Wow, there's a big jump from "likes Apple" to "supports child rape" - I can see why you posted AC.
For the record, I hate that the built in calendar app on the iPhone doesn't carry across the ToDo lost from iCal, only the event calendars, and that I have to use a third party app to sync my ToDo list.
I also dislike the slight pause the phone has sometimes when I answer it and it says has picked up, but there's no connection for a second or so. I'm not sure if this is the network or the phone, but it's probably the phone.
It also needs a way to lock the screen orientation by default without the use of a third party app.
The app store needs a checkbox update system so I can choose if I want to update all but one app (rather than either updating everything or updating one at a time).
Sometimes if you take a picture in landscape with the phone "upside down" (ie, tiled over one way rather than the other from vertical) the tilt sensor gets confused about which way up the photo should be and you end up having to gingerly hold it to stop it spinning all over the place - the photo app needs a way to lock rotation, and to be able to edit the "up" direction on images you have taken.
I'd also like it to keep reminding me I have an unread message via vibrate/tone if I don;t unlock the screen, rather than just remind me once.
I don't support DRM and have spoken against it in the past.
While we're on the subject of Apple faults, the Finder really needs some love, and Mail.app really needs to have a more graceful fail method if a mailserver rejects authentication rather than just continually prompting for the password with no indication of failure.
Oh, but I'm sorry, don't let my actual beliefs and opinions get in the way of your blind AC hate of Apple and preconceived ideas about me. It's a little bit pathetic and hilarious, but I feel compelled to point out the inaccuracy.
So, we were talking about how Apple's API for a fixed resolution touchscreen was different to the one for a variable resolution mouse+keyboard based GUI, and how some whining guy on a blog is complaining that Apple didn't make it as easy as "1. recompile app, 2. ????? 3.Publish on app store 4. Profit".
the desktop and the phone are both supposedly within spitting distance of being the same operating system, so it should be a small matter of ifdefs to have the same app compile as a desktop application and an iPhone application, right?
And at the core, they are - they share a large amount of code, with iPhone OS running a slightly modified version of the Darwin kernel. Where they diverge though, might have something to do with the whole UI being completely different. I assume he just didn't realise that the UI was different, since that seems to be the level of discourse available. So an app written for OS X, using a window manager with a point and click mouse and variable screen res, just dropped right onto a fixed resolution, touchscreen device.... Right. No need to change any code! (or rather, it'll be a simple case of "if iphone then do x..").
I'm all for criticising the iPhone's genuine faults, but this sounds like a kid who threw his toys out of the pram and is whining to get them back, only to want to throw them out again.
It's not even true though - a VAC ban prevents you from playing on VAC-enabled servers, but does not stop you playing on other servers that do not have VAC monitoring. It does not delete your games either - the account carries on just fine.
What is does prevent you doing though is moving those games to a *new* account, so if you cheat and want to play on VAC servers again then you need a new account, and you are not allowed to move your purchases/CD keys over, and the old account is banned from VAC servers forever, for all old and new games added to it. You can still play the games though, and play on non-protected servers.
Not all prop aircraft use piston engines. Most passenger prop aircraft above about 10 seats use turboprops - which are jet engines with a propellor on the front instead of a high bypass fan.
The abrasive nature of the ash is not the main concern - it's that it melts in the combustion chambers forming something similar to glass and then re solidifies into bigger clumps as it leaves the core of the engine and blocks up various channels. This causes back pressure in the engine that can cause compressor stall, which causes the "fire belching" you sometimes see on large turbofan engines with thrust reversing ducts engaged. Either way it is not a good thing and can cause damage to the engine, or cause it to stop running entirely.
There is nothing to stop SFGate recoding a video version of his cartoons for iPhone users - whatever it was going to do, there was some delivery mechanism other than flash to make the app work on the phone (even though it was rejected). So, they cannot get the app into the store, but they can make an iPhone-compatible web version (very easily) even with the lack of flash on the iPhone.
Apple cannot stop them getting that content onto the iPhone if they are determined.
The App Store isn't the only way to get apps on the iPhone by the way - before the store existed Apple were pushing a different app creation method that still exists and doesn't use the app store itself.
