IANAL But destroying a house may not be the same as installing software. As soon as they install something, then in court how are they actually going to prove they didn't also install whatever "evil evidence" they found against you at the same time. I'm sure with a warrant they can pull off all the data they want, but putting data onto a smartphone (which is all a application is) would be very akin to planting evidence I would guess.
To be honest perhaps it's just that so far the digital offerings suck. I love the -idea- of a digital magazine. Wired seemed like a perfect candidate as well. Except instead of being a nice native, responsive, and fluid iPad app with spiffy digital only features to justify the high cost per issue vs. the print version, it was instead (afaict) a super slow PDF scan of the articles with a few little crappy low res videos tossed in. Virgin's "Project" is getting closer. But again, whoever decided on how navigation would be handled failed miserably in my opinion. The only thing I can come up with is that whoever they have in charge of the design of the digital versions at all these companies has never actually used an iPad themselves and is simply dictating off how things should be done, without ever picking up a device.
Honestly, this is no different than any company is. If you think Red Hat, or Microsoft, or Oracle, or any major tech company is going to treat the customer paying the least, exactly identically to the customer paying the most, then you're quite deluded. Hell, this extends beyond the tech industry too. You think your average run of the mill restaurant treats the customer who's there on their first, and possibly only visit the same as the customer who comes in every single day? Sure a good restaurant is going to be nice the first timer and give good service. But the regular customer is getting better treatment and perks for the money they spend there. Vegas is built off that concept practically. So yes, you too can pay the extra bit of money ($200 above and beyond the normal price of $99 and you need a company in the first place... otherwise what's your issue, pay your $99, or jailbreak your phone, and move on with life) and get the toolset for installing what you want on yours and your employees iOS devices.
But if you think this is a Apple only thing, then I'd love to see an example of a company anywhere in the world that doesn't give perks in some fashion to it's most valuable customers.
Apple may lock it down for the average user, but not for ENTERPRISE. Who within some minor boundaries (No using the enterprise program to build your own app store to sell to others, and no using it to write software that does it's best to harm the cell phone network) are free to develop and distribute within their business whatever they'd like.
Till you pulled off the road... and found your phone STILL blocked by all the vehicles passing by. Not to mention preventing passengers from making calls. Plus at least around here the police and paramedics also have and use cell phones constantly for things. While their vehicles obviously wouldn't be equipped with jammers, they'd find their signals STILL being jammed by cars passing by.
The reality is what they need to do is do PROPER drivers testing again. That's why there's so many horrible drivers on the road now. They'll license anybody. I was completely shocked to find out that where I live now they perform the drivers test on a -closed- course with no other traffic. Certainly explains why no one out here knows what to do at a four way stop with other traffic. Where I come from and where I got my license originally I had to drive on real streets, with real traffic, and passed or failed based on how I performed in that very busy traffic area.
Exactly! My household did the same. Got absolutely sick of paying their monthly fees and then their box "rentals", just to watch commercials. So we told them to shove it. A year now the household hasn't noticed. If something is on Hulu or Netflix we'll watch it. If it's not... *shrug*, if they want our eyes watching their content, then it's up to them to make it available to us. If they don't want to, it's not our loss, there's not a lick of it we can't live without. Plus it means we have complete control over what our 3 year old watches and don't end up with her being bombarded with ads constantly for toys and crap she doesn't need.
I have no problems paying for services, but you have to provide a service! If you want to show me ads, then charge the advertiser not me.
My wife and I have been watching Caprica. The biggest issue I was finding with it though wasn't knowing the ending, but seeing no realistic way to tie Caprica's story into BSG. The connections just weren't there, and Caprica would have been better off standing on it's own as a sci-fi than the minor and lame attempts to connect the shows (Like having Bill Adama as a boy in the show at all).
If they spent that much on the phone.. and then can't afford the $1 app, then there IS a budgeting issue. Obviously they should have spent their money on a cheaper phone. Or god forbid do what I had to do as a child, and wait until the next time I actually had the money, which meant saving up.
Which only occurred after you didn't return it for a week! Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie forever?
