Also its "easy" to embed watermarking for each individual printout (stupid example, much better exist, player #28 gets 28 extra spaces scattered thru his printout) As far as I know, no one has a system like that for an ipad, so you simply loan the ipad to your new best friend and while you're busy cashing your check, he's busy taking untraceable snapshots of the ipad displaying each page with his cellphone or fancier camera.
It's just as easy to do with the iPad, or any device for that matter. When you hand out the file you change the data in such a way that it's watermarked. It doesn't matter if at that point someone copies it, that's why you watermark it - to identify who it was copied from.
iOS also has per-application locking and encryption so the NFL can make their own app and secure the data on it. It's actually very easy to write a simple app to display files, it wouldn't cost very much or take that much time to implement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct? And if there aren't enough vaccines to go around, then just skip over the people who don't want them and give them to the people who do.
It's possible for a newborn, a person with a weakened immune system, or a person for whom the vaccination didn't "take" to get the disease because what a vaccine does is it triggers your immune system to build up defenses against the disease. For most people that's enough but for the very young and the immune-compromised they don't have enough of an immune response to handle a serious assault by the pathogens. By having a mostly-immunized population you minimize the chance that these individuals will encounter the pathogen in the first place.
Another major factor lies within the numbers of the pathogen in the wild. Genetic drift and mutation rates are related to population size, in general the more individuals the higher rate of mutations for the entire population. By virtually eliminating an infectious disease you reduce the generation of new strains of the pathogen, which reduces the chance that the current treatments will stop working on the people who do get infected. Through vaccination we have been able to virtually eliminate polio and the rate of mutation of the remaining amount of polio is far below what it would be if it were still widespread.
As a kid back in the 70's, we would go camping for 1 to 3 weeks. load about 40 Lbs. into a pack, park, and then hike for about 3 days, using a compass and the maps we had.
This is the solution to a lot of the problems kids have these days. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, healthy living, a respect for the modern conveniences, and so many other great lessons that are lacking in modern life.
It's not that we should be luddites and shun modern things but they are conveniences and not completely necessary for living. So many people are lost when the electricity goes out for a couple of hours, or it snows and they don't know how to handle it, or even their market is out of that item of pre-made food they absolutely can't do without. As a society we need to toughen up a bit, learn how to do basic tasks, and stop whining and complaining about missing out on a few luxuries.
This is especially important in the current economy. The more developed nations are losing out to the less developed ones partially because the less developed ones don't waste as much effort on luxuries and are more willing to get dirty and get stuff done. For example, when you don't have money for the best cuts of meat and specialty products you need to be able to butcher your own and cook stuff from scratch. The same thing goes for jobs, people need to be willing to take a lower-paying job rather than be unemployed or maybe they should even start their own businesses, it doesn't take much to start a home business and there are TONS of opportunities out there.
Going camping is not the only way to teach these sorts of coping skills but it is certainly an excellent way of doing so. And hey, it's even fun! It's a great way to have bonding moments with your family and learn skills that will carry you forward through both good times and tough times.
So the solution to finding north when you only have a digital watch is to draw an analogue watch in the sand and use that? Genius.
It's much better than NOT finding north and dying out in the wilderness, right?
I mean, yeah, optimal solution is to have a compass or other direction-finding equipment but in a pinch you have to use the best means possible and if that's drawing an analog watch then go for it.
I used separate throw-away (though functional) addresses for each website, but a single "real" one for all friends and family. Eventually, a friend's hotmail account was compromised, his address list scanned, and my "real" address was open to spam forevermore.
Yeah, you basically need to choose a balance between complete security and ease-of-use. I generally create categories of addresses and take the risk that one of the categories might get compromised. If that happens then I deal with it as best as possible by creating a new address for that category or just living with spam filtering on the old one.
I get virtually NO spam on Gmail that is not automatically detected and routed to the spam box.
Oh sure, this is just overboard paranoia-type stuff. I only do this on my "commercial" e-mail account. I have a separate e-mail account that is for friends and family where I don't bother with any of these kinds of tricks.
I've used it elsewhere but integrated into a client like hotmail is a good idea. Besides, I already use hotmail for my spam address. Now Google, steal this please.
Gmail already has had this feature for a long time. it's called plus-addressing. You take your e-mail address, put a plus sign at the end of it and then add a phrase. For example:
All of these will get sent to foobar@google.com and you can create a filter on each term (eg: filter on +slashdot) to send them into their own mailbox.
