When you rely on someone else to completely control your supply chain like the App Store, you're going to be pretty much completely beholden to them. If that's a risk you choose to take, and you fail, it's your fault for relying on that risk.
Indeed. If only we had a free and open standard for publishing information and applications to some sort of online "spider-space" instead of using locked-down platforms.
Oh well. Maybe a future generation will be able to reinvent HTML in about, oh, 150 years time? And another 300 to reinvent email, and maybe we'll get Usenet back 500 years after that.
Apple isn't going to miss the Kindle app. It makes them no money what so ever and brings nothing to the device that can't be had already
... nothing that anyone except the customer wants, anyway.
Me, I'd like to be able to buy books off Amazon and read them on an iPad, just like I can buy a paper book from any bookstore and read it anywhere... but that's apparently not supposed to be possible in the shiny Apple future.
He's the kind of guy who wanted to save the whales, but only in the 80's when it was in vogue.
Frickin' whales. What have they done for us lately?
Think they're so high and mighty with their tails and flippers. Sipping plankton and munching cavier sushi. The SUVs of the ocean. The whale vote probably helped re-elect Bush, and I'm sure they engineered the banking crisis.
Do a version for sharks and you'll start a quantum leap in laser warfare.
"Theorising that oneshark could time travel within his own lifetime, Dr. Bloodfin Dolphinbane stepped into the Quantum Leap accelerator... and vanished! He finds himself leaping from lifeocean to lifeocean, striving to put right what once accursed dolphinkind had put wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap... will destroy those chittering seatraitors forever!"
In other words, without the secret decoder ring, it's nothing but a sequence of random gibberish into which anyone can read any message or ideology they want.
And you can never know if you have the secret decoder ring or not.
How exactly is this going to achieve... well, anything?
Amazon does run afoul of Apple's rules which are supposed to be enforced from June 30th. Right now they're getting a break because iOS customers would be pissed to see Kindle disappear from their phones. Lets see what happens in July.
And this level of wtf-ery is why I would never buy an iPad. Why do I want a device which goes out of its way to let me not do stuff?
Actually it was the US Gov't that insisted on a second supplier when they used Intel processors in the space shuttle.
Aha! So it was SOCIALISM that killed the space shuttle. If private enterprise had had unfettered reign, there'd be only one genuine 100% American (designed, made in China) supplier for every part on the Coca-Cola Nike Star Smasher, and it'd be a crime to repair anything in space. And that would be freedom.
It is however easy to say that someone is retarded for building their business exclusively around iOS
Of course. It would be much more sensible today to build an online business exclusively around the Sony Playstation.
Wait, I just had a radical idea. What if we had some kind of, I don't know... interconnection between all these various corporate networks? And then linked them all together like that thing, tip of my tongue, what a spider spins out of silk? And instead of all these different proprietary non-portable "apps" we could just make sort of... building construction places... in the spider-silk-thingy... made out of like what a book has, whatsit, leaves? sheets? and then everyone could just sort of "graze" like cattle through these "spider books" at will, with no walls? You'd just need one "app" per platform, called a "spider grazer", or maybe two... and you'd "swing" from one spiderplace to another... and all the spiderbooks would be written in a sort of "spiderwords annotation language" or SWAL, and if you needed more you could have a "Spiderscript" language...
Pity that vision would never take off today, now that we've built one-company-only "apps" everywhere.
If Ford had any balls, they'd require you to buy Ford tires.
Ah yes, those golden halcyon days of Standard Oil's rail-freight-fuel integration and the Edison motion picture patent wars, when men were men, monopolists were monopolists, and dirty rotten workers bought whatever was on sale at the company store on company scrip, and were grateful for it, or died.
It's so nice that we're headed straight back there again! Because it was so much fun the first time. Thank you, Apple! You really did teach the post-freedom Internet generation to "think different".
If Canonical wants Ubuntu's user base to grow substantially, they need to integrate usability testing into its design cycle.
Better still and even cheaper, they could take advantage of their existing usability testing focus group called "the entire Ubuntu installed base". When thousands of their dedicated users cry out in horror and spam Launchpad with bug reports each time they introduce a new UI stuffup, perhaps they could, I don't know, this is kinda radical but hear me out, they could try listening to the users.
But no. The users are always wrong and Mark Shuttleworth is always right because he flew in space.