The analogy is nothing like prosthetic feet. Nike makes a boot that fits on your foot. They can change the thread diameter and direction so that you have to buy studs from them, but that's the trade off for buying the boot from them.
If they did this, or made a boot that had a proprietary attachment for studs and then only sold studs that fitted through their own store then it is still not a monopoly condition. Sure, they have a monopoly on selling through their own store, but you don;t have to buy the boot in the first place, knowing ahead of time that the only place to buy studs is from Nike themselves.
In both situations, there are alternatives - different boot makers, different smartphone providers, that offer the choice. To claim that it's somehow wrong for Apple to be the sole provider of apps for its phone is just drawing the point away - the fact it's the sole supplier does not mean that it is censoring Fiore because they choose not to carry his app.
I don't agree with their decision, but I do not believe that it is censorship. It gets thrown around a lot here, and it dilutes the meaning.
And no one except Microsoft can deliver content via Xbox Live.
Apple runs a store. It sells products via that store.
Only Nike makes those "90" football boots - there is no (legal) way to get them any other way except from Nike.
Only Starbucks stores sell ready made Starbucks coffees. They have a monopoly on selling ready made Starbucks coffee.
The App Store is not a monopoly, unless the meaning of the word is distorted. Of course a company has "a monopoly" on selling products through its own store.
Slashdot users like to throw around the words "monopoly" and "antitrust" to try and muddy the waters without actually understanding what they mean (or the reasons that MS got in trouble - it wasn't for being a monopoly).
The AC's point (modded insightful too) was that they "have the power to supress and censor" Fiore - when they can really do no such thing, unless by denying his app they also went to the SFgate webserver and set it on fire, and went to his personal webhost and threatened to shoot the sysadmin's daughter through the knees unless he took down the web comics.
They're not censoring him by any stretch of the imagination, they just chose not to sell his product.
Yes, but commercial (and Linux) alternatives were squeezed out by MS by bullying the OEMs - "Only sell Windows preinstalled or you may just find your OEM licence cost increases".
There is no viable alternative OS for the Xbox 360 either, but they are not telling game shops that they mustn't stock PS3s or they may find the wholesale cost of the 360 might go up...
It's not illegal to be a monopoly - it's what you do when you are one that matters. Even at the height of the Windows monopoly, you were never locked into it in a literal sense, but practically you were, especially if you relied on being able to use office documents or Exchange.
If you currently rely on something specific to Mac (say MobileMe or something) and suddenly you find you need something that the iPhone doesn't offer then you face the same level of "lock in", but there is nothing stopping you changing platforms - there are plenty of other options.
Apple are also a long way from being a monopoly in the smartphone and cellphone market as a whole.
Well, pigs may be flying - the new 10.1 release candidate flash build for OS X is *much* better than the total dog's breakfast that the 10.0 stable is.
CPU use for a 480 SD stream is down from 60-65% on a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo to 45%. For the 720p HD stream, core use is down from 103% (cpu meter measures up to 200%, with the graphs showing up to 100% per core) down to 86% usage, as long as it is played full screen. If you play the HD stream in the window, you still get noticeable frame dropping, but at least that has now gone for the SD streams in the window.
Flash websites have also seen a 20%ish drop in CPU use with the beta release.
Of course, similar 720p H.264 videos (which the flash streams are) play at 5-10% CPU use in Quicktime/Perian/VLC/Mplayer etc.
Those numbers drop noticeably with the new beta release of the plugin, but they are still ludicrously high. While the iPad has more grunt than the iPhone, it's still nowhere near the power of a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo. iPhone OS is still pretty much OS X underneath, so unless it gets better still, there is just no way you will get acceptable performance on the iPad.
Apple are the only one who can sell that book in their particular cover (say, a cardboard wallet with "Amazon.com" printed on the side, that you open to reveal the content.
You can still get that content from the source, on the web, from another publisher who sells it in a slightly different container....
I'm not just talking about Apple here. I would be just as vocal about this if it was someone else - for example, if Amazon had refused to carry a Kindle version (I know, impossible since it;s an animated cartoon series, but run with it) - in that case, is Amazon censoring him because you can't get it on their particular specific content consumption device?
