So, the answer is... what? If you're a massively successful band, you can still make money from a highly anticipated album if you make payment optional? Yeah, I don't think that has very broad relevance.
Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.
But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.
But moreover, Apple doesn't have a monopoly status to abuse.
If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force
But Apple oes not have a monopoly position to abuse. To violate anti-trust law, one needs the ability to control the market.
Your example of the companies going into some other business like oil exploration is absurd. I gave the example of options the developers have in the same industry segment. If Apple were the only smartphone vendor, it might be a different matter. In Microsoft's case, Windows was at least 95% of the market - so vendors had nowhere else to go, except out of business.
It's not difficult to understand, I think you must be deliberately playing stupid.
Painting a picture of Jesus with your waste is saintly if you do it because you have nothing else, being imprisoned in a cell for being a Christian... and blasphemous otherwise.
How is it blasphemous? Isn't urine a divine creation of God (if you believe in such a god)? Isn't it insulting to God's creation to consider it mere waste? In any case, if you look at the image, the urine creates a radiant, glowing effect that is quite beautiful. If you didn't know it was urine, there would be no controversy or disgust.
I asked for a clarification, because I missed the news when Microsoft forced a company to go into PC OEM business.
When did I ever say that Microsoft forced any company to go into the OEM PC business? What they did, was use their monopoly to coerce already existing businesses, exerting illegal control over almost an entire industry. That's in violation of anti-trust laws, while what Apple is doing with the App store is not. If you can't see the difference, you are either blind or ignorant.
Yeah? What do Apple's research labs do? How many grants to they give to CS university programs? How many scientists to they hire or support?
You're confusing innovation and research. Apple doesn't need to fund CS programs in order to make innovative products.
All they do is package ALREADY EXISTING technology created by SOMEBODY ELSE into shiny packages and sell them.
It's actually quite a bit more involved than that. And Apple does create original products, particularly in software. After all, it was the company that developed the first commercially viable GUI, which set the template for our existing GUIs on all platforms.
OTOH, While MS has thousands of individual products with varying degrees of quality and success, MS has been pumping $5 billion into CS schools, research labs and hiring scientists to work on interesting projects all over the world.
And yet, they almost never manage to make an actual innovative product. Funny, that.
Compare the reaction between a (most would consider pretty blasphemous)
Say what? Why would most consider that work of art blasphemous? It was made by a religious artist, and intends to express the sacredness of all creation. I'm not sure how you get a "blasphemous" interpretation out of it.
Your solution for iphone developers to be not screwed by Apple is "other option than to develop for the iPhone". Similarly, a company had other options than becoming PC OEMs.
Firstly, nobody is being "screwed" by Apple here.
More importantly, selling apps for the iPhone is just a little bit different in scale and character than just about the entire PC hardware industry. One is eligible for anti-trust protection, the other is not.
If the iPhone application market went away, what would be the harm to society? If the PC industry went away, what would be the harm then?
They could have made it easy to get apps from places other than the Apple App Store. Like Symbian does.
Yeah, that's worked out really well for them, hasn't it? So many people eager to be Symbian developers. So much profit for Symbian. So many high-quality applications.
It's like being in a zoo, where you know everybody is pointing and laughing at you while you shit behind a wall of glass.
I don't think the animals in the zoo care one bit about shitting in front of people, or whether the people are laughing. Not being able to get out, or be in their natural habitat is an entirely different matter.
I don't think it sounds anything like 'nazis' although it may look somewhat similar when written. I'm not sure how one would actually pronounce this, other than "N-Z-I-S."
If it's not in the Bible, then it's not Christianity.
Quite an odd claim. I'm sure there are many things that Jesus did that did not make it into the Bible. In any case, killing non-believers is definitely in the Bible.
Show me where it says, in the New Testament, that you cannot wear that or eat that.
I thought Christianity was about both the Old and New Testaments (didn't you say that in another post?), not just the New. Anyway, it's in Leviticus.
Also, while "having lustful thoughts" is a sin, everyone sins and therefore it's a "try your best not to do it" deal because no one can completely control their thoughts.
I see, so it's pick-and-choose, right? You can do some sins, and you're still a Christian, but other cross the line? So, where is that line drawn? Which sins disqualify you from Christianity?
