Uh huh. While I don't care if someone wants to sink a lot of money into a propaganda tool such as the infamous "ground zero mosque" (the building probably transfers resources from authoritarian Middle East powers and transfers it to the US economy, something I see as a net benefit), I can't help but view statements as the above with a cynical humor. If these people were really interested in "national unity", they probably wouldn't have put that building with the role it has there. They probably just want to get their narrative into the 9/11 myth and a nice building is classier than billboards.
I don't think you have even though for a moment about the perspective of muslims in the US. Imagine your religion was being branded as extremist and violent despite 99.999% of the followers never acting out of violence. It's like branding christians as violent extremists because of what has happened in northern Ireland. How would you take a stand and show the people that your religion itself and most followers aren't violent and dangerous, but peaceful and very willing to work with others of other religions to help society?
Sure they started building a community center near the site of the 9/11 attacks, as a way to foster unity and help educate people and show people that the muslim religion can be a force for good things in a community. It's not like they expected it to be a major political issue because there are already dozens of them in the area, just as close.
Rather, this has become a propaganda war by fear mongers who want to brand the entire religion as evil, and want to go so far as to overthrow basic freedoms of our society in order to have a boogey man. If you oppose their right to put a mosque or anything else there, you are opposing the foundation of our country, personal freedom, political freedom, and religious freedom. Anyone who has read the works of the founding fathers and hasn't just read bits out of context and ignored the rest, has to acknowledge that truth.
And as for transferring money out of the middle east from "authoritarian middle east powers" clearly you must only be getting your news exclusively from Fox, the only station that hasn't covered the source of the funding is primarily the Kingdom Foundation run by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is also the second biggest Shareholder in News Corp (Fox). He's not particularly an authoritarian, but rather has acted fairly middle of the road, as a business man and donating to charities that help bridge cultural gaps between the east and west.
The only people I see objecting to the community center are people who also seem to be in favor of expelling all muslims fro the US and who are so scared they think it's a good idea to abolish religious freedom in the US... while being ignorant or completely without perspective on the ramifications such an action would have.
While I can understand how you got that impression from his comments, I don't think Tea Party activists in general are the same as libertarians. It's more than an ordering of priorities from what I've seen. The libertarian party is about personal freedoms for everyone even people they didn't like. They wanted to reduce government size to maximize personal freedom.
While saying a group that wants to reduce government size is the same thing with different priorities... I haven't seen the personal freedom part of the Tea Bagger movement. Sure, they talk about freedom, but when questioned they always seem to be interested in their own freedom while opposing freedom for others. Many oppose simple freedom of religion, for example, not to mention individual freedom based on sex and sometimes even race. Where are the freedom loving tea Party activists that want to legalize gay marriage, polygamous marriage, and any other kind of marriage to get the government out of making religious choices for people? I've seen more of them express the opinion that the government should be making interracial marriage illegal than gay marriage legal. That's bigger government, not smaller.
Actually, from what I've seen the Tea Party seems to be a corporate sponsored movement designed to appeal to people's fear and prejudice and to the previously built "us versus them" political mentality, with the goal of preventing the government from effectively regulating and stopping the worst practices of big businesses, whether that is to poison our land and people for profit, or leverage wealth disparity to bleed the poor and middle class using capital as leverage. I sympathize with some people who associate themselves with the Tea Party. I don't like either of the major parties either... but I just don't think the movement itself is sane or cohesive and I think it is directed by advertising agencies with ulterior motives. I mean seriously, they're supposedly a movement that is about overcoming the two party system and breaking free of it, yet they only ever support candidates who were republican and they have never even mentioned (to my knowledge) electoral reform to actually do something about opening things up to non-republican and non-democratic candidates. That's a lot more than a reordering of priorities. That's fundamentally different philosophy.
Apple is talking about renting TV episodes for 99 cents. Do you believe last year's episodes are going to be a lot cheaper?
I don't know if older shows will be cheaper. It's possible, but not really all that important. Apple's service is offering shows that are simply not going to be available at all on Netflix, including pretty much all of the highest rated network TV shows of the current year. That makes it an offering that primarily does not have Netflix as a direct competitor for those shows.
Plus, with very very few exceptions, there is nothing on television for which I would pay a premium to see at the same time that it's broadcast. I don't do the "hanging around the water cooler talking about last night's Dancing with the Stars" thing.
I'm in the same boat with you, which is why I said I'm not likely to use Apple's service. I recognize, however, that I am not the typical TV viewer and you probably are not either. For users that never use the differentiating characteristics of two services, they may seem equivalent, but that doesn't mean they are in the general case. You might as well say, I never go more than 25 mph, travel with passengers, or haul anything so mopeds and vans offer the same service, but vans are overpriced because they $20,000 plus financing fees and mopeds only cost $600. It only makes sense if you're an atypical user.
...except that you're wrong and netflix does offer some shows on instant watch the day after they air on television.
Read more carefully. I addressed that when I wrote, "Netflix only offers shows that have been released on DVD (and a very few instant shows)". That is to say, they have a tiny, tiny subset of shows that aired on TV in the last week, with the vast majority from major networks not being available. This makes it a very different offering than what Apple is proposing. Although I am not one of them, a lot of people want to watch the shows as they come out, so they can discuss them "current events style" or simply because they can't wait to see what happens in their favorite show.
I agree with your math and don't plan on using Apple's service, but it's not really a very good comparison. Apple is talking about current shows, on TV now, current season. Netflix only offers shows that have been released on DVD (and a very few instant shows), a year later than they will be on Apple's service. If Apple were only renting TV shows that were already out on DVD, they'd be charging much less.
