The summary here contains a pullquote that has been specifically edited in a misleading way to turn what is basically a non-story into a story.
The summary says:
Judges are going to take an even dimmer view of jury member use of Blackberry, iPhone, or other electronic devices as a judicial policy-setting group has told district judges they should restrict jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate.... The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube."
Pay close attention to the ellipses after "communicate".
This quote appears to be from the committee report, but the committee report link is broken; it contains no href, just anchor tags.
The article says:
"the suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve"
Not convinced yet? Here is the complete first paragraph from the committee report mentioned, but NOT linked to, in the quote contained in the summary:
"At its December 2009 meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) endorsed a set of suggested jury instructions that district judges should consider using to help deter jurors from using electronic technologies to research or communicate about cases on which they serve. The suggested instructions are included as Attachment 1."
Emphasis is mine in previous two quotations. In other words, you are not banned from using these devices or services. The article mentions that you may not use these things to discuss or research the case. The networkworld article uses the inflammatory word "ban" in its headline (inappropriately) and the Slashdot post goes even further, deliberately eliminating context crucial to understanding the actual guidelines and replacing them with ellipses.
Maybe uselessly slow, yes, but this is the kind of tinkering that any device should allow if it is to be called a computer.
Why should the definition of a word be derived solely from the interpretation of a vocal minority? Most people don't use phones, or "mobile computers" or even their regular computers for tinkering. Most don't install alternate or substitute or multiple operating systems.
A computer is a means to an end for most people, not an object in itself. Whether the object is, in itself, capable of being tinkered with is irrelevant to most people who will never, ever tinker with it. Tinkerers are a small market, or else the Neo Freerunner would be the darling of the press instead of the iPhone.
It is a testament to how successful Apple has been in its efforts to make computers "for the rest of us" that such poorly-formed and ill-considered thoughts are able to make it out onto the Internet and land on the front page of a popular website. If any more than minimal effort had been required, presumably this article would not have appeared, and we'd all have been spared one more facepalm for today.
If one chooses to step out of one's own personal situation for a moment and look at the company being discussed, it's not difficult to see that the company's entire mission and history is based on doing exactly what the article implies is a recent development: moving technology from hobbyists to mass market. The Apple II, here held up as a paragon of a machine for tinkerers, was, in point of fact, exactly the opposite of that within its historical context: it was a personal computer you bought in a plastic case and did not have to assemble yourself. Yes, its design unintentionally made it ideal for hardware hobbyists who could make peripherals, and for software hackers learning the ropes. That was not its intent; that is a side effect. As such, Apple's recent efforts against iPhone jailbreakers is not a new trend; it is one as old as the company itself. Apple emphasizes design and elegance in trying to produce what it thinks is the single best way to accomplish a task to try and streamline those tasks, and will sacrifice power and flexibility to get it. Most tinkerers would not make that tradeoff; intead they seek to maximize power and flexibility at the cost of ease of use.
Apple does not have a moral obligation to provide for those with an urge to tinker, or to make such devices available to expose people who might have an undiscovered knack for tinkering. That's a phase in the computer industry that is now over, and the fact that it is over says more about the industry than it does about Apple.
And of course, it goes without saying that most people who used sector copiers on the Apple II were doing it so they could learn about the operating system and eventually become programmers. Not, of course, making free copies of games.
Aside from the anti-tinkering policies of Apple, much is made of how the iPhone developer program works:
Anyone can develop! All you need is a Mac, XCode, an iPhone “simulator,” and $99 for an auto-expiring developer certificate. The “developer certificate” is really a cryptographic key that (temporarily) allows you (slightly) elevated access to... your own computer.
The implication, of course, is that the distinction between an iPhone belonging to a developer and that belonging to an ordinary user is arbitrary, and that Apple is profiteering off selling access to something that lies dormant in every iPhone.
Presumably then, this would be acceptable if Apple charged a lot more, removed the functionality from every phone, and produced special "dev kit" versions that cost several times what the ordinary version did. Interestingly enough, that's what Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles. Why people should think of a telephone as something that should be inherently hackable while a game console is not is rather beyond me.
"That the iPad is a closed system is harder to forgive. One of the foremost complaints about the iPhone has been Apple’s iron fist when it comes to applications and the development direction of the platform. "
One of the foremost complaints *from developers* about the iPhone. Ordinary users, I feel safe in saying, mostly don't give a darn. If you try to make the argument from the developer's perspective relevant to the ordinary users, you have to phrase it in terms of what users might be missing out because Apple's policies disallow certain apps or turn off certain developers. However, the App Store has such an embarassment of riches I can't see that argument going anywhere.
The article is supposed to be a parody, but in truth it's far too close to something publishers might say to be truly funny.
Take it out of the industry altogether-- explain how people cooking at home cause losses for restaurants and we might be getting a bit closer to the true level of ridiculousness that usually accompanies claims of lost revenue.
Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws. There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it. If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.
First, there are no copyrights for them to lose; these works are in the public domain, which is the entire point of the article.
Second, I think you're alleging some corresponding set of responsibilities that constitute a "copyright bargain" that would require forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances, essentially mandating distribution. This is pretty insane. Plenty of books get options sold for movies that are never made; contracts may require rights to be reverted if the movie is not made, but this is handled on a case by case basis, it's not statutory. I honestly don't see how the market would work if distribution of all works a publisher holds the rights to becomes mandatory.
There are no intellectual property rights subject to discussion here anymore; the works are in the public domain.
What is at stake is CBS' right to dispose of its physical property as it sees fit, and not be compelled by rightsholders whose rights have expired or by audiences to do anything particular with it. Sure, it'd be nice if they did so, but legally I don't think anybody's got a leg to stand on here. Others not "playing nice" does not excuse you, or anyone else, from "playing by the rules". CBS is playing by the rules here. The films are in their possession and there's no basis for compelling them to do anything with them. You can't pirate these works to gain the access you feel you deserve since they have never been broadcast; presumably the copies CBS has are the only in existence.
These materials are in the public domain. This means that CBS, who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded, would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.
The fanclub wants them preserved (which in this case means copied) and is willing to pay for this, thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.
Jack Benny's estate supports the fan club's desire to copy... I mean, preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain, so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it, which leaves only CBS, which owns and possesses the physical media.
This is being called destruction, since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage: if it did, presumably it would have done before now. So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean, preservation, and something were to happen to the originals in their possession, it would be lost.
