The second is a thread of you ranting about how he's not an actual Apple employee, which (as I just said) is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. It's directly relevant to his integrity as a person. Furthermore, I get extremely annoyed at the way he claims "we" did such-and-such, which implies he is personally involved in all the projects he talks about. This is extremely bad form. No matter how accurate his comments are, he should not be taking credit for the work of others, or using "we" to refer to other Apple engineers. he should also be disclosing who he is, if he claims to work for Apple.
For these reasons, he should not be modded up or taken seriously until he ceases this insulting and unethical behavior. Once he addresses his issues of honesty and accountability, then I'm perfectly happy if his posts are modded up for being insightful or whatever. But until such a time, it's prudent to assume he is a fraud.
Apple fanboys will blast anyone who dares to question anything this troll has to say.
Bullshit. I'm an Apple fan, and it's my policy to question "As Seen on TV" in every thread i read that he posts to. I want to know who the fuck he is, and why he's posting to Slashdot. I certainly question a lot he has to say.
"As Seen On TV" - you have still not told us who you are, even though you claim to represent Apple. Why do you never reply to posts that ask this very valid question? You reply to dozens of other posts, but always ignore requests for identification.
Oh, come on. This is not "The World vs. Apple". Trademark disputes are going on all the time. Just because your favorite computer manufacturer is in a little bit of trouble, that doesn't mean we need to throw all trademark law out the window. You can put down your sword and shield now.
Excuse me, but what the fuck does your comment have to do with the comment you were replying to? When did the poster you replied to suggest that trademark law should be thrown out the window?
Of course, Apple (music company) cried foul recently over iTunes....
Does Apple Records actually distribute music anymore? Or does the company still exist just to sue Apple? I've never seen a CD with the Apple label on it. If they aren't actually releasing music, then they should have no claim against Apple anymore. Aren't you supposed to actually use your trademarks for them to be valid?
The point is with any software the main costs are support, yet the main difference here is with Microsoft software the money goes directly to America, while with OSS the support costs are directly reinvested into Australia's economy.
But this is inconsistent with your comment about the Liberals runnning the country like a company. If they were being rational, and only about cost/benefit ratios - then why do the Liberals have their tongue wedged so far up Bill Gates' arse? there's no way the Liberals would ruin their cosy relationship with Microsoft, just to save money. I remain convinced that this is just a "public servant" thing, and is not coming from the political branch of the government.
Private land owners whose land is in demand to build roads could lease the land to road suppliers. Road suppliers would belong to a regional road association, which would collect yearly membership fees for anyone who wanted to travel on the association's roads. Membership would be divided into personal and commercial plans. The association would take care of enforcing traffic safety and preventing unauthorized access.
So, you are basically adovocating a really inefficient form of government?
It's hard to imagine for us, since we know nothing but big government. Most people can't imagine that society could exist without a central power controlling it through force, but that's no suprise.
Oh, I can easily imagine it. Society existing in that mode isn't a problem. But widespread infrastructure is. Anyway, it's funny when libertarians try to explain how they would achieve large projects - it almost always ends up being "committees" or "unions" or some other form of organization that has all the negative aspects of government, but without everybody getting to vote. Seems in the Libertarian world, the "government" would be even less accountable than it already is. And you'd get different government competing against one another, too.
But it can happen, and it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not for another 1000 years, but someday, government will be obsolete.
But why do you want this? Why not just improve government, get rid of the corruption, make it transparent and accountable? What's so bad about the concept of a government? I don't see them going away, as long as we have large cities and populations. Why not just use the good aspects of government? After all, it has a purpose if it is not abused.
Your problem is you've known nothing but corrupt American governments, so you see the very concept as "evil."
If it's worth having, people will band together and cooperate to get it.
If only that were true. Most people are too selfish. And even if they tried, can't agree on things - just look at "design by committee."
If the people decide they don't want highways, then so be it.
That's fine by me, I don't like highways. But most people do want them - but are incapable of making them, or negotiating the land purchases.
Who the fuck are you to force the rest of society to go along with your plans?
Huh? When did I say anything about forcing society to do anything? Why so much hostility?
I was just pointing out to the other poster that a lot of the things he takes for granted, are due to the government. He has these lofty ideas about people governing themselves, but has never actually experienced a world without government - and even if he did start a libertarian society, it would be built on the existing things we have, thanks to government.
That's why I'm a libertarian. I get what I want through voluntary cooperation with others, not by exploiting the force of government.