Whether this is Apple or some other entity that sells content via a store it controls, the decision not to carry a product is not censorship.
So back to the question you will not answer, and I'll make it a little more relevant. I write a book. I self publish this book and have it printed on paper. I also make it into a web-readable format, and I make it into an App Store app and into an Android App.
I go to lots of bookstores. Some of them decide to sell my book. One of them won't sell it, because they don't sell books that could be deemed offensive (by someone - doesn't matter who, could be anyone). A website takes up my web version and puts it behind a paywall. The Android marketplace carries my Android version (no roadblocks at all there!) and Apple says no - for the same reason as the bookshop.
So, is Apple censoring me? Is the bookshop? Are either of them preventing access to my book via alternate means? Does that even matter? What if *no one* will carry my product? Am I being censored then?
Look at it this way, I think Apple deciding not to sell this is a stupid move. Grade A stupid move. It does not make it censorship. It just makes it stupid.
If that's the case and I write a book and get it printed and then take it to all of the bookshops in town and one of them refuses to sell it on my behalf, is that censorship? Is that one bookstore censoring me?
So how are they suppressing him? They are just choosing not to sell his product. That is a subtle difference. They can choose not to sell the product he is offering in their store. This does not mean he is censoring him - just rejecting his product.
It doesn't even matter what it is - let's say my app does some task that the phone already does - shows a compass or something, but with a quote of my own underneath randomly selected from an online quote database. If Apple don;t want to sell that app in their store, is it censorship?
If I write a book and self publish it and have truckfulls of copies, is it censorship if any bookstore I take it to refuses to sell it on my behalf?
I know what the dictionary definition of censorship is. It does not apply to a private store (such as, say, the app store, or a bookshop, or WalMart) deciding what products it wants to sell.
Censorship would be actively preventing people from accessing his material from third party sources that Apple does not control - eg, blocking access to his website in Safari. Simply not selling the app he made is not censoring him.
What part of the internet does Apple control, precisely?
Apple control *their store*, and that is all. They are no different to any other retailer.
I guess you could just go to the website using the in built web browser on the iPad, or does this trigger a crack team of armed mercenaries to bust into your home and cover the screen with a piece of black card if you try?
This is simply a business decision by a private company that can decide what it sells in its store. It's not censorship to reject a product on the basis of rules you have set out for things that you sell in the store - it's not even arbitrary: the terms of the store disallow defamatory material.
You may not like it, and think it is abhorrent, but that doesn't make it censorship.
It's no more censorship than WalMart refusing to sell music with "objectionable lyrics" or a Ford dealership refusing to sell Toyota cars or a right wing independent bookshop refusing to carry "The Audacity of Hope" (or a leftie bookstore refusing to carry Palin's book).
Apple is a business. They sell things. They run a store. They can choose what to sell in that store. Choosing not to sell something in that store is *not censorship*.
Replace the word "Apple" with any number of other business names: WalMart, Microsoft, Sears, Amazon, etc and it still stands. This is not just about Apple.
No, not just the emphasis on the "Hussein" (which is a talking point used to attempt to make him look less American) but the whole post as a whole. He, of course, is fully aware of what his own name is and has "acknowledged the fact" (wtf?! like it was ever in any doubt as to what his name was). Where the issue comes in is when an aspect of that name is taken by the opposition (and you cannot deny that that Repubs liked to put heavy emphasis on this) that he has a "muslim sounding" name in an attempt to make him look "unamerican". A tactic you then used in your post. Why bring it up if not to attempt to back up your point that he "is not truly American"?
No TV in Indonesia in 1969? What, you think the rest of the world is some backwards tribal village with no power or modern amenities?
You have no reason to bring up his name, and his physical location, or to assume that Indonesia is some third world hovel when talking about the moon landings *except* to make a point that he is "not a real American".
It's the equivalent of picking out the fact that John McCain's name is "McCain" and that sounds Scottish and is not American, which is clearly foolish and irrelevant.
If that isn't the very definition of racism, then I am not sure what is going to cut it with you.