Sure, I mean Netflix does. As long as you're paying your monthly fee you can hold on to it forever. This is a silly use of money for the customer, but can be quite convenient. For instance a couple years ago we bought a house and during the moving and everything else that comes with that we had a Netflix movie we didn't have time to watch for at least 3 months. Netflix didn't hassle us, charge us extra, or anything else. We simply just didn't receive the next item on our queue. This also happens regularly as a result of our young child. My wife and I will get movies from our queue that aren't child friendly, but that's okay, we can quite easily let it sit there on the shelf until we're able to arrange a night for Grandma to watch the tike. Without having to worry that we'll suddenly be charged EXTRA because we didn't schedule our entire life around some companies idea of when we should drop by for a visit.
And this is why I don't get regular "junk" delivery from UPS or FedEx. Since they only deliver "special" priority items and at a much higher cost than the pittance USPS charges bulk mailers we don't get a dozen pieces of trash dropped on our doorsteps by UPS every week. While it's not uncommon to receive that or more at a house mailbox every week (Seriously, we use a P.O. box for our real mails, our house STILL gets at least a dozen mails to people who don't and never have lived at our house or to Current Resident every single week).
So UPS and FedEx not being allowed to do normal mail is a bad thing how?
After all, I'd say probably %80 of what I "watch" when at home, I actually just turn on and listen to. The exceptions are about half foreign films in languages I'm not fluent in, so I have to read the subtitles, or they're films I'm watching in part -for- the visuals. On the latter video quality is extremely important and those tend to be the films that our household actually does buy the blu-ray on (The BBC's Planet Earth collection are amazing for instance). The rest we're just as content to stream from Netflix/Hulu/whatever as any other way of watching.
Ironically, we have a existing example in history using pretty much the same companies that are involved in ISP's. Back in the day there was a single phone monopoly in this country and the government pretty much let them do their thing. That huge monopoly owned every piece of the phone system, including the handset -in your house-. It also meant there was absolutely zero competition. As such you paid the phone company for EVERYTHING. Calling to another town? That costs. Calling another state? Boom, even higher prices!
Time passed, that monopoly got themselves broken up, and amongst other things we got some FCC controls in that formed competitors. Now WE owned our phones. In the process phone technologies leapt forward and the costs to use them tanked such that I can now call my father in Europe for pennies per minute instead of dollars per minute, and calling anywhere in the country? Just part of the basic package.
Now slowly but surely what was that monopoly has re-merged and re-formed into a couple of huge companies, and since they lost control of the phone, now they want control over your Internet. But as history has shown that is an incredibly bad and expensive idea for the consumer. That is why for all intents and purposes in most areas, you only have ONE choice for high speed Internet (if you even have one, I once lived 50 feet from fiber bundles from every major telecom, and about 150 yards from the central office for the area.... Couldn't get even basic high speed internet there. Why? The telecom and the owners of the apartment complex were at odds over a local office building both were trying to buy, so the telecom simply refused to add the equipment needed to provide DSL to that complex.) So SOMEONE has to control these telecoms and force competition on them. Look at how often local cities and townships have tried to install Internet access for their town and have had it blocked by a telecom in the courts. This SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. If it -was- a free market these companies would HAVE to compete. Communications though are NOT a free market. Above and beyond the expense of trying to start a telecom from the ground up there are simply too many under-the-table agreements in place to work around. That is why we need the FCC to be able to have the power to enforce net neutrality onto these companies. Because unlike so many things (What device in my house I watch a legally purchased DVD on?) that the government should NOT be involved with, communications like power, water, roadways, etc... are exactly WHY we have governments in the first place. These things need to be available effectively %100 of the time.
Ideally the backbone providers should be exactly that. Backbone providers. They should provide a connection (wired, or wireless, think of your cell phone here too) that carries data. They really shouldn't know, nor care what that data is. It certainly shouldn't effect the price! Others (you, your mom, a company aiming to be a local ISP, Google, Apple, Slashdot, whoever) should simply be able to buy a connection and pay to send their data across. This may mean it's a business providing a web site, your connection to access said website, or your local ISP to provide services, such as e-mail, web space, or whatnot. Now obviously the backbone providers themselves won't run fiber straight to your doorstep, but that's not an issue. Because local companies (or global companies, or whoever) could buy the bandwidth from the up stream provider and split it up for lower groups. Now in theory this IS how the Internet works, but the net neutrality fight is about the fact that those backbone providers want to provide all the content as well, and want to charge MORE to carry data that isn't THEIR content. Now it's exactly that attitude that caused companies like AOL to fail, trying to put their personal content at the forefront and prevent access to others content. It's why up until the iPhone (Love it or hate it, it -did- change cellular controls in the US) you couldn't get a
Then those people need to learn to manage their money better, and probably should go get a part time job instead of spending their time playing video games they couldn't afford to buy.