I doubt it, if the government didn't exist. How would you build freeways or other widespread infrastructure, that you currently depend on, without some form of coercion? What if no-one agrees to co-operate with your plans?
Why is it that the Liberal (not actual liberals) government is buying into Open Source, while Labor is siding with Microsoft?
Because these kinds of reports are prepared by Public Servant underlings (who are often liberal) not the Liberal (conservative) political powers at the top of the government. If any high-ranking Liberal politician got wind of this, it would be killed in an instant, at the insistence of Microsoft.
Well, technically it's a text-based file format. Let's say it's a content type, sound better to you?
No, still wrong. It's a markup language used in text files. You know, as in "eXtended Markup Language." It's also not a "content type" - as XML has little to do with content - you can use it for any type of content. It specifies the semantics/styling of the content.
A "content type" would be video, audio, text, text etc.
It was a totally non Asimov related screenplay and had nothing to do with anything Asimov. Therefore jsut tacking the Name of a popular Authors work onto a totally unrelated script is a fraud on us the consumer.
But how does that make the movie itself bad? Your criticism isn't based on the merits of the movies, just your Asimov fandom.
I get the impression as others do this is just a fanboy page about Tiger. That said, although the Ars page was good and well written it lost the plot when guy started being an apologist for Apple's shocking, and in my view shameful robbery of Konfabulator.
So, making software that has a similar function to other software is "robbery" now? I guess that must mean that almost every Open Source developer is a thief. That GIMP shamelessly steals from Photoshop. That Firefox shamelessly steals from every previous web browser, etc.
We replaced many small programs that all do the same thing with one small program that all does the same thing.
Who are you? Please identify yourself. If you are actually from Apple, it is unethical not to identify what your name and position is, when speaking about Apple-related topics.
)
I am glad I am not the only one who felt this was pigware.
800mhz powerbook running 10.3.9
That's not because Quicktime is bloated, it's because your system does not meet the specs for playing HD video. Didn't you read the recommended system specs for playing these back?
Its a hell of a lot easier to parse and put into your news system if its in XML than HTML. HTML makes it look pretty, XML/RSS makes it look machine readable.
Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the BBC's being "happy" about it? What difference is it to them, if someone takes their headline via RSS instead of HTML?
Why would they be happier have their headlines copied over RSS, but not HTML? Why weren't they happy with people copying their headlines from HTML?
My question had nothing to do with how easy it is for developers - but why this would change their attitude towards headline usage by third parties.
"The BBC News Online's Editor states that beginning in the middle of May, the BBC will be 'completely liberating the availability of its content' using its Really Simple Syndication (RSS) tool. 'So in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines'"
I don't really understand what RSS has to do with this. Why would adding an additional protocol, suddenly make them more amenable to others "dipping" into their headlines? After all, the HTML technology of the web allows others to use their headlines. So, does this statement mean they weren't happy about others using their headlines before?
What is this magical property of RSS that makes the BBC happier about having their headlines used elsewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
Ow! That just hurts my ass! Oh ... you meant the holes on the computer.
Since when did Dell or HP ever release "major new machines"? Their whole business model is incremental.
So then, what's your name and position?
It's not irrelevant. It's directly relevant to his integrity as a person. Furthermore, I get extremely annoyed at the way he claims "we" did such-and-such, which implies he is personally involved in all the projects he talks about. This is extremely bad form. No matter how accurate his comments are, he should not be taking credit for the work of others, or using "we" to refer to other Apple engineers. he should also be disclosing who he is, if he claims to work for Apple.
For these reasons, he should not be modded up or taken seriously until he ceases this insulting and unethical behavior. Once he addresses his issues of honesty and accountability, then I'm perfectly happy if his posts are modded up for being insightful or whatever. But until such a time, it's prudent to assume he is a fraud.
Bullshit. I'm an Apple fan, and it's my policy to question "As Seen on TV" in every thread i read that he posts to. I want to know who the fuck he is, and why he's posting to Slashdot. I certainly question a lot he has to say.
"As Seen On TV" - you have still not told us who you are, even though you claim to represent Apple. Why do you never reply to posts that ask this very valid question? You reply to dozens of other posts, but always ignore requests for identification.
That's because it runs on a rock-solid UNIX base. I've run Apple Love for years without having to restart. Beat that uptime!
Excuse me, but what the fuck does your comment have to do with the comment you were replying to? When did the poster you replied to suggest that trademark law should be thrown out the window?
