I've seen Pallywood -- for one, Pallywood was about Palestinian journalists, which TFA isn't about, and second, to be honest I didn't find a lot of the video evidence in Pallywood to be particularly convincing, and it commits a lot of the errors, decontextualization with narration, suspicious sourcing, editorializing, that it accuses news agencies of committing.
You can create an objective photo, like in a lab experiment where the background is graduated and the subject is plain, but even then it's only objective within the very narrow parameters of a particular experiment -- lab photography of a bullet splitting an apple can find its way into a montage or a music video, where it somehow conveys violence, because divorced from the lab context the image takes on new meaning.
There is a huge difference between summarizing and slanting.
If you have some sort of positive evidence of this happening you absolutely should bring it up. The problem here is that the TFA author doesn't, he just sees photographers lining up shots, and talking to the subjects, and makes the leap that this is, perforce, distortion. I just don't think he understands how photography works.
I want the whole story so I can draw my own conclusions and not just the story the reporter/photographer wants me to see.
If the conflict is something like Israel/Palestine, taking place over 60 years in a country thousands of miles away, involving entire nations of people, of whom you've maybe only met two or three representatives, you're simply not going to be able to come to a useful conclusion on the basis of newspaper columns and photos. An unfortunate, and much more real, problem with mass news media is that it convinces you it can supply you with the information required to bring you to a good conclusion, simply by watching enough TV and reading enough news, when it really can't.
Cameras lie. Photography is an artform and its basically impossible to create an objective photograph.
Even if we make the usual assumptions for photojournalists (they don't montage photos, they don't get too fancy in the darkroom...
There's a frame. You can't see the action around a frame in context, wether this context is a guy off camera with a gun, or a guy signing a treaty 40 years ago.
The lens has selective focus, that its lens always distorts the space that's photographed. Two subjects who appear quite close might in fact be rather far away. People who appear to be able to see each other may not actually have a vantage on each other in the actual space.
Useable news photographs require acceptable lighting conditions. You can't shoot a night battle with a flash.
If the photographer didn't communicate with the subject, he probably wouldn't have any photographs that actually demonstrated the conflict.
What do you want? Do you want to feel like you're there, experiencing the action? If that's the case, then the photographer is pretty much going to have to stage everything, because real conflicts generally don't yield photogenic angles, or give the photographer a way of capturing both sides in a way that makes the conflict "real" from the perspective of someone looking at the pictures. Real war footage is boring as hell, it doesn't remotely capture the experience of being there, and the only way you can stand it or make any sense of it is with aggressive editing and narration, which has the potential to recontextualize everything.
Do you want the truth? All the photographer can tell you is what he saw, and if he only gives you the photos he took. Reporting is epistolary: somebody saw something, they are now telling you about it, you're relying on their account. Photographs are part of their account, they are not separate, "real" things that are somehow more reliable than someone's testimony.
I suppose Jellybean will be the next one. K is a toughie, "Klondike Bar" might not be ideal for several reasons, "Kit Kat" too. Maybe they'll just cheat and do "Krunchbar" or "Kandy Korn"
They were caught "being evil" when they released the "open" ICS to Samsung, HTC and other favored vendors six months ago under NDAs. Is that open source?
If Galaxy Tabs were so good, Samsung wouldn't feel compelled to copy the icons, the power adapters, the box, the case, the dock connector...
I'd feel a little better if it wasn't so obvious, but they're plainly just trying to confuse people, to the extent that the Galaxy Tab probably would pass as some sort of grad student experiment in culture jamming.
IANAL, but if others use a particular patented technology for a period of time and are able to make money doing it, with Samsung's knowledge, it becomes more difficult for Samsung to sue later because the others can claim an estoppel by acquiesence has been created. It's even worse if Samsung has made positive statements that it will not sue others, even outside the context of a contract, and then later decides to enforce its rights against one or all.
Laches can apply to any right, you can't permit your rights to be violated for long periods of time and to your detriment, and then suddenly attempt to enforce them. I suspect laches wouldn't be a good defense for Apple in this case because there really hasn't been very much time.
Also laches and estoppels exist at common law, and Europe doesn't use common law:)
"I wish Sprint would have fewer customers and make less money -- passing up on high-margin customers, risking buyout, a selloff of assets, and long-term degredation of the network -- because it means my Sprint reception will be better over the next 6 months."
"HTC phone owners" or "slashdot-reading HTC phone owners"?
