You know Facebook started out restricted to students at a single college? Then expanded to all US students, then all US residents, then everyone? Facebook had been operating for years before overseas users could register. Restricted, phased membership is nothing new to online services, not even social networks.
No, it wasn't a rebuttal. It was meant to spur you to actually provide an argument. As it is, it took two posts for you to even attempt that. You didn't present it as an opinion - you didn't say "I think the iPhone outclass Android" or "I'm of the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android" - you said "iPhone outclasses Android". That's presenting it as a fact.
Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware
And again, you have a list features with no real discussion:
Design: Where and how are the aesthetics of an iPhone superior to Android
Responsiveness: What aspects of the Android interface lag, or are less responsive than iOS?
Developer APIs: Both have them; what makes iPhone's superior?
Aesthetics: How is this distinct from "Design"
Integration: Well, I'll dispute the plural since iPhone can only interface with a single app or music store, while Android can use many. I'll give you music store, since Android doesn't do that natively, but what makes iPhone's app store integration better than Android's Google Market?
Security: Again, any examples?
Lack of Malware: iPhone, malware is hardly unknown. I'll grant you, Android is more vulnerable than an un-jailbroken iPhone - that's the trade-off you get for being in control of your own device. If you stick to each device's respective app stores, your chances of getting malware are vanishingly slim - AFAIK, there's been one instance where a bunch of apps were uploaded with malware on Android, and Google had them down within days.
Third Party Software: Looking at sheer numbers, Apple has the advantage - although Android is accelerating faster. I don't really think numbers are a great measure anyway - the proliferation of fart apps and cheap clones tends to cloud the issue. In practical use, I've never heard of an app on the iPhone I wanted that I couldn't get an equivalent of on Android. The reverse isn't true - I've got a couple of apps on my android that my iPhone-ing friends can't replicate, simply because the Android gives devs greater access to the hardware (location-based stuff, generally, such as Locale)
Third Party Hardware: Can you give an example of an area where Android lacks hardware support? I do see more hardware for the Apple than the Android, but frankly, most of it is crap. Both Android and iPhone have your basic car adapters, music docks, headsets. Yet to find anything available for one but not the other that I'd want.
On to your other list:
Open source: I'd hesitate to say even most geeks care about this that much. This is targeted at handset manufacturers rather than end-users
Multiple hardware vendors: On the other hand, I think people do definitely care about this, and this is an outgrowth of the Open Source point. The sheer variety of Android-powered devices means that people can pick devices tailored to their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all iPhone model.
Side-loading of apps: The number of people I know who've jailbroken their iPhones suggest to me that people do actually care about this
Untethered, PC-free synching: I know I was a bit puzzled when one of iPhone using friends started raving about it when he installed iOS5 - it seemed so basic to me, I didn't even know iPhones lacked it previously
And I'll further add customization and widgets - Android lets you configure your phone how you want it - from wallpaper to widgets - whereas iPhones are significantly less custo
That's because I wasn't making a counter argument.
claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.
That "somehow" is the problem. Given no criteria by the parent, the only possible "counter argument" I could make was "No it doesn't". Simply making assertions leads the debate down the "yes it is!", "no it's not!" path. As I said, not exactly compelling.
That's because I wasn't making a rebuttal - it's very hard to refute a point when your opponent hasn't made one.
The problem isn't with assertions - it's with assertions not backed up by any further claims or discussion. Look at the parent. He stated that "Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't". Great! Objective criteria! If you want to debate that, find things the iPhone can do. Make an argument that feature-set isn't the defining element of a product. Whatever. It can be debated.
"Outclass" has no objective meaning. Unless you elaborate further, it's just another way of saying "better". At that point, the argument devolves into "Android is better!", "Nuh-uh, iOS is better!". Under what criteria does iOS "outclass" Android? Intuitiveness of OS? Responsiveness? Integration with other services? Design? Give us something to build our debate on.
So viewing capitalism as independent of, or more fundamental than governments makes no sense. First, an effective force monopoly must arise, then capitalism can exist provided the government allows for it.
