but aside from that I am not sure what I am reading here?
is wikipedia turning into some kind of fancy amazon catalog?
FUCK ME!
I am outta the intertubes, enough of this commercial bullshit!
Fortunately, most of the rest of us actually read TFS.
Am I missing something? This "enriched content" is not hosted by wikipedia, it's hosted by Amazon. So if you want something free of commercial spin, keep using Wikipedia -- and don't use the Amazon copy of it.
hey are in it for the money, and this is a way to maximize it. While one flat rate set based on actual network costs + profit would be the most logical, thats never going to happen. The marketroids do not understand logic.
They will charge what people are willing to pay, and that's the end of it. In that context, what they're doing is perfectly logical. Illogical would be charging a flat rate, when people would willingly pay premium rates for tiered pricing.
Indeed. And still I have to wonder why Sony didn't sell a processor-unlocked version which doesn't include the Sony OS at all - and charge 3, 4, or 5 times as much for the same hardware. It would have been excellent processing power for the price, and it would have made PS3 hardware itself very profitable.
They missed a good opportunity to make a huge chunk of cash on what they sold as a loss leader.
They never are on separate servers though, or very rarely - so naturally if someone can upload a compromised source tar, they can also upload the appropriate checksum.
1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS
No, that was the US Government.
Weren't you listening? It was the jester!;)
2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs
Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?
Wait, what? I think he's not *suggesting* anything, but rather *saying* that if a client costs significantly more money than it earns a business, that business is within its rights to terminate services to that client. But that was an interesting spin you put on it. In this context, most amazon customers are minorities in that each is just one customer among many others; and in that they most have considerably fewer resources than Amazon does. (That's... um, why they're customers and not doing this themselves...)
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
You do a fine job of twisting words . You know that amazon also disallows hosting of child porn - I suppose that's pretty discriminatory too. When you discard the emotionally-loaded context you're attempting to build, Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination: "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things."
In this case, perceiving the difference between a customer costing money and reputation -- and then choosing to act by terminating that account.
Let me get this straight. Amazon is doing evil, but it's a solid business decision so we shouldn't hold it against them?
I don't quite follow that.
Nobody said not to hold it against them- only that it makes sense from a financial and PR perspective. If this was the wrong decision to make, then they'll pay the price as people terminate their Amazon service agreements. It's pretty neat, how having competition ensures plenty of options when a business makes the wrong choice.
He choose this to wage a DDoS on? I can think of hundreds of sites better suited for this. How about taking down some known terrorists sites? Maybe the RIAA or MPAA?
There really isn't anywhere that running a DDOS site is a good option. Trying to silence your opponent by yelling louder than he is - no matter how right or wrong he is - just makes you look like a child.
hosts is a valid solution and can address a lot of issues; however, saying it's superior to adblock because of all the things adblock wasn't designed to do is like saying a car is better than a motorcycle because you don't need to wear a helmet.
Of course it doesn't block email and malware from communicating -- it's never been intended to. On the other and, what are you doing with malware installed, and allowing your email to d/l content from third party servers without your explicit approval?
Model-view-controller and other multitier architectures are exactly what I was talking about. -snip- But this breaks down when your target platforms don't share a language in which to write step 2.
Sure, but that's stating what I already said above isn't it? In an MVC architecture, there's no way to share code across iOS and BBOS. (It seems like you knew that already, so I'm not sure why you asked;) On the other hand, with a posix-compliant QNX-based BBOS waiting in the wings, I suspect you'll be able to move your C++ code there as well for future devices.
I actually wasn't aware that you could use C++ to develop for iOS; I had assumed Objective-C was required.
All in all, though, it seems unwise to ignore the smartphone with the largest (or second-largest) market share when determining your target platforms. Even in such cases as this, where you'd need to maintain a separate implementation for the short term.
The simple act of removing all of our money from the banks, and doing so in mass on the same day - December 7th - would put a huge scare in the financial barons.
I, too, look forward to my $100 loaf of bread -- and the more we can do to make it happen faster, the better!
Here's the question: if corruption and tyranny of the ruling class is exposed for all to see, how many people will put down the xbox controller or stop shopping for some idiotic black friday deal long enough to do something about it?
It was the banking practices of US banks which directly caused the financial crisis, because they mixed up the imaginary, funny-money (bad US consumer debt) with the real money. And, when people discovered the funny-money had no value, the value of the real money tanked because it was now based on the funny money. The US essentially commoditized and exported bankruptcy.
