From a developer standpoint, the iPhone is actually damn good.
You and I have very different definitions of 'damn good.'
The dev kit is $0, and a signing key/registration is $100. So the barrier to entry is very VERY low.
And an Intel based Mac.... raises that barrier to entry just a wee bit.
And the app store is a godsend. A distribution system where the distributor gets a flat 30% and thats it? And already has a micropayment infrastructure? Thats unheard-of nice.
If you can make a $10 app that sells to just 10,000 people, thats $70K gross revenue to you as a small developer.
"That's it" he says. In that scenario, Apple is charging you almost twice what the federal government gets in taxes ($17,500 in taxes for $70,000 income). $30,000 is greater than the annual income of 1 in 3 households in the US. If they are sooooo confident that this is a great deal for developers, why don't they allow developers any other choice? [That's a rhetorical question.]
No, no she can't.
Aside from the point that you can only counter-sue if you're actually being sued (she's being suspended, not sued) there's a variety of flaws in that argument, the most blatant of which is the fact that it's a university system -- which means the university gets to set the acceptable use policy.
You seem to think it's a private system and the first amendment is null and void. It's called Michigan State University for a reason. It isn't the university's system. It's the taxpayers system. She'll hand them their ass in court if the matter goes there.
So why do so many of us nowadays seem to equate spam with only 'unsolicited commercial e-mail'? In my mind, spam is any piece of unwanted bulk mail, whether it is 'commercial' in nature or not.
"I didn't want to read that. You just spammed me." Wow... we've certainly come a long way from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No one is interested in reading positive news like the fact the vaccine isn't actually harmful so there's no money in printing it.
Same goes for other sciency things in the media. Bad news sells. In this case, the bad news is interfering with the scientists' profits, so you hear bellyaching. But this can be equally bad, if not worse, in an opposite way. In the case of something like global warming, the bad news sells the science too. As a result, you get ridiculously wild exaggerations in the media and few people are motivated to correct them.
Now we have a chance to make this a reality, and you guys are shooting it down?
You work for the university, but the/.'ers are shooting it down? Perhaps you meant to ask why we don't like it. I'll give you my reason:
Copyright infringement is illegal. If you are aware of it, you should block it. Period. Otherwise, you are a party to it and contributing to a crime. The RIAA does not represent all interested parties and they certainly will not be sharing the wealth. Next you'll be telling me it's okay to ignore the GPL because you send Eric Raymond a little extra cash each month. I don't care if Christ himself returns to put his stamp of approval on the plan, you're breaking the law if you do it. Don't like it? Change copyright law so that P2P is treated for what it really is: Free advertising. Otherwise, YOU are the criminal.
hypocritical ignoramuses like yourself
Your hypocrisy
You're so emotionally invested in your position
your skeptical masturbatory fantasies
your general ignorance
Wow... truth hurts, huh?
I already listed a number of specific errors with Monckton's science, which you chose to ignore in favor of making false comparisons to religious cults.
I've learned over the years it is completely impossible to discuss science with the cult. It's like pointing out that virgin births and resurrection are highly improbably to someone who reads the Bible as literal truth.
Take your very first point for instance: CO2 time lags. It's absolutely irrational to assume that increased concentrations of CO2 800 yrs after the fact are the cause of warming rather than a consequence of it.
Furthermore, you engage in a classic logical fallacy: correlation equals causation. By taking a vanishingly small slice of Earth's geologic history, lining up CO2 and temp and then claiming that it is proof that CO2 invariably causes warming, the cult demonstrates it doesn't understand how real science works. The cult then proceeds to call a 100ppm rise to 370ppm a planetary emergency. You place all your faith in these cult leaders and their computer models, yet computer models are completely incapable of explaining an ice age with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 4000ppm. In fact, as Monckton pointed out, all you need to do is look a little further back into history and the correlation between CO2 and temperature falls apart completely.
Probably because that's all you've got.
Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than point out the flaws in your logic. As you've already demonstrated, you'll just fall back to your irrational religion and name calling, therefore doing so is quite pointless.
Monckton is in no way, shape, or form part of the real debate over climate sensitivity.
He was invited to participate, and then they slapped a big red label on his submission saying his work was incorrect. Classic hit job.
It would be a great exercise to give to students and have them see how many errors they can find.
You mean the APS didn't back up their big red lettering with facts to dispute Monckton? How could that be? They dismissed his work without providing anything concrete that would cast doubt on its credibility? Noooo... really? That wouldn't be, like, the whole point I was making, now would it?
