How many more generations will get that? I only know about it because when I was growing up, Mad Magazine made references to it which my father explained to me.
Sort of. As the other poster indicated, you are protected from giving testimony that would build a case against yourself, even if you were not guilty. If, for instance, in a moment of anger, you had yelled, "I'm going to f'ing kill you!" at someone who was later killed, but you hadn't killed that person. If the victim told someone else about that incident before his/her death, the question might come up, and you should not have to answer it, regardless of whether it was or wasn't you who killed the person.
But beyond that, my understanding is that not incriminating yourself is not limited to the case being prosecuted. For example, if an answer to a question in a murder case might implicate you as an embezzler (rightly or wrongly), you can and should take the 5th on that one as well.
That, my friend, is not how it works. Any company could compete in the high-end computer market if they wished, but instead, they have mostly engaged in a race to the bottom. Apple have been much maligned for keeping their prices high, but to suggest that being the best seller in a particular price bracket equates to a monopoly in any legal sense is ridiculous.
If anything, it's a testament to the power of the free market. The one thing that has kept Microsoft from going from technical monopoly to sole vendor in the OS marketplace is the fact that none of the hardware manufacturers who sell Windows claim to be making a premium product. That and the fact that Linux is free.
The AC post above mine was asking why people were OK with it from Apple, but not from MS, and I was just illustrating the difference.
You can indeed distribute any app you want for MS phones, but if it competes with one of their favored apps, they won't simply say that releasing it is in violation of their T instead they will rapaciously put you out of business.
Here's the thing, though; there's a back door into every iPhone: the web. Apple has made it clear that they support a totally open web. They also make it easy for people to set up a home page icon for any web site. So for a cartoonist's app, there's no reason that they couldn't simply set up a one-time paywall on a mobile site for iPod users and cut Apple completely out of the loop.
Maybe he hadn't been convicted yet. That's probably what they're worried about. Since they're curating the content of their app store, they could be held liable for libel in published apps.
Right; freedom of the press goes both ways. If publishes--what Apple would effectively become if they allowed the app in their store--had to accept all content, it would not only destroy the signal-to-noise ratio, but it would also make all media vulnerable to malicious manipulation. Or more so, as it were.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft in these actions is like the difference between an old man shouting to get off their lawn and a protection racket.
Unless you choose to play on the old man's lawn, he doesn't affect you. He's a jerk, but he's avoidable, much like Apple is.
Microsoft is more like the protection racket; either strong vigilante action (for which Linux is emblematic) or law enforcement are the only way to stand up to those guys.
Not a bad idea. Or an RSA Key. I've got an RSA application on my blackberry that I use for accessing some areas of the corpo network, but for the most part, I just have to change my password every 45 days.
Having your work password, gmail, hotmail, bank password all be the same? BAD idea.
The GP doesn't mean re-using the same password for all services, but rather using a central authentication point. So when you're logged in at work, you don't need to re-log in to get your email, and then re-log in to get to shared folders, then re-log to post your hours, etc.
For home use, there are lots of solutions. I kind of like Apple's Keychain; it does a pretty reasonable job, although there are places where it doesn't seem to automatically kick in. But I have a very good password on my encrypted personal laptop, and while I don't use that password anywhere else, it does let me in to most of my banking, email, etc., based on saved passwords in Keychain.
And so? Is there a law against one corporation giving the middle finger to another? Are you saying Adobe is going to sue because their feelings are hurt?
Three years ago, the market for Flash and the associated development tools existed just fine without the iPhone. The iPhone has created a whole new market, but the number of computers sold, as well as other mobile platforms has grown at a wonderful, astounding rate over that time.
Adobe did fine without the iPhone before it existed. For anyone to say that Apple is destroying Adobe, or that Apple has a monopoly with its 20% share of the smartphone market is ridiculous.
never forget that the vendor who can choose for you, even if their taste is impeccable, is more dangerous than the vendor you can choose, even if they suck
That's true! And I shall take that advice to unreasonable extremes and allow my stomach to reject the tyranny of my brain. More pie for me! And those tobacco cravings... I know that cigarettes are bad for me, but I prefer to let my body choose, over my brain!