I tend to play mostly single player games, outside of the specific genres such as MMO's. But I don't tend to by competitive type multiplayer games (FPS's and such) anymore at all. Now that I've got kids and work and all the rest of that "real life" stuff, as do most of my friends, it's near impossible to schedule time for those kinds of games, and as others have said playing random people on the Internet generally means running into just a lot of asshats. What I would -love- though is more games with really good co-op. Games that I can play -with- my wife, kids, or friends tend to quickly find room on the shelf. Not surprisingly this is someplace that Nintendo -still- shines compared to the other console manufactures. And outside of MMO's there seem to be no decent co-op games anymore on computers.
The ironic thing is, they can take care of the trolls on the forums anyway. After all Blizzard -does- know which account a post is tied to. The rest of the player base doesn't NEED to know. If someone posts a particular immature or rude post the appropriate thing for the moderators at Blizzard to do is to ban the account. Not 3 day suspensions. Not second and third chances. Ban the account completely. The rest of the player base doesn't need to know the troll's real name for Blizzard to have a zero strikes policy on -THEIR- forums. Straight up ban enough accounts and people will settle down and take the trolling elsewhere. Especially since in Blizzard's case it costs real money to start another account to post with, and even those could probably be prevented easily enough with a bit of work on Blizzard's part without having to give private information out to the player base.
Permission? For what? Hulu is -owned- by the copyright holders! It is a joint venture between some of the largest production companies in the business. They produce the shows, charge the advertisers millions to fund it on one end for TV (because you the VIEWER, in theory, can receive TV for free over the air in exchange for your eyeballs seeing ads), then are putting it on Hulu and charging more advertisers money to show it to more people or you again. Now they want to also charge you directly for watching it, while still showing the ads.
Sorry, but I'd rather put the $10 towards Netflix's streaming which provides no ads, or if I absolutely feel I must watch a particular show, I can spend -less- than $10 a month (given the amount of TV I actually watch) buying those episodes from something like iTunes and watch it ad free. And that's just for people like me who like being reasonably legal about things.
But that's the thing, Apple -didn't- ditch OS X. While yes the highest level UI code requires changes, and most importantly -thought- when switching to the touch based UI's, but the code, being objective-c, and using almost all the same, or extremely similar api's to desktop OS X is -very- portable between the two platforms. If anything the main difference is simply that iOS doesn't have a lot of the buildup from years and years.
I had a similar issue when I was a child. A recurring nightmare though instead of wetting the bed. I'd know I was dreaming, but I wouldn't be able to wake up. I finally taught myself to instead change the dream however I liked, and in the process that taught me how to wake up. Since then though I've had the same trouble, insomnia and when I do get to sleep invariably the slightest thing will wake me up. There's been more than once I've thought I'd rather just have the stupid dream again, LOL
Where's the option for "I support Apple not because I agree with their acceptance policies but because I honestly don't want Adobe's crapware anywhere near my phone!" After all, unlike my desktop where I can easily -remove- Flash or block it with browser plugins, if Flash is on my phone then they better make sure I can remove it!
But that isn't true. If the written security policy states that that person, even if it is -your boss- isn't to have the password. Then that person doesn't get the password, no matter how many times they ask. Written policies exist to lay down the foundation and rules.
I've been in similar situations back when I was working as a admin. We once had a executive VP demanding we give the password to a machine to someone not authorized to have it (And no, the VP did NOT have authorization or power to change that policy, he was NOT in charge of security). He threatened to fire us. We told him to go ahead, but that the only people who got the password were our replacements or other authorized individuals. He DID have the power to fire us. But that STILL didn't give him the power to demand that password, or that the security policy be changed.
Companies, and I'd imagine city governments too, have policies and chains of commands on all sorts of things. These things are usually written down somewhere so as to be enforceable. And THOSE are the things that matter. I don't remember ever working as a admin where my immediate supervisor had a root password to anything or his boss. But the good ones all knew that it wasn't their job to know those things, they paid me to keep those secure from people who asked. Even if that meant some pip-squeak with a highly placed friend.
