According to the court papers, Microsoft is not lying here. Google Apps for Government really doesn't have FISMA certification, even though Google said it did.
According to the papers just filed, neither is Google:
A portion of Google's response:Even so, we did not mislead the court or our customers. Google Apps received a FISMA security authorization from the General Services Administration in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same system with enhanced security controls that go beyond FISMA requirements. As planned we’re working with GSA to continuously update our documentation with these and other additional enhancements.
And the confusion stems from this:
The Justice Department acknowledges that the General Services Administration (GSA) had certified a different Google offering, Google Apps Premier, for its own particular use under FISMA last July. As the DOJ's brief explains, "However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government." Lest there be any doubt about the situation, the brief adds, "To be clear, in the view of the GSA, the agency that certified Google's Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government."
And finally, to clarify, GAfG is a subset of GAP (which does have FISMA certification).
It's a smart-ass reply that is more confusing and less polite then "both, actually".
It's 'thAn "both, actually"' (use a lower case "A" though), and I disagree. It makes perfect sense to me. And all of my friends. But then again, they're decently smart. Even some self admittedly slow people I know would have easily figured it out in just a few seconds.;-)
I suspect you understood it perfectly well also - but that would mean you're trolling.
1. There was for a period of time an anomaly which Google spotted and fixed - but not before a journalist had spotted it themselves.
2. The entire premise of the article is fiction, designed to stir up hate against Google.
Considering what the traditional media think of Google, who's for (2)?
Ah, I see. You read cracked too. Same thing happened here. I'm still trying to clean my ears with an intense treatment of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.
Ya know, I had mod points, and wanted to mod your post, but I couldn't find the "+10 Awesome taste in music" moderation... Up the Irons!!!
... and also things like Pioneer One. It can work, but I think the really big budget movies (which I do like on occasion) would be much more rare. I'm not sure we would have seen LOTR with this model. As special effects technology gets less expensive though, perhaps in the future it's possible.
Really? Look up a little fan movie some friends of mine made. It's called Lord of the Rings: Hunt for Gollum.
And perhaps you may wish to check out our work (just click the link in my sig). We're the first fan film to ever be nominated for a Hugo.
So... let's say we're working on a project that isn't a fan production and put our considerably talented team's muscle behind it, and use our already established (MILLIONS of views each episodes) delivery channels... I think we may just succeed - especially with what we manage to accomplish on a shoestring budget. Oh... and we actually are working on such projects... like Buck Rogers to name only one of a few of them.
It not just can happen. It not just will happen. It's ALREADY happening.
Also PADI certified, since 1981. Man Eating Duck knows what he is talking about. GP, GGP, or GGGP - whoever suggested that there might be problems with a 5 meter dive was talking out his ass.
Ummm, do I really need to point out that this is Slashdot? You and Man Eating Duck are the ones who are wrong, throwing your facts into the conversation! Get with the program!!! On Slashdot, talking out of one's ass is the rule - it's not a suggestion!!! Go take your facts and figures elsewhere!!!
They should rather concentrate on improving the core OS in my opinion. Why would I want to manipulate images or read PDFs with crap software from MS...
My answer would be "who cares, until we actually see the finished or near finished product?"
Keep in mind Thurrott and Co have proven time and again that they are in all probability, simply paid Microsoft shills. No, this isn't trolling. Simply dig up their old articles on other pre-release OS versions from Microsoft, where the shit is so deep that you'd need a bulldozer to wade through it.
Start here and work yourself backwards. That particular "article" is actually pretty "decent" - other than downplaying the fact that there were so many bugs in Vista that it should have been delayed - but Microsoft decided to release it anyway. Surely not a good thing - but that's not the way the article is written.
Do you find it awkward that you need to use like 8 words to effectively communicate what phone you have?
No, I just find it kinda humorous (or did, when I posted it) - as well as differentiating between the phone oft-times referred to as the HTC G2 (the one that is NOT this phone, but an entirely different HTC phone that has come out with other designations as well).
It is both observable and has been repeated in many experiments.
