particular browser? show me a browser that doesn't require Safari, and does rendering on device (you know, a real browser, unlike Opera Mini). Link to the Apple store please.
Show me one. Even one would be enough. I originally wrote a car analogy, but perhaps the words from an actual developer at Mozilla might help:
"I am a developer on the mobile Firefox team at Mozilla.
We currently have an iPhone App called Firefox Home, which lets you sync your Firefox tabs, history and bookmarks to your iOS device. You can get it from the app store, or read more here: http://www.mozilla.com/mobile/home/
We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for Apple iOS devices. The current iOS SDK agreement forbids apps like Firefox that include their own compilers and interpreters:
“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”
this is back in 2010, did something change? If so, show me the updated information.
You admit that other browsers exist (and use built-in WebKit libraries). Yes, you must use those libraries, but you CAN STILL WRITE A BROWSER AND SELL IT.
Just because PARTICULAR browsers aren't recompiled and available, doesn't mean that nothing is allowed. Any developer can write a browser (yes, webkit engine) and sell it - thus not a monopoly, your droid rage notwithstanding.
No, they can't. Not on the App Store. Apple will not allow it. The only way to get an alternate browser on the iPhone is by jailbreaking it.
You are wrong. You just have to use webkit for rendering. Many, many apps in the app store have mini-browsers - it is part of the frigging developement framework.
No monopoly on browsers doesn't necessarily mean no monopoly on browser engines. One can't sell a competing browser engine on these platforms, not even if it is demonstrated that Microsoft and Apple have been falling behind on implementing useful HTML5 features in the respective engines of Internet Explorer and Safari. Or in what way are browser engines exempt from competition law?
You also can't install your own OS on the iPhone or iPad. There are lots of small components you can't replace. However, you CAN SELL a browser app, so I don't see how this is a matter of competition.
ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?
Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!
And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)
Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.
Just because PARTICULAR browsers aren't recompiled and available, doesn't mean that nothing is allowed. Any developer can write a browser (yes, webkit engine) and sell it - thus not a monopoly, your droid rage notwithstanding.
Hence no monopoly?
Being able to skin the only browser allowed (aka, Monopoly browser) does not undo the fact that there is no real browser choice -- hence there is a monopoly.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
At the standard rate of dime/dozen, that's $583.33. But since "only a few dozen were accessed," that's less than a dollar. If the Kickstarter people come to my office, I will reimburse them with a $1.
All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).
That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE;) for iOS.
Perhaps the browsers available in the App Sore are just wrappers and skins for Safari, however the developers are welcome to charge for them, hence there are other browsers available, hence no monopoly. Sorry.
I cower in fear of your legendary tolerance of god-awful, slow, IDEs. And who cares about "integrating the provisioning/code signing" - are you really so lazy you won't log into the Provisioning Portal for a measly 30 seconds to provision your apps? How thoroughly lazy.
And as it happens, I do trust JetBrains not to screw me over - they're a big name that's been in business for over a decade making awesome software (of which I use several).
Wow, worthless name calling. You are such a great debater! In case you didn't know, the "I" in IDE is "integrated" (which in this case includes integrated provisioning). Just because you think JetBrains is a big name in the business doesn't make it a good idea to give them your Apple ID credentials - that's just plain foolish. I also prefer the integrated documentation and code samples.
For why socialism is bad in general, see every socialist and communist country ever.
You are, as most Fox-watchers, confusing socialism/communism with fascism. Also, note that one reason those regimes fail is the heavy-handed way the US and other countries deal with them. For example, we've been fucking Cuba up the ass for decades.
Socialism and communism as economic systems are a failure. If you're in doubt take a good look at the Soviet Union and it's sattelite nations. Notice that the Peoples Republic of China has largely dismantled it's own economic system and incorporated capitalist elements. Ther is a reason for that. Capitalism works.
Yes, capitalism works, I'm not denying that. It especially works great for the robber-barons and the dynasty-rich; the serfs, not so much. I'm not promoting socialism or communism, I just think that people who dismiss them out of hand as failures generally don't even know what they are.
