Doesn't look cross platform to me. For example: it appears as if there is no Linux support. The iOS support is a native app which put you at the whim of the Apple approval process. I don't consider that to be cross platform. Web apps aren't subject to that process.
There is no market for linux applications - the key word being "Market". You can't make a living selling your software, unlike BSD, OSX, Windows, iOS, and the Android runtime.
Thanks for telling me what the market for my particular kind of app is.
Also, your claim that "it's subject to Apple's whims" is so bogus it's not a joke. This applies to ANY product being developed for iOS
Not for those apps developed using browser technology. Unless you can point me to evidence that shows Apple vetting what website you can and cannot view.
- your claim was that there were no cross-platform tools, which you are now trying to back up with lies by not just moving the goalposts, but by using made-up definitions that nobody else recognizes. It's really insulting.
The most cross platform platform is the browser. You pointed to a framework that does not run on Linux (which is a viable market for certain kinds of apps) and is not cross platform on iOS (without forcing you to go through their review process which many legitimate types of apps would not pass).
Yes, data are data, but I don't see how a law making it illegal for you to obtain content that has been geo-blocked would break the Internet.
The internet has no geography. There is no way the technology of the internet can tell where a person is physically located. IP addresses sure can't do that.
The issue in this case is people lying to Netflix about their physical address. That's more of a contractural civil issue, not a criminal one.
There are plenty of ways to get cross-platform w/o using a web browser. Embarcadero
Doesn't look cross platform to me. For example: it appears as if there is no Linux support. The iOS support is a native app which put you at the whim of the Apple approval process. I don't consider that to be cross platform. Web apps aren't subject to that process.
or for 2d/3d games, etc, there's Unity, which also supports iOS and Android, PS3/4, XBox360/One, Blackberry, Windows, Linux, Apple, etc.
There are 2 reason to continue to use a browse: one is "because that's what we've been doing so far," the other is "we don't want to learn how to write real code". The "we target it because everyone has a browser" argument is bogus - browsers have been used to download and install programs for ages.
Your first objection isn't always the case. I am aware of development teams who have never developed for the web before and are now starting to because it's a viable platform for rich applications.
As for writing "real code"? How condescending and patently untrue. Downloading an application is not the same thing as developing once and running on multiple platforms.
Personally I think that web technologies are the bastard child of some good ideas and some bad ones. Having said that, it's still the only way to get as cross platform as possible with a single build effort.
Your definition of "good enough" is defective, given the ongoing history of security flaws and bloat.
That's why I said "good enough" and not "perfect". Security flaws aren't limited to web browsers, though because of the nature of them serving data from other computers it's a natural vector. Bloat is fixed with more hardware:-)
You seem to have inferred that I live in the US, I don't. Data is data, and the routing on the internet is designed to be flexible - the data can be routed through any servers. Legislating against this is to break the way the internet works.
The issue is that content providers are sending data to people when they ask for it. That makes this he content provideds fault - they should stop sending data to people they are not allowed to.
For many categories of apps this isn't a possibility. You want an app that works on both a desktop with 3 large monitors and on a phone. They are two incongruent device types. You won't convince the former that what they really need is a little phone to run your app.
(Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell).
For many types of applications a browser is "good enough". The power of browsers is always increasing and features like this are a good thing (so long as they are overtly opt-in for the user).
The reality is that the only was to have a cross-platform application is for it to be web based (unless you want to reimplement it many times over for different platforms).
The app in this case is the browser. Without some kind of push from the server mechanism, web based applications need to resort to something like polling. While that works, it's less than ideal.
Geoblocking is fine if they insist on doing this. It's their content, they set the rules. But they shouldn't be silly enough to assume that your IP address somehow betrays your location. It doesn't. It can't. The IP system is not designed to indicate geographical location.
The reason this "problem" exists is because a company in NZ (as an example) can by exclusive rights to a particular programme (such as GoT). They have paid rights for this exclusive licence. They get a bit pissy if people can acquire this content without using their services. Such a thing should run foul of anti-competitive laws. A better model would be for service providers (such as SkyTV) to charge for access to the individual programmes, not for entire channels. This would work much better in a streaming world than a broadcast one. Having said that, SkyTV in NZ does often have pop-up channels for particular series.
If they want to use some form of geoblocking they should not rely on IP address as that's not a sensible nor foolproof way to tell when an internet end-point is physically located.
VPNs are perfectly legal. Proxy servers are legal. Using a different DNS server is legal. These things cannot be outlawed.
If services don't want to stream content to people in NZ, why do they continue to do so? It's up to them to not do this. They complaining that they are streaming us content - then stop! It's up to them to stop doing that.
Being forced to pay for services I may not use, or in a manner that is not proportional to my use is not ethical. There are others ways of paying for services that don't involve compulsory confiscation.
Content is content, whether it is published or not. I am arguing that people don't have an abitrary right to someone else's content.
If I make a movie and charge someone to watch it, and offer them some form of time based encryption keys and special software to allow them to watch it, have I published my content? Does someone else have a fundamental right to watch that content? I say that they don't.