Some of them are not even experiments per se: see antibiotics and bacteria.
Creationists have trouble differentiating between evolution, speciation, abiogenesis, the big bang, and the complete reproductive history of every organism that ever existed. Their religion lumps it all together, so they aren't used to thinking (period)
When somebody at FermiLab tells you that gravity accelerates objects at 9.8 m/s^2 and uses this to calculate the trajectory of a ball very accurately, you believe them, because you can see this, and they can do it over and over and over.
but why? why does it do this? whatever your answer is, i ask "why?" again. we don't have a fundamental answer for "why?"
You are SO correct!!!! I agree 100%!!! And that is why I turn here for the answers to "why"!
And I'll state that my religious leaders are more than happy to accept my questioning of elements of faith, and rationally TELL ME WHAT TO THINK AND BELIEVE.
I may also regard the Earth as flat... reality disagrees. The Protestants can believe whatever the heck they want, but there is NO omnipotent, omniscient god who could be as sick and twisted as the one in the Bible... those are fictions created by Man.
Here's some examples:
Mala 2:3, Numbers 25:4, Job 28:28, Deut 5:9, Hebrews 12:29, Psalms 78:49, Isaiah 13:9, Exodus 15:3, Exodus 35:2, Psalms 137:8-9, Leviticus 20:13, Hosea 13:16... I could go on all day.
Those are all contradictory to other sections of the Bible. Those are all obviously the work of deranged people, and not the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving, caring, forgiving God.
So... how this is related... which set of rules does one pick? That being the case, since "the Churches" (errr... the multiple sects of Chistianity) all seem to interpret the Bible differently (some actually trying to adhere to the sicker, more vile parts - as far as the laws of various lands will allow them), and it's obvious interpretation varies so wildly - and it's still a matter of interpreting HUMAN writing NOT inspired by God (for many sections of the Bible), then that brings us back to the historical knowledge we do have - Jesus tried doing away with the churches - the same types of institutions, that for years, used demon possession and the devil's influence and "witchcraft" as methods of scaring, and/or subjugating and/or killing the populace.
Do you see how it's relevant now? THEY created, through THEIR interpretations, of a book written ENTIRELY by man, and inspired LARGELY by man (and man's own foibles - including some of the worst parts of human nature), a situation where a fictitious "devil possession" became the excuse for committing atrocities - and now THEY whine about the situation? Really? Isn't that absurd?
teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.
Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17
</sarcasm>
How's your open source theology looking now?
Matthew 16:18
Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).
Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.
They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.
OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.
Which is quite odd, when one considers that is EXACTLY what Jesus tried doing away with, including teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God. And that one's temple is their heart. Interesting, huh?
[quote]The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone.[/quote]
The Father in the article admits that the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem? In regards to the demon possessions, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all just untreated severe mental disorders or chemical problems.
I think it's more likely to be a deliberate distraction from the internal problems they are having.
The number of possessions is actually ZERO. I guess that qualifies as "very small". The thinking that people are becoming possessed is simply nonsense that the Vatican is promoting ON the Internet (or promoted on their "behalf" on the Internet) - but it's still nonsense. Part of the problem is that various sects of Christianity promote (in various places, including online) that people can excuse their baser or more vile actions by blaming it on the devil - which leads us right to situations like this.
It's not the Internet that's the problem - it's the church.
Don't use semantics to win an argument. It's standards compliant or it is not.
FireFox and Chrome are NOT standards-compliant. In fact, nobody implements the 4.2 spec completely and without problems.
Correct. But IE9 is still behind them. Only Safari is as far behind Chrome 10, Opera and Firefox 4 as IE9 is. The point is, when it comes to browsers, IE9 is still at the bottom of the pack, along with Safari and the Android Web Browser.
See the point now? IE9 is still at the bottom and not nearly as standards compliant as the other market share leaders.
"And no... IE9 is not yet standards compliant - better, yes - but as good as Chrome or FF (in that department)? No. "
IE9 is as good as Chrome or FF for all practical purposes in regards to standards compliance. It passes ACID3 with the same score as FF4, for example.