Model: The current time. Controller: Converts the model into a "bitmap" display of a clock, this is entirely portable because it's just empty memory View: Blits said bitmap to the screen. This piece has always varied between OS's and platforms and is something that Apple's own documentation says will need changes between iPhone OS and MacOS X. Just as it would need changes between Qt and GTK. Or X11 and Windows. There's been plenty of abstraction layers build over the years to handle this piece, but they handle it by presenting a single high level layer and handling all the low level differences internally. What the article is about, is that surprise surprise, those low level layers for blitting are different between 2 different (Even if similar) platforms.
While I realize that, it does not change the fact that it DOES NOT give you the right to pirate. See, here's the thing, talk to everyone you know about the DRM. Get the word out. Don't spend your money and get the people you know to not spend their money on content locked down like that. But stealing it? As many a person points out, that just tells these execs that the -content- is interesting to you, if they could just figure out how to lock it down right. Yes, they're morons. Yes, they're wrong. But the -only- thing that gets into these peoples skulls are the bottom line. If that means running companies like Ubisoft out of business, DO IT!. But that does -not- involve stealing their product. Have the balls to tell yourself that you disagree with the company and that you don't need their product, in -any- way. Anything else is just you trying to justify why you deserve and are entitled to their product for free.
There's a reason Apple preaches up and down about a MVC paradigm when working with Objective-C and Cocoa. It -does- make this kind of port much simpler. If the code was divided up properly in the first place, then the Model and the Controller parts would be basically just a recompile for the iPhone from MacOS X. The view would have to be redone, but as far as MacOS X -> iPhone goes that should be almost entirely done in Interface Builder.
Now granted the app in question is a very old app. But by virtue of that, given that it displays a UI, that's going to cause more work. But as someone above said, "It's like bitching against linux when trying to build your Qt code against gtk". The VIEW portion of the app is being done for different devices, and AppKit isn't exactly lean enough for embedded programming.
So all I got out of the article is that the guy maintains an old messy code base, which he usually has to fork to port to new platforms but for some weird reason he thought because the -kernel- and low level api's are the same between these two platforms, that it would just compile and run...
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL But destroying a house may not be the same as installing software. As soon as they install something, then in court how are they actually going to prove they didn't also install whatever "evil evidence" they found against you at the same time. I'm sure with a warrant they can pull off all the data they want, but putting data onto a smartphone (which is all a application is) would be very akin to planting evidence I would guess.
To be honest perhaps it's just that so far the digital offerings suck. I love the -idea- of a digital magazine. Wired seemed like a perfect candidate as well. Except instead of being a nice native, responsive, and fluid iPad app with spiffy digital only features to justify the high cost per issue vs. the print version, it was instead (afaict) a super slow PDF scan of the articles with a few little crappy low res videos tossed in. Virgin's "Project" is getting closer. But again, whoever decided on how navigation would be handled failed miserably in my opinion. The only thing I can come up with is that whoever they have in charge of the design of the digital versions at all these companies has never actually used an iPad themselves and is simply dictating off how things should be done, without ever picking up a device.
Honestly, this is no different than any company is. If you think Red Hat, or Microsoft, or Oracle, or any major tech company is going to treat the customer paying the least, exactly identically to the customer paying the most, then you're quite deluded. Hell, this extends beyond the tech industry too. You think your average run of the mill restaurant treats the customer who's there on their first, and possibly only visit the same as the customer who comes in every single day? Sure a good restaurant is going to be nice the first timer and give good service. But the regular customer is getting better treatment and perks for the money they spend there. Vegas is built off that concept practically. So yes, you too can pay the extra bit of money ($200 above and beyond the normal price of $99 and you need a company in the first place... otherwise what's your issue, pay your $99, or jailbreak your phone, and move on with life) and get the toolset for installing what you want on yours and your employees iOS devices.
But if you think this is a Apple only thing, then I'd love to see an example of a company anywhere in the world that doesn't give perks in some fashion to it's most valuable customers.
Apple may lock it down for the average user, but not for ENTERPRISE. Who within some minor boundaries (No using the enterprise program to build your own app store to sell to others, and no using it to write software that does it's best to harm the cell phone network) are free to develop and distribute within their business whatever they'd like.
Till you pulled off the road... and found your phone STILL blocked by all the vehicles passing by. Not to mention preventing passengers from making calls. Plus at least around here the police and paramedics also have and use cell phones constantly for things. While their vehicles obviously wouldn't be equipped with jammers, they'd find their signals STILL being jammed by cars passing by.