Bwahaha! Wow, it almost looks like you think you're being serious!
XCode is truly awful. I'm finding AppCode to be a much better alternative, and have heard there are a couple of other IDEs as well (but have not yet tried them and can't recall the names).
I am serious. AppCode website lists no features not currently in Xcode. I'm betting AppCode doesn't integrate the provisioning/code signing like the latest Xcode either, and if it did, I sure wouldn't put my AppleID and password into someone else's IDE.
AC does not know what it talking about. XCode is a joy to use.
I personally can't stand it, but I think it really just comes down to what your used to. I've work with KDevelop, Eclipse, and VS, all of which I find at least tolerable. I just couldn't get used to XCode though. The editor is not as advanced IMHO, with things like text selection, auto formatting, and cursor placement/tabbing while writing code. Code re-factoring also leaves much to be desired. I will concede the "wonky" windowing behavior is just because I'm not used to using a Mac, but at the very least, it seemed more difficult to get custom views and perspectives to work the way you want them to. Eclipse is probably the best for that last one, which is why I usually go with that, provided it has an extension for the language/tooling I'm using at the time.
I can respect that you think other systems are better. My argument was with the AC who said that Xcode was "piss poor" and the opposite of intuitive. That's just hyperbole and unnecessary name-calling. I grant that Xcode is not perfect. I don't know what version you last used, but I think the all the predictive stuff is so good that it's faster than using copy-paste for similar blocks.
I'm sure someone just handed you a free PC when you decided to program for Windows or Linux.
My last Linux dev box was pulled from a dumpster by a friend, and was handed to me. I wiped the Windows XP installation off, installed Debian, and happily started coding, so, um... yes.
Well, go look for a dumpster with a Mac in it - problem solved.
For why socialism is bad in general, see every socialist and communist country ever.
You are, as most Fox-watchers, confusing socialism/communism with fascism. Also, note that one reason those regimes fail is the heavy-handed way the US and other countries deal with them. For example, we've been fucking Cuba up the ass for decades.
He's just pointing out a fact.
You're reliance on the representation of data and statistics under the circumstances described, ironically, amounts to watching just Fox News for all your information.
No, it's more like I'm watching every single channel and noticing that they all agree while he's arguing that all I'm doing is watching every single channel.
They don't build the highway or bridge. They hire contractors to do it. Those contractors are the wealth producers, the government is transferring wealth. Me making a widget is wealth creation. Me purchasing a widget is wealth transfer. Not all transfers are bad, but the government actually produces in only a few sectors.
So what? It is not government's job to make a profit - they are there for the public good. Cleaning up water and air, protecting us from invading armies and murderers may not "create wealth" but sure as fuck is good for the people.
Hm... good point.
More correctly then, government consumes wealth, but *may* produce it also.
When activity is private, (I buy this from you, and we're both better off), wealth is definitely created since we're both better off (or else we wouldn't make the transaction).
When the government builds a highway, the contractors are better off, or they wouldn't agree to build it. But, the people don't have a (direct) choice. In this case, they're probably better off (highways are really useful). But they would be even better off if they could have agreed to build the highway without government involvement (not likely, but...), since they wouldn't have to pay for all the government workers also. So, that is the sense in which government only consumes wealth. Only to the extent that it's theoretically possible (but not practically) for people to just spontaneously do the things that government forces them to do for less cost.
First, when you buy something from me, wealth is not being "created" it is once again being transferred. Saying that we wouldn't make the transfer if we weren't better off does not mean wealth is being created. Also, sometimes one has no choice to buy something (food, transport to a job, shelter, clothing).
Second, yes the people may not have a direct choice about the highway; so what? That has nothing to do with the the wealth creation vs transfer meme. You can call what government does "forcing people to build the bridge" but that's precisely what government is for - doing the things that people have no inclination to do but need to have done; it's called the common good. And if we didn't have roads, police, and armies, you'd be enjoying a shitload of violence and mayhem (if you were even alive).