"For all practical purposes" is not the same thing as "standards compliant". On more in depth tests, it scored VASTLY better than IE6, a LOT better than IE7, and DECENTLY better than IE8. But still not as good as FF4 and Chrome.
Don't use semantics to win an argument. It's standards compliant or it is not. "For all practical purposes" says "It's not... but it's decent enough". Thus, you really haven't refuted anything I've said - you've just provided your opinion that you think it's good enough.
For your information , they don't make cakes themselves. And by the way IE9 is not less standard compliant than FF4.
Wow and WHOOOSH!!!
Really... it was a joke, which I thought was obvious. Do you really think I'd wanna sit here all day eating cake, or care if they sent them? Or did you really expect I'd think it possible to send millions of web developers cakes, regardless of who actually makes them? Wow, some of you are so dense these last couple days. Nothing personal.
Oh, and btw, from *independent* testing results, not sponsored by Microsoft, and not performed by companies that MS has a stake in, IE9 is less compliant than FF4 (and Chrome 10 and FF3). This was covered a week ago, with a link to a site that compared all versions of each browser. Believe what you want, but they were pretty cut and dry about it. IE9 is a VAST improvement, but still not as good as FF4 and Chrome. NONE of them ended up being perfect. IE9 simply wasn't as good.
And the css div position thing? It's real. Try it some time. Make a compliant page, set up a bunch of divs with and without borders, with and without padding, with and without margins. Then, screencap it or whatever, and count the pixels where each is laid out. You'll find IE9 is wrong in it's math (at least per the standard).
You see... "just a pixel or 3 off" or "it's close enough" or "no one will notice" doesn't cut it for me - that isnt standards compliant... it's "well, it's really close, and a lot better than previous versions" but not standards compliant.
Once again, the IE folk have proven they are the coolest group in Redmond!
Then again, perhaps if they stop making cakes for the Mozilla Team, they can concentrate on making standards compliant browsers... you know, the thing they promise and fail to deliver with each release? And no... IE9 is not yet standards compliant - better, yes - but as good as Chrome or FF (in that department)? No. They still can't get simple things correct like div placement - BIG improvement over IE6 which would place things arbitrarily off screen or on the wrong side of the coordinate axis or who the heck knows where... but things are still a few pixels off. Yeah, "No big deal" perhaps. But it's simple math that people learn in 3rd grade. "50+2=55?" C'mon.
And there are still some CSS font styling/sizing problems - oddly, ones that even occur with using fonts in the MS Web Kit and that come with Windows.
But, they are getting closer... perhaps they should be sending all the web developers out there cakes for all the extra work we've always had to do to make websites work on their browsers?
From the website it just seems like an app that shows the organization's events and explains their points of view. You may not like their points of view but it's pretty harmless. And given the rating it received it's highly unlikely it discusses sexuality at all.
So, there's no need for such an app, since on all these iDevices, people can get that info right from their website? In addition, regardless of it being an app that just does that, would YOU want to support an organization/cult that has harmed so many people? Dig deep and research them. I for one, regardless of what their app does, would be vehemently against doing anything supportive.
YMMV... but I think it this was an app from an organization for black people to teach them the error of their ways (as per the Bible) and that they should be subserviant to their white masters, or to teach women that they are their husband's sex slaves and subserviant (as per the Bible), do you think Apple should allow those apps? This is much the same. All three of those hateful, sick, disturbing things are in the Bible, (condoned - "and even ordered by God" - slavery, and women being 2nd rate citizens who must submit to their husbands whenever their husband demands). There are religious groups in this country who still believe those two - just as Exodus has it's sick beliefs. But... you don't see Apple (or any sane person) supporting enslaving black people, Mexicans or Canadians... just as you don't see Apple or any sane person supporting the sick scenarios against women. Think about it... if one of those radical groups made an events app, do you think Apple would allow it?
So, again, why should Apple allow Exodus to sell/give away an app on the App Store - even if it is only an app that lists the events of Exodus' sick twisted actions?
If the on-iDevice microphone hears you mention Justin Bieber's ass it shows you a pair of tits?