This is admittedly a shame, and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now. It certainly would be nice if CBS, and other holders of such materials, had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.
However, no one should be surprised when this doesn't happen. From now on, content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors, and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere, undistributed, ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain (assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes).
"I purchased Rebel EFI in support of Psystar's crusade back in October."
In other words, you did so for reasons that were, at least in part, ideological. Unwilling to pay the price Apple sets for the hardware/software combinations it sells, and seemingly unable to use any of the available open source solutions for installing a retail OS X disc onto commodity hardware, you chose to patronize a company whose business model was widely known to be legally questionable at best, and which was engaged in an ongoing legal battle with a company with the intent and resources to defend their assertion that Psystar's business practice was illegal.
I found this out when I upgraded my hard drive and installed Snow Leopard using Rebel EFI. The program can no longer 'phone home' to activate or download/install drivers. This is a direct contradiction to Psystar's promise posted on their website: 'Psystar will continue to support all of its existing customers of hardware and software through this transitional period. Warranties on hardware will continue to be honored as long the customer has a valid warranty.
Now, having ignored those who posted that they felt Psystar was doing something wrong by selling their so-called "Open Computers" as well as those who suggested that the core of the Rebel EFI product itself was code copied without license or attribution from existing open source projects designed to accomplish the same aim, you wish to take Psystar to task for failing to meet the promises on its website.
What made you think this was a company that intended to keep its promises?
What made you think this was a company that would be able to stay in business long enough to keep any promises it actually did intend to?
You didn't spend your money on a product, and you didn't pay it to a going concern. You made your purchase to make a statement-- that you believed Psystar was doing something good, or at least something right. Your voice was heard; unfortunately, things did not turn out that well.
What more can you possibly ask? This is like picking a lame horse to win because of the great payoff odds, and then beating it into glue when it fails to place.
Sorry, I don't have a car analogy for this. Give me a minute.
Having said that, it's about time that there was a standardised way for IP holders to grant a "fan art licence" for projects such as this.
You mean, the way (this is going to sound odd) Microsoft has done with the Halo franchise?
Yeah, if only there was a place that Sony's lawyers could get hold of that licensing language to look it over... something like a network of interconnected computers...
It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things.
Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.
Then the ending of RotJ has no meaning. Darth Vader was a badass motherfucker who was revealed to actually be a good person who made some bad choices. Then, the prequels reveal that he was really just a selfish whiny jerk after all.
Mostly it hinges on how hard it was for Palpatine to manipulate Anikin. The easier it was, the less sympathetic Anakin becomes, and the less satisfying the redemption of Vader is. As it stands, it wasn't very hard at all-- the choices Anikin makes are not merely bad or wrong, they are nonsensical, and Palpatine's attempts at manipulation are childish and ineffectual, but they work anyway because Anikin is more than willing.
I find it interesting that in a Star Trek film, Midichlorines (sp?) would have been not only accepted, but expected. Magic isn't allowed to exist in Star Trek.
In Star Wars, however, Magic is the rule. It's not allowed to be understood or reduced into a discrete and measurable phenomenon. It has to remain romantic and awe-inspiring.
Cross the line, (in either the Trek or Wars story universe), and it is taken as a grave offense. I was annoyed by it as much as anybody. But I do have to stop and ask, "Why?" In fact, I find this little feature of our culture enormously tremendously interesting. -Technology geeks are perfectly happy with magic; they want it, are enraptured by it, but only when it is safely contained and labeled within the fiction box. Outside that box, it is immediately despised and attacked even at the mere suggestion that it might have some bearing on our real world. Yes, this is a bit of an axe grinding, but nonetheless, it remains a point of un-answered curiosity for me.
I think a lot of viewers point out the magic vs science angle with regard to the inclusion of midichlorians in the prequels, but I think the real motivation for the objection comes from elsewhere, and it's another area of stark contrast between Star Wars and Star Trek.
The arc of the first trilogy can be seen partially as a repudiation of the idea that the sins of the father are the sins of the son. Luke is horrified at the revelation that his evil nemesis is his father, but he ultimately comes to terms with that (with Kenobi's help), rejects the choice his father made, and ultimately offers his father forgiveness. Luke successfully escapes his father's fate. So while we are certainly led to believe that heredity is a factor in one's ability to use the Force, it is not impossible to escape destiny.
Enter the midichlorians. Anakin is the prophesied one, supposedly the product of a union between some random slave woman on Tatooine and the Force itself, with the highest count of midiwhatevers ever seen. He is *destined* to bring balance to the Force. Yoda and the Jedi Council, however, see bad things on the horizon. I guess they don't see that before things can get better, they have to get worse-- that Vader ultimately *does* bring balance by betraying Palpatine in order to save Luke at the conclusion of the final film.
In a sense it's a rehabilitation of Oedipus. Vader had to do what he did back then, just as he has to save Luke at the end. Without the first, the latter would not have been necessary.
Midichlorians is the magical grey goo in the hypodermic that Lucas uses to extract heroism from the franchise and replace it with destiny.
This couldn't possibly be more different from Star Trek, which is ultimately the world's most perfect meritocracy, where family connections get you nothing and everybody has to stand on their own two feet and make a name for themselves. None of the TNG crewmembers are blood relations of the original series crewmembers. Family members of the crew, if they want active roles, have to prove their worth. Nobody is destined for anything (for the most part, there are exceptions-- it's hard to do as many episodes of as many series, plus feature films, from 1966 to date without being inconsistent).
If the Star Trek universe behaved the way the Star Wars universe did, captaincy of the Enterprise would be hereditary. Picard would be the great-great-grandson of Kirk (or whatever) who was originally drummed out of the service for insubordination, and later on they would meet and Picard would find out that Kirk only disobeyed orders in order to save his family (and HIS ship and HIS crew) and really wasn't that bad a guy after all, just hotheaded, impatient, and... well, a little egomaniacal.
The Skywalkers are a kind of space royalty in a universe where it's who you are, not what you know or do, that counts. Star Trek has no place for such people-- everybody gets an equal opportunity, no more, no less, and it
I didn't mind the funny voice, but the whole thing had an overly misogynistic tone. Killing and raping women is kind of not funny.
That there are common traits between someone so obsessive they'd make a 70 minute video review of a film years after its release and people who murder their wives, kidnap and batter women, and has human bones in his basement was sort of the second layer of parody in the piece that I think most of the audience passed over.