The reality is what they need to do is do PROPER drivers testing again. That's why there's so many horrible drivers on the road now. They'll license anybody. I was completely shocked to find out that where I live now they perform the drivers test on a -closed- course with no other traffic. Certainly explains why no one out here knows what to do at a four way stop with other traffic. Where I come from and where I got my license originally I had to drive on real streets, with real traffic, and passed or failed based on how I performed in that very busy traffic area.
Exactly! My household did the same. Got absolutely sick of paying their monthly fees and then their box "rentals", just to watch commercials. So we told them to shove it. A year now the household hasn't noticed. If something is on Hulu or Netflix we'll watch it. If it's not... *shrug*, if they want our eyes watching their content, then it's up to them to make it available to us. If they don't want to, it's not our loss, there's not a lick of it we can't live without. Plus it means we have complete control over what our 3 year old watches and don't end up with her being bombarded with ads constantly for toys and crap she doesn't need.
I have no problems paying for services, but you have to provide a service! If you want to show me ads, then charge the advertiser not me.
My wife and I have been watching Caprica. The biggest issue I was finding with it though wasn't knowing the ending, but seeing no realistic way to tie Caprica's story into BSG.
The connections just weren't there, and Caprica would have been better off standing on it's own as a sci-fi than the minor and lame attempts to connect the shows (Like having Bill Adama as a boy in the show at all).
If they spent that much on the phone.. and then can't afford the $1 app, then there IS a budgeting issue. Obviously they should have spent their money on a cheaper phone. Or god forbid do what I had to do as a child, and wait until the next time I actually had the money, which meant saving up.
Which only occurred after you didn't return it for a week! Did you think they were just going to let you keep the movie forever?
Sure, I mean Netflix does. As long as you're paying your monthly fee you can hold on to it forever. This is a silly use of money for the customer, but can be quite convenient. For instance a couple years ago we bought a house and during the moving and everything else that comes with that we had a Netflix movie we didn't have time to watch for at least 3 months. Netflix didn't hassle us, charge us extra, or anything else. We simply just didn't receive the next item on our queue. This also happens regularly as a result of our young child. My wife and I will get movies from our queue that aren't child friendly, but that's okay, we can quite easily let it sit there on the shelf until we're able to arrange a night for Grandma to watch the tike. Without having to worry that we'll suddenly be charged EXTRA because we didn't schedule our entire life around some companies idea of when we should drop by for a visit.
And this is why I don't get regular "junk" delivery from UPS or FedEx. Since they only deliver "special" priority items and at a much higher cost than the pittance USPS charges bulk mailers we don't get a dozen pieces of trash dropped on our doorsteps by UPS every week. While it's not uncommon to receive that or more at a house mailbox every week (Seriously, we use a P.O. box for our real mails, our house STILL gets at least a dozen mails to people who don't and never have lived at our house or to Current Resident every single week).
So UPS and FedEx not being allowed to do normal mail is a bad thing how?
After all, I'd say probably %80 of what I "watch" when at home, I actually just turn on and listen to. The exceptions are about half foreign films in languages I'm not fluent in, so I have to read the subtitles, or they're films I'm watching in part -for- the visuals. On the latter video quality is extremely important and those tend to be the films that our household actually does buy the blu-ray on (The BBC's Planet Earth collection are amazing for instance). The rest we're just as content to stream from Netflix/Hulu/whatever as any other way of watching.
Ironically, we have a existing example in history using pretty much the same companies that are involved in ISP's. Back in the day there was a single phone monopoly in this country and the government pretty much let them do their thing. That huge monopoly owned every piece of the phone system, including the handset -in your house-. It also meant there was absolutely zero competition. As such you paid the phone company for EVERYTHING. Calling to another town? That costs. Calling another state? Boom, even higher prices!
Time passed, that monopoly got themselves broken up, and amongst other things we got some FCC controls in that formed competitors. Now WE owned our phones. In the process phone technologies leapt forward and the costs to use them tanked such that I can now call my father in Europe for pennies per minute instead of dollars per minute, and calling anywhere in the country? Just part of the basic package.
