Yes, I am name calling, and haven't claimed otherwise. I am not making an argument, as they already have been made. This is just me expressing an opinion that people like you sicken me.
It's quite unfortunate that people with a difference of opinion with you sicken you. Throughout life, you will encounter many with a difference of opinion. You are apt to be sick quite a lot.
He preferred "spiking the football" when he thought it would benefit his campaign.
That is a dumbass Faux news meme. He fucking got the guy who backed 9/11 when Bush said "I don't much care about where OBL is," and marked the anniversary. Much more impressive than "spiking the football" BEFORE the mission is accomplished.
endorsed the federal marriage amendment
Again, he only entered that social issue when his campaign thought he needed some extra support.
Actually, no. He dropped the justice department's defense of the FMA quite some time ago. And whether his support of gay marriage gives his campaign support remains to be seen. Most observers say it is not a net gain.
questioned the science on global warming, refused to sign the kyoto protocol
Worse, he didn't question it. Instead, choosing to push taxpayer money to questionable companies run by his campaign contributors.
You may say it's worse, but at least Obama LISTENED TO SCIENTISTS instead of denying science. Also, quit with the recycled Solyndra nonsense. There were BILLIONS AND BILLIONS invested in solar/wind and yes, one company went down when the Chinese invested even more, the other 90+% of alt energy investments are still good.
If you can't see how the Dems and Repubs are as intertwined as a Picasso painting, then you're just choosing not to look.
Saying the parties are the same is nonsense. You can be disillusioned with both if your want, but they are not interchangeable.
Well, I think the illegality is more clear in the citizen case. I didn't follow the case that closely, but I don't understand why he wasn't tried in absentia, and then killed.
Probably because this is a military case, not a criminal case.
Right, because Obama lied and invaded a country, celebrated it with "Mission Accomplished" when the mission had barely started, restricted embryonic stem cell research, endorsed the federal marriage amendment, questioned the science on global warming, refused to sign the kyoto protocol, cut taxes on the rich,....
requires him to do things that are not within the power granted to the president.
When you write "power", I assume you mean "legal power". Exceeding the legal power of the president has been an almost monotonically increasing function for over 200 years, and Obama has so outrageously flouted the law that his actions bear no resemblance to the legal limits. It is precisely Ron Paul's greatest value that he will prevent this abuse by withdrawing previous illegal executive orders, vetoing illegal laws, and refusing to make new illegal actions.
Please demonstrate what Obama has done to "outrageously flout the law," Mr Limbaugh.
Describe this actual utility, please - particularly in context of the average citizen.
Gold can be used to greatly increase a man's pleasure in life by giving gifts of it in the form of jewellery. I would compare the utility of gold to the utility of flowers. I can put my wife in a good mood by giving her either. Don't even try and tell me that's not useful.
So lets make flowers = money, then we can say money grows on trees!
If you want to sell your app in iTunes, you have to pay the $99 per year, so that is irrelevant.
If it's a web application, you don't need to sell it in iTunes. I apologize for not making an effort to clarify this difference earlier.
Is your $649 supposed to be the min you can spend on iHardware (because it's not)?
Apple charges $599 for a new Mac mini. I estimate $50 for the KVM switch and other cables needed to hook it up as your second computer.
Yes, you have to buy a development system to do development. Do you really expect Apple to do all the work to port their dev tools to another platform? There is no incentive for that.
The arguments have already been made by others, yet you keep on making weak excuses as to the true nature of the situation. So rather than repeating the argument, I just say that people like you sicken me.
Once again, you result to name calling. I have made my arguments and they have made theirs. You disagree with me so you say my arguments are weak excuses; I can say the same of the other side.
They could make use of a non-web application that does media capture - there are many.
Unless the rest of the application that does media capture violates Apple's guidelines in some other way or is developed by a hobbyist who happens not to have $649 plus $99 per year lying around for the iOS devkit.
I really don't get what you're arguing here. Are you saying that a hobbyist wants to do a media capture app and put it on their own iPhone or sell it in the app store - that costs you the $99 per year, without regard to the web application / browser limitation argument. And where do you get the $649 from? Is that for a platform on which to test the app? What a concept!