What exactly was your point. The specific point you were making about where Barack Obama was at the exact time of the moon landings, and the name he was going by at the time. What precisely did you want to convey to people reading the post?
I am genuinely interested.
You can call him Barack Hussein Obama all you like without being a racist. Emphasising his "non American" name is not racism, it's just dirty politics, it's the rest of the assertions that qualify.
Either way, it is pretty clear from your posts that I am arguing with someone who is trolling.
That is essentially thinly veiled racism. It even features the classic Faux News talking point to emphasise the "Hussein".
Speaking of that, what relevance does his name have on anything? Does that make him less American, that his name is different?
I guess you're one of those people currently yelling about how Obama "cancelled national prayer day".
You are also claiming that he's not truly American - may I ask, what is he if he is not American? What is the requirement to be a "True American"? Does that mean "belongs to the Republican party"?
Because people are buying them in the US and having them shipped to Israel (and other countries) because they're not officially available in those countries directly, hence the story about them being seized by customs agents?
They said "in April" and then delayed it to "May". What's wrong with that if you know you are going to be behind?
This is why companies like Blizzard don't put release dates or give out speculative info, even if they have an idea about when a product will launch. They merely say "we'll release it when it's ready"- the famous Blizzard "Soon(tm)" for product release dates.
If they say "It will ship in April 15th" and there is a delay then a horde of raging nerds go crazy on the forums about shitty service and demanding free game time and so on.
If they say "soon" and they have to slip the date back, they can just say "it will come out when it's ready".
Re:Apple's high "Not Invented Here" mentality?
on
AdvancED Flash On Devices
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, I think it is about the fact that Flash is dog slow on OS X (and devices based on OS X), as Apple has mentioned before, resulting in a crappy user experience and very poor battery life.
Slashdot will tell you it's all about preventing competition with the app store, despite alternate ways to deploy apps and games on the iPhone that still exist and predate the store, and Apple's promotion of HTML5 as a replacement for flash which would also provide competition (but they'll then say that 'they don;t see it as a threat because it is not as mature' or some other further excuse to avoid Occam's Razor: that flash just plain blows goats on top of OS X and iPhone OS.
The iPhone OS *does* use a variant of the Darwin kernel and shares a vast amount of code with OS X. It is essentially the core of OS X but with the different GUI and frameworks for the touchscreen and accelerometers.
Don't just take my word for it though - this is extensively documented on the internet. You can start at the wikipedia article, but don;t just stop there - Apple's own developer documentation is extensive.
And while it is possible to write software targeted to a platform, given the terrible performance of flash on OS X, the performance on a mobile platform that is essentially the same does not bode well. Flash tests done on jailbroken iPhones seem to support this.(although clearly with unoptimised software).
Because the core of iPhone OS is OS X, and if they can't write a decent Flash plugin when they have all the resources of an OS X box available, what makes you think they can do it on the iPhone, which uses the same core as OS X?
I installed the 10.1 release candidate build today after a suggestion by another poster, and it is better than the current stable release, but it it still extremely CPU intensive (on a 2GHz machine) for tasks that are really not that heavy.
Whatever they have done in that RC has made it noticeably better.
I tested the Diablo 3 site and the same iPlayer stream and in both cases, the Safari process was ticking over at 25%ish less (down to about 4 to 6%) and the pluginhost process itself was down to about 80% for Diablo 3 (down from 103%) and 45% for iPlayer (down from 65%).
Definitely some big strides it seems, at long last.
If they can also fix the bug where it complains about Adobe AIR install errors every time you go to the iPlayer site (that appear as a system error window in the background) that would be sweet. That may be a BBC problem though, but it started happening on Snow Leopard.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, there's a big jump from "likes Apple" to "supports child rape" - I can see why you posted AC.
For the record, I hate that the built in calendar app on the iPhone doesn't carry across the ToDo lost from iCal, only the event calendars, and that I have to use a third party app to sync my ToDo list.
I also dislike the slight pause the phone has sometimes when I answer it and it says has picked up, but there's no connection for a second or so. I'm not sure if this is the network or the phone, but it's probably the phone.