Admittedly, Obama has implemented some reforms on that front within the executive branch, but he also hired on former lobbyists and corporate lawyers to prominent positions and made a great many "exceptions". Still, while lobbying the executive branch is a real problem, lobbying the legislative branch is what brings about the stupid laws we have today, and reform in the latter could quickly fix the former, while the converse is not true. I give Obama credit for being better on this front than any president in decades, but that's still only a C+.
In the United States, neither the Republican platform nor the Democratic platform includes rolling back the entertainment industry land-grabs of the 105th Congress.
No, but individual members of both parties do. Additionally, you can actually get elected to congress on a third party ticket, in some states.
I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests).
They tried that in 2008 with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is an interesting case because he's in office as a Republican, but most everyone associates him with Libertarianism. He may not be able to get elected president, but he can sure get reelected to congress, and that's where we really need the reform more than anywhere. I suppose the main problem is that third party candidates that want to get rid of lobbying and work on electoral reform, don't stick to those issues, and generally want radical change in a lot other ways as well, whether is it Paul's uninformed economic policy and willingness to push specific parts of it he can (which by themselves only hurt the average american) or many Tea Party affiliates who wish to do away with separation of church and state. What we need is a moderate, centrist candidate, who also runs on the platform of reforming lobbying and elections to be more open, maybe with a healthy dose of repealing laws favoring corporations over individuals.
You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.
When a large company with a monopoly makes a decision, do you get to vote for a representative that is making that decision? Does everyone? The difference here is that the government is elected by the people, for the people and is thus theoretically acting for the common good. Companies are acting to maximize profit with no regard for the common good.
Please to not infer from my previous comments that I'm in favor of the proposed mandate. But at least I can vote and try to get others to vote the corrupt scumbags out of office. There are a lot of problems with or government, but people can put in the effort and we could fix things. I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests). I'd vote for an independent candidate whose platform was to make lobbying by corporations and foreign governments completely illegal, and I think a lot of other people would too. I'd vote for a candidate who promised to vote for electoral reform and destroy the two party lock-in. Put up a few posters and ads that read "The Republicans and Democratic parties are both full of corrupt dirtbags in the pockets of Wall Street fat cats. Lets clean house!" I bet there are a lot of people like me who are angry at and sick of the status quo and would go for a reform party who actually tried to make a real change and expelled members who were demonstrably corrupt or dishonest.
. They took an update from Safari that makes reading web pages easier.
It's unclear to me if the "reader" feature in Safari 5 is implemented primarily in open source code in Webkit or one of the the other OSS components of Safari, or in the closed source front-end. This would be the difference between Amazon "taking an update" and Amazon coding a clone of the feature. Anyone know?
If it's a different OS, why would it run Android apps?
If you're not dominant in a market, cross-platform application compatibility is usually beneficial to you.
Android's core is based on Linux, but most apps run in the Dalvik Java VM.
Right, so if you were thinking of building a Linux based mobile OS, you wouldn't consider either using the Dalvik VM (which is open source), or writing a VM that was executable compatible with it?
...why would I want to make four versions of my site when I could do the same thing today with one or two? Using many common JS libraries hides the incompatibilities, so why not go with "HTML 5 Shiv" and skip HTML 5 entirely until it's more widely available?
You seem to be misunderstanding what HTML5 shiv is. It's a library that lets IE interpret HTML 5 features coded in HTML5 (with a few caveats). Your choice isn't to use HTML 5 or HTML 5 Shiv, but rather to not use HTML 5, or to use HTML5 and include HTML 5 shiv to work around IE. Just using the shiv does nothing.
My alternative is implementing "draft HTML5" sites - I need to code those sites twice or more: once for IE, once for the common HTML5 functionality supported by other browsers; and once for the people not using the cutting edge browser builds (which is often the majority of people).
Your alternative is to implement the site once, using only the features of HTML 5 that are well supported either natively by all the browsers you care about, or via HTML 5 Shiv. That's one version of the site that should degrade gracefully for old browsers.
Have you looked around lately at what's possible under existing standards? Change happens, but it's not like we're hurting that badly for lack of it right now...
I very strongly disagree. We're advancing in our ability to use ever more clever hacks to work around a core lack of increased functionality and, frankly, it is painful for Web developers and greatly slows progress.
The entire thing is as frustrating to me as handheld development is proving to be: a vast user base has a huge array of device/platform combinations. You want to use the latest features from the newest, but you also have to support those running the older. This means doing two, three or more times as much work in order to ensure compatibility and seamless degradation across platforms.
Which is one of the things HTML5 is addressing. Rather than figuring out a hack to get GPS data from your handheld to your Web site, you now have a single standard all the phones are moving to support. The sooner it happens, the less pain in the long term.
At least in the case of handhelds you're not aiming for a moving target - you know for a fact exactly what capabilities you have available to you for a given platform version. In HTML5, we aren't even given that much yet.
I think you're overloading the term "platform" here. Cell phones are always updating functionality and each one updates the OS and has differing levels of support for the OS incrementally. HTML 5 is, ironically, one of the closest things we have to a platform for all cell phones, where the subset of browsers is limited, the inputs are handled for you, and we can create write once run everywhere apps going forward.
Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers" The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.
Technically, they were convicted, it was just overturned later. Of course the latter part of the case was a sham.
Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect.
What, it's specifically in the memos I linked to. That's where the term comes from. Do you have an earlier citation?
he link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.
That's a very, umm, creative interpretation. I'll let the memo stand on it's own. Anyone that wants to read it and believes your interpretation, well, they must be equally... creative. You're a sad sack.