If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.
So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.
He was generalizing, but now you are. Yes, the government provides infrastructure which helps produce wealth. His point is valid though that you don't spend more on support staff than the revenue you generate.
No. He claimed "government does't produce wealth." I clearly show that it can.
Nothing you cited "produces wealth". At best, it moves wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not. But it creates nothing new.
I have a friend who works for the Federal government who produces nothing of value (no one in the private sector would pay for the work that is done), who earns a six figure salary, and will have an 80%+ pension for life (plus health care). Total scam. Try finding that in the private sector.
Hell, the CEO of my company makes $19M per year and has a pension plan that compares to the lottery. Try finding that in the public sector. See what I did there? Anecdote != data.
If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.
So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.
Before we go about talking about how "independent" these sources are, we should look a little closer at the facts. And among those facts, you will find that the majority of research papers supporting the AGW concept have shared either data or methodology with the folks at Hadley Centre and CRU. And yes, that includes NASA, and NOAA, and very definitely the IPCC.
Do you have any other sources of data to propose? Perhaps Fox News has launched an earth-observing satellite from which we can gather "real" data.
And perhaps if the members of the "we've got our weapons, ha ha, you don't" club would stop bullying them with embargoes, maybe they could feed their people (who may be doing just fine, but we only hear the propaganda, being members of aforementioned club).
Slashdot Mirror
particular browser? show me a browser that doesn't require Safari, and does rendering on device (you know, a real browser, unlike Opera Mini). Link to the Apple store please.
Show me one. Even one would be enough. I originally wrote a car analogy, but perhaps the words from an actual developer at Mozilla might help:
"I am a developer on the mobile Firefox team at Mozilla.
We currently have an iPhone App called Firefox Home, which lets you sync your Firefox tabs, history and bookmarks to your iOS device. You can get it from the app store, or read more here: http://www.mozilla.com/mobile/home/
We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for Apple iOS devices. The current iOS SDK agreement forbids apps like Firefox that include their own compilers and interpreters:
“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”
Other browsers for iOS use the built-in WebKit libraries (like Skyfire) or do not execute any JavaScript on the device itself (like Opera Mini, which uses a proxy server). But unless Apple removes these restrictions, full browsers like Firefox are not allowed on iOS." http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770
this is back in 2010, did something change? If so, show me the updated information.
You admit that other browsers exist (and use built-in WebKit libraries). Yes, you must use those libraries, but you CAN STILL WRITE A BROWSER AND SELL IT.
Just because PARTICULAR browsers aren't recompiled and available, doesn't mean that nothing is allowed. Any developer can write a browser (yes, webkit engine) and sell it - thus not a monopoly, your droid rage notwithstanding.
No, they can't. Not on the App Store. Apple will not allow it. The only way to get an alternate browser on the iPhone is by jailbreaking it.
You are wrong. You just have to use webkit for rendering. Many, many apps in the app store have mini-browsers - it is part of the frigging developement framework.
No monopoly on browsers doesn't necessarily mean no monopoly on browser engines. One can't sell a competing browser engine on these platforms, not even if it is demonstrated that Microsoft and Apple have been falling behind on implementing useful HTML5 features in the respective engines of Internet Explorer and Safari. Or in what way are browser engines exempt from competition law?
You also can't install your own OS on the iPhone or iPad. There are lots of small components you can't replace. However, you CAN SELL a browser app, so I don't see how this is a matter of competition.
ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?
Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!
And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)
Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.
Just because PARTICULAR browsers aren't recompiled and available, doesn't mean that nothing is allowed. Any developer can write a browser (yes, webkit engine) and sell it - thus not a monopoly, your droid rage notwithstanding.
Hence no monopoly? Being able to skin the only browser allowed (aka, Monopoly browser) does not undo the fact that there is no real browser choice -- hence there is a monopoly.
Monopoly is not about choice. It's about the ability for others to compete. Since you can sell a competing browser, no monopoly.
Wow, that's like... $7 worth of ideas!
