I am sorry but you are incorrect. When I install my own app on my own phone I do not even need to be online (Yes, I should check this) let alone go through the Apple store (I don't need to check that).
If I want someone else to have my app then I circulate the source not the.app.
Hell, if you install a binary, how is that in concert with "open source" modalities anyway?
I can make an app that the store would not approve easy as pie. I can install it on my iPhone/iPad anytime I want. I can send the source code to anyone else and they can compile and install it in their devices.
It does mean I need something running OSX to create the IOS apps but that is the only limitation I can see. Sure Apple is a "walled garden" but the main gate (with escalators) is always wide open.
Agreed. It is fairly typical of IT in general though. But two years for Apple is a bit short. There is always some extraneous feature that can help if turned off. (Moving icons, pre-loading, 3D)
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together.
A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
No. Apple is atheist. They provide a free devkit (Xcode) that allows you to create the software you want for any Apple device.
Apple's "walled garden" is remarkably lowly fenced and Apple provides a four lane highway right into the heart of it. So why do you say such silliness? If you lack the ability to code or the money to hire someone else to code then it gets a bit hard. I am quite happy with that. It keeps out the dross. Is that where you see yourself?
"Whoopsy", yes, right. That single character was crucial to the meaning of the post. Since we are talking civility, please have the common decency to check the mission critical parts of your post./. forces you to review your post and you cannot even make the effort to make sure your post means what you want it to mean. It is insulting that you would allow such a mistake. How do you expect to be taken seriously when your very competence is in doubt.
"Original AC here, I post AC since Dice took over/. because I do like posting here but I do not like Dice" Bzzzzt! So you only want to make toss-away remarks? Well, OK. But stop then trying to claim you were the original AC. You want things both ways. World does not work like that. You choose to be unidentifiable and then want to be identified.
Neither rationally or emotionally is there any need for anyone to respect that (just demonstrated) hypocrisy.
I like civility. Posting as an AC lacks civility in my opinion. Here am I "risking my reputation" and you are slipping notes under the door. Yet you accuse me of lack of civility. I am civil, but not servile.
Of course it is ridiculous. It was meant to be ridiculous. It is called sarcasm and is part of the English language that most people understand. Sorry, I did not realise you were sarcasm impaired. Point I was trying to make is that jumping on the grenade might not be the best decision and that different people might make different decisions. The same one you just redundantly tried to make.
You do understand what ratiocinate means? If you want to rewrite the language to win an argument then you lose without me even competing (or desiring to do so).
One one hand, most decisions are made on an emotional not a rational basis. But it is almost impossible to entirely separate them as we will rationalise the emotional decision. But in urgent, emergency situations it is almost purely emotional. So, jumping on the grenade is a purely emotional decision. Rationally, throwing someone else on the grenade would produce the same result - one death - but you would survive. A thick steel table would be even better. But there is no time to examine data, to think, in a hand grenade situation so whatever action is taken it will not be rational.
On the other hand, I knew a few people who have exited this world of their own accord. At least one of them I could have prevented with a few days or a week's searching. I did not make the effort and he died. Yet I do not feel guilty that I failed to act out of my own self (and family) interest. I waited for him to return. He chose not to return. That was his choice and he made it rationally, painless and carefully planned. Wether it was a good solution for him or not I will never know but it was reasoned and rational.
In the gripping hand,we have we have those who for various reasons choose euthanasia (still suicide). A good solution for some intractable problems and a rational response to them.
So, rational/irrational, good/bad all depend on circumstances. No generalisations are possible and peoples opinions of each case will differ wildly. You would think an atheist and a deist might even agree - but for very different reasons.
The negativity (as I see it) comes from having fixed attitudes with not a lot to support them. "This is right and all else is wrong" is a bit damn religious for me. Little turns out to be black and white in reality. That is one part of the negativity. Also, In this thread I have been called an asshole, and attacked because someone desired to win an argument irregardless (and no, that does mean the same thing as regardless). That seems negative to me.
Sorry if I have offended you but it is hard to discuss things when I do not know which person is posting. AC is generic. If you have something to say then at least use "a" name. I do not care if it AC451 but unless I have some sort of identifier I tend to be flippant. Okay, more than you wanted to know. Sorry.
So, why are you not posting as yourself? Rhetorical question. You live up to your name and it is you that does not want their goose cooked. I stand by my words. You do not.
In most circumstances self sacrifice (by males) is common and instinctive. I have actually put my body between harm and someone else. When you have actually expected to die protecting some one, then you can talk. I have actually been there, "manned up". Have you? Do you actually know what you are talking about? Self sacrifice may be the right, respectable, whatever, thing to do but it is never, never rational. Logic has nothing to do with it. Not at life and death level. If you think that it is then you have never been in that place.
Well, I am getting on towards to 80 but it is doubtful I will actually get there. When my health problems get too bad I will make a graceful exit.