You can read the internal memos they discovered during the trial yourself, where the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" originates. Claiming they didn't intentionally break compliance, when they say they are planning to do so in their own e-mails requires absurd bias on your part.
People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined).
Seeing as Microsoft went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers... I don't think it's really too big of a stretch to believe. It's the "extend, extinguish" part in it's original sense from the e-mail evidence.
I believe there may be a couple of methods, but I chose to go with TuneCore [tunecore.com].
Actually, TuneCore is a publisher, a "label" as it were. They are just one that only does online distribution. I did a little more looking and Apple's website says they do not accept submissions from individuals, only publishers.
Just out of curiosity, how does one go about submitting music to the iTunes store without going through a publisher? Does Apple have a portal for this?
You don't need to be a record label to get it on itunes either (I think)
Actually, I don't think this is true. Last I checked only labels can sell music through iTunes. That said, it does not have to be an RIAA label or even a very big one. There are many small publishers (like CD Baby) that will print CDs for you and sell your music through iTunes without gouging you or taking possession of your copyrights.
Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers?
No, but you sure don't need the RIAA for that.
Can you distribute?
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Can you promote them?
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place.......
That's just an inane comment. iTunes is a store. If some company decides for whatever reason they don't want to sell in that store, fine, but that doesn't mean "it has no place". You might as well argue "The Electric Fetus" record store is a store where Jaime Thietten has no place since she won't let a store with "fetus" in the name sell her music.
...would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Yes. Like 99.9% of people, while I can't buy the Beatles albums there, I'm not going to let a boycott by one copyright holder over a trademark issue prevent me from doing business with them. That's just dumb.
It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it.
Wait, that's your argument. Well, the iTunes store is out because the Beetles catalog isn't there so I guess people have to be ripped off by the RIAA? Times are changing. There are numerous indie labels that will share the profits, print the music, and put your music in the iTunes store along with other places. The RIAA's strength has been in locking down the distribution channels and promotional channels (radio) but with the internet here, those methods are starting to fail. There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Okay, here's a Piper Jaffray Analysis of how much the experts think Apple profits after the cost of running the store and processing the transaction fees and absorbing the cost of offering free apps. If you don't feel like reading, they put it at 1% of Apple's profit. You do know profit and revenue are different right? That's opposed to the estimated 45% of their profit from iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches. Which one do you think Apple is most concerned about?
Microsoft has no lock-in on iOS devices, for one thing. To remove Microsoft lock-in would be remove the tethering between applications and the Microsoft Windows operating system with HTML5 applications. These applications developed in HTML5 would be available on any platform with an HTML5 compliant browser.
Okay, I'm with you so far.
Regardless of whatever strategy you prefer to believe Apple is taking, Windows and also other operating systems would become a commodity (hint: this includes Apple's operating systems), i.e. any operating system with a HTML5 compliant browser would do.
I see. Your assertion is application tying to the OS is the only criteria of OS's that matters and differentiating by making the OS more secure, more reliable, faster, more featureful, having a more usable UI and offering more benefits to applications is not useful in using an OS as a market differentiator. Sorry, I don't buy it at all. You seem to have some weird ideas. Competition between companies that adhere to a standard is not the same thing as commoditization. It is, in fact, the normal competitive market.
As I said, what I am doing is speculation. Just as you would speculate they will not change direction.
My speculation is supported by their past behavior and by the amount of monetary and human resources they've been dumping into HTML5. Your doesn't seem to have any support. It's just a poorly thought out idea you have.
I think I addressed the profitability of the App Store above.
Not really, you just mistook revenue for profit and didn't bother to actually look or research my comments. If you do bother to research it now you'll most likely find one article that supports your opinion... please be sure to read the partial retraction at the end after a million people pointed out to the author all the numbers he forgot to account for.
You cannot seriously believe that advertisements were introduced to iOS to sell more devices.
Actually, that is one of the two main motivations they have. It's not direct though. iAds gives developers a way to make money without directly charging users. This leads to more and different apps from developers, which leads to more good options for users of phones, which leads to more phone sales. It's just an extension of the model they have now, where they make little or nothing selling apps, because it means more apps which sells more phones.
nted to make the developer program "so cheap" (they don't) why have a charge for the SDK at all?
Partly because they like to run services at break even, not at a loss. Second, because having some barrier to entry for developers can be beneficial. Their goal is not to maximize the number of applications. It's to maximize the number of applications they will help them sell phones. A small developer fee helps keep out a lot of malware developers right from the onset, as well as a lot of people who don't really know what they're doing and are not really committed to making apps, but just want to throw something together for fun.
Then allow me to explain. It sells phones and Macs and together that's the lion's share of Apple's profit.
But I didn't mention only the SDK fee and computers. There is also the bit about the revenues generated from the application in terms of Apple's cut of the sale price of the applications and/or any cut they get from integrated ads in those applications. That revenue is significant.
Actually, to date that revenue does not seem to be very significant at all. Apple hasn't been making very much on apps as far as anyone can tell and Steve Jobs went so far as to tell shareholders the model was to run the App store at slightly more than break even as a way to promote sales of iPhones. As for ad revenue, time will tell, but again I don't think Apple is planning on it being a big revenue stream compared to the piles of cash they make selling iPhones.
By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I doubt very seriously that Apple intends to commoditize the operating system when the exclusivity of that operating system is a major selling point of the hardware with which they make the bulk of their money.
How do you read "remove MS's lock-in" as "commoditize the operating system market"? That simply does not follow. Apple uses their OS as a differentiator, but they build it mostly on open standards for file and protocol interoperability. As a smaller player in the market, that makes them more money. The idea that breaking MS's lock-in in the OS market by supporting standardized Web technologies makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain your reasoning.