At the standard rate of dime/dozen, that's $583.33. But since "only a few dozen were accessed," that's less than a dollar. If the Kickstarter people come to my office, I will reimburse them with a $1.
All "other browsers" available on iOS are wrappers around WebKit. You can't use your own engine there.
Yet you can have an alternate browser (even if it's a wrapper), hence it is NOT a monopoly in the browser market.
All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).
That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE ;) for iOS.
Perhaps the browsers available in the App Sore are just wrappers and skins for Safari, however the developers are welcome to charge for them, hence there are other browsers available, hence no monopoly. Sorry.
I cower in fear of your legendary tolerance of god-awful, slow, IDEs. And who cares about "integrating the provisioning/code signing" - are you really so lazy you won't log into the Provisioning Portal for a measly 30 seconds to provision your apps? How thoroughly lazy.
And as it happens, I do trust JetBrains not to screw me over - they're a big name that's been in business for over a decade making awesome software (of which I use several).
Wow, worthless name calling. You are such a great debater! In case you didn't know, the "I" in IDE is "integrated" (which in this case includes integrated provisioning). Just because you think JetBrains is a big name in the business doesn't make it a good idea to give them your Apple ID credentials - that's just plain foolish. I also prefer the integrated documentation and code samples.
For why socialism is bad in general, see every socialist and communist country ever.
You are, as most Fox-watchers, confusing socialism/communism with fascism. Also, note that one reason those regimes fail is the heavy-handed way the US and other countries deal with them. For example, we've been fucking Cuba up the ass for decades.
Socialism and communism as economic systems are a failure. If you're in doubt take a good look at the Soviet Union and it's sattelite nations. Notice that the Peoples Republic of China has largely dismantled it's own economic system and incorporated capitalist elements. Ther is a reason for that. Capitalism works.
Yes, capitalism works, I'm not denying that. It especially works great for the robber-barons and the dynasty-rich; the serfs, not so much. I'm not promoting socialism or communism, I just think that people who dismiss them out of hand as failures generally don't even know what they are.
Bwahaha! Wow, it almost looks like you think you're being serious!
XCode is truly awful. I'm finding AppCode to be a much better alternative, and have heard there are a couple of other IDEs as well (but have not yet tried them and can't recall the names).
I am serious. AppCode website lists no features not currently in Xcode. I'm betting AppCode doesn't integrate the provisioning/code signing like the latest Xcode either, and if it did, I sure wouldn't put my AppleID and password into someone else's IDE.
AC does not know what it talking about. XCode is a joy to use.
I personally can't stand it, but I think it really just comes down to what your used to. I've work with KDevelop, Eclipse, and VS, all of which I find at least tolerable. I just couldn't get used to XCode though. The editor is not as advanced IMHO, with things like text selection, auto formatting, and cursor placement/tabbing while writing code. Code re-factoring also leaves much to be desired. I will concede the "wonky" windowing behavior is just because I'm not used to using a Mac, but at the very least, it seemed more difficult to get custom views and perspectives to work the way you want them to. Eclipse is probably the best for that last one, which is why I usually go with that, provided it has an extension for the language/tooling I'm using at the time.
I can respect that you think other systems are better. My argument was with the AC who said that Xcode was "piss poor" and the opposite of intuitive. That's just hyperbole and unnecessary name-calling. I grant that Xcode is not perfect. I don't know what version you last used, but I think the all the predictive stuff is so good that it's faster than using copy-paste for similar blocks.
CEOs and sports stars get paid about the same, for basically the same reasons.
Not for the same reasons at all. CEOs collude to drive up their salaries by being on each others' "compensation committees."
If you want a cleaner slasdot, free from shills, mod this astroturfing account down.
No, if YOU want a cleaner slashdot, then stop posting as AC.
AC does not know what it talking about. XCode is a joy to use.
I'm sure someone just handed you a free PC when you decided to program for Windows or Linux.
My last Linux dev box was pulled from a dumpster by a friend, and was handed to me. I wiped the Windows XP installation off, installed Debian, and happily started coding, so, um... yes.