Showing tits to a homosexual man would not get any reaction, or maybe disgust. Ie. it wouldn't work.
As an aside, I don't understand anyways how one could "cure" homosexuality. It's like saying you can cure someone from listening to metal, or from liking steaks. Atleast I know I can somehow just suddenly decide and stop being interested in other girls, no matter how hard I'd try. It's a fact, and at the age of 28 I do quite think I know myself well enough to know that it's not just something anyone can change.
And doesn't the bible anyways tell one must not lie? Isn't it also a form of lying to know that you're homosexual deep inside but try to pose as a heterosexual person, both to yourself and possible partners and outside society? Ergo, wouldn't it be against the bible, too? It's something that has always bothered me. Then again, bible has lots of things that get contradicted by the very same book they're in..
Wow, I have mod-points and was going to mod your comment, but I couldn't find a "+1 I love you, that was awesome!" moderation option.:-)
I went one step farther than just signing the petition, I send the iTunes/App Store a rather long email telling them how disgusted and appalled I am at their decision. I also asked if they wished to be associated with the type of damage that Exodus International has caused in numerous people's lives. I hope they take the email seriously - regardless, I was looking for what response I get from them, since they promise a response to such support emails (and especially since they haven't made any other public statements about this).
Slashdot Mirror
According to the court papers, Microsoft is not lying here. Google Apps for Government really doesn't have FISMA certification, even though Google said it did.
According to the papers just filed, neither is Google:
A portion of Google's response: Even so, we did not mislead the court or our customers. Google Apps received a FISMA security authorization from the General Services Administration in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same system with enhanced security controls that go beyond FISMA requirements. As planned we’re working with GSA to continuously update our documentation with these and other additional enhancements.
And the confusion stems from this:
The Justice Department acknowledges that the General Services Administration (GSA) had certified a different Google offering, Google Apps Premier, for its own particular use under FISMA last July. As the DOJ's brief explains, "However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government." Lest there be any doubt about the situation, the brief adds, "To be clear, in the view of the GSA, the agency that certified Google's Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government."
And finally, to clarify, GAfG is a subset of GAP (which does have FISMA certification).
It's a smart-ass reply that is more confusing and less polite then "both, actually".
It's 'thAn "both, actually"' (use a lower case "A" though), and I disagree. It makes perfect sense to me. And all of my friends. But then again, they're decently smart. Even some self admittedly slow people I know would have easily figured it out in just a few seconds. ;-)
I suspect you understood it perfectly well also - but that would mean you're trolling.
...Which means one of two things:
1. There was for a period of time an anomaly which Google spotted and fixed - but not before a journalist had spotted it themselves. 2. The entire premise of the article is fiction, designed to stir up hate against Google.
Considering what the traditional media think of Google, who's for (2)?
Ooooh! I pick #2!!! What did I win? :-)
Ah, I see. You read cracked too. Same thing happened here. I'm still trying to clean my ears with an intense treatment of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.
Ya know, I had mod points, and wanted to mod your post, but I couldn't find the "+10 Awesome taste in music" moderation... Up the Irons!!!
... and also things like Pioneer One. It can work, but I think the really big budget movies (which I do like on occasion) would be much more rare. I'm not sure we would have seen LOTR with this model. As special effects technology gets less expensive though, perhaps in the future it's possible.
Really? Look up a little fan movie some friends of mine made. It's called Lord of the Rings: Hunt for Gollum.
And perhaps you may wish to check out our work (just click the link in my sig). We're the first fan film to ever be nominated for a Hugo.
So... let's say we're working on a project that isn't a fan production and put our considerably talented team's muscle behind it, and use our already established (MILLIONS of views each episodes) delivery channels... I think we may just succeed - especially with what we manage to accomplish on a shoestring budget. Oh... and we actually are working on such projects... like Buck Rogers to name only one of a few of them.
It not just can happen. It not just will happen. It's ALREADY happening.
Also PADI certified, since 1981. Man Eating Duck knows what he is talking about. GP, GGP, or GGGP - whoever suggested that there might be problems with a 5 meter dive was talking out his ass.