And nobody nationally or internationally suspected a thing right?
The problem was made far worse by the number of investors (including banks) worldwide who turned a blind eye when buying these securities.
The fee is waived, as is the fee for submitting apps to app world if you do decide to distribute through that channel channels. I'm not sure how long that will continue for, but it's been at least a month since it started. But as you said, it's not an unreasonable price - especially considering that if you don't pay the Apple fee, you can't develop for the platform at all (as opposed to being limited in what you can do).
But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?
True, though this is also true for Android isn't it? (albeit java-that-isn't-java) Frankly, a lot of problems come up when people try to do direct ports of iOS apps -- it looks and acts like a limited functionality bad port (which too many people attribute to platform shortcomings); without ever taking advantage of the flexible platform integration that RIM offers.
That being said, you did specifically say business logic and not UI. Obviously there's no good answer here - you'd need to maintain two versions because you're on two different platforms. On the other hand, if you fully separate your core business logic out from your UI, you could maintain a shared version between Android and BlackBerry. (On the other hand... if iOS weren't so restrictive, you'd have a JVM available for you there too;)
The only other path that I'm aware of is to move your business logic out to a server component - not viable in all cases (real time games, for example), but it is a good option in many situations.
Have you looked through the Blackberry API at all? It's pretty unpleasant compared with any of the more modern systems - either iOS, Android, or WP7.
I'm familiar with it (see sig). I don't find it unpleasant to work with, though to be fair I'm also not yet as familiar with the others -- so I've no basis for comparison other than vanilla j2me.
Most of the issues I have are common to all major platforms (except win7, since it's new): new functionality introduced in later SDK versions that is never made available to earlier versions, requiring me to do dual implementations of that functionality (once using the SDK,a nd once substituting for the SDK).
Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and whenever you want;)
They didn't, so it might be safe to assume this patent actually is the real thing (according to the current legal definition)
I've no doubt that hundreds of software patents are the real thing. That doesn't mean that as a class, they should be valid patents. In that context, the *best* that outcome here is that Microsoft loses -- I4I gets paid and MS has more incentive to push for patent system change. At least in theory. In reality, I suspect that any company with hundreds of millions invested in patents and associated fees will be very unlikely to want to throw that investment away.
The worst I've seen is embarrassing truths aired in public.
It's the embarrassing truths that are worrisome. The one that comes to mind are the various countries pushing for attack against Iran. It may be that Iran realizes it doesn't have the support it thought it did and backs down - that would be spiffy. Alternatively they may accelerate whatever they had in place in order to preempt any such attack.
Those particular files are *exactly* the sort of releases the government least wants and would give spurious 'security' excuses for hiding, and yet they are the ones that most need to be brought to light, and the practices stopped, which would be in the long-term interests of the USA.
Those particular files are the ones I've no objection to seeing released - they're the ones that the public *should* be aware of in order to prevent such actions from happening again.
excuse me, but any country, anyone, engaging in shit like the above, already pre-deserved any cost they are going to pay. people reap, what they saw. the only thing preventing the people in administration from reaping what they sow was that these were being hidden behind secrecy with 'national security' excuses.
Yep - so they should have published that incident. And incidents like it. What about the other 99% of the documents?
The country deserves what it gets? Even when "what it gets" may be setbacks in international relations that damage not only US and its citizens, but can also serve as the spark that sets of far worse than a diplomatic crisis between other nations? The people who supposedly "pre-deserve" are only one party among the many who will pay.
Dumping this data on the world is like that phrase, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Elsewhere you said that "responsible reporting" can't be a concern when dealing with the evil juggernaut that is the US (paraphrased). I say that you've a very narrow view of "responsible reporting"; and an interesting set of double-standards in that it seems to be OK with you that the fallout from this may be far worse among other nations than anything the US did in the last few years.
Had wikileaks provided only information such as what you saw above, that would go a long way towards justifying their actions. What they did, though, only further shows how their lack of accountability also ensures that they have no sense of responsibility.
You could if you tracked which ones were installed through the browser, vs which ones simply showed up in the plugins directory and were never 'approved' by the user. It doesn't seem difficult.
While you couldn't offer to delete them (because priv acct might be required) you *could* only enable them after explicit user approval.