You can do Media Capture, perhaps not in a web application, but you can add web capabilities to your app
In other words, anyone who wants to add the equivalent of Media Capture to an app has to pay $649 plus $99 per year for the iOS devkit.
Okay, I re-read what you posted. If you want to sell your app in iTunes, you have to pay the $99 per year, so that is irrelevant. Is your $649 supposed to be the min you can spend on iHardware (because it's not)? If you want to develop without testing on hardware (not a recommendation I would make), then you can test in the simulator.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
And Microsoft never stopped anyone from selling (or running) a competing browser...no monopoly?
I was never arguing the Microsoft issue. However, it's my understanding that the problem was Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM's. Also, their falsifying of videotape evidence during the trial does not help their case.
So if someone owns an iOS device and wants to make use of a web application that uses the HTML Media Capture API or any other HTML API not supported by Safari, your solution is to buy a second device and possibly subscribe to a second cellular service plan for that device. Correct?
No, incorrect. You are making an argument for a convoluted micro-case. They could make use of a non-web application that does media capture - there are many.
First, I have better apps to develop than a web browser
The limitation I speak of (no HTML Media Capture) means that if your "better app to develop" needs a camera or a microphone, such as a barcode scanner or a voice or video chat application, you cannot develop it as a web application and expect it to work on a device running iOS. How would this have meshed with Apple's goal throughout the iOS 1 series of having all third-party applications be web applications?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you wanted to have backwards compatibility to iOS 1. You must have hardware with some very good specs, including the ability the ability to do video chat. You can do Media Capture, perhaps not in a web application, but you can add web capabilities to your app using the existing libraries.
Your definition and mine of what a browser is are COMPLETELY different obviously. Sorry but if I write a front end and use some existing "library" as the rendering engine (AKA, the hard work / key part that makes the browser a browser and not a video game or a spreadsheet), and call myself a browser developer, that's kinda sad IMO. UI Developer? Sure! Absolutely. Browser? Nope.
Even if I say your right about your definition (which I don't think is correct), Apple is still restricting and locking out other parties from using their own browser technology. You have to use THEIRS.
So I guess your admiting that Apple restricts browsers, since you have to qualify your statement with "(and use built-in WebKit libraries)." Your iOS Rage not withstanding.
So you're against using anybody's library for graphics, sound, animation, UI, or anything else. By your restriction, unless you're developing every last executable instruction you're just a leech script kiddie. Okay, fine, that's your view.
So how should a developer write a web browser that allows users to view sites that use a feature of HTML that the latest version of WebKit does not implement? One such feature is the HTML Media Capture.
First, I have better apps to develop than a web browser, so I can't answer your technical question. Second, being able to implement a particular feature on a particular platform does not a legal case make.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I am name calling, and haven't claimed otherwise. I am not making an argument, as they already have been made. This is just me expressing an opinion that people like you sicken me.
It's quite unfortunate that people with a difference of opinion with you sicken you. Throughout life, you will encounter many with a difference of opinion. You are apt to be sick quite a lot.
Right, because Obama lied and invaded a country
Twice. Libya and Pakistan.
Obama did not invade either, nor lie about either
celebrated it with "Mission Accomplished"
He preferred "spiking the football" when he thought it would benefit his campaign.
That is a dumbass Faux news meme. He fucking got the guy who backed 9/11 when Bush said "I don't much care about where OBL is," and marked the anniversary. Much more impressive than "spiking the football" BEFORE the mission is accomplished.
endorsed the federal marriage amendment
Again, he only entered that social issue when his campaign thought he needed some extra support.
Actually, no. He dropped the justice department's defense of the FMA quite some time ago. And whether his support of gay marriage gives his campaign support remains to be seen. Most observers say it is not a net gain.
questioned the science on global warming, refused to sign the kyoto protocol
Worse, he didn't question it. Instead, choosing to push taxpayer money to questionable companies run by his campaign contributors.