You don't need silly facts to prove Monckton wrong, you're a believer. Reproduce experiments? Nah, we'll just give his paper to some acolytes... er, students, and see how much rhetoric we can produce.
In short, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with the public debate.
I'm sure you say that to all the people who disagree with you. Real science seeks answers. You aren't seeking anything. Your mind is already made up. You believe in global warming. For you, there's no need to question cult leader James Hansen's results.
Except the browser still don't render exactly the same, even if the engines are the same. Try comparing Konqueror, Chrome, Safari for OS X, and Safari for Windows. You'll find differences between all of them even though they use the same rendering engine.
Of course they have differences. Windows has different ui elements than a Mac. The <select> element is going to use what's native. Naturally fonts are going to be different on Windows 96dpi vs Macs 72dpi. The gamma on the PC monitor is going to make color look different too. What I care about is whether or not the thing supports CSS opacity or:nth-child(). I couldn't care less if the presentation isn't pixel perfect. Read The Dao of Web Design and realize you're swimming upstream if you're trying to achieve pixel perfection. What really matters is using the standards in the way they were intended to be used. It makes your site better optimized for search engines, more accessible, and available on more devices all at once. Let go of the idea that you're going to control what the user sees. The user controls what the user sees. This should be evident by the discussion of ad blocks, swf filtering, popup blockers, etc.
Pretty much like most of the climate skeptics. There is legitimate scientific debate about, say, whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to the lower or the upper end of the IPCC range. But you hardly ever see any of the real debate.
American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity.
...
But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.
Question the methodology of the one paper that ALL of the IPCC's global warming theory is based upon... and be shouted down.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
Or at the very least, manslaughter. It's definitely very, very wrong.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
In this case, the prosecution used tortured logic and applied an almost entirely unrelated law. Interpreting that law in this way makes millions of otherwise innocent people into criminals. That is not justice.
Justice based on how the Jury feels is anarchy. It's the definition of mob rule. You either have very articulate laws that spell out when and where something is wrong/right, or you end up with total chaos.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” — Benjamin Franklin [Cite]
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Making ridiculous strawman arguments only makes you look like hyperventilating internet flamebait. The "new hotness" in internet scams is to impersonate your Facebook friends for fun and profit. It's insidiously clever social engineering and easily accomplished. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed by real legislation, not grandstanding DAs convicting someone in isolated cases on odd technicalities that will affect millions of otherwise innocent people.
Don't start replies with Uh. It's combative and makes you look like a dink.
Just to make sure I have this right, do you mean to imply that telling people how they should express themselves is not combative and does not make you look like a "dink"? Or is this more of an "it's okay when I do it" situation?
Something that can't be unethical or ethical is probably going to be more ethical than something that is unethical. In other words, if robots are neutral and humans are either evil or good, neutral is more good than evil.
You just said it can't be ethical, so how can it be more ethical? You consider neutral to be a one dimensional midpoint on a line between good and evil... half a glass of water, so to speak. This is a false dilemma.
Logically speaking, neutral is neither good nor evil so it cannot be more good than evil. Good, Evil, and Neutral are three tips on an equilateral triangle. Neutral is no closer to good than evil. They represent three logical extremes.
I don't want to have to jailbreak the thing at each update, or be denied the right to run this or that on it.
Or be denied the ability to write code for it. The simple fact is the author is pointing out the obvious. Developers have been shouting about this since the iPhone's inception. Someone would have done this already with iPhone had it not been for Apple's boneheaded policy toward developers.
Just look at the thing: It's a touchscreen about the size of a trackpad. It's completely obvious that they should be making a flat docking interface where the trackpad normally goes in a notebook style unit with a keyboard, lcd, speakers, batteries, the whole nine yards... Carry your 'phonebook' with you and only bust it out if you want to type an email, use Photoshop, or do something more suited to the laptop interface.
But NOOOooooo!! Apple has to lock it down. Apple has to be a bunch of control freaks on this ONE thing. They could totally alter the landscape, totally change the game, but they are completely content collecting penny ante contract fees and doing 'visual voicemail.'
Companies like Adobe won't develop software for it. Hell, given the code execution policies and the automation built into Photoshop alone, they CAN'T. Same goes for any decent office app with macros. Same goes for a competing browser that executes javascript. Same goes for Sun developing Java for the thing... Apple's retarded policy is blocking any chance this thing has at defeating real competition.