Just because they promote HTML5 now does not mean they intend for that to be the preferred way to develop simple applications in the future.
No, but the fact that they've been promoting it for many years, have developed tools to let users do just that, have committed to projects like PhoneGap, etc. does indicate it is highly likely. Do you have any evidence that they're changing direction?
Of course, guessing the intentions of Apple and what their future plans are is just speculation, but since there is lost revenue at stake...
You make it sound as though their actions were insulated from one another. You could just as easily say Apple will ditch all the open source projects they contribute to, since those don't directly make them money. The thing is, having better dev tools and more apps and lowering costs for developers sell iPhones, and Apple is really, really in the business of selling iPhones right now. They're not about to try to gain a small amount of revenue from developers now, while risking long term sales of devices. That would be idiotic. That's the reason why their developer program was so cheap in the first place.
I see little incentive for them to continue pushing HTML5 as the development platform of choice from simple but useful applications...
Then allow me to explain. It sells phones and Macs and together that's the lion's share of Apple's profit.
Also, since HTML5 cannot interact with the device specifically (e.g. sensors, contacts, etc.)
Umm, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. It can access the location service for GPS use, and many other of the offered services via the Webkit APIs. What is it missing that simple apps need?
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason.
Developer licensing and sales of Macs to developers that don't have them don't even show up in Apple's bottom line in any meaningful way. Sales of iPhones, however, are a huge part of their profit. Apple is about making money, but they're not idiots that want to nickel and dime people in ways that will lose them larger amounts of money in the long run.
But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they want to push any useful but simple tool to being available on any other device?
Apple makes a lot of money selling Macs as well as phones. By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I think the error here is in the misleading summary. Just because Apple turned down the pitch from revMobile does not mean they have no intentions of allowing simplified development tools for iOS.
Perhaps, but Apple does want to make sure third party dev tools don't become a block preventing their platform from moving forward. Apple's fear is that they'll add something cool to iPhones and upgrade their dev tools so that it shows up in iPhone apps... but a huge number of apps won't get the cool new feature until third parties get around to implementing it (which may be never). And cross-platform dev tools generally will wait until it is profitable to do so, which sometimes means waiting until other phones catch up before bothering to implement something.
My guess would be that if they have any intention of allowing such tools, they would much prefer to actually create them.
Probably, but as the GP poster mentioned, they already do have something like this for the HTML5 development route.
The grandparent's point, I think, is that Flash is not integrated into the main content of the page, so it's easy to turn off.
I guess that depends upon the page, doesn't it? On some pages Flash is added for ads and is not related to the main content. In others, like Hulu, Flash IS the main content of the page. For still others, (like Homestarrunner) the whole page including navigation is built in Flash.
If you only use Flash on sites that only use it for ads, then I agree this will make it more complex to block those ads. On the other hand, for those that rely upon content currently in Flash and other closed plug-in formats, this is a net win for control.
Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.
So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?
This is something of a straw man. No one recommends you implement the features that aren't readily available in all major browsers. It just goes through a list of features that seem likely to soon be available in all browsers. You're the only one saying you should implement those particular items.
Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."
Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official?
Yes, since everyone in their right mind can see IE does not now and is unlikely to soon implement standards compliance. You implement work arounds for IE now in all your pages don't you, just like all the rest of the world that does Web development? Why would you think that is going to change? So here's a nice list of the new standard you can actually use now, and the work around code to make IE behave like a real browser. That's exactly what every developer needs to implement any feature on the Web, regardless of how much of a "standard" it is.
By all means feel free to ignore HTML5 and not implement any of it. It just means your site will be crappier than sites being reworked with support for some of the nice new standards. The game is changing, but there's no reason you have to get on board. By all means, sit on the sidelines until you feel comfortable.
I have misgivings about HTML5. It gives the page more control, and the user less. That's been a trend in HTML for years, and it's getting worse.
I disagree. HTML5 gives the user more control. Right now we're hampered by proprietary plug-ins to provide functionality, like Silverlight and Flash. With HTML5 taking over those functions, the browser codes it, so you can choose which browser you want based upon how well it lets you control the elements on the page. It's basically moving parts of Web pages from single vendor closed implementations to open implementations that compete to serve you best.
Well, that and a lot more nice tags to break up pages into sections, add support for custom fonts, etc. But that doesn't mean the user loses control. These are markup languages meant to be interpreted. If you don't like custom fonts, noting stops a browser from offering an option of rendering the all as a font of your choosing in the color of your choosing, etc.
We're going to need a browser option for "don't run canvas code for windows that aren't on top.
And we can add it. Moreover, we can add a lot more finely grained controls than that, since it is now specified in the canvas element instead of a Flash movie. It's no longer just "run" or "don't run". It can be "run but never let the sound get above this volume, confine it to the page, and modify the way it runs so it never overlaps any text". Hell, we could add the option of making canvas elements that overlap other elements 90% transparent by default and always having a close and display button.
They should have provided for either regular expressions...
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh. While I don't care if someone wants to sink a lot of money into a propaganda tool such as the infamous "ground zero mosque" (the building probably transfers resources from authoritarian Middle East powers and transfers it to the US economy, something I see as a net benefit), I can't help but view statements as the above with a cynical humor. If these people were really interested in "national unity", they probably wouldn't have put that building with the role it has there. They probably just want to get their narrative into the 9/11 myth and a nice building is classier than billboards.
I don't think you have even though for a moment about the perspective of muslims in the US. Imagine your religion was being branded as extremist and violent despite 99.999% of the followers never acting out of violence. It's like branding christians as violent extremists because of what has happened in northern Ireland. How would you take a stand and show the people that your religion itself and most followers aren't violent and dangerous, but peaceful and very willing to work with others of other religions to help society?