My understanding was that every sinner can be redeemed - even being a murderer doesn't disqualify one from being a Christian.
The religions we're talking about are. As for the "modern interpretations" bullshit, the Bible hasn't changed for at least a thousand years. Just because people may try to say "Oh, well xyz doesn't apply anymore" doesn't mean that the Bible has changed.
Wow, that's quite a turnaround, from someone who previously claimed the Old Testament doesn't apply any more. Under this logic, isn't the New Testament "modern interpretation bullshit" that says xyz doesn't apply anymore? How can you be sure that the New Testament is not the work of revisionists trying to undermine Christianity?
Even since the New Testament, Christianity has undergone many changes, and I doubt that your particular denomination is true to the Christianity of 1000+ years ago.
Wrong. Societies view of the religion may be affected by people's actions, but the religion is what it is in the writings defining the religion.
That is just utterly wrong. A religion is much more than a bunch of writings. It is a living thing. The people who claim belief are as much a part of what the religion is as any sacred texts.
It's just an excuse that people like you created to hate religions instead of blaming the individual who uses religion as a cover for their evil deeds done out of their own desires.
Interesting how when it comes to Christianity, you say people doing bad things are not acting under Christianity, but individual will. But when it comes to Muslims, you say they aren't acting under individual will, but under Islam.
Just because some people choose not to follow all of the teachings of Islam, it doesn't change what Islam is
Actually, it does. If enough adherents of a religion change the way they worship, it changes what the religion is.
It's like the people that never pray and only go to church on Easter and Christmas Eve - they don't actually believe in any of it, it's more habit due to how they were raised
I'm saying that those who want to add in extra rules (or remove rules) from Christianity are not Christians.
Well, that's all Christians. Because every Christian has rules from the Bible they don't follow, and other rules that aren't in the Bible that they do follow.
Actually there are quite a few perfectly normal people who do. That's exactly why you think they don't exist because you're looking for some weirdo wearing a burlap sack - you don't realize that you can lead a normal life and follow it.
No, that's not what I'm looking for. It's pretty much impossible to lead any sort of normal life, and follow every rule of the Bible.
How? Christianity does not promote violence of any sort, so therefore people committing violence in the name of Christianity are not Christians and it has nothing to do with the religion.
But Christianity does promote violence, even the New Testament - and people who commit violence in the name of Christianity has everything to do with the religion. How can it not have anything to do with the religion if people commit violence in the very name of it?
First off, abortion IS murder, there's no debating that. When you intentionally cause a creature that is alive to stop being alive, you are killing it.
Actually, there is plenty of debating that. Firstly: in what way is an embryo a "creature"? Secondly: "killing" is not the same thing as "murder." Finally: How can you kill something which is not yet alive?
Just because some groups want to claim that somehow a baby isn't human doesn't change the fact that it is human....
We're talking about abortion, not killing babies. An embryo is not a baby.
If a non-Christian says to go do xyz, it doesn't f-ing matter if they claim to be Christian, they're NOT Christian.
Yeah, so what? I'm not talking about non-Christians doing it, I'm talking about Christians doing it.
Wrong. It's about believing in Jesus's teachings (which were all in the New Testament) AND accepting Jesus as your savior. You can't claim Jesus as your savior if you do not believe and follow what he taught and stands for.
So, children, mentally retarded people, and others not capable of comprehending this, cannot be Christians?
Blame the person, don't project their actions onto a group that did not condone their actions. Just like you respect a person based on their character, not their job title or family name.
But their actions stem from their religion, and there are large church groups who condone there actions. How does that have nothing to do with the religion?
Many people have different ideas about Christianity to you. That does not make them not Christians. Seeing as you seem to believe so strongly in one true Christianity, would you mind telling me which denomination the "true Christians" are? After all, there can only be one denomination of Christianity that is correct, if there is only one way to interpret it.
Do you know what Apple could have done to avoid any issues of power over developers, or treating developers unfairly? They could have not opened the App Store in the first place, and only made first-party apps for the iPhone. Which scenario do you think would have profited small developers more - an "unfair" App Store, or no App Store or third-party APIs at all?
If Apple had thought that being able to vet applications would result in legal issues or being forced to distribute every app made by anybody, they might not even have bothered at all.