Been a Ubuntu user since Hoary, loved it when they fought GNOME over the "spatial browser" idiocy, but with each new release that breaks things I'm really wanting an alternative.
The fact that it's been validated by the system it critiques invalidates it.
Ha-HA! And now you see the full biopolitical subtlety of the panopticon Empire state as it deploys the articulation of the spectacle in repression of the Multitude! It co-opts the very force of deconstructionist irony against itself, generating self-referential "liberty" as a form of Dedekind Cut of the hyperspatial relativistic quaternion interfaces in pro::duction of (re)production of ant(i)production in glorification of post-feminist anti-Marxist induced current rhetoric; drop tables; echo"Hi Bobby!" >/etc/passwd; rm *.
In so-called "liberty" the sheer ugly violence of the Man is therefore manifestly exposed, and thus ultimately defeated.
HB Gary is Anonymous. Sony is Anonymous. The RIAA and MPAA are Anonymous. You see, the funny thing about a non-organizational organization like Anonymous is that anyone can claim to be a member.
Or be a member. Google the original Anarchists and "agent provocateur".
Well, if the only way you know how to tell what rights you have is to ask the government, then we really aren't talking about the same thing.
That would be an insightful comment if, in fact, the United Nations were a government, rather than an international debating forum where concepts like "rights" are discussed.
anonymity leading to unrestricted expression is a new invention of the internet?
Guess the kid has never heard of samizdat, or the Federalist, or any of the early Protestant pamphleteers, or, well, pretty much anything.
While freedom of anonymous mass expression is certainly not new, I do think that it's been absent for at least a generation in Western society until the Internet made it possible again. When I first read about the coffee shops and pamphlets of, say, the 17th and 18th centuries, the society they were describing felt alien to me - I knew that sort of passionate political engagement and philosophical fervour just wasn't a major force in my generation. Conversely, when I first saw email (and I'm talking BBS era 1980s) I recognised that same spirit returning and wondered what it might mean for the world.
Jacque Vallee's 1982 The Network Revolution is, in my opinion, a pretty prophetic book since he pegged exactly where the Internet was headed (massive worldwide chat) back when TCP/IP was still a new thing. Most people know Vallee only as a crazy French UFO guy but he's also one of the people who literally did help design the Net. It's worth a read.
I don't think the Internet invented anonymous discussion, but I think broadcast media like TV, radio and cinema helped suppress it since WW2. The Net is filling that vacuum, with a vengeance. That's why though it's not new, it feels new for the youngsters.
governments and corporations simply don't give in like that. Too many vested interests wanting to screw the little guy.
s/governments and corporations/people/
You can't escape the social-organisation-producing aspect of human nature by merely refusing to acknowledge the production of social organisation. Humans are social beings, we generate societies by breathing. Pretending that organic flows of power, control and deference to informal authority don't exist just papers over the structure with a bland label.
It's much more interesting to look at actually-existing online society and see how it replicates, in miniature, all the features of mainstream "big" society.
But if there is no leader or membership, then I have to ask why would Anonymous make posts stating (I'm paraphrasing) "Anonymous did not do this"
They can't. Or rather, someone claiming to be Anonymous can claim "Anonymous did not do X" but that statement would be empty of meaning.
If Anonymous is everyone who claims to be Anonymous, then Anonymous does exactly everything that anyone who claims to be Anonymous does.
Moral of the story: don't associate yourself with the name Anonymous and the doctrine that "we are legion" unless you want to be held personally responsible for everything every random griefer and troll on the Net does. Because by using that name, you are claiming responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
When you rely on someone else to completely control your supply chain like the App Store, you're going to be pretty much completely beholden to them. If that's a risk you choose to take, and you fail, it's your fault for relying on that risk.
Indeed. If only we had a free and open standard for publishing information and applications to some sort of online "spider-space" instead of using locked-down platforms.
Oh well. Maybe a future generation will be able to reinvent HTML in about, oh, 150 years time? And another 300 to reinvent email, and maybe we'll get Usenet back 500 years after that.
How exactly have they screwed Adobe?... by not allowing flash
Yes, I can't see how unilaterally forbidding a competitor's product from running on their platform could at all be construed as a hostile act.
And what made a businessperson decide to compete... Capitalism 101
Yes, capitalism and competition certainly don't mix at all, who'd have even thought they would.