The video (and all the other Star Trek reviews done by the same guy) are just as much critiques of the critics as they are of the films.
Did you watch episode 3? He was a rebel, and the Jedi held him back from his full potential, and that caused him to not be powerful enough to save his mother, who died.
This is bogus. His mother would have lived if he had returned home to free her from slavery at *any point* in the intervening decade or so between TPM and AotC. Even failing that, she was alive when he arrived; so leaving days, hours, perhaps even minutes earlier may have saved her life-- none of which have to do with the Jedi holding him back or him not being "powerful enough". What was required to find his mother was getting up off his butt and going to talk to Watto and ask where she was, which again has nothing do with the Jedi and nothing to do with the Force.
This along with other things put him on a path of hatred towards the Jedi. Palpatine played of his insecurity and anger and promised to make him powerful so he could save anyone (like, duh, his GF?). He snapped.
This is correct, but problematic. It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things. This is sensible and logical (one of the few sensible elements of the prequels' collective plot) but not good or sympathetic.
As for saving his GF... she was never in any serious danger *except from him*. I suppose if Lucas wanted it to be absolutely clear that she was destined to die in childbirth unless Anakin saved her, he shouldn't have had him attack her just before she goes into labor. Even then, it's a pretty weak connection. It would have been much more satisfying if the Jedi had been far more responsible for her death-- even indirectly so-- in a way that would make it seem more just for Anakin to blame them.
Even then, it doesn't wash-- Anakin has turned to the dark side, betrayed Mace Windu, saved Palpatine, and executed children *before she is ever put in any danger whatsoever*. The only danger is from Anakin's own dreams, and if his dreams are accurate, he is himself the cause of her death-- not the Jedi.
The entire clusterfudge is compounded when Palpatine tells Darth Vader that he is responsible for Amidala's death. That makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been emotionally authentic, at that point, for Anakin to want to kill himself, or to kill Palpatine-- to blame himself, his ego, his ambition, and that of the Emperor, for her death.
If Palpatine wanted to motivate Vader to go on a galaxy-spanning hunt to kill all the remaining Jedi, why not tell him that Kenobi killed her? Why not tell him that, having turned away from the Jedi and supported the Emperor, the Jedi considered his children to be a threat (true) and had her and them killed in order to protect their own interests?
By and large the prequels are huge steaming piles, but it's amazing how some tiny editorial changes could have made them much more logically consistent and emotionally authentic. Shifting the blame for Amidala's death from Vader to Kenobi would have been such a change-- the major problem with it is the need to retcon the original trilogy.
Even so, I'd say that ANH simply doesn't support the ending that Revenge gives us. "When I left you I was but a learner, now I am the master" is not what anyone would say after what happened. Anakin's point where he consciously departs from the Jedi leadership comes in the confrontation between Palpatine and Windu-- Kenobi is nowhere around, and it has nothing to do with his position as a student.
The actual break between the two of them comes during the climactic battle-- in which Anakin doesn't leave anything-- Kenobi leaves him, burned and limbless, on an island amidst a lava flow.
Then Kenobi fails to show any mercy, by saving his errant comrade from death and rehabilitating him once he's no longer an active threat-- nor does he take the final action necessary to eliminate that potential threat for all time by killing him off. Kenobi's great failur
VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.
VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success.
There's no need to because it's not a question. The answer is because there is, within the framework of any Open Source community, no essential relation between any measurement of a project's success and any measurement of its participation.
In commercial development, this relationship is simple-- it is provided by cash. More users means more income, more income means more resources to pay more programmers to continue to develop and support the project.
When the project is free for any and all to use (free as in beer) and participation in the project is based on "scratch your own itch" there is no relationship at all between the two.
Developers scratching their own itch on a project they need for their own use can continue working for years on a project that may have little or no application outside of a small community of like-minded developers with similar needs. Likewise, a fantastically popular application like VLC can eventually hit a brick wall when it finds there are no developers with itches that require scratching on a particular platform.
Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong. I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times. On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet. On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.
Denying that the issue can happen, however, is stupid to the point of sabotage.
The entire existence of the ISP sector is enabled by overselling. A typical oversold ratio is 10:1. Disallow providers from overselling and you'd be paying quite a bit more, even if you were to drive down margins, either with regulated pricing or by encouraging more competition.
You can verify this yourself by comparing the commercial rates for connectivity you get that come with an SLA that guarantees a certain data rate, compared to the rates for consumer Internet connectivity, which are nearly always nothing higher than "best effort" for everything.
Re:More than free?
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
C'mon, it's not just that. Yes, you get paid to use something, which makes it "less than free" in the sense that you are paying a negative sum-- you are receiving money. Since you have to use the closed-source version, and because carriers want access to this to take control over the handset's UI, it also means "less than free" in the sense of being less free, and allowing for less freedom.
"Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers. I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at all, and I didn’t read the earlier section closely enough. That’s obviously a much narrower position"...but still dead wrong. To assume that the involvement of a third party (the mail host) obviates the need for notification forces one to conclude that it is the third party that has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and not the subscriber. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
"Plus there's no expectation that FedEx would (or should) have access to the *contents* of your mail, but an ISP-hosted email account, currently, does have full access to the content, with your tacit approval."
Wrong on both counts, at least in certain situations.
If you are sending something overseas, FedEx or another company may well open your package and therefore also have access to the contents.
Second, the ISP does have full access to cleartext email *with my knowledge* but most certainly NOT with my approval. They are not the same thing. They are certainly ABLE to read my email, and I am aware that they have this ability. However, that is not nearly the same thing as having my permission to do so. I expect they have better things to do, and if they were to ask me for such permission, I would deny it them. I would expect they would only read those messages pursuant to some request from me.
I administer an email server and this is how I treat those messages. Yes, I can read them. I don't, and I won't unless the recipient asks me to for some reason. I consider the contents private, and I would expect other server administrators to do the same. I would think this to be a "reasonable expectation".
"If you won't sell the product where your fans are, how are we supposed to support you? I can understand physical DVD sales or broadcasting it via television because that costs money, however the internet allows you to distribute content for -free- without the overhead of needing to translate, ship or alter any media."
Regional restrictions have never been about this. They are about pricing. There is piracy everywhere, but the amount varies. Demographics mean that incomes vary which means optimal price points vary. A few years ago, 100% legit DVDs in parts of the former Soviet Union cost $30-$50 and had few takers. Meanwhile, pirate discs cost $1-$5 and where everywhere. The response was, in part, to partner with local companies to make advertising-subsidized legitimate discs, pressed locally, that cost around $10.