You may say it's worse, but at least Obama LISTENED TO SCIENTISTS instead of denying science. Also, quit with the recycled Solyndra nonsense. There were BILLIONS AND BILLIONS invested in solar/wind and yes, one company went down when the Chinese invested even more, the other 90+% of alt energy investments are still good.
If you can't see how the Dems and Repubs are as intertwined as a Picasso painting, then you're just choosing not to look.
Saying the parties are the same is nonsense. You can be disillusioned with both if your want, but they are not interchangeable.
Well, I think the illegality is more clear in the citizen case. I didn't follow the case that closely, but I don't understand why he wasn't tried in absentia, and then killed.
Probably because this is a military case, not a criminal case.
Well, there was that whole "assassinate a citizen without due process" thing...
When the citizen is at war with the country, how does it differ from assassinating non-citizens?
Obama's behavior is Bush's behavior.
Right, because Obama lied and invaded a country, celebrated it with "Mission Accomplished" when the mission had barely started, restricted embryonic stem cell research, endorsed the federal marriage amendment, questioned the science on global warming, refused to sign the kyoto protocol, cut taxes on the rich, ....
Except that the delegates that you and the MSM count as being Romney's are 75% Paul people, and they are unbound by party rules.
And they say that RP fans aren't delusional?
Republicans aren't for smaller government either. Unless you mean they're for a government so small it can fit in your bedroom.
Or, fit in a vagina.
I bet 90% of capitol hill doesn't know what 'keynesian' means.
Not true. Roughly 50% of Congress knows it means "socialist."
No, the republicans only THINK they know what it means to be "socialist" when they attach that label to democrats.
When you write "power", I assume you mean "legal power". Exceeding the legal power of the president has been an almost monotonically increasing function for over 200 years, and Obama has so outrageously flouted the law that his actions bear no resemblance to the legal limits. It is precisely Ron Paul's greatest value that he will prevent this abuse by withdrawing previous illegal executive orders, vetoing illegal laws, and refusing to make new illegal actions.
Please demonstrate what Obama has done to "outrageously flout the law," Mr Limbaugh.
Describe this actual utility, please - particularly in context of the average citizen.
Gold can be used to greatly increase a man's pleasure in life by giving gifts of it in the form of jewellery. I would compare the utility of gold to the utility of flowers. I can put my wife in a good mood by giving her either. Don't even try and tell me that's not useful.
So lets make flowers = money, then we can say money grows on trees!
If you want to sell your app in iTunes, you have to pay the $99 per year, so that is irrelevant.
If it's a web application, you don't need to sell it in iTunes. I apologize for not making an effort to clarify this difference earlier.
Is your $649 supposed to be the min you can spend on iHardware (because it's not)?
Apple charges $599 for a new Mac mini. I estimate $50 for the KVM switch and other cables needed to hook it up as your second computer.
And I have to buy a Windows machine to develop for Windows. Why won't Microsoft port .NET to the Mac. Monopoly! Unfair!
If you want to sell your app in iTunes, you have to pay the $99 per year, so that is irrelevant.
If it's a web application, you don't need to sell it in iTunes. I apologize for not making an effort to clarify this difference earlier.
Is your $649 supposed to be the min you can spend on iHardware (because it's not)?
Apple charges $599 for a new Mac mini. I estimate $50 for the KVM switch and other cables needed to hook it up as your second computer.
Yes, you have to buy a development system to do development. Do you really expect Apple to do all the work to port their dev tools to another platform? There is no incentive for that.
The arguments have already been made by others, yet you keep on making weak excuses as to the true nature of the situation. So rather than repeating the argument, I just say that people like you sicken me.
Once again, you result to name calling. I have made my arguments and they have made theirs. You disagree with me so you say my arguments are weak excuses; I can say the same of the other side.
fox news is touring this old factory is because it helps further their agenda of demonizing the president and the democratic party
was dead on. Touring that old factory is simply partisan news. No one wants to see some empty warehouse. It's all about keeping Solyndra in the news.
They could make use of a non-web application that does media capture - there are many.