Neither of which was really my point; just that the optimum level of government control for capitalism to function properly is low. Not too low, of course, or you get anarchy. But ratchet up government control too high, and you move towards mercantilism.
Capitalism, while very desirable for our markets, will always devolve into feudalism when left unsupervised
Emphasis added. There's a reason Smith wrote that a strong government was necessary in his model - there needs to be someone around to hold everyone to the rules, and to ensure the playing field remains level (prevent antitrust, fraud, contract violations, etc). The state of the US isn't because capitalism (an economic model) failed, it's the because democracy failed - the representatives of the people no longer do their job. No economic model - capitalism, communist or socialist - can flourish with a corrupt political system.
You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.
Which is what Adam Smith was writing against when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism emerged from, and in reaction against, mercantilism. I'd say a return to mercantalism is contrary to capitalism almost by definition.
Ownership existed long before government did; it was called a club, and a belligerent attitude. Nowadays we just swap the club for a lawyer.
If you want to argue that point, then all rights are a legal fiction, as absent a government, there is nobody to enforce any of them. That's because the concept of a "right" isn't a political one; they're a moral concept. If we say someone has a "right", then what we mean is that it's immoral to restrict them from exercising their right. The concept of "mine" and "yours" is pretty fundamental. Even largely communal societies, like some aboriginal tribal groups, have concepts of possession, if not on the individual level, then definitely on the tribal level. Hell, even dogs have a concept of "mine" and "yours".
I said that you "could make an argument", not that it was an essential part of the definition.
As for the argument: capitalism arose in a period where the means of production was owned by the state. Capitalism espoused ownership by the individual - it was a movement away from strong government control, and towards private control. That is why limited liability corporations and patent protection can be seen as anti-capitalistic: they represent the very thing capitalism was trying to get away from.
Capitalism has nothing to do with finding a way to gain from a situation. That might be called ingenuity, or entrepreneurial spirit, but it's not capitalism. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just provide a link to my response to a similar comment
Capitalism is a system of prosperity through greed.
Nice definition pulled out of your ass. Here's an actual definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism)
Note that the meaning of "corporate" here isn't in reference to limited liability corporations, but the original meaning of the word as a group of individuals.
ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens
You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.
Putting it "online" could also mean they're putting it on their own servers, controlled and managed by them. Putting it "in the cloud" implies an outsourced, turn-key service
Online, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with. I mean, yeah, it can be hacked, but so can their offline computer systems. Putting it "in the cloud" not only has the same weaknesses, it also exposes it to the malevolence of the third party, or any employees they may have, which is out of control of the ostensible guardians of my data.
Creator Creates Product. Creator sells 100x products each to VendorA and VendorB for 1Currency per item VendorA marks product to 1.5C. VendorB sets up shop next door and marks product to 1.25C 100 buyer purchase products from VendorB As far as that vendor is concerned they had 150C worth of product that is now worthless and they're out 100C in inventory which while not physically vaporized has had the demand vaporized and is essentially worth $0.
Again, not theft. Devaluing something isn't stealing. It's devaluing. Use the right word for the right thing. Just the same as splashing a bucket of paint on a picture isn't stealing - it's destruction of property. And yes, graffiti is damage. No it's not theft. I never said the copyright infringement didn't do any damage, I said it wasn't theft.
So I don't really think it's necessary to draw this hard-line distinction between "theft" and "copyright infringement."
No, it definitely is necessary. What is wrong, and totally harmful to the discussion, is to equate "theft" to "bad", and "copyright infringement" to "not so bad". They are simply two distinct actions. The morality of each isn't tied up in which label is applied to it; the morality is what we're discussing. The problem in the scenario you outline is that two instances of copyright infringement provoke different feelings of guilt to you. So you label one as "theft" to mean "worse than the other one". What it actually shows is a dissonance in our current laws, in that they're not actually matched to what the populace (wildly extrapolating from a sample size of one) considers moral actions.