Facts? Why facts? I never claimed any, you did. I just demonstrated (1) Your lack of intelligence (2) Your immaturity. Your dishonesty and trollishness are there for everyone to observe.
As a matter of curiosity, why are you like this? I mean you could be something useful if you wanted to be. Why choose negativity?
Why throw your body on a grenade when you can throw the body of the person next to you? Your chosen "rational" act turns out to be irrational. You did not think that through.
How do you know the hardship is short term? Pretty ignorant assumption.
You also presume to dismiss and override entire fields of study and replace with your opinion as "fact".
It is a tragedy that you post as an anonymous coward. I would seem that you are either a troll or an idiot. Could you please explain which?
Science is based on fundamental philosophical axioms. Agreed, philosophy is definitely the parent and science the child.
Much of science has been developed from thought experiments. They, by their very nature are philosophical, not scientific. The "child", science, is not "full grown" and needs support from its "parent" to function and grow. If, indeed, it can ever "stand alone".
It is a big world out there and science is only part of it.
Well, that would make him way off topic, no? A thread has a context. I suggest try read the post again. I said "They are not bad at planning their program and how the code would work..." - a limited and specific thing. You can "imagine" all you want but it is not relevant is it?
They are not bad at planning their program and how the code would work or they would not be good programmers would they? Not being able to plan would prohibit being able to structure a program. So, I have some issues with your observation.
No. Programming existed for millenia before computers. Planning is programming. In a way this reflects the post. Some people plan and prepare. They can program. Some are agile, highly adaptive to circumstance. They do not plan (don't need to, they bacome parasites as needed). Just the and and cricket story again. Society needs both and the ants are always exploited.
You are incorrect I fear. Both "regardless" and "irregardless" are words with differing meanings. It is not well understood, like "who" and "whom". AIWT "regardless" is of a particular reason while "irregardless" is of all or all possible reasons. In English anyway, not sure about American-English.
I did not say it was invented by Napoleon. I merely repeated what I was taught in school long ago, that the it was called the Napoleonic Code(capitalised) because it was formalised by Napoleon. I was relying on teaching from the British education system in the nineteen-fifties. That may to have been that reliable - nor is my memory any more. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry but you are incorrect. When I install my own app on my own phone I do not even need to be online (Yes, I should check this) let alone go through the Apple store (I don't need to check that).
If I want someone else to have my app then I circulate the source not the .app.
Hell, if you install a binary, how is that in concert with "open source" modalities anyway?
I can make an app that the store would not approve easy as pie. I can install it on my iPhone/iPad anytime I want. I can send the source code to anyone else and they can compile and install it in their devices.
It does mean I need something running OSX to create the IOS apps but that is the only limitation I can see. Sure Apple is a "walled garden" but the main gate (with escalators) is always wide open.
Agreed. It is fairly typical of IT in general though. But two years for Apple is a bit short. There is always some extraneous feature that can help if turned off. (Moving icons, pre-loading, 3D)
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together.
A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
No. Apple is atheist. They provide a free devkit (Xcode) that allows you to create the software you want for any Apple device.
Apple's "walled garden" is remarkably lowly fenced and Apple provides a four lane highway right into the heart of it. So why do you say such silliness? If you lack the ability to code or the money to hire someone else to code then it gets a bit hard. I am quite happy with that. It keeps out the dross. Is that where you see yourself?
Just expanding the apocrypha.
"Whoopsy", yes, right. That single character was crucial to the meaning of the post. Since we are talking civility, please have the common decency to check the mission critical parts of your post. /. forces you to review your post and you cannot even make the effort to make sure your post means what you want it to mean. It is insulting that you would allow such a mistake. How do you expect to be taken seriously when your very competence is in doubt.
"Original AC here, I post AC since Dice took over /. because I do like posting here but I do not like Dice" Bzzzzt! So you only want to make toss-away remarks? Well, OK. But stop then trying to claim you were the original AC. You want things both ways. World does not work like that. You choose to be unidentifiable and then want to be identified.
Neither rationally or emotionally is there any need for anyone to respect that (just demonstrated) hypocrisy.
I like civility. Posting as an AC lacks civility in my opinion. Here am I "risking my reputation" and you are slipping notes under the door. Yet you accuse me of lack of civility. I am civil, but not servile.
Which one of my offspring?
Of course it is ridiculous. It was meant to be ridiculous. It is called sarcasm and is part of the English language that most people understand. Sorry, I did not realise you were sarcasm impaired. Point I was trying to make is that jumping on the grenade might not be the best decision and that different people might make different decisions. The same one you just redundantly tried to make.
You do understand what ratiocinate means? If you want to rewrite the language to win an argument then you lose without me even competing (or desiring to do so).
One one hand, most decisions are made on an emotional not a rational basis. But it is almost impossible to entirely separate them as we will rationalise the emotional decision. But in urgent, emergency situations it is almost purely emotional. So, jumping on the grenade is a purely emotional decision. Rationally, throwing someone else on the grenade would produce the same result - one death - but you would survive. A thick steel table would be even better. But there is no time to examine data, to think, in a hand grenade situation so whatever action is taken it will not be rational.