Ummm, do I really need to point out that this is Slashdot? You and Man Eating Duck are the ones who are wrong, throwing your facts into the conversation! Get with the program!!! On Slashdot, talking out of one's ass is the rule - it's not a suggestion!!! Go take your facts and figures elsewhere!!!
They should rather concentrate on improving the core OS in my opinion. Why would I want to manipulate images or read PDFs with crap software from MS...
My answer would be "who cares, until we actually see the finished or near finished product?"
Keep in mind Thurrott and Co have proven time and again that they are in all probability, simply paid Microsoft shills. No, this isn't trolling. Simply dig up their old articles on other pre-release OS versions from Microsoft, where the shit is so deep that you'd need a bulldozer to wade through it.
Start here and work yourself backwards. That particular "article" is actually pretty "decent" - other than downplaying the fact that there were so many bugs in Vista that it should have been delayed - but Microsoft decided to release it anyway. Surely not a good thing - but that's not the way the article is written.
Do you find it awkward that you need to use like 8 words to effectively communicate what phone you have?
No, I just find it kinda humorous (or did, when I posted it) - as well as differentiating between the phone oft-times referred to as the HTC G2 (the one that is NOT this phone, but an entirely different HTC phone that has come out with other designations as well).
and for my Android Phone (T-Mobile G2 with Google by HTC). Much to the dismay of my battery...
You can be religious and think ID is a bunch of hooey. This isn't an either-or proposition.
...
It's a big deal to discover that something you thought was infallible has errors. Then what? If it has one big error , how many more are there?
Woah! Gimme time! I'm still counting...
It is both observable and has been repeated in many experiments.
Some of them are not even experiments per se: see antibiotics and bacteria.
Creationists have trouble differentiating between evolution, speciation, abiogenesis, the big bang, and the complete reproductive history of every organism that ever existed. Their religion lumps it all together, so they aren't used to thinking (period)
Fixed that for you. ;-)
When somebody at FermiLab tells you that gravity accelerates objects at 9.8 m/s^2 and uses this to calculate the trajectory of a ball very accurately, you believe them, because you can see this, and they can do it over and over and over.
but why? why does it do this? whatever your answer is, i ask "why?" again. we don't have a fundamental answer for "why?"
You are SO correct!!!! I agree 100%!!! And that is why I turn here for the answers to "why"!
And I'll state that my religious leaders are more than happy to accept my questioning of elements of faith, and rationally TELL ME WHAT TO THINK AND BELIEVE.
Fixed that for you. You know it's true...
With luck, it will look like one of these designs (with the FTL engines hopefully added on soon after)
Fusion Engines on a starship
I may also regard the Earth as flat... reality disagrees. The Protestants can believe whatever the heck they want, but there is NO omnipotent, omniscient god who could be as sick and twisted as the one in the Bible... those are fictions created by Man.
Here's some examples:
Mala 2:3, Numbers 25:4, Job 28:28, Deut 5:9, Hebrews 12:29, Psalms 78:49, Isaiah 13:9, Exodus 15:3, Exodus 35:2, Psalms 137:8-9, Leviticus 20:13, Hosea 13:16... I could go on all day.
Those are all contradictory to other sections of the Bible. Those are all obviously the work of deranged people, and not the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving, caring, forgiving God.
So... how this is related... which set of rules does one pick? That being the case, since "the Churches" (errr... the multiple sects of Chistianity) all seem to interpret the Bible differently (some actually trying to adhere to the sicker, more vile parts - as far as the laws of various lands will allow them), and it's obvious interpretation varies so wildly - and it's still a matter of interpreting HUMAN writing NOT inspired by God (for many sections of the Bible), then that brings us back to the historical knowledge we do have - Jesus tried doing away with the churches - the same types of institutions, that for years, used demon possession and the devil's influence and "witchcraft" as methods of scaring, and/or subjugating and/or killing the populace.
