Nothing. Didn't you notice the word 'harmless' appear twice in TFA? That was all the reassurance I needed. I'm sure the chance of the virus invading your body and splitting apart your molecules when you step out into the sunlight is very close to zero.
We thought we were god.
And we pretty much were, everything went according to plan, yeah sure the movie about this is going to be boring as bat shit but at least the UV-Ray disk will only cost $139.95 due to our abundant cheap energy.
Awww come on now. Steam is, IHMO, the only gaming platform that does DRM well.
I once heard a battered wife say "My husband is the only husband who can beat me properly".
There is something so very, very wrong with your statement.
No DRM implementation can be considered good because the concept is fundamentally flawed. DRM treats the attacker and receiver as the same person (customer) which defeats the entire purpose of encryption (which is what DRM basically is) as you have to give the receiver the encryption key whilst attempting to obfuscate it from the attacker. Seeing as they are the same person you end up giving the attacker the key so ultimately it's self defeating.
The only DRM system that has ever been implemented well is no DRM.
No, but park it in my parking space, don't remove it after I have you served with a notice to either do so or that I will go to court and get title of it, and guess what - I *can* go to court and get title transferred.
Uhhhh...what?? What law is this? IAAL and I've never heard of this legal manoeuvre.
In Australia, if you give a lost object to police and if it is not claimed in a certain amount of time ownership reverts to null and the finder is permitted to collect and keep the object. Of course there are significant exceptions like objects involved in crimes or objects that are registered like cars, if a car is impounded and unclaimed (or fees left unpaid) then ownership is reverted to the state which sells the car.
Suicide is a selfish act, not because of the religious bits, but because a suicide devastates your friends, coworkers and family.
Not necessarily.
That is a cultural thing, mostly because of our religion. In several cultures suicide is considered a good death rather then living in shame, in other cultures death is considered a rebirth (Buddhist/hindu). Personally I'm pro-suicide (in terms of a choice), it's the one real choice we have and if you end up living in misery because of how someone else might feel, is that not selfish of everyone else? If we are talking measures of selfishness, keeping someone around who is suffering because of how you might feel is just as selfish as someone ending it except multiplied by every person who feels that way.
I'm from a very high suicide region of the United States and have known families where suicide was rampant.
You have to ask yourself, why?
People don't just kill themselves for fun. It takes a lot of torment for someone to contemplate suicide (we have a survival instinct this goes against), making suicide illegal or "immoral" (you cant kill yourself because its selfish) doesn't do a damn thing when someone feels that suicide is their only escape. If someone kills themselves or even attempts to, they were well and truly suffering enough to drive them to it, more often then not this is a failing of our society who likes to enforce social values and degrade anyone who doesn't fit in (especially with teen suicides).
but I do know that from a legal standpoint I can "store" my property anywhere I want
Actually you can not "store" your property wherever you want. If you "store" something in my bar I am permitted to remove it (this includes a Porsche), however what I am not permitted to do is keep it or more importantly, sell it. Your best and logical recourse is to turn the object into the police, don't even bother trying to find the owner as they could easily assume you stole it and charge you, give it to the police. I don't know about the states but if you do this in Australia and no one claims the object you get to keep it after a certain period of time.
Many bars over here have simply stopped keeping lost property due to the liability involved.
Person find phone on bar. the owner no where around.
Trie to contact the owner. No luck
Calls Apple, Apple insists it isn't theirs.
Sells it to Gizmnodo.
Step 2 is where it started to go wrong, step 4 is where it actually gets illegal. I think the whole thing was an organised leak but lets assume I accept your assertion at face value...
Step two should have been:
"Dropped it off at police station."
In Australia, our laws require this. If no one claims it within a reasonable amount of time the object is yours to keep if you want it. Realistically this should be your first reaction, if not your second as you could easily get in trouble for attempting to find the owner (you get accused of stealing it, maybe even stalking). Whatever you do, you do not sell the object as it's not yours to sell as it trading in stolen goods regardless of whether you found it or stole it.
Condom is only about 89% effective against pregnancies and STIs (the percentage is much lower if used improperly, and the percentage is based on "ideal" conditions of use).
In reality, it's effective against 95-99% of fluid born STI's, it's even highly effective aginst STI's that can be transmitted by skin contact like Herpes, but then again Herpes is the least of your concerns. If you actually read the article you quoted it cut the HIV transmission rate by 85%, this does not mean it's only 89% effective. The WHO found HIV transmission reductions decreased 95% with condom use.