Now slowly but surely what was that monopoly has re-merged and re-formed into a couple of huge companies, and since they lost control of the phone, now they want control over your Internet. But as history has shown that is an incredibly bad and expensive idea for the consumer. That is why for all intents and purposes in most areas, you only have ONE choice for high speed Internet (if you even have one, I once lived 50 feet from fiber bundles from every major telecom, and about 150 yards from the central office for the area.... Couldn't get even basic high speed internet there. Why? The telecom and the owners of the apartment complex were at odds over a local office building both were trying to buy, so the telecom simply refused to add the equipment needed to provide DSL to that complex.) So SOMEONE has to control these telecoms and force competition on them. Look at how often local cities and townships have tried to install Internet access for their town and have had it blocked by a telecom in the courts. This SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. If it -was- a free market these companies would HAVE to compete. Communications though are NOT a free market. Above and beyond the expense of trying to start a telecom from the ground up there are simply too many under-the-table agreements in place to work around. That is why we need the FCC to be able to have the power to enforce net neutrality onto these companies. Because unlike so many things (What device in my house I watch a legally purchased DVD on?) that the government should NOT be involved with, communications like power, water, roadways, etc... are exactly WHY we have governments in the first place. These things need to be available effectively %100 of the time.
Ideally the backbone providers should be exactly that. Backbone providers. They should provide a connection (wired, or wireless, think of your cell phone here too) that carries data. They really shouldn't know, nor care what that data is. It certainly shouldn't effect the price! Others (you, your mom, a company aiming to be a local ISP, Google, Apple, Slashdot, whoever) should simply be able to buy a connection and pay to send their data across. This may mean it's a business providing a web site, your connection to access said website, or your local ISP to provide services, such as e-mail, web space, or whatnot. Now obviously the backbone providers themselves won't run fiber straight to your doorstep, but that's not an issue. Because local companies (or global companies, or whoever) could buy the bandwidth from the up stream provider and split it up for lower groups. Now in theory this IS how the Internet works, but the net neutrality fight is about the fact that those backbone providers want to provide all the content as well, and want to charge MORE to carry data that isn't THEIR content. Now it's exactly that attitude that caused companies like AOL to fail, trying to put their personal content at the forefront and prevent access to others content. It's why up until the iPhone (Love it or hate it, it -did- change cellular controls in the US) you couldn't get a
Then those people need to learn to manage their money better, and probably should go get a part time job instead of spending their time playing video games they couldn't afford to buy.
I tend to play mostly single player games, outside of the specific genres such as MMO's. But I don't tend to by competitive type multiplayer games (FPS's and such) anymore at all. Now that I've got kids and work and all the rest of that "real life" stuff, as do most of my friends, it's near impossible to schedule time for those kinds of games, and as others have said playing random people on the Internet generally means running into just a lot of asshats. What I would -love- though is more games with really good co-op. Games that I can play -with- my wife, kids, or friends tend to quickly find room on the shelf. Not surprisingly this is someplace that Nintendo -still- shines compared to the other console manufactures. And outside of MMO's there seem to be no decent co-op games anymore on computers.
And my current plans are to strip the case and stick a updated system in.
The ironic thing is, they can take care of the trolls on the forums anyway. After all Blizzard -does- know which account a post is tied to. The rest of the player base doesn't NEED to know. If someone posts a particular immature or rude post the appropriate thing for the moderators at Blizzard to do is to ban the account. Not 3 day suspensions. Not second and third chances. Ban the account completely. The rest of the player base doesn't need to know the troll's real name for Blizzard to have a zero strikes policy on -THEIR- forums. Straight up ban enough accounts and people will settle down and take the trolling elsewhere. Especially since in Blizzard's case it costs real money to start another account to post with, and even those could probably be prevented easily enough with a bit of work on Blizzard's part without having to give private information out to the player base.
Permission? For what? Hulu is -owned- by the copyright holders! It is a joint venture between some of the largest production companies in the business. They produce the shows, charge the advertisers millions to fund it on one end for TV (because you the VIEWER, in theory, can receive TV for free over the air in exchange for your eyeballs seeing ads), then are putting it on Hulu and charging more advertisers money to show it to more people or you again. Now they want to also charge you directly for watching it, while still showing the ads.
Sorry, but I'd rather put the $10 towards Netflix's streaming which provides no ads, or if I absolutely feel I must watch a particular show, I can spend -less- than $10 a month (given the amount of TV I actually watch) buying those episodes from something like iTunes and watch it ad free. And that's just for people like me who like being reasonably legal about things.