On the other hand, I knew a few people who have exited this world of their own accord. At least one of them I could have prevented with a few days or a week's searching. I did not make the effort and he died. Yet I do not feel guilty that I failed to act out of my own self (and family) interest. I waited for him to return. He chose not to return. That was his choice and he made it rationally, painless and carefully planned. Wether it was a good solution for him or not I will never know but it was reasoned and rational.
In the gripping hand ,we have we have those who for various reasons choose euthanasia (still suicide). A good solution for some intractable problems and a rational response to them.
So, rational/irrational, good/bad all depend on circumstances. No generalisations are possible and peoples opinions of each case will differ wildly. You would think an atheist and a deist might even agree - but for very different reasons.
The negativity (as I see it) comes from having fixed attitudes with not a lot to support them. "This is right and all else is wrong" is a bit damn religious for me. Little turns out to be black and white in reality. That is one part of the negativity. Also, In this thread I have been called an asshole, and attacked because someone desired to win an argument irregardless (and no, that does mean the same thing as regardless). That seems negative to me.
Sorry if I have offended you but it is hard to discuss things when I do not know which person is posting. AC is generic. If you have something to say then at least use "a" name. I do not care if it AC451 but unless I have some sort of identifier I tend to be flippant. Okay, more than you wanted to know. Sorry.
So, why are you not posting as yourself? Rhetorical question. You live up to your name and it is you that does not want their goose cooked. I stand by my words. You do not.
In most circumstances self sacrifice (by males) is common and instinctive. I have actually put my body between harm and someone else. When you have actually expected to die protecting some one, then you can talk. I have actually been there, "manned up". Have you? Do you actually know what you are talking about? Self sacrifice may be the right, respectable, whatever, thing to do but it is never, never rational. Logic has nothing to do with it. Not at life and death level. If you think that it is then you have never been in that place.
Well, I am getting on towards to 80 but it is doubtful I will actually get there. When my health problems get too bad I will make a graceful exit.
Facts? Why facts? I never claimed any, you did. I just demonstrated (1) Your lack of intelligence (2) Your immaturity. Your dishonesty and trollishness are there for everyone to observe.
As a matter of curiosity, why are you like this? I mean you could be something useful if you wanted to be. Why choose negativity?
Why throw your body on a grenade when you can throw the body of the person next to you? Your chosen "rational" act turns out to be irrational. You did not think that through.
How do you know the hardship is short term? Pretty ignorant assumption.
You also presume to dismiss and override entire fields of study and replace with your opinion as "fact".
It is a tragedy that you post as an anonymous coward. I would seem that you are either a troll or an idiot. Could you please explain which?
Thank you.
Not me that needs the hint. Not sure if metadata is quite the word. Glad someone laughed though.
Science is based on fundamental philosophical axioms. Agreed, philosophy is definitely the parent and science the child.
Much of science has been developed from thought experiments. They, by their very nature are philosophical, not scientific. The "child", science, is not "full grown" and needs support from its "parent" to function and grow. If, indeed, it can ever "stand alone".
It is a big world out there and science is only part of it.
Well, that would make him way off topic, no? A thread has a context. I suggest try read the post again. I said "They are not bad at planning their program and how the code would work..." - a limited and specific thing. You can "imagine" all you want but it is not relevant is it?
They are not bad at planning their program and how the code would work or they would not be good programmers would they? Not being able to plan would prohibit being able to structure a program. So, I have some issues with your observation.
I don't think the comment was bad, but it was a toss-off and I agree it was not worthy or nor should have any up votes.
No. Programming existed for millenia before computers. Planning is programming. In a way this reflects the post. Some people plan and prepare. They can program. Some are agile, highly adaptive to circumstance. They do not plan (don't need to, they bacome parasites as needed). Just the and and cricket story again. Society needs both and the ants are always exploited.
Thanks for the tip. I will just route it to /dev/null instead of the screen. Or better still his personal email.
Sarcasm is invisible to you? Ok, so why do YOU think the remark was made?
I am on Optus not Telstra and have the same issue. It is site specific not provider specific.
You are incorrect I fear. Both "regardless" and "irregardless" are words with differing meanings. It is not well understood, like "who" and "whom". AIWT "regardless" is of a particular reason while "irregardless" is of all or all possible reasons. In English anyway, not sure about American-English.
I did not say it was invented by Napoleon. I merely repeated what I was taught in school long ago, that the it was called the Napoleonic Code(capitalised) because it was formalised by Napoleon. I was relying on teaching from the British education system in the nineteen-fifties. That may to have been that reliable - nor is my memory any more. Sorry.
Not so different in the U.S. I think. Officials (police et al.) seem to be very authoritarian. Definately enforcement seems to override peace keeping.