Do you see how it's relevant now? THEY created, through THEIR interpretations, of a book written ENTIRELY by man, and inspired LARGELY by man (and man's own foibles - including some of the worst parts of human nature), a situation where a fictitious "devil possession" became the excuse for committing atrocities - and now THEY whine about the situation? Really? Isn't that absurd?
teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.
Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17 </sarcasm>
How's your open source theology looking now? Matthew 16:18
Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).
Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.
They're not protestants. You don't read about religion. That's not your role. You go to church and get information from a priest, who has a greater connection to God through the hierarchy of the Church, which has at it's head God, and right below that the pope, with whom he has conversations daily.
OK, it's a pre-Vatican-two sort of world-view, but it's historically that of the Catholic church.
Which is quite odd, when one considers that is EXACTLY what Jesus tried doing away with, including teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God. And that one's temple is their heart. Interesting, huh?
[quote]The Vatican stated fact: you have more "Satanists" because there is more information about it available to everyone.[/quote]
The Father in the article admits that the number of "posessions" is very small, so is it really worth convening 60 church officials for a week to talk about what he considered to be a small problem? In regards to the demon possessions, I wouldn't be surprised if they're all just untreated severe mental disorders or chemical problems.
I think it's more likely to be a deliberate distraction from the internal problems they are having.
The number of possessions is actually ZERO. I guess that qualifies as "very small". The thinking that people are becoming possessed is simply nonsense that the Vatican is promoting ON the Internet (or promoted on their "behalf" on the Internet) - but it's still nonsense. Part of the problem is that various sects of Christianity promote (in various places, including online) that people can excuse their baser or more vile actions by blaming it on the devil - which leads us right to situations like this.
It's not the Internet that's the problem - it's the church.
Make cities denser, cheaper, more accessible to families with better schools & playgrounds, etc.
You can't. It's a size issue. this idea of everyone living in a city is absurd.
Bullshit. The only problem is that cities tend to have *gasp* BLACK PEOPLE in them, and we simply can't have THAT!
No, the only problem is that cities generally tend to have people like YOU in them. And sadly, it's not legal to euthanize you... yet.
Don't use semantics to win an argument. It's standards compliant or it is not.
FireFox and Chrome are NOT standards-compliant. In fact, nobody implements the 4.2 spec completely and without problems.
Correct. But IE9 is still behind them. Only Safari is as far behind Chrome 10, Opera and Firefox 4 as IE9 is. The point is, when it comes to browsers, IE9 is still at the bottom of the pack, along with Safari and the Android Web Browser.
See the point now? IE9 is still at the bottom and not nearly as standards compliant as the other market share leaders.
"And no... IE9 is not yet standards compliant - better, yes - but as good as Chrome or FF (in that department)? No. "
IE9 is as good as Chrome or FF for all practical purposes in regards to standards compliance. It passes ACID3 with the same score as FF4, for example.
"For all practical purposes" is not the same thing as "standards compliant". On more in depth tests, it scored VASTLY better than IE6, a LOT better than IE7, and DECENTLY better than IE8. But still not as good as FF4 and Chrome.
Don't use semantics to win an argument. It's standards compliant or it is not. "For all practical purposes" says "It's not... but it's decent enough". Thus, you really haven't refuted anything I've said - you've just provided your opinion that you think it's good enough.
For your information , they don't make cakes themselves. And by the way IE9 is not less standard compliant than FF4.
Wow and WHOOOSH!!!
Really... it was a joke, which I thought was obvious. Do you really think I'd wanna sit here all day eating cake, or care if they sent them? Or did you really expect I'd think it possible to send millions of web developers cakes, regardless of who actually makes them? Wow, some of you are so dense these last couple days. Nothing personal.
Oh, and btw, from *independent* testing results, not sponsored by Microsoft, and not performed by companies that MS has a stake in, IE9 is less compliant than FF4 (and Chrome 10 and FF3). This was covered a week ago, with a link to a site that compared all versions of each browser. Believe what you want, but they were pretty cut and dry about it. IE9 is a VAST improvement, but still not as good as FF4 and Chrome. NONE of them ended up being perfect. IE9 simply wasn't as good.