Slashdot Mirror
but aside from that I am not sure what I am reading here? is wikipedia turning into some kind of fancy amazon catalog? FUCK ME! I am outta the intertubes, enough of this commercial bullshit!
Fortunately, most of the rest of us actually read TFS.
Am I missing something? This "enriched content" is not hosted by wikipedia, it's hosted by Amazon. So if you want something free of commercial spin, keep using Wikipedia -- and don't use the Amazon copy of it.
hey are in it for the money, and this is a way to maximize it. While one flat rate set based on actual network costs + profit would be the most logical, thats never going to happen. The marketroids do not understand logic.
They will charge what people are willing to pay, and that's the end of it. In that context, what they're doing is perfectly logical. Illogical would be charging a flat rate, when people would willingly pay premium rates for tiered pricing.
Instead of charging 5x as much for a cpu-unlocked version of the same product -- earning a profit and coming in as a great deal for those who need it.
They missed a good opportunity to make a huge chunk of cash on what they sold as a loss leader.
Wow! Talk about emotionally-loaded twisting of words!
That was kind of the point.
Also, your definition of "discrimination" is not the only one:
No, but it's certainly the one that's appropriate for Amazon's actions. The one you provided is not.
Strange how many comments on this post are by anonymous cowards.
I think you just made my head explode whilst pondering the recursion potential.
They never are on separate servers though, or very rarely - so naturally if someone can upload a compromised source tar, they can also upload the appropriate checksum.
1) Wikileaks made Amazon servers a target for DDOS
No, that was the US Government.
Weren't you listening? It was the jester! ;)
2) They aren't gaining a lot from providing the hosting, versus massive costs
Are you really suggesting that denying service to minorities is an acceptable cost saving measure?
Wait, what? I think he's not *suggesting* anything, but rather *saying* that if a client costs significantly more money than it earns a business, that business is within its rights to terminate services to that client. But that was an interesting spin you put on it. In this context, most amazon customers are minorities in that each is just one customer among many others; and in that they most have considerably fewer resources than Amazon does. (That's... um, why they're customers and not doing this themselves...)
3) They lose a lot of goodwill with people who don't agree with Wikileak (especially government folks)
Now popularity is reason enough to discriminate?
You do a fine job of twisting words . You know that amazon also disallows hosting of child porn - I suppose that's pretty discriminatory too. When you discard the emotionally-loaded context you're attempting to build, Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination: "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things."
In this case, perceiving the difference between a customer costing money and reputation -- and then choosing to act by terminating that account.
Let me get this straight. Amazon is doing evil, but it's a solid business decision so we shouldn't hold it against them?
I don't quite follow that.
Nobody said not to hold it against them- only that it makes sense from a financial and PR perspective. If this was the wrong decision to make, then they'll pay the price as people terminate their Amazon service agreements. It's pretty neat, how having competition ensures plenty of options when a business makes the wrong choice.
He choose this to wage a DDoS on? I can think of hundreds of sites better suited for this. How about taking down some known terrorists sites? Maybe the RIAA or MPAA?
There really isn't anywhere that running a DDOS site is a good option. Trying to silence your opponent by yelling louder than he is - no matter how right or wrong he is - just makes you look like a child.
Of course it doesn't block email and malware from communicating -- it's never been intended to. On the other and, what are you doing with malware installed, and allowing your email to d/l content from third party servers without your explicit approval?
Model-view-controller and other multitier architectures are exactly what I was talking about. -snip- But this breaks down when your target platforms don't share a language in which to write step 2.
Sure, but that's stating what I already said above isn't it? In an MVC architecture, there's no way to share code across iOS and BBOS. (It seems like you knew that already, so I'm not sure why you asked ;) On the other hand, with a posix-compliant QNX-based BBOS waiting in the wings, I suspect you'll be able to move your C++ code there as well for future devices.
I actually wasn't aware that you could use C++ to develop for iOS; I had assumed Objective-C was required.
All in all, though, it seems unwise to ignore the smartphone with the largest (or second-largest) market share when determining your target platforms. Even in such cases as this, where you'd need to maintain a separate implementation for the short term.
The simple act of removing all of our money from the banks, and doing so in mass on the same day - December 7th - would put a huge scare in the financial barons.
I, too, look forward to my $100 loaf of bread -- and the more we can do to make it happen faster, the better!