Do not spread FUD to support your bad lifestyle choices, the risk of getting HIV from vaginal intercourse with an infected person in a low income country is 30 out of every 10,000 people, reduce that by 85% and it's 4.5 out of every 10,000, that's infected people, not average people. Compared this to sharing needles (67 out of 10,000 infected sources) and blood transfusions (9,000 out of 10,000 infected sources) and your risk is fairly low even not using a condom.
Personally I'll take the minuscule risk rather then try to deny my bodies natural tendencies, I've got more chances of dying from a freak tractor accident in the city then contracting HIV. It's the practice of abstinence in Africa that resulted in it's extreme HIV infection rates where SE Asia promoted condom use and have not suffered the predicted levels of HIV infections. Abstinence as a method of pregnancy prevention and STI prevention has been proven not to work.
Or maybe with Apple currently being more successful that it's ever been, and the iphone being a hugely popular device right now, the temptation to learn or share privileged information is just well beyond anything that Apple has seen before?
Thats what they want you to think/grabs Pojut's tin foil hat.
You'd think that marketing folks would, you know, interact with customers now and then.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha,
I've got to pay that one.
I've just spent a three day ordeal with a company that requires software activation and an in house license server to be set up (dongle and all) trying to get the damn license file out of them. This company we pay A$14K per year for 1 license. I sent a succinct complaint letter to their CSR and all I got back was a form letter thanking me for my comments.
A) Have sex and get a woman pregnant (or get pregnant if you are a woman); possibly get or transfer an STI
or
B) Not have sex and not worry about any of the above
C) Use a miraculous device called a Condom and enjoy great sex without worrying about anything.
How is that "the" supremely selfish act compared to, say, dumping toxic waste on 3rd world water supplies in order to save a buck? Or buying up a business, raiding the pension fund, and selling off the parts for profit while thousands of people wonder where their job and retirement went? Or abusing your status as a police officer in order to get a sad power kick?
According to the Christian religion, the most supremely selfish act is suicide. Arrogant too, to assume you have the right to decide when your life ends (because only God is meant to have that power). Compared to dumping toxic waste into a water supply, destroying peoples futures or being on the take, suicide is the worst sin as you can always repent for the others.
This is covered chapter six in my book, why I am an atheist.
Then you must be arguing that that first 200 GB costs equal to or more than 200 GB. Typically, it would cost more under your pricing scheme.
Sigh, why do Americans always get hung up over specific costs and or values in an analogy. Of course these aren't exact measurements, they are example values pulled out of my rectum to demonstrate of a point, this isn't a specific business plan for crying out loud.
In Australia the price per GB changes, in the lower plans you pay a higher cost per GB as you're not just paying for bandwidth but for routing equipment, systems administrators, accountants and book keepers, Cat5 cable, leasing of a line, servers and computers in use by the ISP, all of these overheads come out of what you pay for the service. These costs are pretty much fixed and do not change much based on usage. So if you move up to a higher plan and pay more you pay less per GB as the overheads are spread out over more bandwidth.
The rest of your post is an illiterate, uninformed, profanity laden rant it would do me a disservice to quote but...
Are you suggesting that paying for what you use proportionally is an unfair system, further more that in light of the fact that ISP's have to buy bandwidth from other providers when traffic leaves their network that this system would not be most beneficial to both parties. On my ISP, traffic that is sent across their network is free, from iinet to 3FL game servers is 100% free because it costs iinet nothing thus doesn't count towards my quota. When I send it to non 3FL servers it costs the ISP money, this makes the PAYG system fair for both parties.
I don't think you quite understand how this works. When I use more water, gas or electricity I pay more because I use more and it costs the utility more money to keep me supplied. When the garbage man collects my half bin it costs them the same no matter how full it is. Which of these two models applies to the ISP industry given that service provision is not a fixed cost?
Aside from this you missed the whole point, if your ISP is going to metre you it should be done on whole traffic, not specific traffic types.
Thats what people said about Android, and Android had 28% of the smart phone market... (The Iphone has 21%)
This is Q1 sales for the United states. Android has about 5-10% share and growing, Apple probably has around 20-30%.
I support Android and have no doubt that within a few years we'll have 30% of the market, but by that time the Iphone will have reduced to a fanboy only device like Apple's other product lines.
Since they lobbied to have monopolies, continually lock in customers and then change the terms of service.