Right now, rights from content producers are still parceled out regionally, in part because they want the ability to price on a per-region basis. If there are no local partners present, and no price point set, customers in that region are blocked.
The idea of one price, worldwide, isn't something the content producers are willing and able to cope with, and most likely will not be for many years.
The days of software-only routers are (mostly) over, thank goodness. May vicomsoft rest in peace.
Incidentally links to this particular software router seem to be spamming up the Internet. I've seen it several times just in the past few hours on various sites I use (facebook, linkedin, slashdot, wimaxforum).
Again, it is just a money grab by an old man who thinks "reading on the internet is like reading a paper, someone should pay for the right to read it", and you can't equate the two. It is more than just the medium that has changed.
Except that was never how newspapers worked, either, and Murdoch of all people should know it. Subscription fees and newsstand prices never did much more than pay for duplication and distribution. They certainly didn't contribute much, if any at all, to the costs of newsgathering.
So essentially in the old model news was free to anybody who bought a paper-- a paper full of advertisements, which are what really paid for the content to be generated. Advertisers knew how much to pay based on the demographics of the subscriber base and the paper's circulation.
Freed from the tyranny of ink and paper, content can now be delivered for pretty close to free-- so most of the time you don't need to subscribe or pay a newsstand cover charge, you just need to have Internet access. Advertisers, if they are thinking about it rationally, love this because unlike with newspapers and magazines, they know exactly how many people viewed an ad, how many people clicked it, and they may know a great deal more about that person, demographically, than they ever knew about any individual or group of individuals that made up a newspaper's subscriber base.
What I expect Murdoch is whining about is not Google Search. That does deliver him traffic. He's probably on about Google Reader, which uses RSS to present stories, whole or in part, divorced from the source's presentation (and thus its advertising). However I do suspect that like search, making content available in RSS does News Corp more good than harm-- if not, they could simply stop providing it.
If Google Reader is screenscraping News Corp sites then he's got a legitimate complaint. It's the equivalent of rip-and-read, but on the Internet.
1) Cellular calls NOW are likely terminated by VOIP and 2) the availability of LTE will most likely not affect AT&T's preference to determine how your calls are terminated rather than have you determine that, not to mention either charge you by the minute (or at least deduct your minutes from a calling plan). I am not convinced this is an authentic realization on the part of AT&T that they-- and us-- are better off with telcos being IP pipes and little more.
Palm have decided that users shouldn't have that ability anymore, and have to either get approved apps through their app portal, or else install a bunch of 3rd party app installers and/or root their Pre and install the SDK on their computers to install apps. That is WAY too much work.
Palm has decided that it is not worth the investment to build and maintain a store infrastructure if there is to be significant distribution outside it, and I think they are correct. The experience of Apple's App Store probably also shows that other distribution channels will spring up, and an arms race will begin. However there's little incentive for Palm to concede before the conflict even begins.
An App Store is much like a supermarket. It treats free apps like loss leaders. The maintainer has costs associated with storing and distributing free apps on which it takes no cut, but this should be more than made up for by the cut they take on the paid apps. In a sense, then, jwz wants the authors of paid apps to subsidize his app's distribution without meeting the requirements they have to meet.
Palm knows it needs free apps as well as paid apps, to be able to claim to have a large base of available apps, and knowing that people who start browsing such a store for free apps might find a paid app they like and end up buying it, or at least trying it.
They also know that developers who start out with free apps, if they have a good experience and clients show interest, might eventually go to paid apps. jwz has specifically said he is not doing that, will not do that, and never will do that-- which is why he thinks it is acceptable that he not bother to verify his PayPal account.
So, essentially, what Palm is getting is this: a developer who only ever intends to distribute free apps and who also wants the freedom to distribute through other channels, both of which undermine what Palm is seeking to do with the App Store.
The apps jwz submitted were a tip calculator and a clock. I'm guessing that somehow the store managed to fill these two needs from developers who were willing to go through Palm's procedure, so unless his apps are demonstrably better than those that are in the store, that pretty much removed any incentive to compromise those policies to suit jwz.
It seems to me the only principle that Palm could employ in order to justify modifying these policies to suit jwz would be, "don't piss off Internet celebrities" since that's the only value he represents. I'm also betting he's better remembered for bashing things than praising them, so this is a purely negative value. It's like a protection racket. "Gee, that's a nice App Store you've got that. Be a shame if anybody said something sarcastic about it on Slashdot."
What he, and I, really want is for a developer to be able to make an app, post it on their site, and have users download it. Why does it need to have an "App Store" that Palm needs to "figure out"? Just let me install things on my damn phone. Yes, HAVE an app store, but also allow people to install directly!
I know it's hard to cope with, but the essential truth that Apple has exposed with its store is this: it is better for the manufacturer to ally itself with the purchasers against the developers than to ally itself with developers against users.
It's amazing. You say you want devs to make apps, people to download and install apps, but then you say you don't need a store. That's what the store does. That's what makes it possible for users to find apps to install, by providing one place to find them, multiple ways to search for them and to evaluate them (reviews, trials) and one distribution mechanism for free and paid apps with one easy payment mechanism. Creating an easy method for off-store applications would quickly devolve into a situation where everybody puts their free apps and their trials into the store, and then moves distribution and payment for the full versions out of the store to avoid giving Palm their cut. Palm is essentially offering to subsidize free apps in return for an exclusive right to distribute.
Funny most places i go to offer their WiFi for free, i find this a much nicer billing solution than my phone company charging me whatever the fuck they want.
When your access depends on someone else doing something to their detriment (giving away something for nothing) be prepared to lose it at any moment.
I'll be the first to admit that (at least in the US) there needs to be better (not less) telco regulation and more incentives to truly compete.
However, while I don't believe WiFi as a technology is anywhere near dead (how do you go from ubiquitous to dead that fast?) I do think the "free wifi" business model is dead, and it does look like the municipal wifi trend is at a dead-end. Few municipalities have implemented it well, and I don't see a huge rush to duplicate their successes.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary here contains a pullquote that has been specifically edited in a misleading way to turn what is basically a non-story into a story.
The summary says:
Pay close attention to the ellipses after "communicate".
This quote appears to be from the committee report, but the committee report link is broken; it contains no href, just anchor tags.
