I have a second-generation Apple TV, and with iCloud, I don't even need iTunes anymore. The only reason I use iTunes is if I'm going to be traveling and in places where I don't have access to cloud data but where I know I'm going to want some of my content. So I'll download a video or some songs or something so that I have access whenever wherever. But that's happening less and less these days.
Well, it's almost never as simple as a re-compile, but even if it were, there's an issue of supportability. If you develop your software with certain performance metrics in mind, and a particular platform does not support those metrics adequately for new features, then continuing to offer versions for that platform will result in a support nightmare.
Even if that platform does perform adequately, if you're truly going to support something, you should test your software on it, and it takes extra resources to do so. I'm not an insider on this topic or anything, so I don't know the reasons why Oracle wanted to stop supporting Itanium, but assuming it's not something petty and competitive, it's likely to be one of those.
Well, a quick search of the iTunes Music Store lets me find a bunch of Amazon's apps. Narrowing it to books, there aren't many, but right on the first page of the search results is this and this.
Maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.
Your example breaks down: when you're practicing self-censorship, you are the person who is in sole control of your thoughts. By self-censoring, you have ensured that your thoughts are not available to anyone else.
If Apple choosing not to carry a book is censorship, then so is every edit made to every web page, newspaper or magazine in the entire history of the world.
There are indeed alternate avenues for this author to use for book distribution, aren't there? Isn't Android winning? There are two models of iPad currently selling, three models of iPhone, the iPod touch and depending on how you slice it, six models of Mac that could display this book. 12 total devices against zillions of Windows and Android devices. And that's not even counting the possibility of printing a book.
If you're going to raise the censorship alarm, then you're suggesting that they are actually keeping the content from being available. That is totally different from not selling it. For example, the author could put the book up as a PDF or a web page and sell it directly to consumers. She could give it away, and Apple wouldn't stop it.
"I don't agree" doesn't mean that they are doing anything illegal or unethical. Without knowing all the details, I can't say for sure I support the decision they made, but heck: they rejected the first app I submitted to the app store. Should I have sued them for having illegally censored my work?
So are you for regulation or not? If so, why are warning labels OK but not pure prohibition against selling as a toy? You'll still be able to buy these at science lab supply shops. Why do they need to be sold as toys?
I disagree. Exposing children who couldn't possibly know better to dangers which are not at all obvious is more like random acts of violence than natural selection. That's like saying getting hit by a drunk driver is natural selection.
And I can guess at least one counter-argument: if the parents are stupid enough to give their kid a dangerous toy, then their progeny should be taken out of the gene pool. Well, it's not that simple: there are friends, extended family, babysitters, daycare, and more potential sources of dangerous toys. As long as a dangerous toy is sold as a toy, it's possible that your kid, through no fault of your own, could be exposed to them.
It's a lot of things, but natural selection it's not.
These are small and unusually powerful magnets. Swallow one, and then another a half-hour later (or any time before passing the first), and they will pull together, pinching your internal organs, and they'll never come out without invasive surgery.
A normal magnet, if swallowed, will just pass. And if it's big enough to have the same pull that these rare earth magnets have, it'll be uncomfortable enough during the swallowing that most kids won't do it twice, so that pinching thing likely won't happen.
I once heard that this was the cause of the supposed "seven year itch" in relationships. That is to say, every seven years, you're effectively a new person. Not sure it's true, but it's an interesting concept.
Are you saying that they don't look confusingly similar? I'm sure that the many Ray-Ban knock-offs have their own distinctive elements, too, and so are not identical, but are clearly trying to capitalize on similarities.
I don't know; I think there are other considerations, not the least of which is ongoing support for system upgrades. All iOS devices have, historically, gotten at least a couple of major system upgrades including new features. Even the iPhone 3Gs is getting a bunch of features with iOS 6 (although it'll probably be unbearably slow to use).
As I understand it, the majority of Android devices are abandoned from an OS upgrade standpoint the moment they hit the shelves. I think that's a major consideration that an average consumer might not think about, but might be affected by. Much more so than hack-ability or openness.
What I'm saying is that she clearly didn't know the difference, and physically similar designs, in my estimation, bear an implicit message of similar functionality to people who are not technically savvy enough to understand the underpinnings.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a second-generation Apple TV, and with iCloud, I don't even need iTunes anymore. The only reason I use iTunes is if I'm going to be traveling and in places where I don't have access to cloud data but where I know I'm going to want some of my content. So I'll download a video or some songs or something so that I have access whenever wherever. But that's happening less and less these days.
Well, it's almost never as simple as a re-compile, but even if it were, there's an issue of supportability. If you develop your software with certain performance metrics in mind, and a particular platform does not support those metrics adequately for new features, then continuing to offer versions for that platform will result in a support nightmare.
