If I want to take a timeclock and use it for something other than telling time, why should I be prevented from doing so?
What if your clock had a more complete display on it (1024x768 LCD), and you wanted to use it to do something the manufacturer did not think it should be used for -- would it be OK for the manufacturer to actively prevent you from doing so?
"Why bother complaining when a device does exactly what it is intended to do and does it well?"
Because it is designed to railroad people into only using it in that manner, as dictated by Apple. Why should Apple decide how I use an iPad? What if I want to use it for something it does not do well -- is that an unreasonable thing for me to want to do, or is it unreasonable of Apple to actively work against me doing so? Maybe you have a different outlook on the world, but when Apple starts actively working to restrict what I can do, I call foul.
"Is Apple supposed to make it easy for you to do anything you want with the device?"
If the definition of "making it easy" is "not imposing deliberate technical limitations that have no purpose other than restricting the user," then yes, Apple should be "making it easy." I am not saying that Apple needs to post guides or do anything to promote the use of the device in a manner that they do not "approve" of, but it is wrong for them to actively work to prevent people from using the iPad in "unapproved" ways.
I mean in terms of hardware and technical capabilities. There is no technical reason that an iPad cannot be used to create and run your own software, there is no technical reason that you cannot install a different OS, and there is no technical reason for any of the limitations. My point was that Apple is dictating what the device should be used for.
The iPad has everything that any other computer has...so who is to say that it is not a computer? Apple can market it as a "media device" all they want, but if people want to use their iPads in other ways, they should be allowed to do so. Nobody, not Apple, and certainly not Steve Jobs, should be dictating what people are allowed to use their iPads for (except perhaps as a deadly weapon).
The iPad does not need to "mute" anyone, as the Time article puts it. Apple is dictating that it should, because of their desire to do business with book publishers.
The way I look at it is this: the "interaction" may actually be with another script. The whole abstraction that Unix-like OSes enforce, at least with file based IO, is that it is irrelevant what is on the other side of a file descriptor -- a disk, a pipe, a user, a socket, or something else entirely.
Of course, this all starts to break down with GUIs.
However, Apple also forces people to use their whitelist -- an iPad user is not free to use someone else' whitelist, or not whitelist at all. This is not truly an issue of security; this is an issue of rights, freedom, and control.
Why not allow users to select a non-Apple app store? Why not allow users to opt out of the "security?" Probably because Apple did not have security in mind when they decided to undermine the rights of their users.
"web applications instead of for a proprietary platform."
Almost all web apps, by their very nature, are proprietary. How many websites make their source code available? How many websites can you set up on your own web server? How many websites allow you to opt out of software updates (i.e. updates to the website itself)? Such examples certainly exist, but they are few and far between.
In the USA, the President appoints judges, and the senate votes for or against those nominations. Sadly, the Obama administration has ties to Hollywood, and will probably appoint another anti-consumer judge...and the senate, under Democrat control, is not likely to vote against such a judge.
What is wrong with a nicotine dependence? If you can use nicotine without harming yourself, is it really a problem? Would you take the same stance with a drug like caffeine?
No, the point OP was trying to make was that when (yes, when mandatory filtering is a reality), it is likely that free operating systems will be outlawed because of the difficulty in implementing unwanted mandatory filters on such systems. I see the sequence of events beginning with legislation being passed that requires the filtering and copy restriction software to be installed on all computers, and within a year or two mass numbers of consumers switching to free operating systems to avoid the restrictions...and then legislation being passed that outlaws free operating systems.
It is not futile if the majority of people do not care enough about freedom of speech to put in effort to evade the filters. Generally, censorship works best to keep fringe positions at the fringe.
"cross-compiled code may interfere with the proper multitasking coming out in iPhoneOS 4.0."
Not very proper multitasking then, if it is dependent on which programming language your software was written in. If the iPhone OS cannot multitask random processes, written with any set of tools, then it does not even come close to meeting my personal quality standards. If that is Apple quality, I will stay even further away from Apple than I was already...
The hyperviser enforced the restrictions and provided a simplified driver interface, that's all. You can run Linux on a PS3 without the hyperviser, but the current firmware will not allow it.
In the default configuration, yes. However, last I checked, Ubuntu does not ship with SELinux, and so if you are looking for data security, Windows wins (note that there are other distros, like RHEL, that ship with SELinux, and are tied with Windows for multilevel security applications).
Really, the days of bashing Windows on security are long past. The users are a far greater problem than the software, and that will not change as they use different OSes.