It also needs a way to lock the screen orientation by default without the use of a third party app.
The app store needs a checkbox update system so I can choose if I want to update all but one app (rather than either updating everything or updating one at a time).
Sometimes if you take a picture in landscape with the phone "upside down" (ie, tiled over one way rather than the other from vertical) the tilt sensor gets confused about which way up the photo should be and you end up having to gingerly hold it to stop it spinning all over the place - the photo app needs a way to lock rotation, and to be able to edit the "up" direction on images you have taken.
I'd also like it to keep reminding me I have an unread message via vibrate/tone if I don;t unlock the screen, rather than just remind me once.
I don't support DRM and have spoken against it in the past.
While we're on the subject of Apple faults, the Finder really needs some love, and Mail.app really needs to have a more graceful fail method if a mailserver rejects authentication rather than just continually prompting for the password with no indication of failure.
Oh, but I'm sorry, don't let my actual beliefs and opinions get in the way of your blind AC hate of Apple and preconceived ideas about me. It's a little bit pathetic and hilarious, but I feel compelled to point out the inaccuracy.
So, we were talking about how Apple's API for a fixed resolution touchscreen was different to the one for a variable resolution mouse+keyboard based GUI, and how some whining guy on a blog is complaining that Apple didn't make it as easy as "1. recompile app, 2. ????? 3.Publish on app store 4. Profit".
the desktop and the phone are both supposedly within spitting distance of being the same operating system, so it should be a small matter of ifdefs to have the same app compile as a desktop application and an iPhone application, right?
And at the core, they are - they share a large amount of code, with iPhone OS running a slightly modified version of the Darwin kernel. Where they diverge though, might have something to do with the whole UI being completely different. I assume he just didn't realise that the UI was different, since that seems to be the level of discourse available. So an app written for OS X, using a window manager with a point and click mouse and variable screen res, just dropped right onto a fixed resolution, touchscreen device.... Right. No need to change any code! (or rather, it'll be a simple case of "if iphone then do x..").
I'm all for criticising the iPhone's genuine faults, but this sounds like a kid who threw his toys out of the pram and is whining to get them back, only to want to throw them out again.
It's not even true though - a VAC ban prevents you from playing on VAC-enabled servers, but does not stop you playing on other servers that do not have VAC monitoring. It does not delete your games either - the account carries on just fine.
What is does prevent you doing though is moving those games to a *new* account, so if you cheat and want to play on VAC servers again then you need a new account, and you are not allowed to move your purchases/CD keys over, and the old account is banned from VAC servers forever, for all old and new games added to it. You can still play the games though, and play on non-protected servers.
Not all prop aircraft use piston engines. Most passenger prop aircraft above about 10 seats use turboprops - which are jet engines with a propellor on the front instead of a high bypass fan.
The abrasive nature of the ash is not the main concern - it's that it melts in the combustion chambers forming something similar to glass and then re solidifies into bigger clumps as it leaves the core of the engine and blocks up various channels. This causes back pressure in the engine that can cause compressor stall, which causes the "fire belching" you sometimes see on large turbofan engines with thrust reversing ducts engaged. Either way it is not a good thing and can cause damage to the engine, or cause it to stop running entirely.
Anti competitive behaviour is not necessarily illegal.
There is nothing to stop SFGate recoding a video version of his cartoons for iPhone users - whatever it was going to do, there was some delivery mechanism other than flash to make the app work on the phone (even though it was rejected). So, they cannot get the app into the store, but they can make an iPhone-compatible web version (very easily) even with the lack of flash on the iPhone.
Apple cannot stop them getting that content onto the iPhone if they are determined.
The App Store isn't the only way to get apps on the iPhone by the way - before the store existed Apple were pushing a different app creation method that still exists and doesn't use the app store itself.
The analogy is nothing like prosthetic feet. Nike makes a boot that fits on your foot. They can change the thread diameter and direction so that you have to buy studs from them, but that's the trade off for buying the boot from them.