My old Dakota had a faulty gauge. Never once did it cause me to run out of gas. That's what the trip odometer is for.
Yeah, this was when I first started to drive and I hadn't learned that lesson yet. After that I figured out to watch the odometer in addition to the fuel gauge.
It works pretty well although it's not too accurate if you change your driving habits for some reason. Still, it's a good way to know when you're getting close to needing fuel. I also keep a record of fuel input and miles driven to keep an eye on fuel efficiency, if it changes too much it's a good indicator of when you need to get your car checked out.
So you rely on OnStar in the same way others rely on GPS? Letting yourself run out of gas in West Texas is kind of a dumb move, but I guess as long as you have that handy button there's nothing to worry about, right?
Gas sensors and gauges have been known to fail, although they are much better than they used to be. I once had a gauge that failed in such a way that it still looked like it worked (it was still moving) but the tank had far less gasoline in it than the gauge showed.
Fortunately for me it was good weather, I was no more than a half mile from a gas station, and I had an emergency container. If I had been somewhere remote I might have been in serious trouble, this was way before OnStar or other such safety nets.
Les doesn't have that luxury; he can't even contact help. If he doesn't show up in the seven days, they go look for him.
Les isn't that crazy, he's stated several times that he does take a locater device with him but it's only used in an extreme emergency. However the rest of it is true. He doesn't have anyone with him and he does everything on his own - including the multi-angle and long-distance shots.
There have been quite a few "shock factor" things that Bear Grylls has done that will probably get you killed if you did them out in the wilderness. For example, that whole thing about putting urine up your rectum is a horrible idea. The amount of water you could absorb that way would be negligible and you risk perforating the mucosa of the rectal wall and/or introducing infection.
Perhaps Bear Grylls really does know something about survival techniques but he throws in so many crazy ideas that it's tough to separate what's sensible from what's radical. Les Stroud walks you through the concepts and presents you with solid ideas for survival that have the best chance for getting you out alive, even if they aren't flashy.
PC Pro is wrong anyways. For years most people used the word "program" or "executable" to describe software. On the Macintosh side they were using the word "application" to describe software. With Mac OS X applications started to have the extension ".app" on them. From there it quickly became common to use the shortened term "app" instead of "application". There have also been other segments of the computer industry that used similar terms.
It's hardly a new term, it's been used for years. However, recently it came into a broader use with the iPhone since that broke some of the barriers between Windows users and Mac OS users.
Is the term getting abused now? It's debatable. A relevant definition for "application" is "a type of job or problem that lends itself to processing or solution by computer". A "computer application" is the program that does that job and "app" is a shortened form of the term. Certainly a website that does the job can also said to be an "app".
So like you said, words and meanings change. People shouldn't get too uptight when a word changes meaning slightly.
I used to be like you, I used to worship the ground that Steve walked on, but face reality. Apple is Microsoft.
You're making quite a bad assumption there. Just because I don't have a problem with one policy, that doesn't make me a Steve Jobs worshiper.
So lemme get this straight, if I have an application that has content(such as pizzas! Read the fine print, it actually includes physical items) that Apple pays nothing for, doesn't host, doesn't create etc, then I'm still required to offer them a cut?
This is a common thing in the retail world. Take a look at Amazon, with their Amazon Seller Central Marketplace they sell items that other people create, handle, and ship without any involvement by Amazon other than advertisement and billing. Amazon takes a cut for this service and it all works out. Ebay also has this model, as well as many other services. Apple is just doing the same, the only thing they are saying is that an app has to offer Apple's store as one way of buying products - not the only way.
If you think that's evil then basically you think a large chunk of the retail world is evil. Hey, maybe it is! The reality is that's the way it all works right now and you disagree with it you really should be out shouting at all the companies that have a merchant-type program, not just Apple in this one situation.
Also, how is Apple demanding a 30% cut for doing absofuckinglutely nothing a "feature".
They aren't demanding a 30% cut for doing nothing. They are "demanding" that apps which have purchasable content also provide a way to buy it using your iTunes App Store account. It's more choice, you can buy the stuff through the iTunes App Store in-app purchase mechanism OR through whatever other way the developer of the app wants to provide.
IF you chose to use your app store account then Apple gets 30%, if you use the other methods then they don't get 30%. It's just another alternative for the user. Sure, Apple is doing this in hopes that they'll get a piece of the action but they aren't forcing anyone to only use the App Store in-app purchase mechanism.