Well, go look for a dumpster with a Mac in it - problem solved.
For why socialism is bad in general, see every socialist and communist country ever.
You are, as most Fox-watchers, confusing socialism/communism with fascism. Also, note that one reason those regimes fail is the heavy-handed way the US and other countries deal with them. For example, we've been fucking Cuba up the ass for decades.
He's just pointing out a fact. You're reliance on the representation of data and statistics under the circumstances described, ironically, amounts to watching just Fox News for all your information.
No, it's more like I'm watching every single channel and noticing that they all agree while he's arguing that all I'm doing is watching every single channel.
They don't build the highway or bridge. They hire contractors to do it. Those contractors are the wealth producers, the government is transferring wealth. Me making a widget is wealth creation. Me purchasing a widget is wealth transfer. Not all transfers are bad, but the government actually produces in only a few sectors.
So what? It is not government's job to make a profit - they are there for the public good. Cleaning up water and air, protecting us from invading armies and murderers may not "create wealth" but sure as fuck is good for the people.
Hm... good point. More correctly then, government consumes wealth, but *may* produce it also. When activity is private, (I buy this from you, and we're both better off), wealth is definitely created since we're both better off (or else we wouldn't make the transaction). When the government builds a highway, the contractors are better off, or they wouldn't agree to build it. But, the people don't have a (direct) choice. In this case, they're probably better off (highways are really useful). But they would be even better off if they could have agreed to build the highway without government involvement (not likely, but...), since they wouldn't have to pay for all the government workers also. So, that is the sense in which government only consumes wealth. Only to the extent that it's theoretically possible (but not practically) for people to just spontaneously do the things that government forces them to do for less cost.
First, when you buy something from me, wealth is not being "created" it is once again being transferred. Saying that we wouldn't make the transfer if we weren't better off does not mean wealth is being created. Also, sometimes one has no choice to buy something (food, transport to a job, shelter, clothing). Second, yes the people may not have a direct choice about the highway; so what? That has nothing to do with the the wealth creation vs transfer meme. You can call what government does "forcing people to build the bridge" but that's precisely what government is for - doing the things that people have no inclination to do but need to have done; it's called the common good. And if we didn't have roads, police, and armies, you'd be enjoying a shitload of violence and mayhem (if you were even alive).
If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.
So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.
He was generalizing, but now you are. Yes, the government provides infrastructure which helps produce wealth. His point is valid though that you don't spend more on support staff than the revenue you generate.
No. He claimed "government does't produce wealth." I clearly show that it can.
Nothing you cited "produces wealth". At best, it moves wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not. But it creates nothing new.
I have a friend who works for the Federal government who produces nothing of value (no one in the private sector would pay for the work that is done), who earns a six figure salary, and will have an 80%+ pension for life (plus health care). Total scam. Try finding that in the private sector.
Hell, the CEO of my company makes $19M per year and has a pension plan that compares to the lottery. Try finding that in the public sector. See what I did there? Anecdote != data.
If you think about it part of the reason why the private sector is doing worse is because the public sector is doing better. Since the government doesn't produce wealth just consumes it, the private sector's wealth is being transferred to the public sector.
So when the government builds the interstate highway system or a new bridge, hiring contractors to do the actual paving, etc, that is not producing wealth? If that's just "transfer of wealth" in your book, then no activity private or public produces wealth.
Before we go about talking about how "independent" these sources are, we should look a little closer at the facts. And among those facts, you will find that the majority of research papers supporting the AGW concept have shared either data or methodology with the folks at Hadley Centre and CRU. And yes, that includes NASA, and NOAA, and very definitely the IPCC.
Do you have any other sources of data to propose? Perhaps Fox News has launched an earth-observing satellite from which we can gather "real" data.
And perhaps if the members of the "we've got our weapons, ha ha, you don't" club would stop bullying them with embargoes, maybe they could feed their people (who may be doing just fine, but we only hear the propaganda, being members of aforementioned club).