What amuses me the most, is how quickly people (particularly pundits and industry commentators) go from "Ha, dumb Apple, that's a stupid idea that will never work!" to "Waaaah, why won't Apple let me play their game?"
Really? I see Apple as an image company first, and a technology company second
Well, that's fucking stupid and ignorant of you. Apple sells actual hardware and software, in case you hadn't noticed. being an advertising company is not the same as a company that uses advertising. Apple spends money on advertising. Google directly profits from it, because Google is in the advertising business and Apple is not.
If Apple was a so-called "image company" then why would they even bother with difficult shit like technology? They could just sell clothes or handbags at a greater profit margin. But I guess in your world, any product that's aesthetically appealing in any way must be all about the superficiality, right? And heaven forbid if a company spends money on marketing an image. What's that? Dell, HP, Microsoft and IBM also buy a lot of advertising and try to project a certain brand image? Oh noes!
Oooh, look, we make cool stuff and put it in hip boxes and sell it only to the coolest of people. We play indie music on our commercials. Our CEO wears black turtlenecks and jeans. We make big scary computers nice and friendly so even the dumbest among you can still feel smart when you own one."
You clearly have no idea. Since when can "only the coolest of people" buy Apple products? I'm pretty sure they will sell them to anybody who has the money. The reality is that people buy Apple computers and software because they are useful. Nobody buys them just to be "hip." You've obviously been drinking the kool-aid.
You also don't seem to know much about computing history, because Apple has been one of the more influential and innovative companies in the industry. That's not marketing hype, that's the reality of it.
It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that).
Actually, I take it back - it's not any kind of power over another company. It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did. It's power over Apple's own store - other companies simply are not being coerced in this situation.
That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.
What? I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all. How does a small developer have no other option than to develop for the iPhone?
No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.
Right, and what's wrong with anything Apple is doing (from a legal standpoint)?
Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.
I agree. But Apple has never done anything remotely like Microsoft's flagrant abuses of the law and ethics. If Apple ever does, I'll be ready with the pitchforks. But so far, all we have is a bunch of haters whining about Apple and making spurious comparisons that don't hold water.
"let he who has no sin throw the first stone", right? Yea, that was Jesus).
What Jesus is saying here is that we are all sinners. But by your standards, that means there are no Christians, because if you sin, you are no longer a true Christian.
If you do not follow the Bible (including the New Testament), you are not a Christian.
So, that means there are, what, maybe two or three "true Christians" in the world, if that? Nobody follows those books to the letter today.
In any case, this is a different claim than you made previously. Before you claimed not that people who used religiously motivated violence "weren't true Christians" but that their actions had nothing to do with religion at all. This is clearly an absurd statement.
Claiming that some one who murders abortion doctors in the name of God has nothing to do with religion, is like claiming a guy that snaps and goes to the circus to murder the clowns, has nothing at all to do with the fact that his father molested him in a clown suit as a child.
You think the church preaching that abortion is murder and a wicked act had absolutely nothing to do with that? Regardless of whether you think someone or some church is a true Christian or not, it's still religion! It's still based on Christianity, and everybody else in the world apart from you, considers those Christian churches.
You take self-proclamations at face value.
Now, there's some delicious ironic hypocrisy! that's what you've been doing this entire thread, rather than engaging your brain.
Well according to you, if I proclaim to have a PhD is Physics, it must be true despite me not knowing much about physics!
Again, you clearly don't understand what it is to be a Christian. It's not about knowing the Bible inside out, it's about accepting Jesus into your heart as your savior. That's all that is required! Are you saying that the illiterate can't be Christians? Or the mentally retarded, or children? I think most Christians would disagree with you there.
You'll just bitch and moan because you want to hate anyone who thinks differently from you (gotta love irony),
Where do you get this nonsense from? I think you might be projecting your own hatred here. Criticizing religion is not the same as hatred. Which brings us back to the topic of these ridiculous blasphemy laws, which are designed to put religion beyond criticism, even as the religious pass harsh judgement on others.
Umm, would you care to argue how I'm being willfully dishonest? What exactly I've said that isn't true? I'd really like to know, but you don't even seem to be attempting to make a logical argument.