Sure they started building a community center near the site of the 9/11 attacks, as a way to foster unity and help educate people and show people that the muslim religion can be a force for good things in a community. It's not like they expected it to be a major political issue because there are already dozens of them in the area, just as close.
Rather, this has become a propaganda war by fear mongers who want to brand the entire religion as evil, and want to go so far as to overthrow basic freedoms of our society in order to have a boogey man. If you oppose their right to put a mosque or anything else there, you are opposing the foundation of our country, personal freedom, political freedom, and religious freedom. Anyone who has read the works of the founding fathers and hasn't just read bits out of context and ignored the rest, has to acknowledge that truth.
And as for transferring money out of the middle east from "authoritarian middle east powers" clearly you must only be getting your news exclusively from Fox, the only station that hasn't covered the source of the funding is primarily the Kingdom Foundation run by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is also the second biggest Shareholder in News Corp (Fox). He's not particularly an authoritarian, but rather has acted fairly middle of the road, as a business man and donating to charities that help bridge cultural gaps between the east and west.
The only people I see objecting to the community center are people who also seem to be in favor of expelling all muslims fro the US and who are so scared they think it's a good idea to abolish religious freedom in the US... while being ignorant or completely without perspective on the ramifications such an action would have.
While I can understand how you got that impression from his comments, I don't think Tea Party activists in general are the same as libertarians. It's more than an ordering of priorities from what I've seen. The libertarian party is about personal freedoms for everyone even people they didn't like. They wanted to reduce government size to maximize personal freedom.
While saying a group that wants to reduce government size is the same thing with different priorities... I haven't seen the personal freedom part of the Tea Bagger movement. Sure, they talk about freedom, but when questioned they always seem to be interested in their own freedom while opposing freedom for others. Many oppose simple freedom of religion, for example, not to mention individual freedom based on sex and sometimes even race. Where are the freedom loving tea Party activists that want to legalize gay marriage, polygamous marriage, and any other kind of marriage to get the government out of making religious choices for people? I've seen more of them express the opinion that the government should be making interracial marriage illegal than gay marriage legal. That's bigger government, not smaller.
Actually, from what I've seen the Tea Party seems to be a corporate sponsored movement designed to appeal to people's fear and prejudice and to the previously built "us versus them" political mentality, with the goal of preventing the government from effectively regulating and stopping the worst practices of big businesses, whether that is to poison our land and people for profit, or leverage wealth disparity to bleed the poor and middle class using capital as leverage. I sympathize with some people who associate themselves with the Tea Party. I don't like either of the major parties either... but I just don't think the movement itself is sane or cohesive and I think it is directed by advertising agencies with ulterior motives. I mean seriously, they're supposedly a movement that is about overcoming the two party system and breaking free of it, yet they only ever support candidates who were republican and they have never even mentioned (to my knowledge) electoral reform to actually do something about opening things up to non-republican and non-democratic candidates. That's a lot more than a reordering of priorities. That's fundamentally different philosophy.
Apple is talking about renting TV episodes for 99 cents. Do you believe last year's episodes are going to be a lot cheaper?
I don't know if older shows will be cheaper. It's possible, but not really all that important. Apple's service is offering shows that are simply not going to be available at all on Netflix, including pretty much all of the highest rated network TV shows of the current year. That makes it an offering that primarily does not have Netflix as a direct competitor for those shows.
Plus, with very very few exceptions, there is nothing on television for which I would pay a premium to see at the same time that it's broadcast. I don't do the "hanging around the water cooler talking about last night's Dancing with the Stars" thing.
I'm in the same boat with you, which is why I said I'm not likely to use Apple's service. I recognize, however, that I am not the typical TV viewer and you probably are not either. For users that never use the differentiating characteristics of two services, they may seem equivalent, but that doesn't mean they are in the general case. You might as well say, I never go more than 25 mph, travel with passengers, or haul anything so mopeds and vans offer the same service, but vans are overpriced because they $20,000 plus financing fees and mopeds only cost $600. It only makes sense if you're an atypical user.
...except that you're wrong and netflix does offer some shows on instant watch the day after they air on television.
Read more carefully. I addressed that when I wrote, "Netflix only offers shows that have been released on DVD (and a very few instant shows)". That is to say, they have a tiny, tiny subset of shows that aired on TV in the last week, with the vast majority from major networks not being available. This makes it a very different offering than what Apple is proposing. Although I am not one of them, a lot of people want to watch the shows as they come out, so they can discuss them "current events style" or simply because they can't wait to see what happens in their favorite show.
I agree with your math and don't plan on using Apple's service, but it's not really a very good comparison. Apple is talking about current shows, on TV now, current season. Netflix only offers shows that have been released on DVD (and a very few instant shows), a year later than they will be on Apple's service. If Apple were only renting TV shows that were already out on DVD, they'd be charging much less.
Admittedly, Obama has implemented some reforms on that front within the executive branch, but he also hired on former lobbyists and corporate lawyers to prominent positions and made a great many "exceptions". Still, while lobbying the executive branch is a real problem, lobbying the legislative branch is what brings about the stupid laws we have today, and reform in the latter could quickly fix the former, while the converse is not true. I give Obama credit for being better on this front than any president in decades, but that's still only a C+.
In the United States, neither the Republican platform nor the Democratic platform includes rolling back the entertainment industry land-grabs of the 105th Congress.
No, but individual members of both parties do. Additionally, you can actually get elected to congress on a third party ticket, in some states.
I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests).