What you're seeing here is the typical Slashdot way of taking something that really is a non-issue and twisting it to seem more evil than it really is. If Apple was saying "you can only get app content in a way that we get a huge cut", then yeah I'd be right with the rest of the guys with the torches and pitchforks. Maybe they'll do this some day but for now all they are doing is giving users another way of buying content.
I know the reason I bought an iPad over a Kindle DX was the fact that I could use the Kindle as well as other apps. I think that Apple should refund my purchase completely since they are essentially withdrawing a feature that the device had when I bought it.
What feature are they withdrawing? No one from Apple ever said they were withdrawing the Kindle app. Even if they did it would likely still remain on your device, it just wouldn't be available in the App Store for new people to purchase. That's been the way that other pulled apps have worked.
If you read the article you'll see that all Apple has said is that if an app has purchasable content it must also be purchasable through the in-app App Store. This is a far cry from withdrawing any features, in fact it's adding a feature: the ability to easily buy stuff with the account you set up when you bought the phone. It's up to you to decide to use or not use that added feature.
Apple forces all apps to go through their app store exclusively. Implying that the Kindle app is kindly hosted there by the good graces of Apple is sophistry at its best.
I don't imply that at all. There are many reasons for Apple to make all the apps to be purchased through the App Store: security, stability, brand image, and yes, a cut of the action. App developers understand this and they still sell items through the App Store because they often get richly paid for in return for living under Apple's rules.
Some developers have found a way to get around parts of the App Store and this involves giving away the app for free. The fact is that hosting and distribution does cost Apple money and they are seeking to make this money back and maybe even turn a profit. This isn't evil, this is how corporations work.
If developers don't like it then they'll stop selling stuff through the App Store. Somehow I don't think many developers will do that.
The big problem with this.. Apple gets their 30% cut from apps because they handle the store, transaction and delivery/updating/maintenance for iOS apps. Kindle purchases don't rely on or require Apple infrastructure, the app is mainly a means to a purchasing end.
Sure they rely on the infrastructure. The Kindle app that you use to purchase and view the content is free but it's advertised through the iTunes App Store, hosted on the servers, and delivered using the bandwidth. It costs Apple real money to provide a free service to Amazon and now Apple is looking to get some of that money back.
There are a few ways that Apple could do this, they could charge developers to put apps up in the store, they could force developers to charge for all apps, or they could try to get a cut of what the developer is making on the content. No matter what happens the end result is that app developers can't keep on getting a free ride any more, somehow Apple needs to get paid for providing them a service.
Free apps and in-app purchases are great because they allow a good deal of flexibility and try-before-you-buy capabilities, however there does need to be rules in place to prevent this flexibility from being used to avoid paying Apple for the use of their infrastructure.
This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?
Can they? Probably, people have noted the existence of files that seem to support remote app removal from a iOS device. However, to this date I can't find any evidence that it's been used.
Will they? I doubt it. It looks like Apple's policy is to stop the app from being sold in the app store but if you already have it installed then they leave it alone. It doesn't appear like they'd change away from this policy any time soon, although the possibility is certainly there.
A side nit to pick, it also doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is when you are arguing for the existence of something and using evidence that requires the thing's existence in the first place. Example from the linked website:
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference." Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference." Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?" Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
I know, I know, I'm probably being too pedantic but I figure that people would like to know how to use a saying properly. I know that I've been glad to have people do this for me many times in the past!
What happens if Amazon or B&N doesn't yield? Somehow the Kindle or Nook app gets "rescinded", and stops working when next their iphone or ipad updates.
The only apps that have ever been removed were ones that were deceptive or illegal in the first place. I've done quite a bit of searching and I can't find any cases where Apple removed an app from the App Store and also forced its removal from a device. What usually happens is that people who already have the app on their devices can still use it even though it's no longer available in the App Store.
We can speculate all we want about how it might happen some day but until that day happens it's all FUD.
The truth is that the iPad/iPhone is a huge market in terms of the dollars that people are willing to spend on it. Amazon and Barnes & Noble are almost certainly going to want to be a part of that market even if they have to share some of their profits with Apple. I don't see these apps leaving the iTunes App Store anytime soon.
So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.
This is a logical extension of existing rules.