Why would you blame a "christian" person then for doing something that is never condoned by Christianity?
But their actions ARE condoned by their particular church or interpretation of Christianity.
Well, that was a rhetorical question, I know why you're blaming Christians for it (you hate religion, or at least Christian ones anyways).
Nope, sorry. I hate violence, hypocrisy and bullshit excuses. Not religion as such. unfortunately they usually go hand-in-hand
Religions (or at least the ones we're discussing here) are based on writings that are very old. If you do not follow those writings, then you do not follow the religion. It's THAT simple.
So, you're not a true Christian if you wear mixed fabric or eat shellfish? if you ever have a lustful thought about your neighbor's wife.
You're also incorrect, in that it's not that simple. not all religions are based on ancient writing (see scientology, Mormonism) and even the ones that are, are based on modern interpretations - the ancient texts are so ambiguous that there isn't a clear meaning anyway.
And once again, you are incorrect because a religion is also defined by the actions of its followers.
Only in the circumstances of Islam.
Oh. Just a tiny oversight there. It's only one of the world's largest religions and all.
If we applied your view to science, someone could not follow the basics of chemistry at all but claim to be a Chemist (and we all know that without knowing how to do chemistry, you can't be a Chemist).
Analogy doesn't make sense. Religion is about belief, not competence. If a person believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, then that person is a Christian, no matter what sins or evil acts they might commit. That is the basic definition of "Christian." Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but that's the truth. You don't get to disown Christians you don't like, any more than I can say that a family member is not a member of my family if they do something bad.
Your attitude towards this seems very insecure, and rather un-Christian. Isn't Christianity strong enough to handle this? Must you pretend that every Christian is perfectly pure and good? most Christians would accept that isn't true.
As for your claims on Islam, there are plenty of Islamic churches who do not agree with the idea of killing non-believers, much as your "reformed" New Testament would have it. Do they get to say that those who do advocate killing aren't true Muslims?
Kind of proves my point, really. Religion just whitewashes its dirty past, in an attempt to believe it never happens. There are still Christians who believe in the Old Testament. There is no "true" form of Christianity, it's all about interpretation.
Now, moving on from the Old Testament, what about all those Christian preachers who are preaching death in the modern age? I guess you'll just use the "not true Christians" excuse again, huh?
Again, what does that have to do with monopoly? You don't seem to know what that word means. It's like saying Toyota has a monopoly on making Toyota Corollas. It's nonsensical and meaningless.
First, Islam DOES promote killing non-Muslims. Read a little bit sometime.
I never said it didn't. But it's far from the only one.
Aren't you conceding my point? How does Islam not count as a religion? Your argument essentially boils down to; "Religious people would never do that, oh, except for Muslims."
Second, since all the other religions do NOT promote killing and in fact promote peace, love, and tolerance, anyone who kills in that religions name is not following that religion. Therefore they can't be a Christian / Hindu / whatever.
This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The fact is that a religion is made up of people, you don't get to disown members of the religion who do something you don't agree with. Christianity even acknowledges that all Christians are sinners - so how does a Christian performing a sin suddenly make that person a non-Christian?
THAT is why you have no argument. You're taking the actions of a person who doesn't follow a religion and blaming a religion (that they don't follow) for their actions.
But they do follow the religion. Many of these people are performing these acts based on direct quotes from the Bible.
That's a horribly bogus argument.
Sorry, you're just in denial of reality. Yours is the weak argument, based on so many logical fallacies and untruths that it's not funny.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the answer is... what? If you're a massively successful band, you can still make money from a highly anticipated album if you make payment optional? Yeah, I don't think that has very broad relevance.
Seriously. I wouldn't even waste my neighbors free bandwidth to download anything U2 has put out in over a decade...
Come on. The files aren't that big... your neighbor must have really shitty wi-fi if it takes that long to download.
Obvious implication is, that Microsoft forced PC OEMs to remain PC OEMs, because you maintain that Microsoft "forced" PC OEMs in a way Apple doesn't.
But those companies were already in the business before Microsoft became so powerful, and did not know what was coming. Developers who sign up for the App Store know exactly what the terms are.
But moreover, Apple doesn't have a monopoly status to abuse.