Living in a nation with sane telco regulation and a choice of a dozen ISP's in my home I trust the government a hell of a lot more then I trust telco's. Especially given the fact that a certain Telco (Telstra) continued to bill me for a service I terminated months ago, I'll let the ombudsman sort this one out.
What kind of paranoid, insane moron are you to think that telco's are the good guys here.
Okay... so let's say I'm an ISP. I don't shape any traffic. A small percentage of my customers are slamming my transit connection with p2p traffic.
The solution is simple, do not filter traffic at all.
Instead put a reasonable limit onto all traffic and count all traffic. At 200 GB/m on most households will not use a quarter of that. After 200 GB, offer additional blocks of bandwidth at $1 per GB or such (or offer shape the entire connection speed down to something like 512 Mbit, but give customers the choice). Paying for your actual usage is the only fair system. There is no point selling all plans for $60 when 30% of people only want 10 GB a month which will cost $20, whilst 10% want 500 GB a month and are willing to fork over $100, the other 60% fit somewhere in between.
A service provider should never be permitted to interfere with your traffic, its akin to the supermarket determining what I am and am not permitted to buy from their stock, "Sorry sir, the Brie is reserved for our Premium customers, only Cheddar is available for all. Perhaps you would like to buy a Tesco Plus subscription for $49.95 a month". Right now, the only limits the supermarket can put on my cheese consumption is governed by how much money I want to give them. However bandwidth is not free (especially international bandwidth) as we start to use more and more you will have to adapt this system. Intra American bandwidth is pennies on the dollar, international bandwidth starts to cost.
But get rid of contracts, put a flat installation fee and possibly an ETF if the customer leaves in less then six months.
I also find silly our clinging to the belief that there was absolutely no interaction between Egyptian and South American civilizations
Why?
The level of technological exchange you describe would have required regular communication. Given that the ships of the time could not even cross the Mediterranean safely this is very unlikely. It is not a stretch to think that one Ancient Egyptian or Greek may have crossed the Atlantic (with no understanding of global currents, this would have taken months) but not the level required to trade technologies.
Certain advances are logical steps, writing for example, this is why there is no common root language, Hindi, Arabic, Mayan, far east and Latin scripts are all radically different despite performing the same function. The same with aqueducts and construction techniques. After the fall of the Roman empire, western cultures had to re-learn many building techniques again because the knowledge was lost, but the almost exact same techniques were rediscovered hundreds of years later. Things like lunar calendars can be discovered simply by observations, so many most cultures also used lunar calendars like the Mayans but none were ever as advanced.
Any real contact between cultures over such vast distances were done by migration and empires were a real hindrance to this, the Persians effectively separated the Europeans from the Indians who effectively isolated the Persians from the Chinese. This was not really overcome until the end of the Roman empires. The Ancient Aborigines that came to Australia 40-60,000 years ago did so by migration from Asia via the chains of islands connecting SE Asia to Australia and no real communication was achieved with Australia until 1800. As for crossing a large ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific was perilous in Columbus' day, with ships that were able to store several years of supplies and weather severe storms.
It seems like blatant Euro-centricism
"Euro-Centric" seems to be one of those buzzwords bandied about for something you don't like/agree with. It's entirely logical to conclude that cultures developed similar technologies due to similar needs and observations. Give the evidence for this theory and lack of evidence of regular communication I think this one is fairly safe. Why did the Mayans and Egyptians both build pyramid like structures, because it is logically the best shape for a large structure. The Romans and other Europeans built colosseums whilst the Mayans didn't, Asian cultures built pagoda's whilst Western and American cultures didn't.
One thing the government does share with businesses is the need to prioritize projects
I sort of agree, but this particular trait is shared with a lot of things.
Governments and business differ a great deal, you'll find they have very little in common. A government is about delivering the service, a business is about delivering the bottom line. Whilst governments should maintain a positive balance this is not, nor should ever be the primary motivator. A business wants to make as much profit on a service as possible, with profit being the priority. A government wants to deliver a service whilst making a profit, with the emphasis on delivering the best service. Governments are also required to maintain both a short term and long term view, you can run a business without thinking beyond the next quarter but you cant do that with governments, any decent (democratic) government has planned beyond their term knowing it's quite likely they may not be elected back in.
If telco's cant have a secret anti-consumer plan then who can? Next thing you'll be telling me my secret plan to overthrow the US government by placing cyanide into Obama's twinkie and mind controlling Biden and Palin (I've already got Clegg and Cameron) isn't a secret any more.