The article says:
Not convinced yet? Here is the complete first paragraph from the committee report mentioned, but NOT linked to, in the quote contained in the summary:
Emphasis is mine in previous two quotations. In other words, you are not banned from using these devices or services. The article mentions that you may not use these things to discuss or research the case. The networkworld article uses the inflammatory word "ban" in its headline (inappropriately) and the Slashdot post goes even further, deliberately eliminating context crucial to understanding the actual guidelines and replacing them with ellipses.
Maybe uselessly slow, yes, but this is the kind of tinkering that any device should allow if it is to be called a computer.
Why should the definition of a word be derived solely from the interpretation of a vocal minority? Most people don't use phones, or "mobile computers" or even their regular computers for tinkering. Most don't install alternate or substitute or multiple operating systems.
A computer is a means to an end for most people, not an object in itself. Whether the object is, in itself, capable of being tinkered with is irrelevant to most people who will never, ever tinker with it. Tinkerers are a small market, or else the Neo Freerunner would be the darling of the press instead of the iPhone.
It is a testament to how successful Apple has been in its efforts to make computers "for the rest of us" that such poorly-formed and ill-considered thoughts are able to make it out onto the Internet and land on the front page of a popular website. If any more than minimal effort had been required, presumably this article would not have appeared, and we'd all have been spared one more facepalm for today.
If one chooses to step out of one's own personal situation for a moment and look at the company being discussed, it's not difficult to see that the company's entire mission and history is based on doing exactly what the article implies is a recent development: moving technology from hobbyists to mass market. The Apple II, here held up as a paragon of a machine for tinkerers, was, in point of fact, exactly the opposite of that within its historical context: it was a personal computer you bought in a plastic case and did not have to assemble yourself. Yes, its design unintentionally made it ideal for hardware hobbyists who could make peripherals, and for software hackers learning the ropes. That was not its intent; that is a side effect. As such, Apple's recent efforts against iPhone jailbreakers is not a new trend; it is one as old as the company itself. Apple emphasizes design and elegance in trying to produce what it thinks is the single best way to accomplish a task to try and streamline those tasks, and will sacrifice power and flexibility to get it. Most tinkerers would not make that tradeoff; intead they seek to maximize power and flexibility at the cost of ease of use.
Apple does not have a moral obligation to provide for those with an urge to tinker, or to make such devices available to expose people who might have an undiscovered knack for tinkering. That's a phase in the computer industry that is now over, and the fact that it is over says more about the industry than it does about Apple.
And of course, it goes without saying that most people who used sector copiers on the Apple II were doing it so they could learn about the operating system and eventually become programmers. Not, of course, making free copies of games.
Aside from the anti-tinkering policies of Apple, much is made of how the iPhone developer program works:
The implication, of course, is that the distinction between an iPhone belonging to a developer and that belonging to an ordinary user is arbitrary, and that Apple is profiteering off selling access to something that lies dormant in every iPhone.
Presumably then, this would be acceptable if Apple charged a lot more, removed the functionality from every phone, and produced special "dev kit" versions that cost several times what the ordinary version did. Interestingly enough, that's what Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles. Why people should think of a telephone as something that should be inherently hackable while a game console is not is rather beyond me.
One of the foremost complaints *from developers* about the iPhone. Ordinary users, I feel safe in saying, mostly don't give a darn. If you try to make the argument from the developer's perspective relevant to the ordinary users, you have to phrase it in terms of what users might be missing out because Apple's policies disallow certain apps or turn off certain developers. However, the App Store has such an embarassment of riches I can't see that argument going anywhere.
Personally I jailbroke my first two iPhone
The article is supposed to be a parody, but in truth it's far too close to something publishers might say to be truly funny.
Take it out of the industry altogether-- explain how people cooking at home cause losses for restaurants and we might be getting a bit closer to the true level of ridiculousness that usually accompanies claims of lost revenue.
Seriously, refusing to allow this public domain work to be restored at no cost to them means they are not holding up their end of the copyright bargain and so they should now lose their rights and protection under said laws. There's a social contract at work and it's stupid acts like this and the Sonny Bono perpetual protection of Mickey Mouse Act that make me have no qualms about "pirating" material when I feel like it. If they don't want to play nice then I see no reason to play their game at all.
First, there are no copyrights for them to lose; these works are in the public domain, which is the entire point of the article.
Second, I think you're alleging some corresponding set of responsibilities that constitute a "copyright bargain" that would require forfeiture of rights under certain circumstances, essentially mandating distribution. This is pretty insane. Plenty of books get options sold for movies that are never made; contracts may require rights to be reverted if the movie is not made, but this is handled on a case by case basis, it's not statutory. I honestly don't see how the market would work if distribution of all works a publisher holds the rights to becomes mandatory.
There are no intellectual property rights subject to discussion here anymore; the works are in the public domain.
What is at stake is CBS' right to dispose of its physical property as it sees fit, and not be compelled by rightsholders whose rights have expired or by audiences to do anything particular with it. Sure, it'd be nice if they did so, but legally I don't think anybody's got a leg to stand on here. Others not "playing nice" does not excuse you, or anyone else, from "playing by the rules". CBS is playing by the rules here. The films are in their possession and there's no basis for compelling them to do anything with them. You can't pirate these works to gain the access you feel you deserve since they have never been broadcast; presumably the copies CBS has are the only in existence.
Let's play devil's advocate for a second.
These materials are in the public domain. This means that CBS, who owns the physical media on which these performances are recorded, would owe no royalties or other payments to any other rightsholders should it choose to air them or sell them or monetize them in any other way.
The fanclub wants them preserved (which in this case means copied) and is willing to pay for this, thereby turning what is a potentially valuable asset with no liabilities attached into a worthless commodity.
Jack Benny's estate supports the fan club's desire to copy... I mean, preserve the content... however the basis of the request to do so is that the material is in the public domain, so the estate has no more right than anyone else to determine what should happen to it, which leaves only CBS, which owns and possesses the physical media.
This is being called destruction, since presumably CBS has no actual plans to do anything with this footage: if it did, presumably it would have done before now. So if they do not choose to allow copying... I mean, preservation, and something were to happen to the originals in their possession, it would be lost.
This is admittedly a shame, and is a fault of how such things have been handled up to now. It certainly would be nice if CBS, and other holders of such materials, had a friendly policy of allowing such materials to be disseminated once they enter the public domain.