If this guy thinks he's the first to think of running 'real' software on it, he's obviously unaware of Apple's profoundly stupid developer policy. Maybe in 10 years, people will be talking about how Android "stole" the iPhone market from Apple like Microsoft "stole" the desktop from them.
Al, that's a really tired argument. Every Mac comes with a disk burner. Every iTunes track can be burned and re-ripped removing the DRM. It isn't hard. It isn't expensive. It isn't even time consuming on any computer made in the last 3 years. I've done it myself with several tracks. I can't hear any difference. Honestly, they're digital downloads... they're already compressed in a lossy format and reripping them into that exact same format doesn't make an audible difference, at least not to my ears. Maybe you're 12 years old and you can still hear things I can't. It still won't be a big difference, even if you have dog ears.
Besides, millions of songs on the iTMS are now DRM free now. The record companies are giving up one at a time, just like they gave into digital downloads one at a time. Remember what a big deal it was getting the Beatles on iTunes, dragging them, one at a time, kicking and screaming into the 21st century? The big labels realize they've been pWN3D by Apple and there's no use fighting it. They'd rather be available on all players and all stores and making money. Apple's DRM has effectively defeated a bleak future full of DRM laden music in a most unexpected way. Apple used DRM like the GPL uses copyright.
They beat the bastards at their own game and on your behalf. But rather than be the least bit grateful that they saved your ass from that bleak future, it's obvious you have a strong, unwavering, irrational hate for Apple. Apple might be the number one music retailer in the US now, but I'd hardly classify a 19% market share a monopoly. You go right ahead and hate them though, I'm sure they didn't do it for any of your gratitude. They did the right thing because that was also the smart and profitable thing to do and they proved it becoming #1.
So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.
I'm sure I don't like DRM any more than you do, but before firing off like that, have a look at how Apple has made use of their DRM monopoly with Fairplay. They've consistently dictated prices over the RIAA monopolies and won. They are using their lock on DRM to act in their own best interest, which also happens to be their customers' best interest.
Apple IS telling the giant media companies to go f*** themselves on price hikes and more oppressive DRM restrictions in favor of their customers needs/demands. I think the most magnificent/ironic aspect of the whole deal is that if it weren't for the DMCA, the RIAA could simply reverse engineer a compatible version of Fairplay and be done with Apple. The media monopolies cut their own throat by lobbying for a law and then allowing someone else to exploit it first. You have to find that at least a little bit amusing.
Now if we could just convince Apple that locking developers out of the iPhone really IS a bad idea, I'd have nothing bad to say about them.
Not only that, but the animation has to render smoothly as well. The browser can be capable of passing, but fail because the hardware is old and slow. Anyway, you aren't going to get a 100 with 3.2, but that's why there's webkit nightlies. It's basically the latest version of Safari if you don't want to wait for Apple's official release.
But, if the public only had a choice between DSL w/ AT&T, cable w/ Comcast, or no internet at all, and both companies throttled content, then the public is really left without a choice.
Most complaints about throttling are not net neutrality issues. Net neutrality is about making sure ISPs don't try to extort money from websites like Google and Yahoo to deliver their content without throttling, redirects, or other shenanigans.
Net neutrality is not about making sure you are allowed to use 98% of the bandwidth on your block using bittorrent while others who share the same line suffer the consequences of your actions. If you are using a significant portion of the ISP's resources, as a subscriber you should expect to pay more than others. If you have a beef with being sold 'unlimited' internet and then being throttled/capped, that is a false advertising claim. That is not a net neutrality issue.
They should match Apple's compensation and benefits and the guy doesn't have to work. That seems fair.
After he declined a counteroffer from IBM and another, separate offer to "sit out" for a year in exchange for his current base salary, Papermaster told IBM he had made up his mind and was going to Apple.
So, they didn't match Apple's offer but expect him to stay anyway. Capitalism is truly dead in America.
Slashdot Mirror
MS claims to do something which seems to be essentially *exactly* what you want
There, fixed that for you...
And it sprays itself into the air without electric pumps too. Yeah, this will work just great...
From what I've read WCAG2 is a step backwards. The sort of sites you mention are indeed inaccessible, but then... they didn't pass WCAG 1 either.
9 years? IE 8 will finally support the <q> tag If they worked any faster, it wouldn't matter because Microsoft would never catch up anyway.
From a developer standpoint, the iPhone is actually damn good.