Are you being obtuse? I spoke only about antitrust abuse, not monopoly status.
In your original post you said.
So Apple having 20% of the market and being behind RIM
You were talking about monopoly status in relation to anti-trust. If you cant see how that makes it relevant you should give up now.
Now the anti-trust investigations are into Apple's abusive market practices, the ones that come to mind immediately are banning an application just because it mentions a competitor or changing the established rules to block the release of an application (must originally be written in etc.. to block Adobe from releasing a product which follows the rules at the time). These are the actions of an abusive company, the fact that they have such great influence over Digital Media Players and media distribution means that they should be investigated.
If you bothered to actually read my post instead of posting a knee-jerk Apple defence you would have figured that one out.
Apple have given enough evidence that they are actively tying to use the Itunes store against other competitors, this is an abuse of a dominant market position.
Slashdot Mirror
We thought we were god.
And we pretty much were, everything went according to plan, yeah sure the movie about this is going to be boring as bat shit but at least the UV-Ray disk will only cost $139.95 due to our abundant cheap energy.
Steambuntu.com is still available.
I once heard a battered wife say "My husband is the only husband who can beat me properly".
There is something so very, very wrong with your statement.
No DRM implementation can be considered good because the concept is fundamentally flawed. DRM treats the attacker and receiver as the same person (customer) which defeats the entire purpose of encryption (which is what DRM basically is) as you have to give the receiver the encryption key whilst attempting to obfuscate it from the attacker. Seeing as they are the same person you end up giving the attacker the key so ultimately it's self defeating.
The only DRM system that has ever been implemented well is no DRM.
In Australia, if you give a lost object to police and if it is not claimed in a certain amount of time ownership reverts to null and the finder is permitted to collect and keep the object. Of course there are significant exceptions like objects involved in crimes or objects that are registered like cars, if a car is impounded and unclaimed (or fees left unpaid) then ownership is reverted to the state which sells the car.
Laws in your nation may differ, of course.
Not necessarily.
That is a cultural thing, mostly because of our religion. In several cultures suicide is considered a good death rather then living in shame, in other cultures death is considered a rebirth (Buddhist/hindu). Personally I'm pro-suicide (in terms of a choice), it's the one real choice we have and if you end up living in misery because of how someone else might feel, is that not selfish of everyone else? If we are talking measures of selfishness, keeping someone around who is suffering because of how you might feel is just as selfish as someone ending it except multiplied by every person who feels that way.
You have to ask yourself, why?
People don't just kill themselves for fun. It takes a lot of torment for someone to contemplate suicide (we have a survival instinct this goes against), making suicide illegal or "immoral" (you cant kill yourself because its selfish) doesn't do a damn thing when someone feels that suicide is their only escape. If someone kills themselves or even attempts to, they were well and truly suffering enough to drive them to it, more often then not this is a failing of our society who likes to enforce social values and degrade anyone who doesn't fit in (especially with teen suicides).
Actually you can not "store" your property wherever you want. If you "store" something in my bar I am permitted to remove it (this includes a Porsche), however what I am not permitted to do is keep it or more importantly, sell it. Your best and logical recourse is to turn the object into the police, don't even bother trying to find the owner as they could easily assume you stole it and charge you, give it to the police. I don't know about the states but if you do this in Australia and no one claims the object you get to keep it after a certain period of time.
Many bars over here have simply stopped keeping lost property due to the liability involved.
Step 2 is where it started to go wrong, step 4 is where it actually gets illegal. I think the whole thing was an organised leak but lets assume I accept your assertion at face value...
Step two should have been:
"Dropped it off at police station."
In Australia, our laws require this. If no one claims it within a reasonable amount of time the object is yours to keep if you want it. Realistically this should be your first reaction, if not your second as you could easily get in trouble for attempting to find the owner (you get accused of stealing it, maybe even stalking). Whatever you do, you do not sell the object as it's not yours to sell as it trading in stolen goods regardless of whether you found it or stole it.
In reality, it's effective against 95-99% of fluid born STI's, it's even highly effective aginst STI's that can be transmitted by skin contact like Herpes, but then again Herpes is the least of your concerns. If you actually read the article you quoted it cut the HIV transmission rate by 85%, this does not mean it's only 89% effective. The WHO found HIV transmission reductions decreased 95% with condom use.