If Microsoft "forced", so did Apple. If Apple did not force
But Apple oes not have a monopoly position to abuse. To violate anti-trust law, one needs the ability to control the market.
Your example of the companies going into some other business like oil exploration is absurd. I gave the example of options the developers have in the same industry segment. If Apple were the only smartphone vendor, it might be a different matter. In Microsoft's case, Windows was at least 95% of the market - so vendors had nowhere else to go, except out of business.
It's not difficult to understand, I think you must be deliberately playing stupid.
Painting a picture of Jesus with your waste is saintly if you do it because you have nothing else, being imprisoned in a cell for being a Christian... and blasphemous otherwise.
How is it blasphemous? Isn't urine a divine creation of God (if you believe in such a god)? Isn't it insulting to God's creation to consider it mere waste? In any case, if you look at the image, the urine creates a radiant, glowing effect that is quite beautiful. If you didn't know it was urine, there would be no controversy or disgust.
I asked for a clarification, because I missed the news when Microsoft forced a company to go into PC OEM business.
When did I ever say that Microsoft forced any company to go into the OEM PC business? What they did, was use their monopoly to coerce already existing businesses, exerting illegal control over almost an entire industry. That's in violation of anti-trust laws, while what Apple is doing with the App store is not. If you can't see the difference, you are either blind or ignorant.
Yeah? What do Apple's research labs do? How many grants to they give to CS university programs? How many scientists to they hire or support?
You're confusing innovation and research. Apple doesn't need to fund CS programs in order to make innovative products.
All they do is package ALREADY EXISTING technology created by SOMEBODY ELSE into shiny packages and sell them.
It's actually quite a bit more involved than that. And Apple does create original products, particularly in software. After all, it was the company that developed the first commercially viable GUI, which set the template for our existing GUIs on all platforms.
OTOH, While MS has thousands of individual products with varying degrees of quality and success, MS has been pumping $5 billion into CS schools, research labs and hiring scientists to work on interesting projects all over the world.
And yet, they almost never manage to make an actual innovative product. Funny, that.
Compare the reaction between a (most would consider pretty blasphemous)
Say what? Why would most consider that work of art blasphemous? It was made by a religious artist, and intends to express the sacredness of all creation. I'm not sure how you get a "blasphemous" interpretation out of it.
But you also need to look at it that it exposes the evil in censorship.
Yeah, that's the ticket. We need more censorship in the USA, so we can expose the evils of censorship.
Your solution for iphone developers to be not screwed by Apple is "other option than to develop for the iPhone". Similarly, a company had other options than becoming PC OEMs.
Firstly, nobody is being "screwed" by Apple here.
More importantly, selling apps for the iPhone is just a little bit different in scale and character than just about the entire PC hardware industry. One is eligible for anti-trust protection, the other is not.
If the iPhone application market went away, what would be the harm to society? If the PC industry went away, what would be the harm then?
They could have made it easy to get apps from places other than the Apple App Store. Like Symbian does.
Yeah, that's worked out really well for them, hasn't it? So many people eager to be Symbian developers. So much profit for Symbian. So many high-quality applications.
The games just use twitter for the viral mechanic.
Mechanics with viruses are generally something to avoid.
But Web 2.1.net is tomorrow!!
It's like being in a zoo, where you know everybody is pointing and laughing at you while you shit behind a wall of glass.
I don't think the animals in the zoo care one bit about shitting in front of people, or whether the people are laughing. Not being able to get out, or be in their natural habitat is an entirely different matter.
It sounds threateningly close to 'nazis'.
I don't think it sounds anything like 'nazis' although it may look somewhat similar when written. I'm not sure how one would actually pronounce this, other than "N-Z-I-S."
If it's not in the Bible, then it's not Christianity.
Quite an odd claim. I'm sure there are many things that Jesus did that did not make it into the Bible. In any case, killing non-believers is definitely in the Bible.
Show me where it says, in the New Testament, that you cannot wear that or eat that.
I thought Christianity was about both the Old and New Testaments (didn't you say that in another post?), not just the New. Anyway, it's in Leviticus.
Also, while "having lustful thoughts" is a sin, everyone sins and therefore it's a "try your best not to do it" deal because no one can completely control their thoughts.
