While I think you make a great point here, I don't think it would work on many people.
Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them. Of course, that's exactly what the Nazis argument was too...
I was the IT manager at a smaller group of newspapers. Everything you said was true of our place, except 2 things.
1. Hostile IT depts. There was only two devs (only one technically competent) and two IT people. We knew each other. We worked well together. Us IT guys set up a test server on an old machine, and gave the dev full access to it. We all met & worked together to get things working & optimized.
2. Graphic designers. Ours didn't know what html was. They knew InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator & Flash. They didn't know what GoLive was. Since our site was already ugly, we just dusted off a template, changed a few colors & called it good. It looked the same as the old, ugly site so no one upstairs complained.
I worked with some petty, manipulative people and worked a lot of overtime (IT manager, newspaper, you do the math). I quit my job. And now sleep soundly.
AT&T had a hole. Goatse strapped a JATO rocket onto their car, and slammed AT&T up the ass because the security hole needed to be shown. AT&T complained that they shouldn't have used the JATO rocket.
Do you seriously not understand that third pard ads are NOT the same as third party ad networks? Can Yahoo put ads on a Google search page? Yes. Can Yahoo put their ad platform on a Google search page? No.
And no, you don't have to use Apple's ad network. It's just a nice network that they don't want their direct competition getting insight into their business.
When it comes down to it, Apple allows other ad networks on their ad platform but they don't get *all* the analytics if they're a competitor of Apple. Google doesn't allow any other ad platforms anywhere. Apple is actually more open than Google on this.
It's not that you get an ad from someone else - Google allows that. It's that you can't get an ad from a different ad platform on a Google page - Google doesn't allow that because it's competition. But they want Apple to allow it, which they actually do, but just don't provide ALL the metrics if you're a competitor. Which is hypocrisy and whining. And Apple is actually more open on advertising that Google is. Which is just hysterical.
Well, your signature really does hold true, you're ignorant.
How in the hell does Apple blocking user/device data from AdMob discourage Google from developing Android.
Apple competes against Google in software, hardware AND advertising. Why would Apple give Google a competitive advantage into those areas? Why would ANY business? It's called competition, and Google is whining as much as Adobe did a while back.
Number one, you can't have a monopoly in your own store. Apple is selling apps in the Apple Store for Apple devices to Apple customers. No matter what percentage of the entire smartphone/app/competitor market that is, it's still not a monopoly. And if by some remote stretch you think it is, it's not wrong or illegal. Abusing a monopoly is.
Number two, here's a quote from your 'most recent figures' of June 2009 link: "The data in this report is computed from a sample size of 200 applications, 25 million consumers and four platforms: Apple (iPhone and iPod Touch), Blackberry, JavaME and Google Android." 200 apps, WTF? Was Android market even a practical reality then? Paid apps were only added in February of 2009. Not much incentive to build good apps by the time of flurry.com's report.
Number three, the larger issue isn't about apps, it's about how Apple got screwed by Google buying AdMob out from under them. Apple, with this announcement, just made AdMob worth about half of what Google paid for it. And they're totally in the right. Why would Apple want to give Google - who's now a competitor in software, hardware AND advertising - a competitive advantage on Apple's platform? And what business would? It's nice to see actual competitive businesses competing. Google's just not used to it, and is whining big time. A lot like Adobe did.
If you listen to the head Coast Guard guy, it's because they couldn't imagine a spill this big, and thus didn't plan for it.
Now, how they couldn't imagine a spill this big, given the rate of flows and the depth of the water, is beyond me or, I think, any rational person. Which says a lot about those in charge - of the plans, rigs, coast, etc.
Re:Apple, take your proprietary browser and stuffi
on
Safari 5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Then it was well played. I thought you were a troll, because of your very argument.
No, but the $12 Trillion in taxes that the government now owes makes us all slaves. You can point to the fact that the Republicans have built up most of that debt, but at this point it doesn't really matter.
The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.
You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure.
http://www.gop.com/
While I think you make a great point here, I don't think it would work on many people.
Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them. Of course, that's exactly what the Nazis argument was too...
I was the IT manager at a smaller group of newspapers. Everything you said was true of our place, except 2 things.
1. Hostile IT depts. There was only two devs (only one technically competent) and two IT people. We knew each other. We worked well together. Us IT guys set up a test server on an old machine, and gave the dev full access to it. We all met & worked together to get things working & optimized.
2. Graphic designers. Ours didn't know what html was. They knew InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator & Flash. They didn't know what GoLive was. Since our site was already ugly, we just dusted off a template, changed a few colors & called it good. It looked the same as the old, ugly site so no one upstairs complained.
I worked with some petty, manipulative people and worked a lot of overtime (IT manager, newspaper, you do the math). I quit my job. And now sleep soundly.