Since you can have free apps in the app store what was happening was a developer would make their app free and then sell content (game levels, sequels to the game, in-game items) outside of the app store, circumventing the payment to Apple. So now Apple is advertising the app, hosting the app, and using their bandwidth to provide it to the user but not getting anything in exchange. Apple eventually changed the rules and required that payments for new functionality go through the app store in order to close this loophole.
The same thing was done for stuff like magazine subscriptions, comics, music, and other non-app content. Now it's coming for books.
The publishers of ebooks now have several choices if they want their products on the iPhone/iPad:
provide the books for free (both Apple and the publisher lose out)
provide the reader functionality through a web interface instead of an app (No hosting or distribution costs for Apple, more complex for the user so the publisher will probably sell less)
sell the books through the app store using the in-app purchase system (Apple gets a cut and the publisher gets paid)
I suppose that Apple could have chosen to charge developers hosting and distribution fees for all apps, free or paid, but that would make it very difficult for smaller developers to put products in the iTunes App Store. In the end nearly all stores need to charge for products somehow and a 30% cut is actually pretty fair in the retail world. Most publishers would be just fine with that since the iPhone/iPad is a pretty large market of people who spend money on content.
It's an ethically interesting question. If the solution is as simple as building multi-story meat growing labs to save space, what happens if it is found out that eating this stuff gives you some kind of nano-enhanced synthetic cancer or something?
You could say this sort of thing about nearly everything. What if sneezing might cause you to have a embolism that can kill you? What if farm-grown organic vegetables might contain deadly parasites? What if God might get angry at you for not eating what he has commanded you to eat and so he smites you down?
Of course we should make sure that any new food source is as safe as we can reasonably make it, that's a given. Let's debate on real, known, present issues rather than introducing horror scenarios just to try to sway opinion through fear-mongering.
And I'm sure in the societies where a large portion of society is vegetarian they're all lying and secretly sneak in meat, right?
There's a big difference here.
First of all, your body adapts somewhat to your diet but a lot of it is fixed in your youth. A lot of your enzymatic processes are adapted to how you eat when you are developing, even back in the womb. Your body configures itself to best extract the nutrition that you are given as you grow up. Now you can develop some of this as an adult but it's slower, takes longer, not as efficient, and you may not even reach the same level as someone brought up on this sort of diet.
Secondly, these cultures have, generally, been living on these diets for generations. They grow certain foods, process them in certain ways, have microorganisms with which they have formed symbiotic relationships, and so on. We can duplicate these to some extent but it's very difficult to get to the same level of symbiosis in our lives that these cultures have over generations.
Thirdly, a lot of these populations have evolved to better handle this sort of diet. Yes, there hasn't been an extreme amount of specialization to the point where they are a different species or anything but there are still huge differences in how certain populations handle foods. Take a look at lactose intolerance, generally northern europeans handle milk easily but large parts of the world can barely tolerate it due to the the genetics of the production of the enzyme lactase.
The same thing happens with many different food types. Some people are genetically more able to handle a high-vegetable, low-meat diet than others. There are tons of interactions between enzymes, nutrient extraction, internal vitamin production, glucose tolerance, stomach acidity, and other factors.
That's why some people can do pretty well on a vegan diet and others are practically killing themselves. As in most things, moderation is the key. Nearly everyone can thrive on a diet which is mostly vegetables and which includes a modicum of animal products. It's when we swing wildly in the direction of too much or too little of one or the other that we are engaging in a crapshoot. Maybe the conditions are right for you to be a herbivore or carnivore but chances are you really need to be an omnivore.
The key to any diet is to periodically evaluate how you are doing on it. Occasionally try some changes for a while and see how it works out. Keep a record of stuff like energy levels, weight, any unusual sicknesses or conditions, amount of exercise. Once in a while do a high-level review and see if any major swings jump out at you. Most of all, try to distance yourself emotionally from the data, maybe have your doctor do the review for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Also its "easy" to embed watermarking for each individual printout (stupid example, much better exist, player #28 gets 28 extra spaces scattered thru his printout) As far as I know, no one has a system like that for an ipad, so you simply loan the ipad to your new best friend and while you're busy cashing your check, he's busy taking untraceable snapshots of the ipad displaying each page with his cellphone or fancier camera.