I see, so it's pick-and-choose, right? You can do some sins, and you're still a Christian, but other cross the line? So, where is that line drawn? Which sins disqualify you from Christianity?
My understanding was that every sinner can be redeemed - even being a murderer doesn't disqualify one from being a Christian.
The religions we're talking about are. As for the "modern interpretations" bullshit, the Bible hasn't changed for at least a thousand years. Just because people may try to say "Oh, well xyz doesn't apply anymore" doesn't mean that the Bible has changed.
Wow, that's quite a turnaround, from someone who previously claimed the Old Testament doesn't apply any more. Under this logic, isn't the New Testament "modern interpretation bullshit" that says xyz doesn't apply anymore? How can you be sure that the New Testament is not the work of revisionists trying to undermine Christianity?
Even since the New Testament, Christianity has undergone many changes, and I doubt that your particular denomination is true to the Christianity of 1000+ years ago.
Wrong. Societies view of the religion may be affected by people's actions, but the religion is what it is in the writings defining the religion.
That is just utterly wrong. A religion is much more than a bunch of writings. It is a living thing. The people who claim belief are as much a part of what the religion is as any sacred texts.
It's just an excuse that people like you created to hate religions instead of blaming the individual who uses religion as a cover for their evil deeds done out of their own desires.
Interesting how when it comes to Christianity, you say people doing bad things are not acting under Christianity, but individual will. But when it comes to Muslims, you say they aren't acting under individual will, but under Islam.
Just because some people choose not to follow all of the teachings of Islam, it doesn't change what Islam is
Actually, it does. If enough adherents of a religion change the way they worship, it changes what the religion is.
It's like the people that never pray and only go to church on Easter and Christmas Eve - they don't actually believe in any of it, it's more habit due to how they were raised
And that changes what Christianity is.
I'm saying that those who want to add in extra rules (or remove rules) from Christianity are not Christians.
Well, that's all Christians. Because every Christian has rules from the Bible they don't follow, and other rules that aren't in the Bible that they do follow.
Actually there are quite a few perfectly normal people who do. That's exactly why you think they don't exist because you're looking for some weirdo wearing a burlap sack - you don't realize that you can lead a normal life and follow it.
No, that's not what I'm looking for. It's pretty much impossible to lead any sort of normal life, and follow every rule of the Bible.
How? Christianity does not promote violence of any sort, so therefore people committing violence in the name of Christianity are not Christians and it has nothing to do with the religion.
But Christianity does promote violence, even the New Testament - and people who commit violence in the name of Christianity has everything to do with the religion. How can it not have anything to do with the religion if people commit violence in the very name of it?
First off, abortion IS murder, there's no debating that. When you intentionally cause a creature that is alive to stop being alive, you are killing it.
Actually, there is plenty of debating that. Firstly: in what way is an embryo a "creature"? Secondly: "killing" is not the same thing as "murder." Finally: How can you kill something which is not yet alive?
Just because some groups want to claim that somehow a baby isn't human doesn't change the fact that it is human....
We're talking about abortion, not killing babies. An embryo is not a baby.
If a non-Christian says to go do xyz, it doesn't f-ing matter if they claim to be Christian, they're NOT Christian.
Yeah, so what? I'm not talking about non-Christians doing it, I'm talking about Christians doing it.
Wrong. It's about believing in Jesus's teachings (which were all in the New Testament) AND accepting Jesus as your savior. You can't claim Jesus as your savior if you do not believe and follow what he taught and stands for.
So, children, mentally retarded people, and others not capable of comprehending this, cannot be Christians?
Blame the person, don't project their actions onto a group that did not condone their actions. Just like you respect a person based on their character, not their job title or family name.
But their actions stem from their religion, and there are large church groups who condone there actions. How does that have nothing to do with the religion?
Many people have different ideas about Christianity to you. That does not make them not Christians. Seeing as you seem to believe so strongly in one true Christianity, would you mind telling me which denomination the "true Christians" are? After all, there can only be one denomination of Christianity that is correct, if there is only one way to interpret it.
P.S:
Do you know what Apple could have done to avoid any issues of power over developers, or treating developers unfairly? They could have not opened the App Store in the first place, and only made first-party apps for the iPhone. Which scenario do you think would have profited small developers more - an "unfair" App Store, or no App Store or third-party APIs at all?