Joking aside, I look at it a little differently: if I had an iPhone (and I don't, but I have other Apple products), I would make that decision in part because I agree with their decisions. I think of it not as them being a nanny who decides for their clients, but as a sort of proxy. They make specific decisions and people who choose their products do so with full knowledge of those decisions.
There is nothing dangerous about it. If they make a decision I don't like, I'm free to move to another phone.
Are you joking? Or do you not know what "monopoly" means?
There are hundreds of other phones to choose from, including dozens of smart phones. There is no corporate lock-in that effectively forces the iPhone to be the dominant phone. It's simply more popular. And that may change one day.
The microsoft comparison would have been valid if, say, they were doing something to prevent other companies from making phones, but they're not.
I don't want Adobe Flash running on my dishwasher, either, and I have complete control over the "my dishwasher" market. Is that a monopolistic practice?
Think about it... the mythology of things like the Loch Ness monster and fire breathing dragons could be true. If some animal had developed a means of harnessing this sort of a virus to split water into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for FIRE, you could have both in one!
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that WebGL was essentially an implementation of some of the core elements of OpenGL in Javascript, meaning--if I understand correctly--that anything that works with WebGL could run in an HTML5-compliant browser such as Mobile Safari.
Is this not correct? Is WebGL an actual plug-in like Flash?
Slashdot Mirror
Best.
Response.
Ever.
How many more generations will get that? I only know about it because when I was growing up, Mad Magazine made references to it which my father explained to me.
Sort of. As the other poster indicated, you are protected from giving testimony that would build a case against yourself, even if you were not guilty. If, for instance, in a moment of anger, you had yelled, "I'm going to f'ing kill you!" at someone who was later killed, but you hadn't killed that person. If the victim told someone else about that incident before his/her death, the question might come up, and you should not have to answer it, regardless of whether it was or wasn't you who killed the person.
But beyond that, my understanding is that not incriminating yourself is not limited to the case being prosecuted. For example, if an answer to a question in a murder case might implicate you as an embezzler (rightly or wrongly), you can and should take the 5th on that one as well.
In other news, I like your sig.
That, my friend, is not how it works. Any company could compete in the high-end computer market if they wished, but instead, they have mostly engaged in a race to the bottom. Apple have been much maligned for keeping their prices high, but to suggest that being the best seller in a particular price bracket equates to a monopoly in any legal sense is ridiculous.
If anything, it's a testament to the power of the free market. The one thing that has kept Microsoft from going from technical monopoly to sole vendor in the OS marketplace is the fact that none of the hardware manufacturers who sell Windows claim to be making a premium product. That and the fact that Linux is free.
The AC post above mine was asking why people were OK with it from Apple, but not from MS, and I was just illustrating the difference.
You can indeed distribute any app you want for MS phones, but if it competes with one of their favored apps, they won't simply say that releasing it is in violation of their T instead they will rapaciously put you out of business.
Here's the thing, though; there's a back door into every iPhone: the web. Apple has made it clear that they support a totally open web. They also make it easy for people to set up a home page icon for any web site. So for a cartoonist's app, there's no reason that they couldn't simply set up a one-time paywall on a mobile site for iPod users and cut Apple completely out of the loop.
This is really a tempest in a teapot.
No.
How about we compromise. He's the old man who invites you onto his lawn and then tells you to leave. I'd accept that.
Funny, I posted something similar and got modded troll. Sigh.
For the record, I carry a blackberry. Anyone can make apps for it, which is great, but overall, it's the worst phone I've ever had.
I assume you're a huge fan of this guy's, and you've bought and paid for his Anroid app? No? I think you're guilty of censorship! :P
Maybe he hadn't been convicted yet. That's probably what they're worried about. Since they're curating the content of their app store, they could be held liable for libel in published apps.