It's just as easy to do with the iPad, or any device for that matter. When you hand out the file you change the data in such a way that it's watermarked. It doesn't matter if at that point someone copies it, that's why you watermark it - to identify who it was copied from.
iOS also has per-application locking and encryption so the NFL can make their own app and secure the data on it. It's actually very easy to write a simple app to display files, it wouldn't cost very much or take that much time to implement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if everybody get a chance to get vaccines, then the only people who are at risk because of not wanting vaccines are the people who have chosen it for themselves, correct? And if there aren't enough vaccines to go around, then just skip over the people who don't want them and give them to the people who do.
It's possible for a newborn, a person with a weakened immune system, or a person for whom the vaccination didn't "take" to get the disease because what a vaccine does is it triggers your immune system to build up defenses against the disease. For most people that's enough but for the very young and the immune-compromised they don't have enough of an immune response to handle a serious assault by the pathogens. By having a mostly-immunized population you minimize the chance that these individuals will encounter the pathogen in the first place.
Another major factor lies within the numbers of the pathogen in the wild. Genetic drift and mutation rates are related to population size, in general the more individuals the higher rate of mutations for the entire population. By virtually eliminating an infectious disease you reduce the generation of new strains of the pathogen, which reduces the chance that the current treatments will stop working on the people who do get infected. Through vaccination we have been able to virtually eliminate polio and the rate of mutation of the remaining amount of polio is far below what it would be if it were still widespread.
As a kid back in the 70's, we would go camping for 1 to 3 weeks. load about 40 Lbs. into a pack, park, and then hike for about 3 days, using a compass and the maps we had.
This is the solution to a lot of the problems kids have these days. It teaches responsibility, self-reliance, healthy living, a respect for the modern conveniences, and so many other great lessons that are lacking in modern life.
It's not that we should be luddites and shun modern things but they are conveniences and not completely necessary for living. So many people are lost when the electricity goes out for a couple of hours, or it snows and they don't know how to handle it, or even their market is out of that item of pre-made food they absolutely can't do without. As a society we need to toughen up a bit, learn how to do basic tasks, and stop whining and complaining about missing out on a few luxuries.
This is especially important in the current economy. The more developed nations are losing out to the less developed ones partially because the less developed ones don't waste as much effort on luxuries and are more willing to get dirty and get stuff done. For example, when you don't have money for the best cuts of meat and specialty products you need to be able to butcher your own and cook stuff from scratch. The same thing goes for jobs, people need to be willing to take a lower-paying job rather than be unemployed or maybe they should even start their own businesses, it doesn't take much to start a home business and there are TONS of opportunities out there.
Going camping is not the only way to teach these sorts of coping skills but it is certainly an excellent way of doing so. And hey, it's even fun! It's a great way to have bonding moments with your family and learn skills that will carry you forward through both good times and tough times.
So the solution to finding north when you only have a digital watch is to draw an analogue watch in the sand and use that? Genius.
It's much better than NOT finding north and dying out in the wilderness, right?
I mean, yeah, optimal solution is to have a compass or other direction-finding equipment but in a pinch you have to use the best means possible and if that's drawing an analog watch then go for it.
Fortunately for me it was good weather, I was no more than a half mile from a gas station, and I had an emergency container.
You sure know how to ruin a good story.
Yeah it's terrible that I wasn't deep in the desert and facing a horrendous death...
I used separate throw-away (though functional) addresses for each website, but a single "real" one for all friends and family. Eventually, a friend's hotmail account was compromised, his address list scanned, and my "real" address was open to spam forevermore.
Yeah, you basically need to choose a balance between complete security and ease-of-use. I generally create categories of addresses and take the risk that one of the categories might get compromised. If that happens then I deal with it as best as possible by creating a new address for that category or just living with spam filtering on the old one.
I get virtually NO spam on Gmail that is not automatically detected and routed to the spam box.
Oh sure, this is just overboard paranoia-type stuff. I only do this on my "commercial" e-mail account. I have a separate e-mail account that is for friends and family where I don't bother with any of these kinds of tricks.
I didn't say it was perfect, just that GMail had a version of throwaway email for a while now!
If Hotmail one-ups Google then that's all the better for the users because that's how services get better, through competition.
And as soon as I see your email in this format, I strip away the "+" part and have your original address which I can merrily spam.
Spam away on it, the original, no "+" address is to a spam mailbox.
Only addresses with the "+" part go to actual mailboxes that I read. I never hand out the bare address to anyone.
I've used it elsewhere but integrated into a client like hotmail is a good idea. Besides, I already use hotmail for my spam address. Now Google, steal this please.