Perhaps what you say is true for NZ, but in the USA things are a lot different. When I was in high school in New York City, which is not particularly known for fundamentalist Christians, our parents could opt to not have us sit in on the sex ed portion of health classes -- and some actually did. We could not opt out of the drug portion, the nutrition portion, or any other portion of that or any other class, but when it came to sex, the rules changed. Worse, we could not even be shown how to apply a condom -- it was just loosely explained with words, and no pictures or other visual aid.
Likewise with the movies we could be shown. When I took classical literature, we were shown a film adaptation of The Odyssey, and watched all the violent scenes...but the teacher fast forwarded past sex or nude scenes. This is how ridiculous the USA is when it comes to sex.
Yes, emulating a mainframe is the same as copying it and giving it away for free. Nevermind that using hercules still requires a valid z/VM license, a valid license for all the software that is run on top of z/VM, and that hercules cannot provide nearly the same level of performance and reliability that a mainframe provides.
Or did you think that emulating a mainframe was that same thing as actually having mainframe hardware available?
And you are ignoring the fact that nicotine has pleasant effects, which is why people smoke at all. This is what always gets me about the anti-smoking crowd -- yes, smoking is bad for your health, but nobody ever bothers to raise the issue of why people smoke. It is not as cut and dry as "you try a cigarette and you are hooked for life," which is how most youth education seems to frame it. It is also not as simple as "no matter how often you smoke, it will lead to cancer, amputations, and heart attacks" -- smoking one cigarette a month is not a high enough level of exposure to pose a danger, whereas smoking a pack or more per day certainly is.
The problem, at least where I am (America), is that anti-smoking programs dumb everything down and treat people like idiots. Why not be honest with people, acknowledge that smoking has pleasant effects, and remind them that exposure to tobacco smoke is dangerous and that frequent exposure is very likely to cause severe health problems?
Really, you can substitute any drug in the above argument -- American anti-drug rhetoric is based on stirring up hysteria, and not on respecting anyone's intellect.
Slashdot Mirror
If I want to take a timeclock and use it for something other than telling time, why should I be prevented from doing so?
What if your clock had a more complete display on it (1024x768 LCD), and you wanted to use it to do something the manufacturer did not think it should be used for -- would it be OK for the manufacturer to actively prevent you from doing so?
Such as creating software? Such as installing software that Apple has not approved?
What about this: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/02/apple-yanks-5000-iphone-sex-apps.html
"Why bother complaining when a device does exactly what it is intended to do and does it well?"
Because it is designed to railroad people into only using it in that manner, as dictated by Apple. Why should Apple decide how I use an iPad? What if I want to use it for something it does not do well -- is that an unreasonable thing for me to want to do, or is it unreasonable of Apple to actively work against me doing so? Maybe you have a different outlook on the world, but when Apple starts actively working to restrict what I can do, I call foul.
"Its not turing complete, not even within the limits imposed by the memory."
This is not true. Give me an unrestricted iPad, and in a few minutes I'll give you a TM simulator on that device.
"The designer chose to restrict the set of algorithms to be executed to a miniscule subset of all possible ones."
Which was exactly my point, and which is immoral on the part of Apple.
"Is Apple supposed to make it easy for you to do anything you want with the device?"
If the definition of "making it easy" is "not imposing deliberate technical limitations that have no purpose other than restricting the user," then yes, Apple should be "making it easy." I am not saying that Apple needs to post guides or do anything to promote the use of the device in a manner that they do not "approve" of, but it is wrong for them to actively work to prevent people from using the iPad in "unapproved" ways.
I mean in terms of hardware and technical capabilities. There is no technical reason that an iPad cannot be used to create and run your own software, there is no technical reason that you cannot install a different OS, and there is no technical reason for any of the limitations. My point was that Apple is dictating what the device should be used for.
The iPad has everything that any other computer has...so who is to say that it is not a computer? Apple can market it as a "media device" all they want, but if people want to use their iPads in other ways, they should be allowed to do so. Nobody, not Apple, and certainly not Steve Jobs, should be dictating what people are allowed to use their iPads for (except perhaps as a deadly weapon).
The iPad does not need to "mute" anyone, as the Time article puts it. Apple is dictating that it should, because of their desire to do business with book publishers.
The way I look at it is this: the "interaction" may actually be with another script. The whole abstraction that Unix-like OSes enforce, at least with file based IO, is that it is irrelevant what is on the other side of a file descriptor -- a disk, a pipe, a user, a socket, or something else entirely.
Of course, this all starts to break down with GUIs.
However, Apple also forces people to use their whitelist -- an iPad user is not free to use someone else' whitelist, or not whitelist at all. This is not truly an issue of security; this is an issue of rights, freedom, and control.
Why not allow users to select a non-Apple app store? Why not allow users to opt out of the "security?" Probably because Apple did not have security in mind when they decided to undermine the rights of their users.