You and I have very different definitions of 'damn good.'
The dev kit is $0, and a signing key/registration is $100. So the barrier to entry is very VERY low.
And an Intel based Mac.... raises that barrier to entry just a wee bit.
And the app store is a godsend. A distribution system where the distributor gets a flat 30% and thats it? And already has a micropayment infrastructure? Thats unheard-of nice.
If you can make a $10 app that sells to just 10,000 people, thats $70K gross revenue to you as a small developer.
"That's it" he says. In that scenario, Apple is charging you almost twice what the federal government gets in taxes ($17,500 in taxes for $70,000 income). $30,000 is greater than the annual income of 1 in 3 households in the US. If they are sooooo confident that this is a great deal for developers, why don't they allow developers any other choice? [That's a rhetorical question.]
No, no she can't. Aside from the point that you can only counter-sue if you're actually being sued (she's being suspended, not sued) there's a variety of flaws in that argument, the most blatant of which is the fact that it's a university system -- which means the university gets to set the acceptable use policy.
You seem to think it's a private system and the first amendment is null and void. It's called Michigan State University for a reason. It isn't the university's system. It's the taxpayers system. She'll hand them their ass in court if the matter goes there.
So why do so many of us nowadays seem to equate spam with only 'unsolicited commercial e-mail'? In my mind, spam is any piece of unwanted bulk mail, whether it is 'commercial' in nature or not.
"I didn't want to read that. You just spammed me." Wow... we've certainly come a long way from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
No one is interested in reading positive news like the fact the vaccine isn't actually harmful so there's no money in printing it.
Same goes for other sciency things in the media. Bad news sells. In this case, the bad news is interfering with the scientists' profits, so you hear bellyaching. But this can be equally bad, if not worse, in an opposite way. In the case of something like global warming, the bad news sells the science too. As a result, you get ridiculously wild exaggerations in the media and few people are motivated to correct them.
Now we have a chance to make this a reality, and you guys are shooting it down?
You work for the university, but the /.'ers are shooting it down? Perhaps you meant to ask why we don't like it. I'll give you my reason:
Copyright infringement is illegal. If you are aware of it, you should block it. Period. Otherwise, you are a party to it and contributing to a crime. The RIAA does not represent all interested parties and they certainly will not be sharing the wealth. Next you'll be telling me it's okay to ignore the GPL because you send Eric Raymond a little extra cash each month. I don't care if Christ himself returns to put his stamp of approval on the plan, you're breaking the law if you do it. Don't like it? Change copyright law so that P2P is treated for what it really is: Free advertising. Otherwise, YOU are the criminal.
Wow... truth hurts, huh?
I already listed a number of specific errors with Monckton's science, which you chose to ignore in favor of making false comparisons to religious cults.
I've learned over the years it is completely impossible to discuss science with the cult. It's like pointing out that virgin births and resurrection are highly improbably to someone who reads the Bible as literal truth.
Take your very first point for instance: CO2 time lags. It's absolutely irrational to assume that increased concentrations of CO2 800 yrs after the fact are the cause of warming rather than a consequence of it.
Furthermore, you engage in a classic logical fallacy: correlation equals causation. By taking a vanishingly small slice of Earth's geologic history, lining up CO2 and temp and then claiming that it is proof that CO2 invariably causes warming, the cult demonstrates it doesn't understand how real science works. The cult then proceeds to call a 100ppm rise to 370ppm a planetary emergency. You place all your faith in these cult leaders and their computer models, yet computer models are completely incapable of explaining an ice age with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 4000ppm. In fact, as Monckton pointed out, all you need to do is look a little further back into history and the correlation between CO2 and temperature falls apart completely.
Probably because that's all you've got.
Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than point out the flaws in your logic. As you've already demonstrated, you'll just fall back to your irrational religion and name calling, therefore doing so is quite pointless.
Monckton is in no way, shape, or form part of the real debate over climate sensitivity.
He was invited to participate, and then they slapped a big red label on his submission saying his work was incorrect. Classic hit job.
It would be a great exercise to give to students and have them see how many errors they can find.
You mean the APS didn't back up their big red lettering with facts to dispute Monckton? How could that be? They dismissed his work without providing anything concrete that would cast doubt on its credibility? Noooo... really? That wouldn't be, like, the whole point I was making, now would it?
You don't need silly facts to prove Monckton wrong, you're a believer. Reproduce experiments? Nah, we'll just give his paper to some acolytes... er, students, and see how much rhetoric we can produce.