AT&T had a hole. Goatse strapped a JATO rocket onto their car, and slammed AT&T up the ass because the security hole needed to be shown. AT&T complained that they shouldn't have used the JATO rocket.
Link + sig = funny.
Or realllllly wrong.
Do you seriously not understand that third pard ads are NOT the same as third party ad networks? Can Yahoo put ads on a Google search page? Yes. Can Yahoo put their ad platform on a Google search page? No.
And no, you don't have to use Apple's ad network. It's just a nice network that they don't want their direct competition getting insight into their business.
When it comes down to it, Apple allows other ad networks on their ad platform but they don't get *all* the analytics if they're a competitor of Apple. Google doesn't allow any other ad platforms anywhere. Apple is actually more open than Google on this.
Article with actual agreement text.
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100608/apple-makes-good-on-steve-jobs-promise-invites-other-advertisers/
No, the next step would be for Google to block third party ad distribution networks from their search pages.
Oh, they already do, and always have done so. Because it's their competition and makes sense to do so.
Just like Apple's move. But Apple still lets Google in, they just don't get to see all the details.
In other words, Apple's ad platform is more open than Google's. Oh, the irony.
You missed mTor's point.
It's not that you get an ad from someone else - Google allows that.
It's that you can't get an ad from a different ad platform on a Google page - Google doesn't allow that because it's competition. But they want Apple to allow it, which they actually do, but just don't provide ALL the metrics if you're a competitor. Which is hypocrisy and whining. And Apple is actually more open on advertising that Google is. Which is just hysterical.
Well, your signature really does hold true, you're ignorant.
How in the hell does Apple blocking user/device data from AdMob discourage Google from developing Android.
Apple competes against Google in software, hardware AND advertising. Why would Apple give Google a competitive advantage into those areas? Why would ANY business? It's called competition, and Google is whining as much as Adobe did a while back.
That's fine for you. Just don't force it on everyone.
Other people see the value proposition differently, and developers are thankful. I'm not sure how much, but better than nothing.
If MS actually owns client-side SQL, they might want to talk to the W3C.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
All HTML5 compliant browsers will be implementing this.
Number one, you can't have a monopoly in your own store. Apple is selling apps in the Apple Store for Apple devices to Apple customers. No matter what percentage of the entire smartphone/app/competitor market that is, it's still not a monopoly. And if by some remote stretch you think it is, it's not wrong or illegal. Abusing a monopoly is.
Number two, here's a quote from your 'most recent figures' of June 2009 link:
"The data in this report is computed from a sample size of 200 applications, 25 million consumers and four platforms: Apple (iPhone and iPod Touch), Blackberry, JavaME and Google Android."
200 apps, WTF? Was Android market even a practical reality then? Paid apps were only added in February of 2009. Not much incentive to build good apps by the time of flurry.com's report.
Number three, the larger issue isn't about apps, it's about how Apple got screwed by Google buying AdMob out from under them. Apple, with this announcement, just made AdMob worth about half of what Google paid for it. And they're totally in the right. Why would Apple want to give Google - who's now a competitor in software, hardware AND advertising - a competitive advantage on Apple's platform? And what business would? It's nice to see actual competitive businesses competing. Google's just not used to it, and is whining big time. A lot like Adobe did.
Get off the crack, buddy.
If you listen to the head Coast Guard guy, it's because they couldn't imagine a spill this big, and thus didn't plan for it.
Now, how they couldn't imagine a spill this big, given the rate of flows and the depth of the water, is beyond me or, I think, any rational person. Which says a lot about those in charge - of the plans, rigs, coast, etc.
Then it was well played. I thought you were a troll, because of your very argument.
You could build this yourself with Safari Extensions.
http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Tools/Conceptual/SafariExtensionGuide/AddingContextualMenuItems/AddingContextualMenuItems.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40009977-CH4-SW1
Well plugins like ClickToFlash still work.
Extension details can be seen here:
http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Tools/Conceptual/SafariExtensionGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html
An awesome demonstration of what they're capable of:
http://www.panic.com/blog/2010/06/coda-notes-previe/
Try searching for 'HTML5 database' to see what Apple has implemented.
No, you don't have to interact with them. You *can* interact with them, once you click on them. Huge difference.
badgers
It's easy to do, because it's true. Any place, outside of the large cities, in the south have a lot of racism and a lot of ignorance.
retarded laws != racist, ignorant people.
You've lived in the south your entire life and think you're the same as everyone else?
You're dead fucking wrong.
I lived in the south for 8 years. My parents still live there. I've lived in the northeast, the midwest and the west.
There's still far more racism & ignorance prevalent in the south than anywhere else.
No, but the $12 Trillion in taxes that the government now owes makes us all slaves. You can point to the fact that the Republicans have built up most of that debt, but at this point it doesn't really matter.
The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.
You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?