Here's the question: if corruption and tyranny of the ruling class is exposed for all to see, how many people will put down the xbox controller or stop shopping for some idiotic black friday deal long enough to do something about it?
Three.
It was the banking practices of US banks which directly caused the financial crisis, because they mixed up the imaginary, funny-money (bad US consumer debt) with the real money. And, when people discovered the funny-money had no value, the value of the real money tanked because it was now based on the funny money. The US essentially commoditized and exported bankruptcy.
And nobody nationally or internationally suspected a thing right?
The problem was made far worse by the number of investors (including banks) worldwide who turned a blind eye when buying these securities.
But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?
True, though this is also true for Android isn't it? (albeit java-that-isn't-java) Frankly, a lot of problems come up when people try to do direct ports of iOS apps -- it looks and acts like a limited functionality bad port (which too many people attribute to platform shortcomings); without ever taking advantage of the flexible platform integration that RIM offers.
That being said, you did specifically say business logic and not UI. Obviously there's no good answer here - you'd need to maintain two versions because you're on two different platforms. On the other hand, if you fully separate your core business logic out from your UI, you could maintain a shared version between Android and BlackBerry. (On the other hand... if iOS weren't so restrictive, you'd have a JVM available for you there too ;)
The only other path that I'm aware of is to move your business logic out to a server component - not viable in all cases (real time games, for example), but it is a good option in many situations.
Have you looked through the Blackberry API at all? It's pretty unpleasant compared with any of the more modern systems - either iOS, Android, or WP7.
I'm familiar with it (see sig). I don't find it unpleasant to work with, though to be fair I'm also not yet as familiar with the others -- so I've no basis for comparison other than vanilla j2me.
Most of the issues I have are common to all major platforms (except win7, since it's new): new functionality introduced in later SDK versions that is never made available to earlier versions, requiring me to do dual implementations of that functionality (once using the SDK,a nd once substituting for the SDK).
I refuse to accept this - my OS is better than your OS. So there!
Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and whenever you want ;)
Go Equador.
Actually, you probably are. Everyone else is saying "Go Ecuador".
They didn't, so it might be safe to assume this patent actually is the real thing (according to the current legal definition)
I've no doubt that hundreds of software patents are the real thing. That doesn't mean that as a class, they should be valid patents. In that context, the *best* that outcome here is that Microsoft loses -- I4I gets paid and MS has more incentive to push for patent system change. At least in theory. In reality, I suspect that any company with hundreds of millions invested in patents and associated fees will be very unlikely to want to throw that investment away.
The worst I've seen is embarrassing truths aired in public.
It's the embarrassing truths that are worrisome. The one that comes to mind are the various countries pushing for attack against Iran. It may be that Iran realizes it doesn't have the support it thought it did and backs down - that would be spiffy. Alternatively they may accelerate whatever they had in place in order to preempt any such attack.
Those particular files are *exactly* the sort of releases the government least wants and would give spurious 'security' excuses for hiding, and yet they are the ones that most need to be brought to light, and the practices stopped, which would be in the long-term interests of the USA.
Those particular files are the ones I've no objection to seeing released - they're the ones that the public *should* be aware of in order to prevent such actions from happening again.
excuse me, but any country, anyone, engaging in shit like the above, already pre-deserved any cost they are going to pay. people reap, what they saw. the only thing preventing the people in administration from reaping what they sow was that these were being hidden behind secrecy with 'national security' excuses.
Yep - so they should have published that incident. And incidents like it. What about the other 99% of the documents?
The country deserves what it gets? Even when "what it gets" may be setbacks in international relations that damage not only US and its citizens, but can also serve as the spark that sets of far worse than a diplomatic crisis between other nations? The people who supposedly "pre-deserve" are only one party among the many who will pay.
Dumping this data on the world is like that phrase, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Elsewhere you said that "responsible reporting" can't be a concern when dealing with the evil juggernaut that is the US (paraphrased). I say that you've a very narrow view of "responsible reporting"; and an interesting set of double-standards in that it seems to be OK with you that the fallout from this may be far worse among other nations than anything the US did in the last few years.
Had wikileaks provided only information such as what you saw above, that would go a long way towards justifying their actions. What they did, though, only further shows how their lack of accountability also ensures that they have no sense of responsibility.
True. The originally suggested wording is a bit confusing.
While you couldn't offer to delete them (because priv acct might be required) you *could* only enable them after explicit user approval.