Does Apple Records actually distribute music anymore? Or does the company still exist just to sue Apple? I've never seen a CD with the Apple label on it. If they aren't actually releasing music, then they should have no claim against Apple anymore. Aren't you supposed to actually use your trademarks for them to be valid?
But this is inconsistent with your comment about the Liberals runnning the country like a company. If they were being rational, and only about cost/benefit ratios - then why do the Liberals have their tongue wedged so far up Bill Gates' arse? there's no way the Liberals would ruin their cosy relationship with Microsoft, just to save money. I remain convinced that this is just a "public servant" thing, and is not coming from the political branch of the government.
So, you are basically adovocating a really inefficient form of government?
It's hard to imagine for us, since we know nothing but big government. Most people can't imagine that society could exist without a central power controlling it through force, but that's no suprise.
Oh, I can easily imagine it. Society existing in that mode isn't a problem. But widespread infrastructure is. Anyway, it's funny when libertarians try to explain how they would achieve large projects - it almost always ends up being "committees" or "unions" or some other form of organization that has all the negative aspects of government, but without everybody getting to vote. Seems in the Libertarian world, the "government" would be even less accountable than it already is. And you'd get different government competing against one another, too.
But it can happen, and it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not for another 1000 years, but someday, government will be obsolete.
But why do you want this? Why not just improve government, get rid of the corruption, make it transparent and accountable? What's so bad about the concept of a government? I don't see them going away, as long as we have large cities and populations. Why not just use the good aspects of government? After all, it has a purpose if it is not abused.
Your problem is you've known nothing but corrupt American governments, so you see the very concept as "evil."
If only that were true. Most people are too selfish. And even if they tried, can't agree on things - just look at "design by committee."
If the people decide they don't want highways, then so be it.
That's fine by me, I don't like highways. But most people do want them - but are incapable of making them, or negotiating the land purchases.
Who the fuck are you to force the rest of society to go along with your plans?
Huh? When did I say anything about forcing society to do anything? Why so much hostility?
I was just pointing out to the other poster that a lot of the things he takes for granted, are due to the government. He has these lofty ideas about people governing themselves, but has never actually experienced a world without government - and even if he did start a libertarian society, it would be built on the existing things we have, thanks to government.
I doubt it, if the government didn't exist. How would you build freeways or other widespread infrastructure, that you currently depend on, without some form of coercion? What if no-one agrees to co-operate with your plans?
Because these kinds of reports are prepared by Public Servant underlings (who are often liberal) not the Liberal (conservative) political powers at the top of the government. If any high-ranking Liberal politician got wind of this, it would be killed in an instant, at the insistence of Microsoft.
No, still wrong. It's a markup language used in text files. You know, as in "eXtended Markup Language." It's also not a "content type" - as XML has little to do with content - you can use it for any type of content. It specifies the semantics/styling of the content.
A "content type" would be video, audio, text, text etc.
But how does that make the movie itself bad? Your criticism isn't based on the merits of the movies, just your Asimov fandom.
... or have they? If they didn't get caught, how would you know how many times they've done it? Seems they've only been caught a few times.
Huh? XML is not a file format.
So, making software that has a similar function to other software is "robbery" now? I guess that must mean that almost every Open Source developer is a thief. That GIMP shamelessly steals from Photoshop. That Firefox shamelessly steals from every previous web browser, etc.
Who are you? Please identify yourself. If you are actually from Apple, it is unethical not to identify what your name and position is, when speaking about Apple-related topics.
That's not because Quicktime is bloated, it's because your system does not meet the specs for playing HD video. Didn't you read the recommended system specs for playing these back?
Are you blind, or just trolling? There's a link from the main Quicktime download page to this page, which has a standalone installer.
I guess you were just looking for something to bitch about. Maybe you can ask Apple for a refund of the money you paid for the download.
Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the BBC's being "happy" about it? What difference is it to them, if someone takes their headline via RSS instead of HTML?
Why would they be happier have their headlines copied over RSS, but not HTML? Why weren't they happy with people copying their headlines from HTML?
My question had nothing to do with how easy it is for developers - but why this would change their attitude towards headline usage by third parties.
I don't really understand what RSS has to do with this. Why would adding an additional protocol, suddenly make them more amenable to others "dipping" into their headlines? After all, the HTML technology of the web allows others to use their headlines. So, does this statement mean they weren't happy about others using their headlines before?
What is this magical property of RSS that makes the BBC happier about having their headlines used elsewhere?
So, was Adams an "Apple Fag" too? After all, he was an Apple evangelist who didn't like Windows at all.