In short, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with the public debate.
I'm sure you say that to all the people who disagree with you. Real science seeks answers. You aren't seeking anything. Your mind is already made up. You believe in global warming. For you, there's no need to question cult leader James Hansen's results.
Except the browser still don't render exactly the same, even if the engines are the same. Try comparing Konqueror, Chrome, Safari for OS X, and Safari for Windows. You'll find differences between all of them even though they use the same rendering engine.
Of course they have differences. Windows has different ui elements than a Mac. The <select> element is going to use what's native. Naturally fonts are going to be different on Windows 96dpi vs Macs 72dpi. The gamma on the PC monitor is going to make color look different too. What I care about is whether or not the thing supports CSS opacity or :nth-child(). I couldn't care less if the presentation isn't pixel perfect. Read The Dao of Web Design and realize you're swimming upstream if you're trying to achieve pixel perfection. What really matters is using the standards in the way they were intended to be used. It makes your site better optimized for search engines, more accessible, and available on more devices all at once. Let go of the idea that you're going to control what the user sees. The user controls what the user sees. This should be evident by the discussion of ad blocks, swf filtering, popup blockers, etc.
The only issues I have are that you can't selectivly block flash images
Can't you just add swf to your regular expressions? That's what I do. I only see the SWFs I want to see.
Pretty much like most of the climate skeptics. There is legitimate scientific debate about, say, whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to the lower or the upper end of the IPCC range. But you hardly ever see any of the real debate.
Funny you should mention real debate over climate sensitivity. That too has been censored by the Cult of Climate Change.
Question the methodology of the one paper that ALL of the IPCC's global warming theory is based upon... and be shouted down.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
Or at the very least, manslaughter. It's definitely very, very wrong.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
In this case, the prosecution used tortured logic and applied an almost entirely unrelated law. Interpreting that law in this way makes millions of otherwise innocent people into criminals. That is not justice.
Justice based on how the Jury feels is anarchy. It's the definition of mob rule. You either have very articulate laws that spell out when and where something is wrong/right, or you end up with total chaos.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” — Benjamin Franklin [Cite]
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Making ridiculous strawman arguments only makes you look like hyperventilating internet flamebait. The "new hotness" in internet scams is to impersonate your Facebook friends for fun and profit. It's insidiously clever social engineering and easily accomplished. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed by real legislation, not grandstanding DAs convicting someone in isolated cases on odd technicalities that will affect millions of otherwise innocent people.
Just to make sure I have this right, do you mean to imply that telling people how they should express themselves is not combative and does not make you look like a "dink"? Or is this more of an "it's okay when I do it" situation?
So... let's have a little respect here? I appears you were repaid in kind and you didn't like it.
Something that can't be unethical or ethical is probably going to be more ethical than something that is unethical. In other words, if robots are neutral and humans are either evil or good, neutral is more good than evil.
You just said it can't be ethical, so how can it be more ethical? You consider neutral to be a one dimensional midpoint on a line between good and evil... half a glass of water, so to speak. This is a false dilemma.
Logically speaking, neutral is neither good nor evil so it cannot be more good than evil. Good, Evil, and Neutral are three tips on an equilateral triangle. Neutral is no closer to good than evil. They represent three logical extremes.
As far as I know, my computers have never accepted a bribe, or made a power-grab.
Wrong! Now you have to eat those words, bub! ;)
I don't want to have to jailbreak the thing at each update, or be denied the right to run this or that on it.
Or be denied the ability to write code for it. The simple fact is the author is pointing out the obvious. Developers have been shouting about this since the iPhone's inception. Someone would have done this already with iPhone had it not been for Apple's boneheaded policy toward developers.
Just look at the thing: It's a touchscreen about the size of a trackpad. It's completely obvious that they should be making a flat docking interface where the trackpad normally goes in a notebook style unit with a keyboard, lcd, speakers, batteries, the whole nine yards... Carry your 'phonebook' with you and only bust it out if you want to type an email, use Photoshop, or do something more suited to the laptop interface.
But NOOOooooo!! Apple has to lock it down. Apple has to be a bunch of control freaks on this ONE thing. They could totally alter the landscape, totally change the game, but they are completely content collecting penny ante contract fees and doing 'visual voicemail.'