And the css div position thing? It's real. Try it some time. Make a compliant page, set up a bunch of divs with and without borders, with and without padding, with and without margins. Then, screencap it or whatever, and count the pixels where each is laid out. You'll find IE9 is wrong in it's math (at least per the standard).
You see... "just a pixel or 3 off" or "it's close enough" or "no one will notice" doesn't cut it for me - that isnt standards compliant... it's "well, it's really close, and a lot better than previous versions" but not standards compliant.
Once again, the IE folk have proven they are the coolest group in Redmond!
Then again, perhaps if they stop making cakes for the Mozilla Team, they can concentrate on making standards compliant browsers... you know, the thing they promise and fail to deliver with each release? And no... IE9 is not yet standards compliant - better, yes - but as good as Chrome or FF (in that department)? No. They still can't get simple things correct like div placement - BIG improvement over IE6 which would place things arbitrarily off screen or on the wrong side of the coordinate axis or who the heck knows where... but things are still a few pixels off. Yeah, "No big deal" perhaps. But it's simple math that people learn in 3rd grade. "50+2=55?" C'mon.
And there are still some CSS font styling/sizing problems - oddly, ones that even occur with using fonts in the MS Web Kit and that come with Windows.
But, they are getting closer... perhaps they should be sending all the web developers out there cakes for all the extra work we've always had to do to make websites work on their browsers?
From the website it just seems like an app that shows the organization's events and explains their points of view. You may not like their points of view but it's pretty harmless. And given the rating it received it's highly unlikely it discusses sexuality at all.
So, there's no need for such an app, since on all these iDevices, people can get that info right from their website? In addition, regardless of it being an app that just does that, would YOU want to support an organization/cult that has harmed so many people? Dig deep and research them. I for one, regardless of what their app does, would be vehemently against doing anything supportive.
YMMV... but I think it this was an app from an organization for black people to teach them the error of their ways (as per the Bible) and that they should be subserviant to their white masters, or to teach women that they are their husband's sex slaves and subserviant (as per the Bible), do you think Apple should allow those apps? This is much the same. All three of those hateful, sick, disturbing things are in the Bible, (condoned - "and even ordered by God" - slavery, and women being 2nd rate citizens who must submit to their husbands whenever their husband demands). There are religious groups in this country who still believe those two - just as Exodus has it's sick beliefs. But... you don't see Apple (or any sane person) supporting enslaving black people, Mexicans or Canadians... just as you don't see Apple or any sane person supporting the sick scenarios against women. Think about it... if one of those radical groups made an events app, do you think Apple would allow it?
So, again, why should Apple allow Exodus to sell/give away an app on the App Store - even if it is only an app that lists the events of Exodus' sick twisted actions?
If the on-iDevice microphone hears you mention Justin Bieber's ass it shows you a pair of tits?
Showing tits to a homosexual man would not get any reaction, or maybe disgust. Ie. it wouldn't work.
As an aside, I don't understand anyways how one could "cure" homosexuality. It's like saying you can cure someone from listening to metal, or from liking steaks. Atleast I know I can somehow just suddenly decide and stop being interested in other girls, no matter how hard I'd try. It's a fact, and at the age of 28 I do quite think I know myself well enough to know that it's not just something anyone can change.
And doesn't the bible anyways tell one must not lie? Isn't it also a form of lying to know that you're homosexual deep inside but try to pose as a heterosexual person, both to yourself and possible partners and outside society? Ergo, wouldn't it be against the bible, too? It's something that has always bothered me. Then again, bible has lots of things that get contradicted by the very same book they're in..
Wow, I have mod-points and was going to mod your comment, but I couldn't find a "+1 I love you, that was awesome!" moderation option. :-)
I went one step farther than just signing the petition, I send the iTunes/App Store a rather long email telling them how disgusted and appalled I am at their decision. I also asked if they wished to be associated with the type of damage that Exodus International has caused in numerous people's lives. I hope they take the email seriously - regardless, I was looking for what response I get from them, since they promise a response to such support emails (and especially since they haven't made any other public statements about this).