But that's the thing, Apple -didn't- ditch OS X. While yes the highest level UI code requires changes, and most importantly -thought- when switching to the touch based UI's, but the code, being objective-c, and using almost all the same, or extremely similar api's to desktop OS X is -very- portable between the two platforms. If anything the main difference is simply that iOS doesn't have a lot of the buildup from years and years.
I had a similar issue when I was a child. A recurring nightmare though instead of wetting the bed. I'd know I was dreaming, but I wouldn't be able to wake up. I finally taught myself to instead change the dream however I liked, and in the process that taught me how to wake up. Since then though I've had the same trouble, insomnia and when I do get to sleep invariably the slightest thing will wake me up. There's been more than once I've thought I'd rather just have the stupid dream again, LOL
Where's the option for "I support Apple not because I agree with their acceptance policies but because I honestly don't want Adobe's crapware anywhere near my phone!"
After all, unlike my desktop where I can easily -remove- Flash or block it with browser plugins, if Flash is on my phone then they better make sure I can remove it!
But that isn't true. If the written security policy states that that person, even if it is -your boss- isn't to have the password. Then that person doesn't get the password, no matter how many times they ask. Written policies exist to lay down the foundation and rules.
I've been in similar situations back when I was working as a admin. We once had a executive VP demanding we give the password to a machine to someone not authorized to have it (And no, the VP did NOT have authorization or power to change that policy, he was NOT in charge of security). He threatened to fire us. We told him to go ahead, but that the only people who got the password were our replacements or other authorized individuals. He DID have the power to fire us. But that STILL didn't give him the power to demand that password, or that the security policy be changed.
Companies, and I'd imagine city governments too, have policies and chains of commands on all sorts of things. These things are usually written down somewhere so as to be enforceable. And THOSE are the things that matter. I don't remember ever working as a admin where my immediate supervisor had a root password to anything or his boss. But the good ones all knew that it wasn't their job to know those things, they paid me to keep those secure from people who asked. Even if that meant some pip-squeak with a highly placed friend.
Model: The current time.
Controller: Converts the model into a "bitmap" display of a clock, this is entirely portable because it's just empty memory
View: Blits said bitmap to the screen. This piece has always varied between OS's and platforms and is something that Apple's own documentation says will need changes between iPhone OS and MacOS X. Just as it would need changes between Qt and GTK. Or X11 and Windows. There's been plenty of abstraction layers build over the years to handle this piece, but they handle it by presenting a single high level layer and handling all the low level differences internally. What the article is about, is that surprise surprise, those low level layers for blitting are different between 2 different (Even if similar) platforms.
While I realize that, it does not change the fact that it DOES NOT give you the right to pirate. See, here's the thing, talk to everyone you know about the DRM. Get the word out. Don't spend your money and get the people you know to not spend their money on content locked down like that. But stealing it? As many a person points out, that just tells these execs that the -content- is interesting to you, if they could just figure out how to lock it down right. Yes, they're morons. Yes, they're wrong. But the -only- thing that gets into these peoples skulls are the bottom line. If that means running companies like Ubisoft out of business, DO IT!. But that does -not- involve stealing their product. Have the balls to tell yourself that you disagree with the company and that you don't need their product, in -any- way. Anything else is just you trying to justify why you deserve and are entitled to their product for free.
There's a reason Apple preaches up and down about a MVC paradigm when working with Objective-C and Cocoa. It -does- make this kind of port much simpler. If the code was divided up properly in the first place, then the Model and the Controller parts would be basically just a recompile for the iPhone from MacOS X. The view would have to be redone, but as far as MacOS X -> iPhone goes that should be almost entirely done in Interface Builder.
Now granted the app in question is a very old app. But by virtue of that, given that it displays a UI, that's going to cause more work. But as someone above said, "It's like bitching against linux when trying to build your Qt code against gtk". The VIEW portion of the app is being done for different devices, and AppKit isn't exactly lean enough for embedded programming.
So all I got out of the article is that the guy maintains an old messy code base, which he usually has to fork to port to new platforms but for some weird reason he thought because the -kernel- and low level api's are the same between these two platforms, that it would just compile and run...
Brilliant.
No, just don't buy OR steal. Don't use Ubisoft products at all! Sheesh people, stop trying to justify your piracy.