Apple isn't going to miss the Kindle app. It makes them no money what so ever and brings nothing to the device that can't be had already
... nothing that anyone except the customer wants, anyway.
Me, I'd like to be able to buy books off Amazon and read them on an iPad, just like I can buy a paper book from any bookstore and read it anywhere... but that's apparently not supposed to be possible in the shiny Apple future.
He's the kind of guy who wanted to save the whales, but only in the 80's when it was in vogue.
Frickin' whales. What have they done for us lately?
Think they're so high and mighty with their tails and flippers. Sipping plankton and munching cavier sushi. The SUVs of the ocean. The whale vote probably helped re-elect Bush, and I'm sure they engineered the banking crisis.
Frickin' whales.
Do a version for sharks and you'll start a quantum leap in laser warfare.
"Theorising that oneshark could time travel within his own lifetime, Dr. Bloodfin Dolphinbane stepped into the Quantum Leap accelerator... and vanished! He finds himself leaping from lifeocean to lifeocean, striving to put right what once accursed dolphinkind had put wrong, and hoping each time that the next leap... will destroy those chittering seatraitors forever!"
*insert Twilight Zone music*
I think perhaps you meant "insert 1978 era Doctor Who music"?
Anonymous is like a one time pad in cryptography.
In other words, without the secret decoder ring, it's nothing but a sequence of random gibberish into which anyone can read any message or ideology they want.
And you can never know if you have the secret decoder ring or not.
How exactly is this going to achieve... well, anything?
Amazon does run afoul of Apple's rules which are supposed to be enforced from June 30th. Right now they're getting a break because iOS customers would be pissed to see Kindle disappear from their phones. Lets see what happens in July.
And this level of wtf-ery is why I would never buy an iPad. Why do I want a device which goes out of its way to let me not do stuff?
Actually it was the US Gov't that insisted on a second supplier when they used Intel processors in the space shuttle.
Aha! So it was SOCIALISM that killed the space shuttle. If private enterprise had had unfettered reign, there'd be only one genuine 100% American (designed, made in China) supplier for every part on the Coca-Cola Nike Star Smasher, and it'd be a crime to repair anything in space. And that would be freedom.
It is however easy to say that someone is retarded for building their business exclusively around iOS
Of course. It would be much more sensible today to build an online business exclusively around the Sony Playstation.
Wait, I just had a radical idea. What if we had some kind of, I don't know... interconnection between all these various corporate networks? And then linked them all together like that thing, tip of my tongue, what a spider spins out of silk? And instead of all these different proprietary non-portable "apps" we could just make sort of... building construction places... in the spider-silk-thingy... made out of like what a book has, whatsit, leaves? sheets? and then everyone could just sort of "graze" like cattle through these "spider books" at will, with no walls? You'd just need one "app" per platform, called a "spider grazer", or maybe two... and you'd "swing" from one spiderplace to another... and all the spiderbooks would be written in a sort of "spiderwords annotation language" or SWAL, and if you needed more you could have a "Spiderscript" language...
Pity that vision would never take off today, now that we've built one-company-only "apps" everywhere.
That option does not exist in Apple's brave new world.
WTF? There are no competitors to the iPad?
There was an important word in the first poster's sentence. I have highlighted it for your convenience.
Last I checked there aren't any competitors to Apple inside Apple.
Thank you for playing, good sir! Do try again!
If Ford had any balls, they'd require you to buy Ford tires.
Ah yes, those golden halcyon days of Standard Oil's rail-freight-fuel integration and the Edison motion picture patent wars, when men were men, monopolists were monopolists, and dirty rotten workers bought whatever was on sale at the company store on company scrip, and were grateful for it, or died.
It's so nice that we're headed straight back there again! Because it was so much fun the first time. Thank you, Apple! You really did teach the post-freedom Internet generation to "think different".
Oblig quote: - remember that "Space is Big, Mind-blowingly big.
Interstellar space is big.
Earth-orbital space is depressingly small, because there are only so many useful orbits.
Somuchspace. Gottaseeitall. Gottagotospace.
Space!
Africa IS already kinda south of the funny old place... whatisitcalled...
The Middle-Earth Sea.
I remember when you could attract an audience with factual reporting and insightful analysis, based on investigation and jornalistic reporting.