Unless the rest of the application that does media capture violates Apple's guidelines in some other way or is developed by a hobbyist who happens not to have $649 plus $99 per year lying around for the iOS devkit.
I really don't get what you're arguing here. Are you saying that a hobbyist wants to do a media capture app and put it on their own iPhone or sell it in the app store - that costs you the $99 per year, without regard to the web application / browser limitation argument. And where do you get the $649 from? Is that for a platform on which to test the app? What a concept!
You can do Media Capture, perhaps not in a web application, but you can add web capabilities to your app
In other words, anyone who wants to add the equivalent of Media Capture to an app has to pay $649 plus $99 per year for the iOS devkit.
Okay, I re-read what you posted. If you want to sell your app in iTunes, you have to pay the $99 per year, so that is irrelevant. Is your $649 supposed to be the min you can spend on iHardware (because it's not)? If you want to develop without testing on hardware (not a recommendation I would make), then you can test in the simulator.
You can do Media Capture, perhaps not in a web application, but you can add web capabilities to your app
In other words, anyone who wants to add the equivalent of Media Capture to an app has to pay $649 plus $99 per year for the iOS devkit.
Nothing of the sort! Buy some fucking media capture program from the app store for a couple of bucks.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
And Microsoft never stopped anyone from selling (or running) a competing browser...no monopoly?
I was never arguing the Microsoft issue. However, it's my understanding that the problem was Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM's. Also, their falsifying of videotape evidence during the trial does not help their case.
so I don't see how this is a matter of competition.
Ahh, so you're just ignorant then.
--Jeremy
When someone disagrees with you, it does not make them ignorant. Dumbass.
People like you are sickening.
Great argument. Here, let me re-supply you:
1) Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
2) I'm rubber and you're glue; everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
3) Finders keepers, losers weepers.
4) Waah, I'm telling Mom on you
That should hold you awhile against your fellow second graders.
So if someone owns an iOS device and wants to make use of a web application that uses the HTML Media Capture API or any other HTML API not supported by Safari, your solution is to buy a second device and possibly subscribe to a second cellular service plan for that device. Correct?
No, incorrect. You are making an argument for a convoluted micro-case. They could make use of a non-web application that does media capture - there are many.
First, I have better apps to develop than a web browser
The limitation I speak of (no HTML Media Capture) means that if your "better app to develop" needs a camera or a microphone, such as a barcode scanner or a voice or video chat application, you cannot develop it as a web application and expect it to work on a device running iOS. How would this have meshed with Apple's goal throughout the iOS 1 series of having all third-party applications be web applications?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you wanted to have backwards compatibility to iOS 1. You must have hardware with some very good specs, including the ability the ability to do video chat. You can do Media Capture, perhaps not in a web application, but you can add web capabilities to your app using the existing libraries.
Untrue. You can't bundle your own version of webkit, and you have to use iOS's own javascript interpreter as well.
So you're against using libraries that are provided for your use. Okay, fine, reinvent the wheel.
Your definition and mine of what a browser is are COMPLETELY different obviously. Sorry but if I write a front end and use some existing "library" as the rendering engine (AKA, the hard work / key part that makes the browser a browser and not a video game or a spreadsheet), and call myself a browser developer, that's kinda sad IMO. UI Developer? Sure! Absolutely. Browser? Nope.
Even if I say your right about your definition (which I don't think is correct), Apple is still restricting and locking out other parties from using their own browser technology. You have to use THEIRS.
So I guess your admiting that Apple restricts browsers, since you have to qualify your statement with "(and use built-in WebKit libraries)." Your iOS Rage not withstanding.
So you're against using anybody's library for graphics, sound, animation, UI, or anything else. By your restriction, unless you're developing every last executable instruction you're just a leech script kiddie. Okay, fine, that's your view.
So how should a developer write a web browser that allows users to view sites that use a feature of HTML that the latest version of WebKit does not implement? One such feature is the HTML Media Capture.
First, I have better apps to develop than a web browser, so I can't answer your technical question. Second, being able to implement a particular feature on a particular platform does not a legal case make.