There's this sort of attitude that says that anyone who runs Android accepts the consequences, because it's "open" in this sense and you can read the source and make your own changes. People who run iOS are forced to make a somewhat more authoritarian argument because they don't really have much granular control over what they run on their phone and don't have complete control over the consequences -- and so you end up having big arguments over wether the iPhone or whatever is a good product en toto, and whether ot not Apple policy X is good or bad.
Android comment threads aren't as spicy because most slashdot-reading Android users have the attitude that everything disagreeable about Android is opt-out, even if it's a Hobson's choice a lot of the time, and the disagreeable aspects of Android are the only things keeping manufacturers selling it.
The capability-based privilege system applies to all applications, not just App Store ones. An application on 10.7 can't access paths on the filesystem without either getting explicit permission or asking through an NSOpenPanel, which on 10.7 runs in a separate process.
No no, they could have opened it and it might have been just as successful, as long as they couId lock up the PC distributotrs with their Windows distribution through licensing, just as Google is able to keep major vendors on OHA Android by keeping it ahead in features of AOSP Android and integrating it with Google services.
Really, I could answer yes or no to your question and it wouldn't really have a bearing on my original point. For the purposes of hardware integrators Windows was open, they were allowed to put it on whatever they pleased, unlike Mac OS or AmigaOS. An open distribution strategy is distinct from an open source strategy.
No no, locked bootloaders are good for open source. It allows hardware vendors to use open source software to sell their hardware without commoditizing their hardware in the process.
Who would you rather be? Linux, after 20 years still on a single-digit percentage of the addressable market? Or Android, riding locked bootloaders, carrier agreements and hacking obfuscations to over 50% of the smartphone market in three years? Carrier- and vendor-locked firmware was the best thing to ever happen to Android.
Communist! Everybody knows that, in a truly free society, the people who can't compete are ground into the dirt, and justly, by their own hand. And anybody who thinks this treatment is unfair is some kind of moral defective.
Why the mere fact that (my definition of) lazy people are able to afford food and shelter is prima facie evidence that the United States is a haven of socialism:)
Hmmm. Well, you make interesting points, but I'm confused how you think they have anything to do with what I was trying to say.
My takeaway from your point was that there has always been a "walled garden" if you were a developer. But to a FOSSy, all problems emanate from the "right to tinker," so these changes are fought on those grounds, even though on a vendor OS the right to tinker is always practically circumscribed, and has never really existed as a "right," but only at a vendor's whim.
A true problem IMHO is platform vendors taking the sort of restrictions they've always imposed on 3rd party devs, and applying them to the user's domain. In 1998 a developer had to write for Win32, but a user could still open his documents anywhere and buy his applications from wherever he wanted -- this is changing as these "dumned-down OSs" (for lack of a better term) become a bigger part of the experience.
However, it's not clear to me that "app stores" in principle threaten this any more than selling closed OS. The reason they don't call a spade a spade is because they want to convince the users of the world that they should be on the side of 3rd party devs in what is, at this time, just an argument between developers and their platform vendor -- Apple and Microsoft are making moves and developers are screaming bloody murder because they're accustomed to selling their software to people without having to pay the OS vendor anything, despite the fact they're completely dependent on the OS vendor for oxygen. It's not remotely clear to me that a user is better off siding with Adobe over Apple because Adobe wants to sell its software X under terms it decides instead of terms Apple does, but people around here would maintain that Adobe is the side you should be on because the somewhat non-empirical point that "Walled gardens hurt users."
I think you highlight the simple fact that a walled-garden store and closed developer model really just formalizes what has always been a defacto situation for a third-party developer on a platform. If you write software for Windows, or Mac OS X, or Android or anything, your business is completely beholden to the maintainers of the platform. If they break the APIs you use one day, your business is over. If it's Windows or Apple, they can make their platform private and give their own applications most-favored-nation status over 3rd parties.
If you develop for a platform liker Linux, you're dependent on the distrbutors to package a system you can use, particularly if you don't want to ship a bunch of GPLd code with your application. The process may be a bit more open, there will defintiely be an opportunity to complain or raise a ruckus, but if the platform changes in a manner unfavorable to you you're stuck.
This is just the nature of developing for a software platform. The fact that its becoming fashionable for the OS vendors to run stores and skim off third-party developers is indicative of the fact that the OS vendors aren't as dependent on the third parties anymore to add value to their platform, and the OS vendors are providing so much value to their developers through APIs, functionality, and market reach that they're happy to accept the terms of the app store deal. Back when Windows was growing they made life as easy as possible for third-party developers, because their entrepreneurship drove the platform. Now that web applications seem to drive most of the growth, the business of selling an OS has become less about software ecosystem and more about securing and beautifying the UX, and instead of OS vendors being desperate for apps, the blance has shiffted and application developers are now desperate to get on desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen Pallywood -- for one, Pallywood was about Palestinian journalists, which TFA isn't about, and second, to be honest I didn't find a lot of the video evidence in Pallywood to be particularly convincing, and it commits a lot of the errors, decontextualization with narration, suspicious sourcing, editorializing, that it accuses news agencies of committing.