However, no one should be surprised when this doesn't happen. From now on, content creators need to be careful about what arrangements they enter into with publishers and distributors, and arrange for physical copies to be archived somewhere, undistributed, ready for preservation when rights expire and materials enter the public domain (assuming this ever happens again in our lifetimes).
Tom Baker? Who's that?
For us in the other side of the Atlantic, the only Doctors are Christopher Eccleson and David Tennant
For those on the left side of the Atlantic AND under 30 years of age.
Public Television in the US broadcast Tom Baker and Peter Davison series of Dr. Who back in the 80s.
My dad told me the story of when he was 16 (around 1966) and the local hardware store had got in unbreakable dishes (Corningware I think)
Probably was Corelle.
People really are amazing.
In other words, you did so for reasons that were, at least in part, ideological. Unwilling to pay the price Apple sets for the hardware/software combinations it sells, and seemingly unable to use any of the available open source solutions for installing a retail OS X disc onto commodity hardware, you chose to patronize a company whose business model was widely known to be legally questionable at best, and which was engaged in an ongoing legal battle with a company with the intent and resources to defend their assertion that Psystar's business practice was illegal.
Now, having ignored those who posted that they felt Psystar was doing something wrong by selling their so-called "Open Computers" as well as those who suggested that the core of the Rebel EFI product itself was code copied without license or attribution from existing open source projects designed to accomplish the same aim, you wish to take Psystar to task for failing to meet the promises on its website.
What made you think this was a company that intended to keep its promises?
What made you think this was a company that would be able to stay in business long enough to keep any promises it actually did intend to?
You didn't spend your money on a product, and you didn't pay it to a going concern. You made your purchase to make a statement-- that you believed Psystar was doing something good, or at least something right. Your voice was heard; unfortunately, things did not turn out that well.
What more can you possibly ask? This is like picking a lame horse to win because of the great payoff odds, and then beating it into glue when it fails to place.
Sorry, I don't have a car analogy for this. Give me a minute.
I agree. What did they expect?
Having said that, it's about time that there was a standardised way for IP holders to grant a "fan art licence" for projects such as this.
You mean, the way (this is going to sound odd) Microsoft has done with the Halo franchise?
Yeah, if only there was a place that Sony's lawyers could get hold of that licensing language to look it over... something like a network of interconnected computers...
Er, isn't that kind of the point? A lot of things come together to turn him into this badass motherfucker, including being manipulated, his own anger and despair, etc.
Then the ending of RotJ has no meaning. Darth Vader was a badass motherfucker who was revealed to actually be a good person who made some bad choices. Then, the prequels reveal that he was really just a selfish whiny jerk after all.
Mostly it hinges on how hard it was for Palpatine to manipulate Anikin. The easier it was, the less sympathetic Anakin becomes, and the less satisfying the redemption of Vader is. As it stands, it wasn't very hard at all-- the choices Anikin makes are not merely bad or wrong, they are nonsensical, and Palpatine's attempts at manipulation are childish and ineffectual, but they work anyway because Anikin is more than willing.
I find it interesting that in a Star Trek film, Midichlorines (sp?) would have been not only accepted, but expected. Magic isn't allowed to exist in Star Trek.
In Star Wars, however, Magic is the rule. It's not allowed to be understood or reduced into a discrete and measurable phenomenon. It has to remain romantic and awe-inspiring.
Cross the line, (in either the Trek or Wars story universe), and it is taken as a grave offense. I was annoyed by it as much as anybody. But I do have to stop and ask, "Why?" In fact, I find this little feature of our culture enormously tremendously interesting. -Technology geeks are perfectly happy with magic; they want it, are enraptured by it, but only when it is safely contained and labeled within the fiction box. Outside that box, it is immediately despised and attacked even at the mere suggestion that it might have some bearing on our real world. Yes, this is a bit of an axe grinding, but nonetheless, it remains a point of un-answered curiosity for me.
I think a lot of viewers point out the magic vs science angle with regard to the inclusion of midichlorians in the prequels, but I think the real motivation for the objection comes from elsewhere, and it's another area of stark contrast between Star Wars and Star Trek.
The arc of the first trilogy can be seen partially as a repudiation of the idea that the sins of the father are the sins of the son. Luke is horrified at the revelation that his evil nemesis is his father, but he ultimately comes to terms with that (with Kenobi's help), rejects the choice his father made, and ultimately offers his father forgiveness. Luke successfully escapes his father's fate. So while we are certainly led to believe that heredity is a factor in one's ability to use the Force, it is not impossible to escape destiny.
Enter the midichlorians. Anakin is the prophesied one, supposedly the product of a union between some random slave woman on Tatooine and the Force itself, with the highest count of midiwhatevers ever seen. He is *destined* to bring balance to the Force. Yoda and the Jedi Council, however, see bad things on the horizon. I guess they don't see that before things can get better, they have to get worse-- that Vader ultimately *does* bring balance by betraying Palpatine in order to save Luke at the conclusion of the final film.
In a sense it's a rehabilitation of Oedipus. Vader had to do what he did back then, just as he has to save Luke at the end. Without the first, the latter would not have been necessary.
Midichlorians is the magical grey goo in the hypodermic that Lucas uses to extract heroism from the franchise and replace it with destiny.
This couldn't possibly be more different from Star Trek, which is ultimately the world's most perfect meritocracy, where family connections get you nothing and everybody has to stand on their own two feet and make a name for themselves. None of the TNG crewmembers are blood relations of the original series crewmembers. Family members of the crew, if they want active roles, have to prove their worth. Nobody is destined for anything (for the most part, there are exceptions-- it's hard to do as many episodes of as many series, plus feature films, from 1966 to date without being inconsistent).
If the Star Trek universe behaved the way the Star Wars universe did, captaincy of the Enterprise would be hereditary. Picard would be the great-great-grandson of Kirk (or whatever) who was originally drummed out of the service for insubordination, and later on they would meet and Picard would find out that Kirk only disobeyed orders in order to save his family (and HIS ship and HIS crew) and really wasn't that bad a guy after all, just hotheaded, impatient, and... well, a little egomaniacal.
The Skywalkers are a kind of space royalty in a universe where it's who you are, not what you know or do, that counts. Star Trek has no place for such people-- everybody gets an equal opportunity, no more, no less, and it
I didn't mind the funny voice, but the whole thing had an overly misogynistic tone. Killing and raping women is kind of not funny.