Even if that platform does perform adequately, if you're truly going to support something, you should test your software on it, and it takes extra resources to do so. I'm not an insider on this topic or anything, so I don't know the reasons why Oracle wanted to stop supporting Itanium, but assuming it's not something petty and competitive, it's likely to be one of those.
I was going to suggest that iTunes for Windows was another good example of this, but then I remembered that it sucks on Mac OS X as well.
And that, my friend, is a double-clarification! :)
Double negatives aren't necessarily bad (see this sentence). It's the incorrect negation that's the problem.
Anyone who didn't mod up my previous post is censoring me! Fie on them!
Well, a quick search of the iTunes Music Store lets me find a bunch of Amazon's apps. Narrowing it to books, there aren't many, but right on the first page of the search results is this and this.
Maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.
Your example breaks down: when you're practicing self-censorship, you are the person who is in sole control of your thoughts. By self-censoring, you have ensured that your thoughts are not available to anyone else.
If Apple choosing not to carry a book is censorship, then so is every edit made to every web page, newspaper or magazine in the entire history of the world.
There are indeed alternate avenues for this author to use for book distribution, aren't there? Isn't Android winning? There are two models of iPad currently selling, three models of iPhone, the iPod touch and depending on how you slice it, six models of Mac that could display this book. 12 total devices against zillions of Windows and Android devices. And that's not even counting the possibility of printing a book.
If you're going to raise the censorship alarm, then you're suggesting that they are actually keeping the content from being available. That is totally different from not selling it. For example, the author could put the book up as a PDF or a web page and sell it directly to consumers. She could give it away, and Apple wouldn't stop it.
"I don't agree" doesn't mean that they are doing anything illegal or unethical. Without knowing all the details, I can't say for sure I support the decision they made, but heck: they rejected the first app I submitted to the app store. Should I have sued them for having illegally censored my work?
Or third, as the case may be.
You get first post!
So are you for regulation or not? If so, why are warning labels OK but not pure prohibition against selling as a toy? You'll still be able to buy these at science lab supply shops. Why do they need to be sold as toys?
If it's not a troll, it's certainly juvenile. Yeah, I once had a "Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out!" t-shirt, but I was 13 years old at the time.
Very true. For some reason, I felt while I was writing my post that this was implicit, but it wasn't. I appreciate the complementary post!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week!
I disagree. Exposing children who couldn't possibly know better to dangers which are not at all obvious is more like random acts of violence than natural selection. That's like saying getting hit by a drunk driver is natural selection.
And I can guess at least one counter-argument: if the parents are stupid enough to give their kid a dangerous toy, then their progeny should be taken out of the gene pool. Well, it's not that simple: there are friends, extended family, babysitters, daycare, and more potential sources of dangerous toys. As long as a dangerous toy is sold as a toy, it's possible that your kid, through no fault of your own, could be exposed to them.
It's a lot of things, but natural selection it's not.
These are small and unusually powerful magnets. Swallow one, and then another a half-hour later (or any time before passing the first), and they will pull together, pinching your internal organs, and they'll never come out without invasive surgery.
A normal magnet, if swallowed, will just pass. And if it's big enough to have the same pull that these rare earth magnets have, it'll be uncomfortable enough during the swallowing that most kids won't do it twice, so that pinching thing likely won't happen.
I once heard that this was the cause of the supposed "seven year itch" in relationships. That is to say, every seven years, you're effectively a new person. Not sure it's true, but it's an interesting concept.
Effectively its a rolling (sorry) release like Debian Sid
Niiiiiiice....
Thanks for the link! I had no idea my reference was so highbrow!
I think that was my most successful first post ever. I just wish I had been signed in.
Are you saying that they don't look confusingly similar? I'm sure that the many Ray-Ban knock-offs have their own distinctive elements, too, and so are not identical, but are clearly trying to capitalize on similarities.
Good example. Do people feel that LEGO corp is evil?
Re courts: you're painting with a fairly broad brush.
Re broad brushes: I agree. For better or for worse, every patent is a test of the law.
I don't know; I think there are other considerations, not the least of which is ongoing support for system upgrades. All iOS devices have, historically, gotten at least a couple of major system upgrades including new features. Even the iPhone 3Gs is getting a bunch of features with iOS 6 (although it'll probably be unbearably slow to use).
As I understand it, the majority of Android devices are abandoned from an OS upgrade standpoint the moment they hit the shelves. I think that's a major consideration that an average consumer might not think about, but might be affected by. Much more so than hack-ability or openness.
What I'm saying is that she clearly didn't know the difference, and physically similar designs, in my estimation, bear an implicit message of similar functionality to people who are not technically savvy enough to understand the underpinnings.