Do not spread FUD to support your bad lifestyle choices, the risk of getting HIV from vaginal intercourse with an infected person in a low income country is 30 out of every 10,000 people, reduce that by 85% and it's 4.5 out of every 10,000, that's infected people, not average people. Compared this to sharing needles (67 out of 10,000 infected sources) and blood transfusions (9,000 out of 10,000 infected sources) and your risk is fairly low even not using a condom.
Personally I'll take the minuscule risk rather then try to deny my bodies natural tendencies, I've got more chances of dying from a freak tractor accident in the city then contracting HIV. It's the practice of abstinence in Africa that resulted in it's extreme HIV infection rates where SE Asia promoted condom use and have not suffered the predicted levels of HIV infections. Abstinence as a method of pregnancy prevention and STI prevention has been proven not to work.
Thats what they want you to think /grabs Pojut's tin foil hat.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha,
I've got to pay that one.
I've just spent a three day ordeal with a company that requires software activation and an in house license server to be set up (dongle and all) trying to get the damn license file out of them. This company we pay A$14K per year for 1 license. I sent a succinct complaint letter to their CSR and all I got back was a form letter thanking me for my comments.
C) Use a miraculous device called a Condom and enjoy great sex without worrying about anything.
Now she says it's rape.
She didn't tell me about Joseph either, lying whore.
Yes son, I just called you mother a whore, lazy sod wont even get up for another three days.
According to the Christian religion, the most supremely selfish act is suicide. Arrogant too, to assume you have the right to decide when your life ends (because only God is meant to have that power). Compared to dumping toxic waste into a water supply, destroying peoples futures or being on the take, suicide is the worst sin as you can always repent for the others.
This is covered chapter six in my book, why I am an atheist.
I hope your wife doesn't find this out.
Sigh, why do Americans always get hung up over specific costs and or values in an analogy. Of course these aren't exact measurements, they are example values pulled out of my rectum to demonstrate of a point, this isn't a specific business plan for crying out loud.
In Australia the price per GB changes, in the lower plans you pay a higher cost per GB as you're not just paying for bandwidth but for routing equipment, systems administrators, accountants and book keepers, Cat5 cable, leasing of a line, servers and computers in use by the ISP, all of these overheads come out of what you pay for the service. These costs are pretty much fixed and do not change much based on usage. So if you move up to a higher plan and pay more you pay less per GB as the overheads are spread out over more bandwidth.
The rest of your post is an illiterate, uninformed, profanity laden rant it would do me a disservice to quote but...
Are you suggesting that paying for what you use proportionally is an unfair system, further more that in light of the fact that ISP's have to buy bandwidth from other providers when traffic leaves their network that this system would not be most beneficial to both parties. On my ISP, traffic that is sent across their network is free, from iinet to 3FL game servers is 100% free because it costs iinet nothing thus doesn't count towards my quota. When I send it to non 3FL servers it costs the ISP money, this makes the PAYG system fair for both parties.
I don't think you quite understand how this works. When I use more water, gas or electricity I pay more because I use more and it costs the utility more money to keep me supplied. When the garbage man collects my half bin it costs them the same no matter how full it is. Which of these two models applies to the ISP industry given that service provision is not a fixed cost?
Aside from this you missed the whole point, if your ISP is going to metre you it should be done on whole traffic, not specific traffic types.
Yep, real Magic.
This is Q1 sales for the United states. Android has about 5-10% share and growing, Apple probably has around 20-30%.
I support Android and have no doubt that within a few years we'll have 30% of the market, but by that time the Iphone will have reduced to a fanboy only device like Apple's other product lines.
You insensitive cold.
Since they lobbied to have monopolies, continually lock in customers and then change the terms of service.
Living in a nation with sane telco regulation and a choice of a dozen ISP's in my home I trust the government a hell of a lot more then I trust telco's. Especially given the fact that a certain Telco (Telstra) continued to bill me for a service I terminated months ago, I'll let the ombudsman sort this one out.
What kind of paranoid, insane moron are you to think that telco's are the good guys here.
The solution is simple, do not filter traffic at all. Instead put a reasonable limit onto all traffic and count all traffic. At 200 GB/m on most households will not use a quarter of that. After 200 GB, offer additional blocks of bandwidth at $1 per GB or such (or offer shape the entire connection speed down to something like 512 Mbit, but give customers the choice). Paying for your actual usage is the only fair system. There is no point selling all plans for $60 when 30% of people only want 10 GB a month which will cost $20, whilst 10% want 500 GB a month and are willing to fork over $100, the other 60% fit somewhere in between.
