But I'm not arguing the opposite of the dictionary. There has been no definition shown so far that covers a bookshop not carrying a product. And nor will there be, because it very clearly doesn't cover that.
And so it Apple attempted to put out an injunction to prevent publication then that would be censorship. But Apple didn't "take an action". They declined to take an action - the action to publish. Authors do not have a right to be published. A publisher not publishing an author is not censorship. A store not stocking a book is not censorship.
Yeah... that's where you're getting confused. Selection _is_ censorship in many cases.
No confusion here. If you were to draw a venn diagram, the circle of censorship within the circle of selection would be very, very small. A bookstore choosing not to stock a book is within the "selection" set, but not in the censorship set.
GP understands the word perfectly. A christian bookshop not selling satanist books because of their content is censorship.
No, it's selection. The Christian bookshop probably doesn't stock books on gardening either, unless there's a specific Christian slant to the gardening. The Christian bookshop are not censoring every published book they don't choose to sell. That concept is ludicrous.
How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
Because I don't need a dictionary to know what censorship means. And it was the previous poster who raised the idea of a dictionary as proof without actually backing that up with a dictionary definition.
Sure enough, you've done the job without me needing to bother. And none of your definitions come close to covering the case of a store declining to stock a product. There are plenty of other ebook stores, and indeed Apple is minority player in the market. They have no power to censor.
Because Apple has no power to censor. There are many other publishers and stores, publishing for other platforms and for iOS. Once again, a single store choosing not to stock a product is not censorship. Otherwise every store is censoring every product they choose not to sell, which is of course a ridiculous concept.
Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
There's two questions here. 1) Is what's described censorship? 2) Is what is described true?
So, no there is no "free pass" here. They don't need one because there is no evidence that it's true. It's simply a claim by an author, not even backed up by a copy of the text of the email. And we have copious evidence of other ebooks in the store that promote Amazon.
You're a hater, so you believe anything that's negative for Apple, without requiring evidence.
You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.
Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.
Because it's censorship. Apple is censoring the content.
If you think an individual store choosing not to sell something is censorship, then you've demonstrated you don't know what censorship means.
No, censorship is when anyone (government, media, newspaper delivery boy) restricts dissemination of information that they object to people knowing (tiananmen square, acta, letters from the newspaper company about not giving delivery boys tips).
Apple is not restricting dissemination. They have no power to do so. Authors do not have the right to have their books sold in any store they chose. Declining to stock a book is not censorship, otherwise ALL bookstores are censoring every book they don't stock.
I know Apple don't control it. So would you if you actually knew what you were talking about. You can put ebooks from any number of ebook stores on any iOS device.
It's not a political or economic philosophy - it's an economic phenomenon that isn't going to go away, because it's a direct outcome of human nature.
The how come for nearly all of homo sapiens history, capitalism didn't exist? Take the native Americans for an example, they didn't practice capitalism. It wasn't an outcome of their nature.
I would say you just think it is natural, because you happened to be born in an era where it was the predominant system. If you were born a few hundred years ago you would perhaps have thought feudalism wasn't going away because it was a direct outcome of human nature.
Webcrawler doesn't search locally for files. Didn't search local documents. Didn't search your personal contacts and diary items. Didn't take your GPS location into account. etc.
It just searched the internet, which is just one of the sources described in the patent.
This is getting pathetic now, if you can't even read the link I give you.
"The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide."
If you still don't understand you're a fuckwit or a troll. Either way, I've provided the evidence for what I've said, and this conversation is now over. You're a waste of time.
Your theory is what? That they go to the trouble to provide this advice so the public can stay within the law, but they don't follow the policy themselves... even though the clerk's action is an example of them doing exactly that.
The extend to which retail clerks are expected to know what company policy is, is a matter of opinion.
That there is company policy, that follows the law, and that this particular clerk was aware of it, and acted on it is a matter of fact. http://www.apple.com/legal/export.html
Maybe Apple clerks are better informed than your average tech-store clerk.
You have no point, other than the one you think you have in your head. If no one understands what you're trying to get at, then you've failed to explain yourself. And the point you thought you had remains untested.
To be honest it sounds like you're just bullshitting. But go on, feel free to have a go. Tell me why it's somehow wrong to correct someone's incorrect assumptions by presenting them with the exact text of the law.