They tried that in 2008 with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is an interesting case because he's in office as a Republican, but most everyone associates him with Libertarianism. He may not be able to get elected president, but he can sure get reelected to congress, and that's where we really need the reform more than anywhere. I suppose the main problem is that third party candidates that want to get rid of lobbying and work on electoral reform, don't stick to those issues, and generally want radical change in a lot other ways as well, whether is it Paul's uninformed economic policy and willingness to push specific parts of it he can (which by themselves only hurt the average american) or many Tea Party affiliates who wish to do away with separation of church and state. What we need is a moderate, centrist candidate, who also runs on the platform of reforming lobbying and elections to be more open, maybe with a healthy dose of repealing laws favoring corporations over individuals.
You raise an interesting point. How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.
When a large company with a monopoly makes a decision, do you get to vote for a representative that is making that decision? Does everyone? The difference here is that the government is elected by the people, for the people and is thus theoretically acting for the common good. Companies are acting to maximize profit with no regard for the common good.
Please to not infer from my previous comments that I'm in favor of the proposed mandate. But at least I can vote and try to get others to vote the corrupt scumbags out of office. There are a lot of problems with or government, but people can put in the effort and we could fix things. I actually think there is room for a real grassroots movement (not promoted by an advertising agency on behalf of people with vested interests). I'd vote for an independent candidate whose platform was to make lobbying by corporations and foreign governments completely illegal, and I think a lot of other people would too. I'd vote for a candidate who promised to vote for electoral reform and destroy the two party lock-in. Put up a few posters and ads that read "The Republicans and Democratic parties are both full of corrupt dirtbags in the pockets of Wall Street fat cats. Lets clean house!" I bet there are a lot of people like me who are angry at and sick of the status quo and would go for a reform party who actually tried to make a real change and expelled members who were demonstrably corrupt or dishonest.
. They took an update from Safari that makes reading web pages easier.
It's unclear to me if the "reader" feature in Safari 5 is implemented primarily in open source code in Webkit or one of the the other OSS components of Safari, or in the closed source front-end. This would be the difference between Amazon "taking an update" and Amazon coding a clone of the feature. Anyone know?
If it's a different OS, why would it run Android apps?
If you're not dominant in a market, cross-platform application compatibility is usually beneficial to you.
Android's core is based on Linux, but most apps run in the Dalvik Java VM.
Right, so if you were thinking of building a Linux based mobile OS, you wouldn't consider either using the Dalvik VM (which is open source), or writing a VM that was executable compatible with it?
Sorry it took me so long to reply to this.
...why would I want to make four versions of my site when I could do the same thing today with one or two? Using many common JS libraries hides the incompatibilities, so why not go with "HTML 5 Shiv" and skip HTML 5 entirely until it's more widely available?
You seem to be misunderstanding what HTML5 shiv is. It's a library that lets IE interpret HTML 5 features coded in HTML5 (with a few caveats). Your choice isn't to use HTML 5 or HTML 5 Shiv, but rather to not use HTML 5, or to use HTML5 and include HTML 5 shiv to work around IE. Just using the shiv does nothing.
My alternative is implementing "draft HTML5" sites - I need to code those sites twice or more: once for IE, once for the common HTML5 functionality supported by other browsers; and once for the people not using the cutting edge browser builds (which is often the majority of people).
Your alternative is to implement the site once, using only the features of HTML 5 that are well supported either natively by all the browsers you care about, or via HTML 5 Shiv. That's one version of the site that should degrade gracefully for old browsers.
Have you looked around lately at what's possible under existing standards? Change happens, but it's not like we're hurting that badly for lack of it right now...
I very strongly disagree. We're advancing in our ability to use ever more clever hacks to work around a core lack of increased functionality and, frankly, it is painful for Web developers and greatly slows progress.
The entire thing is as frustrating to me as handheld development is proving to be: a vast user base has a huge array of device/platform combinations. You want to use the latest features from the newest, but you also have to support those running the older. This means doing two, three or more times as much work in order to ensure compatibility and seamless degradation across platforms.
Which is one of the things HTML5 is addressing. Rather than figuring out a hack to get GPS data from your handheld to your Web site, you now have a single standard all the phones are moving to support. The sooner it happens, the less pain in the long term.
At least in the case of handhelds you're not aiming for a moving target - you know for a fact exactly what capabilities you have available to you for a given platform version. In HTML5, we aren't even given that much yet.
I think you're overloading the term "platform" here. Cell phones are always updating functionality and each one updates the OS and has differing levels of support for the OS incrementally. HTML 5 is, ironically, one of the closest things we have to a platform for all cell phones, where the subset of browsers is limited, the inputs are handled for you, and we can create write once run everywhere apps going forward.
Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers" The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.
Technically, they were convicted, it was just overturned later. Of course the latter part of the case was a sham.
Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect.
What, it's specifically in the memos I linked to. That's where the term comes from. Do you have an earlier citation?
he link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.
That's a very, umm, creative interpretation. I'll let the memo stand on it's own. Anyone that wants to read it and believes your interpretation, well, they must be equally... creative. You're a sad sack.
You can read the internal memos they discovered during the trial yourself, where the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" originates. Claiming they didn't intentionally break compliance, when they say they are planning to do so in their own e-mails requires absurd bias on your part.
People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined).
Seeing as Microsoft went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers... I don't think it's really too big of a stretch to believe. It's the "extend, extinguish" part in it's original sense from the e-mail evidence.
I believe there may be a couple of methods, but I chose to go with TuneCore [tunecore.com].
Actually, TuneCore is a publisher, a "label" as it were. They are just one that only does online distribution. I did a little more looking and Apple's website says they do not accept submissions from individuals, only publishers.