That there are common traits between someone so obsessive they'd make a 70 minute video review of a film years after its release and people who murder their wives, kidnap and batter women, and has human bones in his basement was sort of the second layer of parody in the piece that I think most of the audience passed over.
The video (and all the other Star Trek reviews done by the same guy) are just as much critiques of the critics as they are of the films.
Did you watch episode 3? He was a rebel, and the Jedi held him back from his full potential, and that caused him to not be powerful enough to save his mother, who died.
This is bogus. His mother would have lived if he had returned home to free her from slavery at *any point* in the intervening decade or so between TPM and AotC. Even failing that, she was alive when he arrived; so leaving days, hours, perhaps even minutes earlier may have saved her life-- none of which have to do with the Jedi holding him back or him not being "powerful enough". What was required to find his mother was getting up off his butt and going to talk to Watto and ask where she was, which again has nothing do with the Jedi and nothing to do with the Force.
This along with other things put him on a path of hatred towards the Jedi. Palpatine played of his insecurity and anger and promised to make him powerful so he could save anyone (like, duh, his GF?). He snapped.
This is correct, but problematic. It makes Anakin a much less sympathetic character. He desires power and is driven by ego, and Palpatine manipulates him by offering those things. This is sensible and logical (one of the few sensible elements of the prequels' collective plot) but not good or sympathetic.
As for saving his GF... she was never in any serious danger *except from him*. I suppose if Lucas wanted it to be absolutely clear that she was destined to die in childbirth unless Anakin saved her, he shouldn't have had him attack her just before she goes into labor. Even then, it's a pretty weak connection. It would have been much more satisfying if the Jedi had been far more responsible for her death-- even indirectly so-- in a way that would make it seem more just for Anakin to blame them.
Even then, it doesn't wash-- Anakin has turned to the dark side, betrayed Mace Windu, saved Palpatine, and executed children *before she is ever put in any danger whatsoever*. The only danger is from Anakin's own dreams, and if his dreams are accurate, he is himself the cause of her death-- not the Jedi.
The entire clusterfudge is compounded when Palpatine tells Darth Vader that he is responsible for Amidala's death. That makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been emotionally authentic, at that point, for Anakin to want to kill himself, or to kill Palpatine-- to blame himself, his ego, his ambition, and that of the Emperor, for her death.
If Palpatine wanted to motivate Vader to go on a galaxy-spanning hunt to kill all the remaining Jedi, why not tell him that Kenobi killed her? Why not tell him that, having turned away from the Jedi and supported the Emperor, the Jedi considered his children to be a threat (true) and had her and them killed in order to protect their own interests?
By and large the prequels are huge steaming piles, but it's amazing how some tiny editorial changes could have made them much more logically consistent and emotionally authentic. Shifting the blame for Amidala's death from Vader to Kenobi would have been such a change-- the major problem with it is the need to retcon the original trilogy.
Even so, I'd say that ANH simply doesn't support the ending that Revenge gives us. "When I left you I was but a learner, now I am the master" is not what anyone would say after what happened. Anakin's point where he consciously departs from the Jedi leadership comes in the confrontation between Palpatine and Windu-- Kenobi is nowhere around, and it has nothing to do with his position as a student.
The actual break between the two of them comes during the climactic battle-- in which Anakin doesn't leave anything-- Kenobi leaves him, burned and limbless, on an island amidst a lava flow.
Then Kenobi fails to show any mercy, by saving his errant comrade from death and rehabilitating him once he's no longer an active threat-- nor does he take the final action necessary to eliminate that potential threat for all time by killing him off. Kenobi's great failur
Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.
Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/
VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.
VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success.
There's no need to because it's not a question. The answer is because there is, within the framework of any Open Source community, no essential relation between any measurement of a project's success and any measurement of its participation.
In commercial development, this relationship is simple-- it is provided by cash. More users means more income, more income means more resources to pay more programmers to continue to develop and support the project.
When the project is free for any and all to use (free as in beer) and participation in the project is based on "scratch your own itch" there is no relationship at all between the two.
Developers scratching their own itch on a project they need for their own use can continue working for years on a project that may have little or no application outside of a small community of like-minded developers with similar needs. Likewise, a fantastically popular application like VLC can eventually hit a brick wall when it finds there are no developers with itches that require scratching on a particular platform.
Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong. I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times. On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet. On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.
Denying that the issue can happen, however, is stupid to the point of sabotage.
The entire existence of the ISP sector is enabled by overselling. A typical oversold ratio is 10:1. Disallow providers from overselling and you'd be paying quite a bit more, even if you were to drive down margins, either with regulated pricing or by encouraging more competition.
You can verify this yourself by comparing the commercial rates for connectivity you get that come with an SLA that guarantees a certain data rate, compared to the rates for consumer Internet connectivity, which are nearly always nothing higher than "best effort" for everything.
C'mon, it's not just that. Yes, you get paid to use something, which makes it "less than free" in the sense that you are paying a negative sum-- you are receiving money. Since you have to use the closed-source version, and because carriers want access to this to take control over the handset's UI, it also means "less than free" in the sense of being less free, and allowing for less freedom.
"Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers. I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at all, and I didn’t read the earlier section closely enough. That’s obviously a much narrower position" ...but still dead wrong. To assume that the involvement of a third party (the mail host) obviates the need for notification forces one to conclude that it is the third party that has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and not the subscriber. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
"Plus there's no expectation that FedEx would (or should) have access to the *contents* of your mail, but an ISP-hosted email account, currently, does have full access to the content, with your tacit approval."
Wrong on both counts, at least in certain situations.
If you are sending something overseas, FedEx or another company may well open your package and therefore also have access to the contents.
Second, the ISP does have full access to cleartext email *with my knowledge* but most certainly NOT with my approval. They are not the same thing. They are certainly ABLE to read my email, and I am aware that they have this ability. However, that is not nearly the same thing as having my permission to do so. I expect they have better things to do, and if they were to ask me for such permission, I would deny it them. I would expect they would only read those messages pursuant to some request from me.
I administer an email server and this is how I treat those messages. Yes, I can read them. I don't, and I won't unless the recipient asks me to for some reason. I consider the contents private, and I would expect other server administrators to do the same. I would think this to be a "reasonable expectation".
"If you won't sell the product where your fans are, how are we supposed to support you? I can understand physical DVD sales or broadcasting it via television because that costs money, however the internet allows you to distribute content for -free- without the overhead of needing to translate, ship or alter any media."