Yeah. The store would also be annoyed if I tracked gum all over their carpet. Tracking gum all over their carpet isn't theft. Store annoyance has absolutely no relevance to the definition of theft.
I totally agree - the fact that the government has unilaterally "altered the agreement" so that copyright extends to such ludicrous lengths does amount to theft. By my reckoning, they've stolen about a hundred years worth of art from the public domain, and hence, from the public.
But that's totally aside from the point, which is that copyright infringement and theft are two different things, and need to be discussed separately.
Well, if it then vaporized the item in front of it, it might be analogous to theft I guess. Theft is really more about depriving something from someone else than gaining it for yourself; in this case, the outlet still has the physical item.
The problem is people seem to think that if it's not theft, it's not "bad". The accurate description for this activity is "copyright infringement". It opens you to civil liability. It can in some circumstances be a criminal offense. Saying something is copyright infringement isn't saying "this is good, go do it", it's an accurate description of the action.
Slashdot Mirror
Danegeld
You know Facebook started out restricted to students at a single college? Then expanded to all US students, then all US residents, then everyone? Facebook had been operating for years before overseas users could register. Restricted, phased membership is nothing new to online services, not even social networks.
At least that's an objective statement that can be proved or disproved
No, it wasn't a rebuttal. It was meant to spur you to actually provide an argument. As it is, it took two posts for you to even attempt that. You didn't present it as an opinion - you didn't say "I think the iPhone outclass Android" or "I'm of the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android" - you said "iPhone outclasses Android". That's presenting it as a fact.
Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware
And again, you have a list features with no real discussion:
On to your other list:
And I'll further add customization and widgets - Android lets you configure your phone how you want it - from wallpaper to widgets - whereas iPhones are significantly less custo
That's because I wasn't making a counter argument.
claiming that the iPhone works better than an Android somehow.
That "somehow" is the problem. Given no criteria by the parent, the only possible "counter argument" I could make was "No it doesn't". Simply making assertions leads the debate down the "yes it is!", "no it's not!" path. As I said, not exactly compelling.
That's because I wasn't making a rebuttal - it's very hard to refute a point when your opponent hasn't made one.
The problem isn't with assertions - it's with assertions not backed up by any further claims or discussion. Look at the parent. He stated that "Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't". Great! Objective criteria! If you want to debate that, find things the iPhone can do. Make an argument that feature-set isn't the defining element of a product. Whatever. It can be debated.
"Outclass" has no objective meaning. Unless you elaborate further, it's just another way of saying "better". At that point, the argument devolves into "Android is better!", "Nuh-uh, iOS is better!". Under what criteria does iOS "outclass" Android? Intuitiveness of OS? Responsiveness? Integration with other services? Design? Give us something to build our debate on.
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
Argument by assertion. So compelling!
Design Patents
Uh-huh. Because the world's largest online advertising company needs to finesse a story onto Slashdot to gain public awareness.
So viewing capitalism as independent of, or more fundamental than governments makes no sense. First, an effective force monopoly must arise, then capitalism can exist provided the government allows for it.
Neither of which was really my point; just that the optimum level of government control for capitalism to function properly is low. Not too low, of course, or you get anarchy. But ratchet up government control too high, and you move towards mercantilism.
Capitalism, while very desirable for our markets, will always devolve into feudalism when left unsupervised
Emphasis added. There's a reason Smith wrote that a strong government was necessary in his model - there needs to be someone around to hold everyone to the rules, and to ensure the playing field remains level (prevent antitrust, fraud, contract violations, etc). The state of the US isn't because capitalism (an economic model) failed, it's the because democracy failed - the representatives of the people no longer do their job. No economic model - capitalism, communist or socialist - can flourish with a corrupt political system.
You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.
Which is what Adam Smith was writing against when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism emerged from, and in reaction against, mercantilism. I'd say a return to mercantalism is contrary to capitalism almost by definition.
Ownership existed long before government did; it was called a club, and a belligerent attitude. Nowadays we just swap the club for a lawyer.