Companies like Adobe won't develop software for it. Hell, given the code execution policies and the automation built into Photoshop alone, they CAN'T. Same goes for any decent office app with macros. Same goes for a competing browser that executes javascript. Same goes for Sun developing Java for the thing... Apple's retarded policy is blocking any chance this thing has at defeating real competition.
If this guy thinks he's the first to think of running 'real' software on it, he's obviously unaware of Apple's profoundly stupid developer policy. Maybe in 10 years, people will be talking about how Android "stole" the iPhone market from Apple like Microsoft "stole" the desktop from them.
Al, that's a really tired argument. Every Mac comes with a disk burner. Every iTunes track can be burned and re-ripped removing the DRM. It isn't hard. It isn't expensive. It isn't even time consuming on any computer made in the last 3 years. I've done it myself with several tracks. I can't hear any difference. Honestly, they're digital downloads... they're already compressed in a lossy format and reripping them into that exact same format doesn't make an audible difference, at least not to my ears. Maybe you're 12 years old and you can still hear things I can't. It still won't be a big difference, even if you have dog ears.
Besides, millions of songs on the iTMS are now DRM free now. The record companies are giving up one at a time, just like they gave into digital downloads one at a time. Remember what a big deal it was getting the Beatles on iTunes, dragging them, one at a time, kicking and screaming into the 21st century? The big labels realize they've been pWN3D by Apple and there's no use fighting it. They'd rather be available on all players and all stores and making money. Apple's DRM has effectively defeated a bleak future full of DRM laden music in a most unexpected way. Apple used DRM like the GPL uses copyright.
They beat the bastards at their own game and on your behalf. But rather than be the least bit grateful that they saved your ass from that bleak future, it's obvious you have a strong, unwavering, irrational hate for Apple. Apple might be the number one music retailer in the US now, but I'd hardly classify a 19% market share a monopoly. You go right ahead and hate them though, I'm sure they didn't do it for any of your gratitude. They did the right thing because that was also the smart and profitable thing to do and they proved it becoming #1.
So how does screwing over your customers and making them angry equate to making a profit for your shareholders? The giant media companies aren't the ones giving money to Apple, it's regular people buying their hardware, software, and stuff on iTunes.
I'm sure I don't like DRM any more than you do, but before firing off like that, have a look at how Apple has made use of their DRM monopoly with Fairplay. They've consistently dictated prices over the RIAA monopolies and won. They are using their lock on DRM to act in their own best interest, which also happens to be their customers' best interest.
Apple IS telling the giant media companies to go f*** themselves on price hikes and more oppressive DRM restrictions in favor of their customers needs/demands. I think the most magnificent/ironic aspect of the whole deal is that if it weren't for the DMCA, the RIAA could simply reverse engineer a compatible version of Fairplay and be done with Apple. The media monopolies cut their own throat by lobbying for a law and then allowing someone else to exploit it first. You have to find that at least a little bit amusing.
Now if we could just convince Apple that locking developers out of the iPhone really IS a bad idea, I'd have nothing bad to say about them.
Not only that, but the animation has to render smoothly as well. The browser can be capable of passing, but fail because the hardware is old and slow. Anyway, you aren't going to get a 100 with 3.2, but that's why there's webkit nightlies. It's basically the latest version of Safari if you don't want to wait for Apple's official release.
But, if the public only had a choice between DSL w/ AT&T, cable w/ Comcast, or no internet at all, and both companies throttled content, then the public is really left without a choice.
Most complaints about throttling are not net neutrality issues. Net neutrality is about making sure ISPs don't try to extort money from websites like Google and Yahoo to deliver their content without throttling, redirects, or other shenanigans.
Net neutrality is not about making sure you are allowed to use 98% of the bandwidth on your block using bittorrent while others who share the same line suffer the consequences of your actions. If you are using a significant portion of the ISP's resources, as a subscriber you should expect to pay more than others. If you have a beef with being sold 'unlimited' internet and then being throttled/capped, that is a false advertising claim. That is not a net neutrality issue.
Slashdot is not exactly going to be a sympathetic crowd here.
4. Find out it was really Microsoft who scammed you.
I _knew_ there was some way we could win /. sympathy here! ;)
They should match Apple's compensation and benefits and the guy doesn't have to work. That seems fair.
After he declined a counteroffer from IBM and another, separate offer to "sit out" for a year in exchange for his current base salary, Papermaster told IBM he had made up his mind and was going to Apple.
So, they didn't match Apple's offer but expect him to stay anyway. Capitalism is truly dead in America.