A service provider should never be permitted to interfere with your traffic, its akin to the supermarket determining what I am and am not permitted to buy from their stock, "Sorry sir, the Brie is reserved for our Premium customers, only Cheddar is available for all. Perhaps you would like to buy a Tesco Plus subscription for $49.95 a month". Right now, the only limits the supermarket can put on my cheese consumption is governed by how much money I want to give them. However bandwidth is not free (especially international bandwidth) as we start to use more and more you will have to adapt this system. Intra American bandwidth is pennies on the dollar, international bandwidth starts to cost.
But get rid of contracts, put a flat installation fee and possibly an ETF if the customer leaves in less then six months.
Why?
The level of technological exchange you describe would have required regular communication. Given that the ships of the time could not even cross the Mediterranean safely this is very unlikely. It is not a stretch to think that one Ancient Egyptian or Greek may have crossed the Atlantic (with no understanding of global currents, this would have taken months) but not the level required to trade technologies.
Certain advances are logical steps, writing for example, this is why there is no common root language, Hindi, Arabic, Mayan, far east and Latin scripts are all radically different despite performing the same function. The same with aqueducts and construction techniques. After the fall of the Roman empire, western cultures had to re-learn many building techniques again because the knowledge was lost, but the almost exact same techniques were rediscovered hundreds of years later. Things like lunar calendars can be discovered simply by observations, so many most cultures also used lunar calendars like the Mayans but none were ever as advanced.
Any real contact between cultures over such vast distances were done by migration and empires were a real hindrance to this, the Persians effectively separated the Europeans from the Indians who effectively isolated the Persians from the Chinese. This was not really overcome until the end of the Roman empires. The Ancient Aborigines that came to Australia 40-60,000 years ago did so by migration from Asia via the chains of islands connecting SE Asia to Australia and no real communication was achieved with Australia until 1800. As for crossing a large ocean like the Atlantic or Pacific was perilous in Columbus' day, with ships that were able to store several years of supplies and weather severe storms.
"Euro-Centric" seems to be one of those buzzwords bandied about for something you don't like/agree with. It's entirely logical to conclude that cultures developed similar technologies due to similar needs and observations. Give the evidence for this theory and lack of evidence of regular communication I think this one is fairly safe. Why did the Mayans and Egyptians both build pyramid like structures, because it is logically the best shape for a large structure. The Romans and other Europeans built colosseums whilst the Mayans didn't, Asian cultures built pagoda's whilst Western and American cultures didn't.
I sort of agree, but this particular trait is shared with a lot of things.
Governments and business differ a great deal, you'll find they have very little in common. A government is about delivering the service, a business is about delivering the bottom line. Whilst governments should maintain a positive balance this is not, nor should ever be the primary motivator. A business wants to make as much profit on a service as possible, with profit being the priority. A government wants to deliver a service whilst making a profit, with the emphasis on delivering the best service. Governments are also required to maintain both a short term and long term view, you can run a business without thinking beyond the next quarter but you cant do that with governments, any decent (democratic) government has planned beyond their term knowing it's quite likely they may not be elected back in.
It's not such a secret strategy now is it.
If telco's cant have a secret anti-consumer plan then who can? Next thing you'll be telling me my secret plan to overthrow the US government by placing cyanide into Obama's twinkie and mind controlling Biden and Palin (I've already got Clegg and Cameron) isn't a secret any more.
No. Webos is the name of a specific product so it is a proper noun so the first letter is always uppercase.
If it were a common noun it would not be capitalised at all, but the common noun of Webos is operating system.
In your original post you said.
You were talking about monopoly status in relation to anti-trust. If you cant see how that makes it relevant you should give up now.
Now the anti-trust investigations are into Apple's abusive market practices, the ones that come to mind immediately are banning an application just because it mentions a competitor or changing the established rules to block the release of an application (must originally be written in etc.. to block Adobe from releasing a product which follows the rules at the time). These are the actions of an abusive company, the fact that they have such great influence over Digital Media Players and media distribution means that they should be investigated.
If you bothered to actually read my post instead of posting a knee-jerk Apple defence you would have figured that one out.
Apple have given enough evidence that they are actively tying to use the Itunes store against other competitors, this is an abuse of a dominant market position.