Just out of curiosity, how does one go about submitting music to the iTunes store without going through a publisher? Does Apple have a portal for this?
You don't need to be a record label to get it on itunes either (I think)
Actually, I don't think this is true. Last I checked only labels can sell music through iTunes. That said, it does not have to be an RIAA label or even a very big one. There are many small publishers (like CD Baby) that will print CDs for you and sell your music through iTunes without gouging you or taking possession of your copyrights.
Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers?
No, but you sure don't need the RIAA for that.
Can you distribute?
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Can you promote them?
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place.......
That's just an inane comment. iTunes is a store. If some company decides for whatever reason they don't want to sell in that store, fine, but that doesn't mean "it has no place". You might as well argue "The Electric Fetus" record store is a store where Jaime Thietten has no place since she won't let a store with "fetus" in the name sell her music.
...would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Yes. Like 99.9% of people, while I can't buy the Beatles albums there, I'm not going to let a boycott by one copyright holder over a trademark issue prevent me from doing business with them. That's just dumb.
It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it.
Wait, that's your argument. Well, the iTunes store is out because the Beetles catalog isn't there so I guess people have to be ripped off by the RIAA? Times are changing. There are numerous indie labels that will share the profits, print the music, and put your music in the iTunes store along with other places. The RIAA's strength has been in locking down the distribution channels and promotional channels (radio) but with the internet here, those methods are starting to fail. There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
This statement seems to have no basis in reality.
Okay, here's a Piper Jaffray Analysis of how much the experts think Apple profits after the cost of running the store and processing the transaction fees and absorbing the cost of offering free apps. If you don't feel like reading, they put it at 1% of Apple's profit. You do know profit and revenue are different right? That's opposed to the estimated 45% of their profit from iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches. Which one do you think Apple is most concerned about?
Microsoft has no lock-in on iOS devices, for one thing. To remove Microsoft lock-in would be remove the tethering between applications and the Microsoft Windows operating system with HTML5 applications. These applications developed in HTML5 would be available on any platform with an HTML5 compliant browser.
Okay, I'm with you so far.
Regardless of whatever strategy you prefer to believe Apple is taking, Windows and also other operating systems would become a commodity (hint: this includes Apple's operating systems), i.e. any operating system with a HTML5 compliant browser would do.
I see. Your assertion is application tying to the OS is the only criteria of OS's that matters and differentiating by making the OS more secure, more reliable, faster, more featureful, having a more usable UI and offering more benefits to applications is not useful in using an OS as a market differentiator. Sorry, I don't buy it at all. You seem to have some weird ideas. Competition between companies that adhere to a standard is not the same thing as commoditization. It is, in fact, the normal competitive market.
As I said, what I am doing is speculation. Just as you would speculate they will not change direction.
My speculation is supported by their past behavior and by the amount of monetary and human resources they've been dumping into HTML5. Your doesn't seem to have any support. It's just a poorly thought out idea you have.
I think I addressed the profitability of the App Store above.
Not really, you just mistook revenue for profit and didn't bother to actually look or research my comments. If you do bother to research it now you'll most likely find one article that supports your opinion... please be sure to read the partial retraction at the end after a million people pointed out to the author all the numbers he forgot to account for.
You cannot seriously believe that advertisements were introduced to iOS to sell more devices.
Actually, that is one of the two main motivations they have. It's not direct though. iAds gives developers a way to make money without directly charging users. This leads to more and different apps from developers, which leads to more good options for users of phones, which leads to more phone sales. It's just an extension of the model they have now, where they make little or nothing selling apps, because it means more apps which sells more phones.
nted to make the developer program "so cheap" (they don't) why have a charge for the SDK at all?
Partly because they like to run services at break even, not at a loss. Second, because having some barrier to entry for developers can be beneficial. Their goal is not to maximize the number of applications. It's to maximize the number of applications they will help them sell phones. A small developer fee helps keep out a lot of malware developers right from the onset, as well as a lot of people who don't really know what they're doing and are not really committed to making apps, but just want to throw something together for fun.
Then allow me to explain. It sells phones and Macs and together that's the lion's share of Apple's profit.
Allow me to exp
But I didn't mention only the SDK fee and computers. There is also the bit about the revenues generated from the application in terms of Apple's cut of the sale price of the applications and/or any cut they get from integrated ads in those applications. That revenue is significant.
Actually, to date that revenue does not seem to be very significant at all. Apple hasn't been making very much on apps as far as anyone can tell and Steve Jobs went so far as to tell shareholders the model was to run the App store at slightly more than break even as a way to promote sales of iPhones. As for ad revenue, time will tell, but again I don't think Apple is planning on it being a big revenue stream compared to the piles of cash they make selling iPhones.
By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I doubt very seriously that Apple intends to commoditize the operating system when the exclusivity of that operating system is a major selling point of the hardware with which they make the bulk of their money.
How do you read "remove MS's lock-in" as "commoditize the operating system market"? That simply does not follow. Apple uses their OS as a differentiator, but they build it mostly on open standards for file and protocol interoperability. As a smaller player in the market, that makes them more money. The idea that breaking MS's lock-in in the OS market by supporting standardized Web technologies makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain your reasoning.
Just because they promote HTML5 now does not mean they intend for that to be the preferred way to develop simple applications in the future.
No, but the fact that they've been promoting it for many years, have developed tools to let users do just that, have committed to projects like PhoneGap, etc. does indicate it is highly likely. Do you have any evidence that they're changing direction?
Of course, guessing the intentions of Apple and what their future plans are is just speculation, but since there is lost revenue at stake...