Right; freedom of the press goes both ways. If publishes--what Apple would effectively become if they allowed the app in their store--had to accept all content, it would not only destroy the signal-to-noise ratio, but it would also make all media vulnerable to malicious manipulation. Or more so, as it were.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft in these actions is like the difference between an old man shouting to get off their lawn and a protection racket.
Unless you choose to play on the old man's lawn, he doesn't affect you. He's a jerk, but he's avoidable, much like Apple is.
Microsoft is more like the protection racket; either strong vigilante action (for which Linux is emblematic) or law enforcement are the only way to stand up to those guys.
Time to go to my closest Starbucks for a venti non fat latte. What a great way to round out the afternoon!
They have great snacks there, too, starting at just $1.49! you should try it!
Not a bad idea. Or an RSA Key. I've got an RSA application on my blackberry that I use for accessing some areas of the corpo network, but for the most part, I just have to change my password every 45 days.
Having your work password, gmail, hotmail, bank password all be the same? BAD idea.
The GP doesn't mean re-using the same password for all services, but rather using a central authentication point. So when you're logged in at work, you don't need to re-log in to get your email, and then re-log in to get to shared folders, then re-log to post your hours, etc.
For home use, there are lots of solutions. I kind of like Apple's Keychain; it does a pretty reasonable job, although there are places where it doesn't seem to automatically kick in. But I have a very good password on my encrypted personal laptop, and while I don't use that password anywhere else, it does let me in to most of my banking, email, etc., based on saved passwords in Keychain.
Careful, or I'll go all Marty McSorely on you!
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Do you happen to know if WebKit/Chrome/Mozilla/IE8/IE9 are supporting or planning to implement WebGL?
And so? Is there a law against one corporation giving the middle finger to another? Are you saying Adobe is going to sue because their feelings are hurt?
Three years ago, the market for Flash and the associated development tools existed just fine without the iPhone. The iPhone has created a whole new market, but the number of computers sold, as well as other mobile platforms has grown at a wonderful, astounding rate over that time.
Adobe did fine without the iPhone before it existed. For anyone to say that Apple is destroying Adobe, or that Apple has a monopoly with its 20% share of the smartphone market is ridiculous.
never forget that the vendor who can choose for you, even if their taste is impeccable, is more dangerous than the vendor you can choose, even if they suck
That's true! And I shall take that advice to unreasonable extremes and allow my stomach to reject the tyranny of my brain. More pie for me! And those tobacco cravings... I know that cigarettes are bad for me, but I prefer to let my body choose, over my brain!
Joking aside, I look at it a little differently: if I had an iPhone (and I don't, but I have other Apple products), I would make that decision in part because I agree with their decisions. I think of it not as them being a nanny who decides for their clients, but as a sort of proxy. They make specific decisions and people who choose their products do so with full knowledge of those decisions.
There is nothing dangerous about it. If they make a decision I don't like, I'm free to move to another phone.
Are you joking? Or do you not know what "monopoly" means?
There are hundreds of other phones to choose from, including dozens of smart phones. There is no corporate lock-in that effectively forces the iPhone to be the dominant phone. It's simply more popular. And that may change one day.
The microsoft comparison would have been valid if, say, they were doing something to prevent other companies from making phones, but they're not.
I don't want Adobe Flash running on my dishwasher, either, and I have complete control over the "my dishwasher" market. Is that a monopolistic practice?
Yeah, but Tiger's /. ID is, coincidentally, 963809.
Gretzky? Wasn't he the guy who played on the LA Kings?
It's the name they gave Ja Me Yoon at Ellis Island when he moved to the US.
Think about it... the mythology of things like the Loch Ness monster and fire breathing dragons could be true. If some animal had developed a means of harnessing this sort of a virus to split water into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for FIRE, you could have both in one!
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that WebGL was essentially an implementation of some of the core elements of OpenGL in Javascript, meaning--if I understand correctly--that anything that works with WebGL could run in an HTML5-compliant browser such as Mobile Safari.
Is this not correct? Is WebGL an actual plug-in like Flash?