Gmail already has had this feature for a long time. it's called plus-addressing. You take your e-mail address, put a plus sign at the end of it and then add a phrase. For example:
All of these will get sent to foobar@google.com and you can create a filter on each term (eg: filter on +slashdot) to send them into their own mailbox.
My old Dakota had a faulty gauge. Never once did it cause me to run out of gas. That's what the trip odometer is for.
Yeah, this was when I first started to drive and I hadn't learned that lesson yet. After that I figured out to watch the odometer in addition to the fuel gauge.
It works pretty well although it's not too accurate if you change your driving habits for some reason. Still, it's a good way to know when you're getting close to needing fuel. I also keep a record of fuel input and miles driven to keep an eye on fuel efficiency, if it changes too much it's a good indicator of when you need to get your car checked out.
So you rely on OnStar in the same way others rely on GPS? Letting yourself run out of gas in West Texas is kind of a dumb move, but I guess as long as you have that handy button there's nothing to worry about, right?
Gas sensors and gauges have been known to fail, although they are much better than they used to be. I once had a gauge that failed in such a way that it still looked like it worked (it was still moving) but the tank had far less gasoline in it than the gauge showed.
Fortunately for me it was good weather, I was no more than a half mile from a gas station, and I had an emergency container. If I had been somewhere remote I might have been in serious trouble, this was way before OnStar or other such safety nets.
Squints at digital readout on watch. "This wasn't covered in my Boy Scout manual. Where's the damn hour hand?"
All you need is the time, having an hour hand is just a shortcut.
Here's how to do it with a digital watch:
Finding The North
Les doesn't have that luxury; he can't even contact help. If he doesn't show up in the seven days, they go look for him.
Les isn't that crazy, he's stated several times that he does take a locater device with him but it's only used in an extreme emergency. However the rest of it is true. He doesn't have anyone with him and he does everything on his own - including the multi-angle and long-distance shots.
There have been quite a few "shock factor" things that Bear Grylls has done that will probably get you killed if you did them out in the wilderness. For example, that whole thing about putting urine up your rectum is a horrible idea. The amount of water you could absorb that way would be negligible and you risk perforating the mucosa of the rectal wall and/or introducing infection.
Perhaps Bear Grylls really does know something about survival techniques but he throws in so many crazy ideas that it's tough to separate what's sensible from what's radical. Les Stroud walks you through the concepts and presents you with solid ideas for survival that have the best chance for getting you out alive, even if they aren't flashy.
Words change, things change. Move on.
PC Pro is wrong anyways. For years most people used the word "program" or "executable" to describe software. On the Macintosh side they were using the word "application" to describe software. With Mac OS X applications started to have the extension ".app" on them. From there it quickly became common to use the shortened term "app" instead of "application". There have also been other segments of the computer industry that used similar terms.
It's hardly a new term, it's been used for years. However, recently it came into a broader use with the iPhone since that broke some of the barriers between Windows users and Mac OS users.
Is the term getting abused now? It's debatable. A relevant definition for "application" is "a type of job or problem that lends itself to processing or solution by computer". A "computer application" is the program that does that job and "app" is a shortened form of the term. Certainly a website that does the job can also said to be an "app".
So like you said, words and meanings change. People shouldn't get too uptight when a word changes meaning slightly.
I used to be like you, I used to worship the ground that Steve walked on, but face reality. Apple is Microsoft.
You're making quite a bad assumption there. Just because I don't have a problem with one policy, that doesn't make me a Steve Jobs worshiper.
So lemme get this straight, if I have an application that has content(such as pizzas! Read the fine print, it actually includes physical items) that Apple pays nothing for, doesn't host, doesn't create etc, then I'm still required to offer them a cut?
This is a common thing in the retail world. Take a look at Amazon, with their Amazon Seller Central Marketplace they sell items that other people create, handle, and ship without any involvement by Amazon other than advertisement and billing. Amazon takes a cut for this service and it all works out. Ebay also has this model, as well as many other services. Apple is just doing the same, the only thing they are saying is that an app has to offer Apple's store as one way of buying products - not the only way.
If you think that's evil then basically you think a large chunk of the retail world is evil. Hey, maybe it is! The reality is that's the way it all works right now and you disagree with it you really should be out shouting at all the companies that have a merchant-type program, not just Apple in this one situation.
Also, how is Apple demanding a 30% cut for doing absofuckinglutely nothing a "feature".