If they did this, or made a boot that had a proprietary attachment for studs and then only sold studs that fitted through their own store then it is still not a monopoly condition. Sure, they have a monopoly on selling through their own store, but you don;t have to buy the boot in the first place, knowing ahead of time that the only place to buy studs is from Nike themselves.
In both situations, there are alternatives - different boot makers, different smartphone providers, that offer the choice. To claim that it's somehow wrong for Apple to be the sole provider of apps for its phone is just drawing the point away - the fact it's the sole supplier does not mean that it is censoring Fiore because they choose not to carry his app.
I don't agree with their decision, but I do not believe that it is censorship. It gets thrown around a lot here, and it dilutes the meaning.
And no one except Microsoft can deliver content via Xbox Live.
Apple runs a store. It sells products via that store.
Only Nike makes those "90" football boots - there is no (legal) way to get them any other way except from Nike.
Only Starbucks stores sell ready made Starbucks coffees. They have a monopoly on selling ready made Starbucks coffee.
The App Store is not a monopoly, unless the meaning of the word is distorted. Of course a company has "a monopoly" on selling products through its own store.
Slashdot users like to throw around the words "monopoly" and "antitrust" to try and muddy the waters without actually understanding what they mean (or the reasons that MS got in trouble - it wasn't for being a monopoly).
The AC's point (modded insightful too) was that they "have the power to supress and censor" Fiore - when they can really do no such thing, unless by denying his app they also went to the SFgate webserver and set it on fire, and went to his personal webhost and threatened to shoot the sysadmin's daughter through the knees unless he took down the web comics.
They're not censoring him by any stretch of the imagination, they just chose not to sell his product.
Yes, but commercial (and Linux) alternatives were squeezed out by MS by bullying the OEMs - "Only sell Windows preinstalled or you may just find your OEM licence cost increases".
There is no viable alternative OS for the Xbox 360 either, but they are not telling game shops that they mustn't stock PS3s or they may find the wholesale cost of the 360 might go up...
It's not illegal to be a monopoly - it's what you do when you are one that matters. Even at the height of the Windows monopoly, you were never locked into it in a literal sense, but practically you were, especially if you relied on being able to use office documents or Exchange.
If you currently rely on something specific to Mac (say MobileMe or something) and suddenly you find you need something that the iPhone doesn't offer then you face the same level of "lock in", but there is nothing stopping you changing platforms - there are plenty of other options.
Apple are also a long way from being a monopoly in the smartphone and cellphone market as a whole.
Well, pigs may be flying - the new 10.1 release candidate flash build for OS X is *much* better than the total dog's breakfast that the 10.0 stable is.
CPU use for a 480 SD stream is down from 60-65% on a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo to 45%. For the 720p HD stream, core use is down from 103% (cpu meter measures up to 200%, with the graphs showing up to 100% per core) down to 86% usage, as long as it is played full screen. If you play the HD stream in the window, you still get noticeable frame dropping, but at least that has now gone for the SD streams in the window.
Flash websites have also seen a 20%ish drop in CPU use with the beta release.
Of course, similar 720p H.264 videos (which the flash streams are) play at 5-10% CPU use in Quicktime/Perian/VLC/Mplayer etc.
I showed these screenshots on slashdot a few days ago:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2258/osxflashiplayerapr10.jpg - SD content on BBC iPlayer (10.0 stable flash release)
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4771/flashosxperformance.jpg - Diablo 3 website (10.0 stable flash release)
Those numbers drop noticeably with the new beta release of the plugin, but they are still ludicrously high. While the iPad has more grunt than the iPhone, it's still nowhere near the power of a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo. iPhone OS is still pretty much OS X underneath, so unless it gets better still, there is just no way you will get acceptable performance on the iPad.
You didn't answer the question.
Apple are the only one who can sell that book in their particular cover (say, a cardboard wallet with "Amazon.com" printed on the side, that you open to reveal the content.
You can still get that content from the source, on the web, from another publisher who sells it in a slightly different container....
I'm not just talking about Apple here. I would be just as vocal about this if it was someone else - for example, if Amazon had refused to carry a Kindle version (I know, impossible since it;s an animated cartoon series, but run with it) - in that case, is Amazon censoring him because you can't get it on their particular specific content consumption device?