If Apple had thought that being able to vet applications would result in legal issues or being forced to distribute every app made by anybody, they might not even have bothered at all.
What amuses me the most, is how quickly people (particularly pundits and industry commentators) go from "Ha, dumb Apple, that's a stupid idea that will never work!" to "Waaaah, why won't Apple let me play their game?"
Really? I see Apple as an image company first, and a technology company second
Well, that's fucking stupid and ignorant of you. Apple sells actual hardware and software, in case you hadn't noticed. being an advertising company is not the same as a company that uses advertising. Apple spends money on advertising. Google directly profits from it, because Google is in the advertising business and Apple is not.
If Apple was a so-called "image company" then why would they even bother with difficult shit like technology? They could just sell clothes or handbags at a greater profit margin. But I guess in your world, any product that's aesthetically appealing in any way must be all about the superficiality, right? And heaven forbid if a company spends money on marketing an image. What's that? Dell, HP, Microsoft and IBM also buy a lot of advertising and try to project a certain brand image? Oh noes!
Oooh, look, we make cool stuff and put it in hip boxes and sell it only to the coolest of people. We play indie music on our commercials. Our CEO wears black turtlenecks and jeans. We make big scary computers nice and friendly so even the dumbest among you can still feel smart when you own one."
You clearly have no idea. Since when can "only the coolest of people" buy Apple products? I'm pretty sure they will sell them to anybody who has the money. The reality is that people buy Apple computers and software because they are useful. Nobody buys them just to be "hip." You've obviously been drinking the kool-aid.
You also don't seem to know much about computing history, because Apple has been one of the more influential and innovative companies in the industry. That's not marketing hype, that's the reality of it.
It is still power over another company (and direct power if you want to call it that).
Actually, I take it back - it's not any kind of power over another company. It's not like Apple is forcing companies to do things in the way Microsoft did. It's power over Apple's own store - other companies simply are not being coerced in this situation.
That is not practical. Mobile platforms are a perfect market for small developers. Unfortunately they have no choice but to rely on Apple letting them include their software in the official application repository.
What? I know plenty of small developers that don't develop for the iPhone at all. They could develop for Android, for Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm or develop for desktop PCs and not mobile devices at all. How does a small developer have no other option than to develop for the iPhone?
No. As I said, it doesn't matter what Microsoft does because it doesn't change what Apple should do.
Right, and what's wrong with anything Apple is doing (from a legal standpoint)?
Well yes, that is my point. We should hold Apple and Microsoft to exactly the same standards, despite Microsoft's larger market share.
I agree. But Apple has never done anything remotely like Microsoft's flagrant abuses of the law and ethics. If Apple ever does, I'll be ready with the pitchforks. But so far, all we have is a bunch of haters whining about Apple and making spurious comparisons that don't hold water.
"let he who has no sin throw the first stone", right? Yea, that was Jesus).
What Jesus is saying here is that we are all sinners. But by your standards, that means there are no Christians, because if you sin, you are no longer a true Christian.
If you do not follow the Bible (including the New Testament), you are not a Christian.
So, that means there are, what, maybe two or three "true Christians" in the world, if that? Nobody follows those books to the letter today.
In any case, this is a different claim than you made previously. Before you claimed not that people who used religiously motivated violence "weren't true Christians" but that their actions had nothing to do with religion at all. This is clearly an absurd statement.
Claiming that some one who murders abortion doctors in the name of God has nothing to do with religion, is like claiming a guy that snaps and goes to the circus to murder the clowns, has nothing at all to do with the fact that his father molested him in a clown suit as a child.
You think the church preaching that abortion is murder and a wicked act had absolutely nothing to do with that? Regardless of whether you think someone or some church is a true Christian or not, it's still religion! It's still based on Christianity, and everybody else in the world apart from you, considers those Christian churches.
You take self-proclamations at face value.
Now, there's some delicious ironic hypocrisy! that's what you've been doing this entire thread, rather than engaging your brain.
Well according to you, if I proclaim to have a PhD is Physics, it must be true despite me not knowing much about physics!