They aren't demanding a 30% cut for doing nothing. They are "demanding" that apps which have purchasable content also provide a way to buy it using your iTunes App Store account. It's more choice, you can buy the stuff through the iTunes App Store in-app purchase mechanism OR through whatever other way the developer of the app wants to provide.
IF you chose to use your app store account then Apple gets 30%, if you use the other methods then they don't get 30%. It's just another alternative for the user. Sure, Apple is doing this in hopes that they'll get a piece of the action but they aren't forcing anyone to only use the App Store in-app purchase mechanism.
What you're seeing here is the typical Slashdot way of taking something that really is a non-issue and twisting it to seem more evil than it really is. If Apple was saying "you can only get app content in a way that we get a huge cut", then yeah I'd be right with the rest of the guys with the torches and pitchforks. Maybe they'll do this some day but for now all they are doing is giving users another way of buying content.
I know the reason I bought an iPad over a Kindle DX was the fact that I could use the Kindle as well as other apps. I think that Apple should refund my purchase completely since they are essentially withdrawing a feature that the device had when I bought it.
What feature are they withdrawing? No one from Apple ever said they were withdrawing the Kindle app. Even if they did it would likely still remain on your device, it just wouldn't be available in the App Store for new people to purchase. That's been the way that other pulled apps have worked.
If you read the article you'll see that all Apple has said is that if an app has purchasable content it must also be purchasable through the in-app App Store. This is a far cry from withdrawing any features, in fact it's adding a feature: the ability to easily buy stuff with the account you set up when you bought the phone. It's up to you to decide to use or not use that added feature.
Apple forces all apps to go through their app store exclusively. Implying that the Kindle app is kindly hosted there by the good graces of Apple is sophistry at its best.
I don't imply that at all. There are many reasons for Apple to make all the apps to be purchased through the App Store: security, stability, brand image, and yes, a cut of the action. App developers understand this and they still sell items through the App Store because they often get richly paid for in return for living under Apple's rules.
Some developers have found a way to get around parts of the App Store and this involves giving away the app for free. The fact is that hosting and distribution does cost Apple money and they are seeking to make this money back and maybe even turn a profit. This isn't evil, this is how corporations work.
If developers don't like it then they'll stop selling stuff through the App Store. Somehow I don't think many developers will do that.
The big problem with this.. Apple gets their 30% cut from apps because they handle the store, transaction and delivery/updating/maintenance for iOS apps. Kindle purchases don't rely on or require Apple infrastructure, the app is mainly a means to a purchasing end.
Sure they rely on the infrastructure. The Kindle app that you use to purchase and view the content is free but it's advertised through the iTunes App Store, hosted on the servers, and delivered using the bandwidth. It costs Apple real money to provide a free service to Amazon and now Apple is looking to get some of that money back.
There are a few ways that Apple could do this, they could charge developers to put apps up in the store, they could force developers to charge for all apps, or they could try to get a cut of what the developer is making on the content. No matter what happens the end result is that app developers can't keep on getting a free ride any more, somehow Apple needs to get paid for providing them a service.
Free apps and in-app purchases are great because they allow a good deal of flexibility and try-before-you-buy capabilities, however there does need to be rules in place to prevent this flexibility from being used to avoid paying Apple for the use of their infrastructure.
This begs the question: If Amazon refuses, can/will Apple remote uninstall the already installed Kindle apps on various devices?
Can they? Probably, people have noted the existence of files that seem to support remote app removal from a iOS device. However, to this date I can't find any evidence that it's been used.
Will they? I doubt it. It looks like Apple's policy is to stop the app from being sold in the app store but if you already have it installed then they leave it alone. It doesn't appear like they'd change away from this policy any time soon, although the possibility is certainly there.
A side nit to pick, it also doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is when you are arguing for the existence of something and using evidence that requires the thing's existence in the first place. Example from the linked website:
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
I know, I know, I'm probably being too pedantic but I figure that people would like to know how to use a saying properly. I know that I've been glad to have people do this for me many times in the past!
What happens if Amazon or B&N doesn't yield? Somehow the Kindle or Nook app gets "rescinded", and stops working when next their iphone or ipad updates.
The only apps that have ever been removed were ones that were deceptive or illegal in the first place. I've done quite a bit of searching and I can't find any cases where Apple removed an app from the App Store and also forced its removal from a device. What usually happens is that people who already have the app on their devices can still use it even though it's no longer available in the App Store.