Whether this is Apple or some other entity that sells content via a store it controls, the decision not to carry a product is not censorship.
So back to the question you will not answer, and I'll make it a little more relevant.
I write a book. I self publish this book and have it printed on paper. I also make it into a web-readable format, and I make it into an App Store app and into an Android App.
I go to lots of bookstores. Some of them decide to sell my book. One of them won't sell it, because they don't sell books that could be deemed offensive (by someone - doesn't matter who, could be anyone). A website takes up my web version and puts it behind a paywall. The Android marketplace carries my Android version (no roadblocks at all there!) and Apple says no - for the same reason as the bookshop.
So, is Apple censoring me? Is the bookshop? Are either of them preventing access to my book via alternate means? Does that even matter? What if *no one* will carry my product? Am I being censored then?
Look at it this way, I think Apple deciding not to sell this is a stupid move. Grade A stupid move. It does not make it censorship. It just makes it stupid.
If that's the case and I write a book and get it printed and then take it to all of the bookshops in town and one of them refuses to sell it on my behalf, is that censorship? Is that one bookstore censoring me?
Yes or No?
So how are they suppressing him? They are just choosing not to sell his product. That is a subtle difference. They can choose not to sell the product he is offering in their store. This does not mean he is censoring him - just rejecting his product.
It doesn't even matter what it is - let's say my app does some task that the phone already does - shows a compass or something, but with a quote of my own underneath randomly selected from an online quote database. If Apple don;t want to sell that app in their store, is it censorship?
If I write a book and self publish it and have truckfulls of copies, is it censorship if any bookstore I take it to refuses to sell it on my behalf?
I know what the dictionary definition of censorship is. It does not apply to a private store (such as, say, the app store, or a bookshop, or WalMart) deciding what products it wants to sell.
Censorship would be actively preventing people from accessing his material from third party sources that Apple does not control - eg, blocking access to his website in Safari. Simply not selling the app he made is not censoring him.
Re: my other post
And ha, I just realised he codes in Flash.
Oh dear.
I guess they really *are* trying to "keep him down"
(/forbidden smiley)
What part of the internet does Apple control, precisely?
Apple control *their store*, and that is all. They are no different to any other retailer.
I guess you could just go to the website using the in built web browser on the iPad, or does this trigger a crack team of armed mercenaries to bust into your home and cover the screen with a piece of black card if you try?
I hear that Amazon has a monopoly on selling products through Amazon.com.
I also hear that WalMart has a monopoly on selling products in WalMart stores.
Oh no! Whatever is to be done!
This is simply a business decision by a private company that can decide what it sells in its store. It's not censorship to reject a product on the basis of rules you have set out for things that you sell in the store - it's not even arbitrary: the terms of the store disallow defamatory material.
You may not like it, and think it is abhorrent, but that doesn't make it censorship.
It's no more censorship than WalMart refusing to sell music with "objectionable lyrics" or a Ford dealership refusing to sell Toyota cars or a right wing independent bookshop refusing to carry "The Audacity of Hope" (or a leftie bookstore refusing to carry Palin's book).
Apple is a business. They sell things. They run a store. They can choose what to sell in that store. Choosing not to sell something in that store is *not censorship*.
Replace the word "Apple" with any number of other business names: WalMart, Microsoft, Sears, Amazon, etc and it still stands. This is not just about Apple.
No, not just the emphasis on the "Hussein" (which is a talking point used to attempt to make him look less American) but the whole post as a whole. He, of course, is fully aware of what his own name is and has "acknowledged the fact" (wtf?! like it was ever in any doubt as to what his name was). Where the issue comes in is when an aspect of that name is taken by the opposition (and you cannot deny that that Repubs liked to put heavy emphasis on this) that he has a "muslim sounding" name in an attempt to make him look "unamerican". A tactic you then used in your post. Why bring it up if not to attempt to back up your point that he "is not truly American"?
No TV in Indonesia in 1969? What, you think the rest of the world is some backwards tribal village with no power or modern amenities?
You have no reason to bring up his name, and his physical location, or to assume that Indonesia is some third world hovel when talking about the moon landings *except* to make a point that he is "not a real American".