William Randolph Hearst might disagree.
But then he'd eat your brains, so best not to ask him.
If Canonical wants Ubuntu's user base to grow substantially, they need to integrate usability testing into its design cycle.
Better still and even cheaper, they could take advantage of their existing usability testing focus group called "the entire Ubuntu installed base". When thousands of their dedicated users cry out in horror and spam Launchpad with bug reports each time they introduce a new UI stuffup, perhaps they could, I don't know, this is kinda radical but hear me out, they could try listening to the users.
But no. The users are always wrong and Mark Shuttleworth is always right because he flew in space.
Been a Ubuntu user since Hoary, loved it when they fought GNOME over the "spatial browser" idiocy, but with each new release that breaks things I'm really wanting an alternative.
The fact that it's been validated by the system it critiques invalidates it.
Ha-HA! And now you see the full biopolitical subtlety of the panopticon Empire state as it deploys the articulation of the spectacle in repression of the Multitude! It co-opts the very force of deconstructionist irony against itself, generating self-referential "liberty" as a form of Dedekind Cut of the hyperspatial relativistic quaternion interfaces in pro::duction of (re)production of ant(i)production in glorification of post-feminist anti-Marxist induced current rhetoric; drop tables; echo"Hi Bobby!" > /etc/passwd; rm *.
In so-called "liberty" the sheer ugly violence of the Man is therefore manifestly exposed, and thus ultimately defeated.
the US, the most hyper capitalist nation on earth.
Well, if they stopped drinking all those cappucinos they could be a much calmer capitalist nation.
HB Gary is Anonymous. Sony is Anonymous. The RIAA and MPAA are Anonymous. You see, the funny thing about a non-organizational organization like Anonymous is that anyone can claim to be a member.
Or be a member. Google the original Anarchists and "agent provocateur".
Well, if the only way you know how to tell what rights you have is to ask the government, then we really aren't talking about the same thing.
That would be an insightful comment if, in fact, the United Nations were a government, rather than an international debating forum where concepts like "rights" are discussed.
anonymity leading to unrestricted expression is a new invention of the internet?
Guess the kid has never heard of samizdat, or the Federalist, or any of the early Protestant pamphleteers, or, well, pretty much anything.
While freedom of anonymous mass expression is certainly not new, I do think that it's been absent for at least a generation in Western society until the Internet made it possible again. When I first read about the coffee shops and pamphlets of, say, the 17th and 18th centuries, the society they were describing felt alien to me - I knew that sort of passionate political engagement and philosophical fervour just wasn't a major force in my generation. Conversely, when I first saw email (and I'm talking BBS era 1980s) I recognised that same spirit returning and wondered what it might mean for the world.
Jacque Vallee's 1982 The Network Revolution is, in my opinion, a pretty prophetic book since he pegged exactly where the Internet was headed (massive worldwide chat) back when TCP/IP was still a new thing. Most people know Vallee only as a crazy French UFO guy but he's also one of the people who literally did help design the Net. It's worth a read.
I don't think the Internet invented anonymous discussion, but I think broadcast media like TV, radio and cinema helped suppress it since WW2. The Net is filling that vacuum, with a vengeance. That's why though it's not new, it feels new for the youngsters.
governments and corporations simply don't give in like that. Too many vested interests wanting to screw the little guy.
s/governments and corporations/people/
You can't escape the social-organisation-producing aspect of human nature by merely refusing to acknowledge the production of social organisation. Humans are social beings, we generate societies by breathing. Pretending that organic flows of power, control and deference to informal authority don't exist just papers over the structure with a bland label.
It's much more interesting to look at actually-existing online society and see how it replicates, in miniature, all the features of mainstream "big" society.
But if there is no leader or membership, then I have to ask why would Anonymous make posts stating (I'm paraphrasing) "Anonymous did not do this"
They can't. Or rather, someone claiming to be Anonymous can claim "Anonymous did not do X" but that statement would be empty of meaning.
If Anonymous is everyone who claims to be Anonymous, then Anonymous does exactly everything that anyone who claims to be Anonymous does.
Moral of the story: don't associate yourself with the name Anonymous and the doctrine that "we are legion" unless you want to be held personally responsible for everything every random griefer and troll on the Net does. Because by using that name, you are claiming responsibility.