We can speculate all we want about how it might happen some day but until that day happens it's all FUD.
The truth is that the iPad/iPhone is a huge market in terms of the dollars that people are willing to spend on it. Amazon and Barnes & Noble are almost certainly going to want to be a part of that market even if they have to share some of their profits with Apple. I don't see these apps leaving the iTunes App Store anytime soon.
So now, not only do sellers need to give (most) of the money to publishers, they now have to give another 30% to Apple. Since I know at least Amazon sells really close to their own cost (or even less, in some cases), this would mean Amazon either needs to take a loss on eBooks sold on Apple's platform, or else raise prices.
This is a logical extension of existing rules.
Since you can have free apps in the app store what was happening was a developer would make their app free and then sell content (game levels, sequels to the game, in-game items) outside of the app store, circumventing the payment to Apple. So now Apple is advertising the app, hosting the app, and using their bandwidth to provide it to the user but not getting anything in exchange. Apple eventually changed the rules and required that payments for new functionality go through the app store in order to close this loophole.
The same thing was done for stuff like magazine subscriptions, comics, music, and other non-app content. Now it's coming for books.
The publishers of ebooks now have several choices if they want their products on the iPhone/iPad:
I suppose that Apple could have chosen to charge developers hosting and distribution fees for all apps, free or paid, but that would make it very difficult for smaller developers to put products in the iTunes App Store. In the end nearly all stores need to charge for products somehow and a 30% cut is actually pretty fair in the retail world. Most publishers would be just fine with that since the iPhone/iPad is a pretty large market of people who spend money on content.
It's an ethically interesting question. If the solution is as simple as building multi-story meat growing labs to save space, what happens if it is found out that eating this stuff gives you some kind of nano-enhanced synthetic cancer or something?
This is a textbook red herring argument, the appeal to fear.
You could say this sort of thing about nearly everything. What if sneezing might cause you to have a embolism that can kill you? What if farm-grown organic vegetables might contain deadly parasites? What if God might get angry at you for not eating what he has commanded you to eat and so he smites you down?
Of course we should make sure that any new food source is as safe as we can reasonably make it, that's a given. Let's debate on real, known, present issues rather than introducing horror scenarios just to try to sway opinion through fear-mongering.
And I'm sure in the societies where a large portion of society is vegetarian they're all lying and secretly sneak in meat, right?
There's a big difference here.
First of all, your body adapts somewhat to your diet but a lot of it is fixed in your youth. A lot of your enzymatic processes are adapted to how you eat when you are developing, even back in the womb. Your body configures itself to best extract the nutrition that you are given as you grow up. Now you can develop some of this as an adult but it's slower, takes longer, not as efficient, and you may not even reach the same level as someone brought up on this sort of diet.
Secondly, these cultures have, generally, been living on these diets for generations. They grow certain foods, process them in certain ways, have microorganisms with which they have formed symbiotic relationships, and so on. We can duplicate these to some extent but it's very difficult to get to the same level of symbiosis in our lives that these cultures have over generations.
Thirdly, a lot of these populations have evolved to better handle this sort of diet. Yes, there hasn't been an extreme amount of specialization to the point where they are a different species or anything but there are still huge differences in how certain populations handle foods. Take a look at lactose intolerance, generally northern europeans handle milk easily but large parts of the world can barely tolerate it due to the the genetics of the production of the enzyme lactase.
The same thing happens with many different food types. Some people are genetically more able to handle a high-vegetable, low-meat diet than others. There are tons of interactions between enzymes, nutrient extraction, internal vitamin production, glucose tolerance, stomach acidity, and other factors.
That's why some people can do pretty well on a vegan diet and others are practically killing themselves. As in most things, moderation is the key. Nearly everyone can thrive on a diet which is mostly vegetables and which includes a modicum of animal products. It's when we swing wildly in the direction of too much or too little of one or the other that we are engaging in a crapshoot. Maybe the conditions are right for you to be a herbivore or carnivore but chances are you really need to be an omnivore.
The key to any diet is to periodically evaluate how you are doing on it. Occasionally try some changes for a while and see how it works out. Keep a record of stuff like energy levels, weight, any unusual sicknesses or conditions, amount of exercise. Once in a while do a high-level review and see if any major swings jump out at you. Most of all, try to distance yourself emotionally from the data, maybe have your doctor do the review for you.