You make it sound as though their actions were insulated from one another. You could just as easily say Apple will ditch all the open source projects they contribute to, since those don't directly make them money. The thing is, having better dev tools and more apps and lowering costs for developers sell iPhones, and Apple is really, really in the business of selling iPhones right now. They're not about to try to gain a small amount of revenue from developers now, while risking long term sales of devices. That would be idiotic. That's the reason why their developer program was so cheap in the first place.
I see little incentive for them to continue pushing HTML5 as the development platform of choice from simple but useful applications...
Then allow me to explain. It sells phones and Macs and together that's the lion's share of Apple's profit.
Also, since HTML5 cannot interact with the device specifically (e.g. sensors, contacts, etc.)
Umm, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. It can access the location service for GPS use, and many other of the offered services via the Webkit APIs. What is it missing that simple apps need?
I think Apple's thinking is that for simpler development, you can use HTML5.
Why would they think that? I cannot imagine that Apple would want to turn away the $99 SDK fee, the sale of a Macintosh computer and any additional revenues generated by the sale and/or use of a simple application for any reason.
Developer licensing and sales of Macs to developers that don't have them don't even show up in Apple's bottom line in any meaningful way. Sales of iPhones, however, are a huge part of their profit. Apple is about making money, but they're not idiots that want to nickel and dime people in ways that will lose them larger amounts of money in the long run.
But, just as importantly, I cannot imagine a single advantage to them foregoing having that application exclusive to the App Store and available to any device with an HTML5-compliant browser. Simplified development does not imply useless output applications, so why would they want to push any useful but simple tool to being available on any other device?
Apple makes a lot of money selling Macs as well as phones. By promoting HTML5 (which you can compile into an app in the iPhone store, by the way) they push Web standards that helps their Mac business greatly by decreasing the amount of lock-in and the number of users tied to Microsoft.
I think the error here is in the misleading summary. Just because Apple turned down the pitch from revMobile does not mean they have no intentions of allowing simplified development tools for iOS.
Perhaps, but Apple does want to make sure third party dev tools don't become a block preventing their platform from moving forward. Apple's fear is that they'll add something cool to iPhones and upgrade their dev tools so that it shows up in iPhone apps... but a huge number of apps won't get the cool new feature until third parties get around to implementing it (which may be never). And cross-platform dev tools generally will wait until it is profitable to do so, which sometimes means waiting until other phones catch up before bothering to implement something.
My guess would be that if they have any intention of allowing such tools, they would much prefer to actually create them.
Probably, but as the GP poster mentioned, they already do have something like this for the HTML5 development route.
The grandparent's point, I think, is that Flash is not integrated into the main content of the page, so it's easy to turn off.
I guess that depends upon the page, doesn't it? On some pages Flash is added for ads and is not related to the main content. In others, like Hulu, Flash IS the main content of the page. For still others, (like Homestarrunner) the whole page including navigation is built in Flash.
If you only use Flash on sites that only use it for ads, then I agree this will make it more complex to block those ads. On the other hand, for those that rely upon content currently in Flash and other closed plug-in formats, this is a net win for control.
Smith steps through several HTML5 features that can already be implemented, while noting several other presentation features that will soon be on their way.
So - I'm supposed to start implementing cutting edge changes for my production sites, when the browsers that support those changes are "soon to be released"?
This is something of a straw man. No one recommends you implement the features that aren't readily available in all major browsers. It just goes through a list of features that seem likely to soon be available in all browsers. You're the only one saying you should implement those particular items.
Smith also discusses IE work-arounds, such as HTML 5 Shiv and Google Chrome Frame."
Soo... now I'm already having to code workarounds before the standard is even official?
Yes, since everyone in their right mind can see IE does not now and is unlikely to soon implement standards compliance. You implement work arounds for IE now in all your pages don't you, just like all the rest of the world that does Web development? Why would you think that is going to change? So here's a nice list of the new standard you can actually use now, and the work around code to make IE behave like a real browser. That's exactly what every developer needs to implement any feature on the Web, regardless of how much of a "standard" it is.
By all means feel free to ignore HTML5 and not implement any of it. It just means your site will be crappier than sites being reworked with support for some of the nice new standards. The game is changing, but there's no reason you have to get on board. By all means, sit on the sidelines until you feel comfortable.
I have misgivings about HTML5. It gives the page more control, and the user less. That's been a trend in HTML for years, and it's getting worse.
I disagree. HTML5 gives the user more control. Right now we're hampered by proprietary plug-ins to provide functionality, like Silverlight and Flash. With HTML5 taking over those functions, the browser codes it, so you can choose which browser you want based upon how well it lets you control the elements on the page. It's basically moving parts of Web pages from single vendor closed implementations to open implementations that compete to serve you best.
Well, that and a lot more nice tags to break up pages into sections, add support for custom fonts, etc. But that doesn't mean the user loses control. These are markup languages meant to be interpreted. If you don't like custom fonts, noting stops a browser from offering an option of rendering the all as a font of your choosing in the color of your choosing, etc.
We're going to need a browser option for "don't run canvas code for windows that aren't on top.
And we can add it. Moreover, we can add a lot more finely grained controls than that, since it is now specified in the canvas element instead of a Flash movie. It's no longer just "run" or "don't run". It can be "run but never let the sound get above this volume, confine it to the page, and modify the way it runs so it never overlaps any text". Hell, we could add the option of making canvas elements that overlap other elements 90% transparent by default and always having a close and display button.
They should have provided for either regular expressions...
They did. It's even demonstrated in the article.
...and IE9, which should hit beta later this year, supports all HTML5 elements.
Citation?