It's the equivalent of picking out the fact that John McCain's name is "McCain" and that sounds Scottish and is not American, which is clearly foolish and irrelevant.
If that isn't the very definition of racism, then I am not sure what is going to cut it with you.
What exactly was your point. The specific point you were making about where Barack Obama was at the exact time of the moon landings, and the name he was going by at the time. What precisely did you want to convey to people reading the post?
I am genuinely interested.
You can call him Barack Hussein Obama all you like without being a racist. Emphasising his "non American" name is not racism, it's just dirty politics, it's the rest of the assertions that qualify.
Either way, it is pretty clear from your posts that I am arguing with someone who is trolling.
You mean this post of yours: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1620474&cid=31868494
That is essentially thinly veiled racism. It even features the classic Faux News talking point to emphasise the "Hussein".
Speaking of that, what relevance does his name have on anything? Does that make him less American, that his name is different?
I guess you're one of those people currently yelling about how Obama "cancelled national prayer day".
You are also claiming that he's not truly American - may I ask, what is he if he is not American? What is the requirement to be a "True American"? Does that mean "belongs to the Republican party"?
Because people are buying them in the US and having them shipped to Israel (and other countries) because they're not officially available in those countries directly, hence the story about them being seized by customs agents?
Same thing happened with the iPhone.
They said "in April" and then delayed it to "May". What's wrong with that if you know you are going to be behind?
This is why companies like Blizzard don't put release dates or give out speculative info, even if they have an idea about when a product will launch. They merely say "we'll release it when it's ready"- the famous Blizzard "Soon(tm)" for product release dates.
If they say "It will ship in April 15th" and there is a delay then a horde of raging nerds go crazy on the forums about shitty service and demanding free game time and so on.
If they say "soon" and they have to slip the date back, they can just say "it will come out when it's ready".
No, I think it is about the fact that Flash is dog slow on OS X (and devices based on OS X), as Apple has mentioned before, resulting in a crappy user experience and very poor battery life.
Slashdot will tell you it's all about preventing competition with the app store, despite alternate ways to deploy apps and games on the iPhone that still exist and predate the store, and Apple's promotion of HTML5 as a replacement for flash which would also provide competition (but they'll then say that 'they don;t see it as a threat because it is not as mature' or some other further excuse to avoid Occam's Razor: that flash just plain blows goats on top of OS X and iPhone OS.
If you "doubt it" you can just google it.
The iPhone OS *does* use a variant of the Darwin kernel and shares a vast amount of code with OS X. It is essentially the core of OS X but with the different GUI and frameworks for the touchscreen and accelerometers.
Don't just take my word for it though - this is extensively documented on the internet. You can start at the wikipedia article, but don;t just stop there - Apple's own developer documentation is extensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone_os
And while it is possible to write software targeted to a platform, given the terrible performance of flash on OS X, the performance on a mobile platform that is essentially the same does not bode well. Flash tests done on jailbroken iPhones seem to support this.(although clearly with unoptimised software).
Because the core of iPhone OS is OS X, and if they can't write a decent Flash plugin when they have all the resources of an OS X box available, what makes you think they can do it on the iPhone, which uses the same core as OS X?
I installed the 10.1 release candidate build today after a suggestion by another poster, and it is better than the current stable release, but it it still extremely CPU intensive (on a 2GHz machine) for tasks that are really not that heavy.
Whatever they have done in that RC has made it noticeably better.
I tested the Diablo 3 site and the same iPlayer stream and in both cases, the Safari process was ticking over at 25%ish less (down to about 4 to 6%) and the pluginhost process itself was down to about 80% for Diablo 3 (down from 103%) and 45% for iPlayer (down from 65%).
Definitely some big strides it seems, at long last.
If they can also fix the bug where it complains about Adobe AIR install errors every time you go to the iPlayer site (that appear as a system error window in the background) that would be sweet. That may be a BBC problem though, but it started happening on Snow Leopard.
Well, the iPad doesn't use iTunes to "play" music either - that app is the iPod app. The iTunes app is the front to the music and video store.