If someone can find a way to record or copy it, then good for them, it's my fault for not having a strong enough protection mechanism. They are using their own property to make a copy. The only way to content producers can sop this is to technically prevent copying. That's like trying to stop water from flowing downhill.
But I do. If you sing a song, I have a fundamental right, my unalienable right to free speech, to sing that same song. Just because you sung it first doesn't mean shit. You do not have a fundamental, unalienable right to shut me up. I'm not depriving you of life, liberty or property. You have no right to use force (your own or through the government) to squash my right to free speech.
I have personal property rights, to use my property the way I see fit (as long as such use does not trespass upon the fundamental rights of another). I own a copy machine, a personal computer. If you write a book and release it, I have a right to use my copy machine to copy it. Same with a movie, or a song, or any damn thing I please. It's my copy machine, and you do not have a right to come smash it up or prevent me from using it.
You're arguing my case - what you've just said is exactly the way I see it too. Which is why I disagree with very concept of copyright. Copyright limits what people can do with their own property, and I don't believe the state should have the power or authority to place such limits.
Content is content. My point is that one person doesn't have a right to the content created by someone else unless that someone else gives them permission.
You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.
Copyright is an exchange. The government protects content, for a limited time, in exchange for the "owner" releasing it into the public domain.
Though I've moved out of the US (too 3rd world for me), and the copyright laws here mean that if it's "not available" then you can't "steal" it. So, if the Game of Thrones isn't available on DVD, or on TV/cable, then it's legal to download/upload it.
If the content producer doesn't give you permission to view the content, then you don't have a legal right to view it.
The "owner" provably loses no money on the "theft", so shouldn't have any complaint, right?
It's not theft, so there is no comparison.
I don't agree with copytight law or patent law. Copyright law prevents people from using their own property in any way their wish to. E.g. Copyright law prevents me from using my pen and my paper to write out my fabourite novel. I don't think the state should have the power to tell me what I can do with my pen and my paper. A similar argument can be made with regards to bits in a computer.
But if someone has produced content and for whatever reason they don't want me to view it, then the honourable thing for me to do is to not view it. It's not about lawm, it's about ethics.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't look cross platform to me. For example: it appears as if there is no Linux support. The iOS support is a native app which put you at the whim of the Apple approval process. I don't consider that to be cross platform. Web apps aren't subject to that process.
There is no market for linux applications - the key word being "Market". You can't make a living selling your software, unlike BSD, OSX, Windows, iOS, and the Android runtime.
Thanks for telling me what the market for my particular kind of app is.
Also, your claim that "it's subject to Apple's whims" is so bogus it's not a joke. This applies to ANY product being developed for iOS
Not for those apps developed using browser technology. Unless you can point me to evidence that shows Apple vetting what website you can and cannot view.
- your claim was that there were no cross-platform tools, which you are now trying to back up with lies by not just moving the goalposts, but by using made-up definitions that nobody else recognizes. It's really insulting.
The most cross platform platform is the browser. You pointed to a framework that does not run on Linux (which is a viable market for certain kinds of apps) and is not cross platform on iOS (without forcing you to go through their review process which many legitimate types of apps would not pass).
All of the pages to do with organised religion are hoaxes. Religion is a con.
Yes, data are data, but I don't see how a law making it illegal for you to obtain content that has been geo-blocked would break the Internet.
The internet has no geography. There is no way the technology of the internet can tell where a person is physically located. IP addresses sure can't do that.
The issue in this case is people lying to Netflix about their physical address. That's more of a contractural civil issue, not a criminal one.
There are plenty of ways to get cross-platform w/o using a web browser. Embarcadero
Doesn't look cross platform to me. For example: it appears as if there is no Linux support. The iOS support is a native app which put you at the whim of the Apple approval process. I don't consider that to be cross platform. Web apps aren't subject to that process.
or for 2d/3d games, etc, there's Unity, which also supports iOS and Android, PS3/4, XBox360/One, Blackberry, Windows, Linux, Apple, etc.
There are 2 reason to continue to use a browse: one is "because that's what we've been doing so far," the other is "we don't want to learn how to write real code". The "we target it because everyone has a browser" argument is bogus - browsers have been used to download and install programs for ages.
Your first objection isn't always the case. I am aware of development teams who have never developed for the web before and are now starting to because it's a viable platform for rich applications.
As for writing "real code"? How condescending and patently untrue. Downloading an application is not the same thing as developing once and running on multiple platforms.
Personally I think that web technologies are the bastard child of some good ideas and some bad ones. Having said that, it's still the only way to get as cross platform as possible with a single build effort.
Your definition of "good enough" is defective, given the ongoing history of security flaws and bloat.
That's why I said "good enough" and not "perfect". Security flaws aren't limited to web browsers, though because of the nature of them serving data from other computers it's a natural vector. Bloat is fixed with more hardware :-)
You seem to have inferred that I live in the US, I don't. Data is data, and the routing on the internet is designed to be flexible - the data can be routed through any servers. Legislating against this is to break the way the internet works.