You can create an objective photo, like in a lab experiment where the background is graduated and the subject is plain, but even then it's only objective within the very narrow parameters of a particular experiment -- lab photography of a bullet splitting an apple can find its way into a montage or a music video, where it somehow conveys violence, because divorced from the lab context the image takes on new meaning.
There is a huge difference between summarizing and slanting.
If you have some sort of positive evidence of this happening you absolutely should bring it up. The problem here is that the TFA author doesn't, he just sees photographers lining up shots, and talking to the subjects, and makes the leap that this is, perforce, distortion. I just don't think he understands how photography works.
I want the whole story so I can draw my own conclusions and not just the story the reporter/photographer wants me to see.
If the conflict is something like Israel/Palestine, taking place over 60 years in a country thousands of miles away, involving entire nations of people, of whom you've maybe only met two or three representatives, you're simply not going to be able to come to a useful conclusion on the basis of newspaper columns and photos. An unfortunate, and much more real, problem with mass news media is that it convinces you it can supply you with the information required to bring you to a good conclusion, simply by watching enough TV and reading enough news, when it really can't.
Wow, I must being having a stroke or something, very ESL...
Cameras lie. Photography is an artform and its basically impossible to create an objective photograph.
What do you want? Do you want to feel like you're there, experiencing the action? If that's the case, then the photographer is pretty much going to have to stage everything, because real conflicts generally don't yield photogenic angles, or give the photographer a way of capturing both sides in a way that makes the conflict "real" from the perspective of someone looking at the pictures. Real war footage is boring as hell, it doesn't remotely capture the experience of being there, and the only way you can stand it or make any sense of it is with aggressive editing and narration, which has the potential to recontextualize everything.
Do you want the truth? All the photographer can tell you is what he saw, and if he only gives you the photos he took. Reporting is epistolary: somebody saw something, they are now telling you about it, you're relying on their account. Photographs are part of their account, they are not separate, "real" things that are somehow more reliable than someone's testimony.
if you are able to setup rules to route the mails to folders automatically
For any filing rule predicate there exists a search predicate you can run later.
I suppose Jellybean will be the next one. K is a toughie, "Klondike Bar" might not be ideal for several reasons, "Kit Kat" too. Maybe they'll just cheat and do "Krunchbar" or "Kandy Korn"
They were caught "being evil" when they released the "open" ICS to Samsung, HTC and other favored vendors six months ago under NDAs. Is that open source?
Hot proof action! In public!
If Galaxy Tabs were so good, Samsung wouldn't feel compelled to copy the icons, the power adapters, the box, the case, the dock connector...
I'd feel a little better if it wasn't so obvious, but they're plainly just trying to confuse people, to the extent that the Galaxy Tab probably would pass as some sort of grad student experiment in culture jamming.
Neither Android nor iPhone are scalars.
IANAL, but if others use a particular patented technology for a period of time and are able to make money doing it, with Samsung's knowledge, it becomes more difficult for Samsung to sue later because the others can claim an estoppel by acquiesence has been created. It's even worse if Samsung has made positive statements that it will not sue others, even outside the context of a contract, and then later decides to enforce its rights against one or all.
Laches can apply to any right, you can't permit your rights to be violated for long periods of time and to your detriment, and then suddenly attempt to enforce them. I suspect laches wouldn't be a good defense for Apple in this case because there really hasn't been very much time.
Also laches and estoppels exist at common law, and Europe doesn't use common law :)
"I wish Sprint would have fewer customers and make less money -- passing up on high-margin customers, risking buyout, a selloff of assets, and long-term degredation of the network -- because it means my Sprint reception will be better over the next 6 months."
Adverse selection at work.
"HTC phone owners" or "slashdot-reading HTC phone owners"?
There's this sort of attitude that says that anyone who runs Android accepts the consequences, because it's "open" in this sense and you can read the source and make your own changes. People who run iOS are forced to make a somewhat more authoritarian argument because they don't really have much granular control over what they run on their phone and don't have complete control over the consequences -- and so you end up having big arguments over wether the iPhone or whatever is a good product en toto, and whether ot not Apple policy X is good or bad.