Again, you clearly don't understand what it is to be a Christian. It's not about knowing the Bible inside out, it's about accepting Jesus into your heart as your savior. That's all that is required! Are you saying that the illiterate can't be Christians? Or the mentally retarded, or children? I think most Christians would disagree with you there.
You'll just bitch and moan because you want to hate anyone who thinks differently from you (gotta love irony),
Where do you get this nonsense from? I think you might be projecting your own hatred here. Criticizing religion is not the same as hatred. Which brings us back to the topic of these ridiculous blasphemy laws, which are designed to put religion beyond criticism, even as the religious pass harsh judgement on others.
Umm, would you care to argue how I'm being willfully dishonest? What exactly I've said that isn't true? I'd really like to know, but you don't even seem to be attempting to make a logical argument.
Why would you blame a "christian" person then for doing something that is never condoned by Christianity?
But their actions ARE condoned by their particular church or interpretation of Christianity.
Well, that was a rhetorical question, I know why you're blaming Christians for it (you hate religion, or at least Christian ones anyways).
Nope, sorry. I hate violence, hypocrisy and bullshit excuses. Not religion as such. unfortunately they usually go hand-in-hand
Religions (or at least the ones we're discussing here) are based on writings that are very old. If you do not follow those writings, then you do not follow the religion. It's THAT simple.
So, you're not a true Christian if you wear mixed fabric or eat shellfish? if you ever have a lustful thought about your neighbor's wife.
You're also incorrect, in that it's not that simple. not all religions are based on ancient writing (see scientology, Mormonism) and even the ones that are, are based on modern interpretations - the ancient texts are so ambiguous that there isn't a clear meaning anyway.
And once again, you are incorrect because a religion is also defined by the actions of its followers.
Only in the circumstances of Islam.
Oh. Just a tiny oversight there. It's only one of the world's largest religions and all.
If we applied your view to science, someone could not follow the basics of chemistry at all but claim to be a Chemist (and we all know that without knowing how to do chemistry, you can't be a Chemist).
Analogy doesn't make sense. Religion is about belief, not competence. If a person believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, then that person is a Christian, no matter what sins or evil acts they might commit. That is the basic definition of "Christian." Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but that's the truth. You don't get to disown Christians you don't like, any more than I can say that a family member is not a member of my family if they do something bad.
Your attitude towards this seems very insecure, and rather un-Christian. Isn't Christianity strong enough to handle this? Must you pretend that every Christian is perfectly pure and good? most Christians would accept that isn't true.
As for your claims on Islam, there are plenty of Islamic churches who do not agree with the idea of killing non-believers, much as your "reformed" New Testament would have it. Do they get to say that those who do advocate killing aren't true Muslims?
Kind of proves my point, really. Religion just whitewashes its dirty past, in an attempt to believe it never happens. There are still Christians who believe in the Old Testament. There is no "true" form of Christianity, it's all about interpretation.
Now, moving on from the Old Testament, what about all those Christian preachers who are preaching death in the modern age? I guess you'll just use the "not true Christians" excuse again, huh?
Again, what does that have to do with monopoly? You don't seem to know what that word means. It's like saying Toyota has a monopoly on making Toyota Corollas. It's nonsensical and meaningless.
First, Islam DOES promote killing non-Muslims. Read a little bit sometime.
I never said it didn't. But it's far from the only one.
Aren't you conceding my point? How does Islam not count as a religion? Your argument essentially boils down to; "Religious people would never do that, oh, except for Muslims."
Second, since all the other religions do NOT promote killing and in fact promote peace, love, and tolerance, anyone who kills in that religions name is not following that religion. Therefore they can't be a Christian / Hindu / whatever.
This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The fact is that a religion is made up of people, you don't get to disown members of the religion who do something you don't agree with. Christianity even acknowledges that all Christians are sinners - so how does a Christian performing a sin suddenly make that person a non-Christian?
THAT is why you have no argument. You're taking the actions of a person who doesn't follow a religion and blaming a religion (that they don't follow) for their actions.
But they do follow the religion. Many of these people are performing these acts based on direct quotes from the Bible.
That's a horribly bogus argument.
Sorry, you're just in denial of reality. Yours is the weak argument, based on so many logical fallacies and untruths that it's not funny.