The issue is that content providers are sending data to people when they ask for it. That makes this he content provideds fault - they should stop sending data to people they are not allowed to.
For many categories of apps this isn't a possibility. You want an app that works on both a desktop with 3 large monitors and on a phone. They are two incongruent device types. You won't convince the former that what they really need is a little phone to run your app.
(Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell).
For many types of applications a browser is "good enough". The power of browsers is always increasing and features like this are a good thing (so long as they are overtly opt-in for the user).
The reality is that the only was to have a cross-platform application is for it to be web based (unless you want to reimplement it many times over for different platforms).
The app in this case is the browser. Without some kind of push from the server mechanism, web based applications need to resort to something like polling. While that works, it's less than ideal.
Geoblocking is fine if they insist on doing this. It's their content, they set the rules. But they shouldn't be silly enough to assume that your IP address somehow betrays your location. It doesn't. It can't. The IP system is not designed to indicate geographical location.
The reason this "problem" exists is because a company in NZ (as an example) can by exclusive rights to a particular programme (such as GoT). They have paid rights for this exclusive licence. They get a bit pissy if people can acquire this content without using their services. Such a thing should run foul of anti-competitive laws. A better model would be for service providers (such as SkyTV) to charge for access to the individual programmes, not for entire channels. This would work much better in a streaming world than a broadcast one. Having said that, SkyTV in NZ does often have pop-up channels for particular series.
If they want to use some form of geoblocking they should not rely on IP address as that's not a sensible nor foolproof way to tell when an internet end-point is physically located.
VPNs are perfectly legal. Proxy servers are legal. Using a different DNS server is legal. These things cannot be outlawed.
If services don't want to stream content to people in NZ, why do they continue to do so? It's up to them to not do this. They complaining that they are streaming us content - then stop! It's up to them to stop doing that.
Religion is a massive con believed by the gullible. Emancipation comes when people discard beliefs in fairies, goblins and gods.
How many children died from playing with one of these things compared to the bicycle, trampoline, skateboard or surfboard?
How can the submitter get this very simple fact wrong, and how can the approver of the submission let it slip by?
Paying for the services you use is not ethical?
Being forced to pay for services I may not use, or in a manner that is not proportional to my use is not ethical. There are others ways of paying for services that don't involve compulsory confiscation.
Tax is not ethical. Legally avoiding it is not unethical.
Often the word "to" is too short.
Content is content, whether it is published or not. I am arguing that people don't have an abitrary right to someone else's content.
If I make a movie and charge someone to watch it, and offer them some form of time based encryption keys and special software to allow them to watch it, have I published my content? Does someone else have a fundamental right to watch that content? I say that they don't.
If someone can find a way to record or copy it, then good for them, it's my fault for not having a strong enough protection mechanism. They are using their own property to make a copy. The only way to content producers can sop this is to technically prevent copying. That's like trying to stop water from flowing downhill.
But I do. If you sing a song, I have a fundamental right, my unalienable right to free speech, to sing that same song. Just because you sung it first doesn't mean shit. You do not have a fundamental, unalienable right to shut me up. I'm not depriving you of life, liberty or property. You have no right to use force (your own or through the government) to squash my right to free speech.
I have personal property rights, to use my property the way I see fit (as long as such use does not trespass upon the fundamental rights of another). I own a copy machine, a personal computer. If you write a book and release it, I have a right to use my copy machine to copy it. Same with a movie, or a song, or any damn thing I please. It's my copy machine, and you do not have a right to come smash it up or prevent me from using it.
You're arguing my case - what you've just said is exactly the way I see it too. Which is why I disagree with very concept of copyright. Copyright limits what people can do with their own property, and I don't believe the state should have the power or authority to place such limits.
Content is content. My point is that one person doesn't have a right to the content created by someone else unless that someone else gives them permission.
You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.
You make it sound like you have a fundamental right to content someone else produces. You don't.
Copyright is an exchange. The government protects content, for a limited time, in exchange for the "owner" releasing it into the public domain.
Though I've moved out of the US (too 3rd world for me), and the copyright laws here mean that if it's "not available" then you can't "steal" it. So, if the Game of Thrones isn't available on DVD, or on TV/cable, then it's legal to download/upload it.
If the content producer doesn't give you permission to view the content, then you don't have a legal right to view it.
The "owner" provably loses no money on the "theft", so shouldn't have any complaint, right?
It's not theft, so there is no comparison.
I don't agree with copytight law or patent law. Copyright law prevents people from using their own property in any way their wish to. E.g. Copyright law prevents me from using my pen and my paper to write out my fabourite novel. I don't think the state should have the power to tell me what I can do with my pen and my paper. A similar argument can be made with regards to bits in a computer.
But if someone has produced content and for whatever reason they don't want me to view it, then the honourable thing for me to do is to not view it. It's not about lawm, it's about ethics.