Regional restrictions have never been about this. They are about pricing. There is piracy everywhere, but the amount varies. Demographics mean that incomes vary which means optimal price points vary. A few years ago, 100% legit DVDs in parts of the former Soviet Union cost $30-$50 and had few takers. Meanwhile, pirate discs cost $1-$5 and where everywhere. The response was, in part, to partner with local companies to make advertising-subsidized legitimate discs, pressed locally, that cost around $10.
Right now, rights from content producers are still parceled out regionally, in part because they want the ability to price on a per-region basis. If there are no local partners present, and no price point set, customers in that region are blocked.
The idea of one price, worldwide, isn't something the content producers are willing and able to cope with, and most likely will not be for many years.
The days of software-only routers are (mostly) over, thank goodness. May vicomsoft rest in peace.
Incidentally links to this particular software router seem to be spamming up the Internet. I've seen it several times just in the past few hours on various sites I use (facebook, linkedin, slashdot, wimaxforum).
Again, it is just a money grab by an old man who thinks "reading on the internet is like reading a paper, someone should pay for the right to read it", and you can't equate the two. It is more than just the medium that has changed.
Except that was never how newspapers worked, either, and Murdoch of all people should know it. Subscription fees and newsstand prices never did much more than pay for duplication and distribution. They certainly didn't contribute much, if any at all, to the costs of newsgathering.
So essentially in the old model news was free to anybody who bought a paper-- a paper full of advertisements, which are what really paid for the content to be generated. Advertisers knew how much to pay based on the demographics of the subscriber base and the paper's circulation.
Freed from the tyranny of ink and paper, content can now be delivered for pretty close to free-- so most of the time you don't need to subscribe or pay a newsstand cover charge, you just need to have Internet access. Advertisers, if they are thinking about it rationally, love this because unlike with newspapers and magazines, they know exactly how many people viewed an ad, how many people clicked it, and they may know a great deal more about that person, demographically, than they ever knew about any individual or group of individuals that made up a newspaper's subscriber base.
What I expect Murdoch is whining about is not Google Search. That does deliver him traffic. He's probably on about Google Reader, which uses RSS to present stories, whole or in part, divorced from the source's presentation (and thus its advertising). However I do suspect that like search, making content available in RSS does News Corp more good than harm-- if not, they could simply stop providing it.
If Google Reader is screenscraping News Corp sites then he's got a legitimate complaint. It's the equivalent of rip-and-read, but on the Internet.
1) Cellular calls NOW are likely terminated by VOIP and 2) the availability of LTE will most likely not affect AT&T's preference to determine how your calls are terminated rather than have you determine that, not to mention either charge you by the minute (or at least deduct your minutes from a calling plan). I am not convinced this is an authentic realization on the part of AT&T that they-- and us-- are better off with telcos being IP pipes and little more.
Palm have decided that users shouldn't have that ability anymore, and have to either get approved apps through their app portal, or else install a bunch of 3rd party app installers and/or root their Pre and install the SDK on their computers to install apps. That is WAY too much work.
Palm has decided that it is not worth the investment to build and maintain a store infrastructure if there is to be significant distribution outside it, and I think they are correct. The experience of Apple's App Store probably also shows that other distribution channels will spring up, and an arms race will begin. However there's little incentive for Palm to concede before the conflict even begins.
An App Store is much like a supermarket. It treats free apps like loss leaders. The maintainer has costs associated with storing and distributing free apps on which it takes no cut, but this should be more than made up for by the cut they take on the paid apps. In a sense, then, jwz wants the authors of paid apps to subsidize his app's distribution without meeting the requirements they have to meet.
Palm knows it needs free apps as well as paid apps, to be able to claim to have a large base of available apps, and knowing that people who start browsing such a store for free apps might find a paid app they like and end up buying it, or at least trying it.
They also know that developers who start out with free apps, if they have a good experience and clients show interest, might eventually go to paid apps. jwz has specifically said he is not doing that, will not do that, and never will do that-- which is why he thinks it is acceptable that he not bother to verify his PayPal account.
So, essentially, what Palm is getting is this: a developer who only ever intends to distribute free apps and who also wants the freedom to distribute through other channels, both of which undermine what Palm is seeking to do with the App Store.
The apps jwz submitted were a tip calculator and a clock. I'm guessing that somehow the store managed to fill these two needs from developers who were willing to go through Palm's procedure, so unless his apps are demonstrably better than those that are in the store, that pretty much removed any incentive to compromise those policies to suit jwz.
It seems to me the only principle that Palm could employ in order to justify modifying these policies to suit jwz would be, "don't piss off Internet celebrities" since that's the only value he represents. I'm also betting he's better remembered for bashing things than praising them, so this is a purely negative value. It's like a protection racket. "Gee, that's a nice App Store you've got that. Be a shame if anybody said something sarcastic about it on Slashdot."
What he, and I, really want is for a developer to be able to make an app, post it on their site, and have users download it. Why does it need to have an "App Store" that Palm needs to "figure out"? Just let me install things on my damn phone. Yes, HAVE an app store, but also allow people to install directly!
I know it's hard to cope with, but the essential truth that Apple has exposed with its store is this: it is better for the manufacturer to ally itself with the purchasers against the developers than to ally itself with developers against users.
It's amazing. You say you want devs to make apps, people to download and install apps, but then you say you don't need a store. That's what the store does. That's what makes it possible for users to find apps to install, by providing one place to find them, multiple ways to search for them and to evaluate them (reviews, trials) and one distribution mechanism for free and paid apps with one easy payment mechanism. Creating an easy method for off-store applications would quickly devolve into a situation where everybody puts their free apps and their trials into the store, and then moves distribution and payment for the full versions out of the store to avoid giving Palm their cut. Palm is essentially offering to subsidize free apps in return for an exclusive right to distribute.
Funny most places i go to offer their WiFi for free, i find this a much nicer billing solution than my phone company charging me whatever the fuck they want.
When your access depends on someone else doing something to their detriment (giving away something for nothing) be prepared to lose it at any moment.
I'll be the first to admit that (at least in the US) there needs to be better (not less) telco regulation and more incentives to truly compete.
However, while I don't believe WiFi as a technology is anywhere near dead (how do you go from ubiquitous to dead that fast?) I do think the "free wifi" business model is dead, and it does look like the municipal wifi trend is at a dead-end. Few municipalities have implemented it well, and I don't see a huge rush to duplicate their successes.