Who's been turned in? This is the equivalent of a passenger asking a taxi-driver to drive faster than 70mph, and the taxi-driver refusing because that would be illegal. Perfectly reasonable.
The refused buyer said she was "from Iran" in Farsi. She did not say that she was going to ship the device to Iran.
I'm afraid you're taking the woman's claim as reported by the journalist as the entirety of what was said. As we haven't got the other side of the story, we need to read between the lines to make the report make sense.
She WAS intending to supply it to a relative in Iran, and that is what the Apple policy (based on the relevant law) prohibits. The clerk isn't a mind reader. Hence she obviously mentioned either to the clerk, or the person she was with, the fact that she was intending to send it to Iran.
Note the policy obviously DOES NOT prohibit supply to Iranian-Americans or people who can speak Farsi. That doesn't even make sense.
All that said, no one (at least I haven't seen it on this thread) has produced the text of the embargo law that specifically restricts this technology from being *given* to anyone. AFAIK, the sanctions are specific to companies that knowingly *sell* restricted technologies to foreign governments or the agents thereof. I could be wrong on that -- please correct me if I am.
the law you cite applies to sales to "Iran or the government of Iran" (ie, the nation or state, evidently);
It explicitly covers shipping to Iran, which is exactly what the woman admits she intended to do.
for incorporation into other technologies.
Which is paragraph (b). Notice at the end of paragraph (a) there is the word "or". Paragraph (a) covers exporting directly or indirectly a final product to Iran. Paragraph (b) covers supplying goods to be incorporated in a product destined for Iran.
This is why those without legal training should not try to practice law.
Your lack of comprehension skill is the reason you shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm not arguing the opposite of the dictionary. There has been no definition shown so far that covers a bookshop not carrying a product. And nor will there be, because it very clearly doesn't cover that.
Because the availability of space does not change the definition of words.
And so it Apple attempted to put out an injunction to prevent publication then that would be censorship. But Apple didn't "take an action". They declined to take an action - the action to publish. Authors do not have a right to be published. A publisher not publishing an author is not censorship. A store not stocking a book is not censorship.
Yeah... that's where you're getting confused. Selection _is_ censorship in many cases.
No confusion here. If you were to draw a venn diagram, the circle of censorship within the circle of selection would be very, very small. A bookstore choosing not to stock a book is within the "selection" set, but not in the censorship set.
It's very clear.
GP understands the word perfectly. A christian bookshop not selling satanist books because of their content is censorship.
No, it's selection. The Christian bookshop probably doesn't stock books on gardening either, unless there's a specific Christian slant to the gardening. The Christian bookshop are not censoring every published book they don't choose to sell. That concept is ludicrous.
How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
Because I don't need a dictionary to know what censorship means. And it was the previous poster who raised the idea of a dictionary as proof without actually backing that up with a dictionary definition.
Sure enough, you've done the job without me needing to bother. And none of your definitions come close to covering the case of a store declining to stock a product. There are plenty of other ebook stores, and indeed Apple is minority player in the market. They have no power to censor.
Sure it's censorship. Why wouldn't it be?
Because Apple has no power to censor. There are many other publishers and stores, publishing for other platforms and for iOS. Once again, a single store choosing not to stock a product is not censorship. Otherwise every store is censoring every product they choose not to sell, which is of course a ridiculous concept.
Why not? It's not like Google will block sites from their search engine that say 'Google sucks,' or that Amazon will pull a book that's against their political philosophies. But Apple gets a free pass on anything they do, right?
There's two questions here.
1) Is what's described censorship?
2) Is what is described true?
So, no there is no "free pass" here. They don't need one because there is no evidence that it's true. It's simply a claim by an author, not even backed up by a copy of the text of the email. And we have copious evidence of other ebooks in the store that promote Amazon.
You're a hater, so you believe anything that's negative for Apple, without requiring evidence.
If they refuse to stock a book because of its content they are censoring that content within their store.
Nope. That's not censorship. That is simply selection.
You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.
Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.
Because it's censorship. Apple is censoring the content.
If you think an individual store choosing not to sell something is censorship, then you've demonstrated you don't know what censorship means.
No, censorship is when anyone (government, media, newspaper delivery boy) restricts dissemination of information that they object to people knowing (tiananmen square, acta, letters from the newspaper company about not giving delivery boys tips).
Apple is not restricting dissemination. They have no power to do so. Authors do not have the right to have their books sold in any store they chose. Declining to stock a book is not censorship, otherwise ALL bookstores are censoring every book they don't stock.
