, 2009
Google's main problem with WebKit was not rendering, but the legacy code included by Apple for support of old Macs, most importantly the networking code, which was thousands of lines of bug-inducing insanity.
By which you mean code that hasn't been used by any Apple browser for years. And that was hard for Google to ignore, while it wasn't for Apple?
While it would be bad to have many standards (like HTML, MS-ML, ORACLE-ML, etc.) it's good to have many implementations of that standard (WebKit, Gecko, Blink).
The ability to "delete more than 7,000 files—comprising more than 4.5 million lines—right off the bat" is justification alone to fork the project.
Who'll be the first one to call Apple a poopy head when people start removing Chromium cruft from Webkit?
The summary says: "It was the malware which affected as many Apple computers as the Conficker worm affected Windows PCs..."
This is obviously inaccurately rewritten from what Krebs said, which is "...Flashback [was] roughly as common for Macs as the Conficker Worm was for Windows PCs."
Those are not equivalent statements. The summary is equating raw numbers, while TFA is equating percentages.
Sorry, I just read that sentence and thought "no way in hell is that true." As confirmation, Wikipedia says Flashback hit 600,000 Macs, while Conficker infected between 9 and 15 million PCs.
It should also be noted that Conficker wasn't the malware with the largest number of infections (which has often been claimed when that comparison was first made a year ago), let alone percentage of infected computers. That honor belongs to the ILOVEYOU virus from 2000.
" Within ten days, over fifty million infections had been reported,[6] and it is estimated that 10% of internet-connected computers in the world had been affected."
Well, if you can't tell the difference between accurate and inaccurate information, then it wouldn't help if I gave you a "citation" either.
Well if you can't even tell that I told you you had no clue, why should I care what you think?
You know Google? Use it. It takes a minute to find to find the background on GCC, Objective-C, and Jobs.
It takes less time to find that the Earth is both flat and hollow. With full proof.
I love revisionist history.
- The majority of PCs had USB in them prior to the iMac all-in-one computers.
You obviously do. Inside is the key word - most PCs had USB on the Intel motherboards but no actual ports. And the reason was because there was no real support in any PC OS.
True. I bet you could also say the same for Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg or most self made multimillionaires. There's a certain personality type that these people share. Part obsessive, part sociopath, part genius.
Heck, the same goes for half the posters here. Minus the being successful part.