Android comment threads aren't as spicy because most slashdot-reading Android users have the attitude that everything disagreeable about Android is opt-out, even if it's a Hobson's choice a lot of the time, and the disagreeable aspects of Android are the only things keeping manufacturers selling it.
I seem to recall many worthies telling me this very same thing about the Playbook.
This thread is hysterisical.
Asmiov was his smarter older brother.
Foundation anyone?
The capability-based privilege system applies to all applications, not just App Store ones. An application on 10.7 can't access paths on the filesystem without either getting explicit permission or asking through an NSOpenPanel, which on 10.7 runs in a separate process.
No no, they could have opened it and it might have been just as successful, as long as they couId lock up the PC distributotrs with their Windows distribution through licensing, just as Google is able to keep major vendors on OHA Android by keeping it ahead in features of AOSP Android and integrating it with Google services.
Really, I could answer yes or no to your question and it wouldn't really have a bearing on my original point. For the purposes of hardware integrators Windows was open, they were allowed to put it on whatever they pleased, unlike Mac OS or AmigaOS. An open distribution strategy is distinct from an open source strategy.
No no, locked bootloaders are good for open source. It allows hardware vendors to use open source software to sell their hardware without commoditizing their hardware in the process.
Who would you rather be? Linux, after 20 years still on a single-digit percentage of the addressable market? Or Android, riding locked bootloaders, carrier agreements and hacking obfuscations to over 50% of the smartphone market in three years? Carrier- and vendor-locked firmware was the best thing to ever happen to Android.
Communist! Everybody knows that, in a truly free society, the people who can't compete are ground into the dirt, and justly, by their own hand. And anybody who thinks this treatment is unfair is some kind of moral defective.
Why the mere fact that (my definition of) lazy people are able to afford food and shelter is prima facie evidence that the United States is a haven of socialism :)
THERE ARE FOUR CORES!
My takeaway from your point was that there has always been a "walled garden" if you were a developer. But to a FOSSy, all problems emanate from the "right to tinker," so these changes are fought on those grounds, even though on a vendor OS the right to tinker is always practically circumscribed, and has never really existed as a "right," but only at a vendor's whim.
A true problem IMHO is platform vendors taking the sort of restrictions they've always imposed on 3rd party devs, and applying them to the user's domain. In 1998 a developer had to write for Win32, but a user could still open his documents anywhere and buy his applications from wherever he wanted -- this is changing as these "dumned-down OSs" (for lack of a better term) become a bigger part of the experience.
However, it's not clear to me that "app stores" in principle threaten this any more than selling closed OS. The reason they don't call a spade a spade is because they want to convince the users of the world that they should be on the side of 3rd party devs in what is, at this time, just an argument between developers and their platform vendor -- Apple and Microsoft are making moves and developers are screaming bloody murder because they're accustomed to selling their software to people without having to pay the OS vendor anything, despite the fact they're completely dependent on the OS vendor for oxygen. It's not remotely clear to me that a user is better off siding with Adobe over Apple because Adobe wants to sell its software X under terms it decides instead of terms Apple does, but people around here would maintain that Adobe is the side you should be on because the somewhat non-empirical point that "Walled gardens hurt users."
I think you highlight the simple fact that a walled-garden store and closed developer model really just formalizes what has always been a defacto situation for a third-party developer on a platform. If you write software for Windows, or Mac OS X, or Android or anything, your business is completely beholden to the maintainers of the platform. If they break the APIs you use one day, your business is over. If it's Windows or Apple, they can make their platform private and give their own applications most-favored-nation status over 3rd parties.
If you develop for a platform liker Linux, you're dependent on the distrbutors to package a system you can use, particularly if you don't want to ship a bunch of GPLd code with your application. The process may be a bit more open, there will defintiely be an opportunity to complain or raise a ruckus, but if the platform changes in a manner unfavorable to you you're stuck.
This is just the nature of developing for a software platform. The fact that its becoming fashionable for the OS vendors to run stores and skim off third-party developers is indicative of the fact that the OS vendors aren't as dependent on the third parties anymore to add value to their platform, and the OS vendors are providing so much value to their developers through APIs, functionality, and market reach that they're happy to accept the terms of the app store deal. Back when Windows was growing they made life as easy as possible for third-party developers, because their entrepreneurship drove the platform. Now that web applications seem to drive most of the growth, the business of selling an OS has become less about software ecosystem and more about securing and beautifying the UX, and instead of OS vendors being desperate for apps, the blance has shiffted and application developers are now desperate to get on desktops.