I know Apple don't control it. So would you if you actually knew what you were talking about. You can put ebooks from any number of ebook stores on any iOS device.
Because not everyone is as gullible as you, accepting blindly the tall tales an author makes as PR to sell her book.
Lol! The mafia haven't got anything to do with feudalism! Feudalism isn't the tendency to have feuds.
On the contrary the mafia is an excellent example of lassiz
faire capitalism.
I just want to echo the points made by the other poster. You confuse capitalism with trade.
Capitalism is the system where the rewards chiefly go to the owners of the means of production, rather than to the people who do the work.
Did'ja ever notice how when a bully is confronted with the truth, they get louder.
Did'ja ever notice how when an innocent man is confronted with lies, they get louder.
Given that it works both ways, you can't tell who's in the right from someone getting louder.
It's not a political or economic philosophy - it's an economic phenomenon that isn't going to go away, because it's a direct outcome of human nature.
The how come for nearly all of homo sapiens history, capitalism didn't exist? Take the native Americans for an example, they didn't practice capitalism. It wasn't an outcome of their nature.
I would say you just think it is natural, because you happened to be born in an era where it was the predominant system. If you were born a few hundred years ago you would perhaps have thought feudalism wasn't going away because it was a direct outcome of human nature.
Webcrawler doesn't search locally for files. Didn't search local documents. Didn't search your personal contacts and diary items. Didn't take your GPS location into account. etc.
It just searched the internet, which is just one of the sources described in the patent.
This is getting pathetic now, if you can't even read the link I give you.
"The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide."
If you still don't understand you're a fuckwit or a troll. Either way, I've provided the evidence for what I've said, and this conversation is now over. You're a waste of time.
Your theory is what? That they go to the trouble to provide this advice so the public can stay within the law, but they don't follow the policy themselves... even though the clerk's action is an example of them doing exactly that.
The extend to which retail clerks are expected to know what company policy is, is a matter of opinion.
That there is company policy, that follows the law, and that this particular clerk was aware of it, and acted on it is a matter of fact.
http://www.apple.com/legal/export.html
Maybe Apple clerks are better informed than your average tech-store clerk.
You have no point, other than the one you think you have in your head. If no one understands what you're trying to get at, then you've failed to explain yourself. And the point you thought you had remains untested.
To be honest it sounds like you're just bullshitting. But go on, feel free to have a go. Tell me why it's somehow wrong to correct someone's incorrect assumptions by presenting them with the exact text of the law.
Who's been turned in? This is the equivalent of a passenger asking a taxi-driver to drive faster than 70mph, and the taxi-driver refusing because that would be illegal. Perfectly reasonable.
The refused buyer said she was "from Iran" in Farsi. She did not say that she was going to ship the device to Iran.
I'm afraid you're taking the woman's claim as reported by the journalist as the entirety of what was said. As we haven't got the other side of the story, we need to read between the lines to make the report make sense.
She WAS intending to supply it to a relative in Iran, and that is what the Apple policy (based on the relevant law) prohibits. The clerk isn't a mind reader. Hence she obviously mentioned either to the clerk, or the person she was with, the fact that she was intending to send it to Iran.
Note the policy obviously DOES NOT prohibit supply to Iranian-Americans or people who can speak Farsi. That doesn't even make sense.
All that said, no one (at least I haven't seen it on this thread) has produced the text of the embargo law that specifically restricts this technology from being *given* to anyone. AFAIK, the sanctions are specific to companies that knowingly *sell* restricted technologies to foreign governments or the agents thereof. I could be wrong on that -- please correct me if I am.
Sure. The text is here: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.14.2.1.4.html
"the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply" Only one of those words requires that the item is sold. Note the use of the word "or".
Seems you;re also having a comprehension problem.
the law you cite applies to sales to "Iran or the government of Iran" (ie, the nation or state, evidently);
It explicitly covers shipping to Iran, which is exactly what the woman admits she intended to do.
for incorporation into other technologies.
Which is paragraph (b). Notice at the end of paragraph (a) there is the word "or". Paragraph (a) covers exporting directly or indirectly a final product to Iran. Paragraph (b) covers supplying goods to be incorporated in a product destined for Iran.
This is why those without legal training should not try to practice law.
Your lack of comprehension skill is the reason you shouldn't.