If you want to argue that point, then all rights are a legal fiction, as absent a government, there is nobody to enforce any of them. That's because the concept of a "right" isn't a political one; they're a moral concept. If we say someone has a "right", then what we mean is that it's immoral to restrict them from exercising their right. The concept of "mine" and "yours" is pretty fundamental. Even largely communal societies, like some aboriginal tribal groups, have concepts of possession, if not on the individual level, then definitely on the tribal level. Hell, even dogs have a concept of "mine" and "yours".
I said that you "could make an argument", not that it was an essential part of the definition.
As for the argument: capitalism arose in a period where the means of production was owned by the state. Capitalism espoused ownership by the individual - it was a movement away from strong government control, and towards private control. That is why limited liability corporations and patent protection can be seen as anti-capitalistic: they represent the very thing capitalism was trying to get away from.
Capitalism has nothing to do with finding a way to gain from a situation. That might be called ingenuity, or entrepreneurial spirit, but it's not capitalism. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just provide a link to my response to a similar comment
Capitalism is a system of prosperity through greed.
Nice definition pulled out of your ass. Here's an actual definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism)
Note that the meaning of "corporate" here isn't in reference to limited liability corporations, but the original meaning of the word as a group of individuals.
ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens
You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.
Putting it "online" could also mean they're putting it on their own servers, controlled and managed by them.
Putting it "in the cloud" implies an outsourced, turn-key service
Online, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with. I mean, yeah, it can be hacked, but so can their offline computer systems. Putting it "in the cloud" not only has the same weaknesses, it also exposes it to the malevolence of the third party, or any employees they may have, which is out of control of the ostensible guardians of my data.
The issue is that they're pushing salesmen on people disguised as tech support.
Alternate scenario:
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells 100x products each to VendorA and VendorB for 1Currency per item
VendorA marks product to 1.5C. VendorB sets up shop next door and marks product to 1.25C
100 buyer purchase products from VendorB
As far as that vendor is concerned they had 150C worth of product that is now worthless and they're out 100C in inventory which while not physically vaporized has had the demand vaporized and is essentially worth $0.
Again, not theft. Devaluing something isn't stealing. It's devaluing. Use the right word for the right thing. Just the same as splashing a bucket of paint on a picture isn't stealing - it's destruction of property. And yes, graffiti is damage. No it's not theft. I never said the copyright infringement didn't do any damage, I said it wasn't theft.
So I don't really think it's necessary to draw this hard-line distinction between "theft" and "copyright infringement."
No, it definitely is necessary. What is wrong, and totally harmful to the discussion, is to equate "theft" to "bad", and "copyright infringement" to "not so bad". They are simply two distinct actions. The morality of each isn't tied up in which label is applied to it; the morality is what we're discussing. The problem in the scenario you outline is that two instances of copyright infringement provoke different feelings of guilt to you. So you label one as "theft" to mean "worse than the other one". What it actually shows is a dissonance in our current laws, in that they're not actually matched to what the populace (wildly extrapolating from a sample size of one) considers moral actions.
Yeah. The store would also be annoyed if I tracked gum all over their carpet. Tracking gum all over their carpet isn't theft. Store annoyance has absolutely no relevance to the definition of theft.
I totally agree - the fact that the government has unilaterally "altered the agreement" so that copyright extends to such ludicrous lengths does amount to theft. By my reckoning, they've stolen about a hundred years worth of art from the public domain, and hence, from the public.
But that's totally aside from the point, which is that copyright infringement and theft are two different things, and need to be discussed separately.
Well, if it then vaporized the item in front of it, it might be analogous to theft I guess. Theft is really more about depriving something from someone else than gaining it for yourself; in this case, the outlet still has the physical item.
The problem is people seem to think that if it's not theft, it's not "bad". The accurate description for this activity is "copyright infringement". It opens you to civil liability. It can in some circumstances be a criminal offense. Saying something is copyright infringement isn't saying "this is good, go do it", it's an accurate description of the action.
Or than you can patent genetic sequences you discover, right?