"web applications instead of for a proprietary platform."
Almost all web apps, by their very nature, are proprietary. How many websites make their source code available? How many websites can you set up on your own web server? How many websites allow you to opt out of software updates (i.e. updates to the website itself)? Such examples certainly exist, but they are few and far between.
In the USA, the President appoints judges, and the senate votes for or against those nominations. Sadly, the Obama administration has ties to Hollywood, and will probably appoint another anti-consumer judge...and the senate, under Democrat control, is not likely to vote against such a judge.
You could say the democracy is broken.
What is wrong with a nicotine dependence? If you can use nicotine without harming yourself, is it really a problem? Would you take the same stance with a drug like caffeine?
Pick any bank, and they'll have some Linux systems. Or point to IBM, or Genesi computers (makers of low power Linux desktops), or TiVo, etc.
No, the point OP was trying to make was that when (yes, when mandatory filtering is a reality), it is likely that free operating systems will be outlawed because of the difficulty in implementing unwanted mandatory filters on such systems. I see the sequence of events beginning with legislation being passed that requires the filtering and copy restriction software to be installed on all computers, and within a year or two mass numbers of consumers switching to free operating systems to avoid the restrictions...and then legislation being passed that outlaws free operating systems.
It is not futile if the majority of people do not care enough about freedom of speech to put in effort to evade the filters. Generally, censorship works best to keep fringe positions at the fringe.
More than I got...
"cross-compiled code may interfere with the proper multitasking coming out in iPhoneOS 4.0."
Not very proper multitasking then, if it is dependent on which programming language your software was written in. If the iPhone OS cannot multitask random processes, written with any set of tools, then it does not even come close to meeting my personal quality standards. If that is Apple quality, I will stay even further away from Apple than I was already...
Thanks for the correction, I was not aware of that.
My PC has the following: CPU, RAM, hard disk drive, display adapter, NIC, USB ports...
My PS3 has the following: CPU, RAM, hard disk drive, display adapter, NIC, USB ports...
Sorry, could you remind me what the difference is?
The hyperviser enforced the restrictions and provided a simplified driver interface, that's all. You can run Linux on a PS3 without the hyperviser, but the current firmware will not allow it.
"at least we're more secure than Windows, right?"
In the default configuration, yes. However, last I checked, Ubuntu does not ship with SELinux, and so if you are looking for data security, Windows wins (note that there are other distros, like RHEL, that ship with SELinux, and are tied with Windows for multilevel security applications).
Really, the days of bashing Windows on security are long past. The users are a far greater problem than the software, and that will not change as they use different OSes.
Perhaps what you say is true for NZ, but in the USA things are a lot different. When I was in high school in New York City, which is not particularly known for fundamentalist Christians, our parents could opt to not have us sit in on the sex ed portion of health classes -- and some actually did. We could not opt out of the drug portion, the nutrition portion, or any other portion of that or any other class, but when it came to sex, the rules changed. Worse, we could not even be shown how to apply a condom -- it was just loosely explained with words, and no pictures or other visual aid.
Likewise with the movies we could be shown. When I took classical literature, we were shown a film adaptation of The Odyssey, and watched all the violent scenes...but the teacher fast forwarded past sex or nude scenes. This is how ridiculous the USA is when it comes to sex.
Sure, if your attackers will never try to crack any of your users' passwords...
Yes, emulating a mainframe is the same as copying it and giving it away for free. Nevermind that using hercules still requires a valid z/VM license, a valid license for all the software that is run on top of z/VM, and that hercules cannot provide nearly the same level of performance and reliability that a mainframe provides.
Or did you think that emulating a mainframe was that same thing as actually having mainframe hardware available?
And you are ignoring the fact that nicotine has pleasant effects, which is why people smoke at all. This is what always gets me about the anti-smoking crowd -- yes, smoking is bad for your health, but nobody ever bothers to raise the issue of why people smoke. It is not as cut and dry as "you try a cigarette and you are hooked for life," which is how most youth education seems to frame it. It is also not as simple as "no matter how often you smoke, it will lead to cancer, amputations, and heart attacks" -- smoking one cigarette a month is not a high enough level of exposure to pose a danger, whereas smoking a pack or more per day certainly is.
The problem, at least where I am (America), is that anti-smoking programs dumb everything down and treat people like idiots. Why not be honest with people, acknowledge that smoking has pleasant effects, and remind them that exposure to tobacco smoke is dangerous and that frequent exposure is very likely to cause severe health problems?
Really, you can substitute any drug in the above argument -- American anti-drug rhetoric is based on stirring up hysteria, and not on respecting anyone's intellect.