(Ok it has been a while since I've posted here but every time I preview this the line returns are ignored. If it doesn't show up properly I'm an idiot. Enough said.)
Pretty much every thing you stated completely ignores the technology available at the time. In the 70's 80's and early 90's there where no ISPs.
Really.
In 1983 if you were really in the know you had a computer and second phone line that was dedicated to your modem. If you were in the goverment or research you connected to the naescent internet. Otherwise it was a few BBSs. Think I'm wrong? Go watch "Wargames." That's actually a movie that doesn't completely suck when it comes to computer cracking. When you watch Mathew Brodderick push a phone on an interface device tell me exactly how the "internet" was supposed to take off then even if you could self publish. Who the hell would see it? Remember in the eighties most houses had one, yes one, phone line. If a computer was using it no one could call in. If someone in the house picked up the phone it would break your connection.
Sidenote
So you have the prototype internet or BBSs. BBSs were used quite a bit for those with the right kit. Which pretty much meant the crackers and hackers. Ever wonder how so many cracked games spread around in the eighties? BBSs. Which also explains the explosion in disc copying software at the time.
End Sidenote
The idea that CompuServe was a "walled garden" is kinda cute in a way. I mean you could dial a BBS and get a local view of something, plus pay for it most of the time. Or you could pay CompuServe and actually get on what was even close to the internet at the time. Plus tame flame wars in forums! Walled garden my hairy butt. Expensive? Hell yeah. But walled? Well the wall was actually knowing what the hell it was and having the equipment to dial into it plus having access to the true internet. Asside from CompuServer there was no other way to get on the internet if you were not in a school or government organization. Period. For instance when I went to college in 1989 the way I "surfed" the internet was through a serial, yes serial, connection to a VAX server. Once I terminaled into that I could contact other servers using gopher or ftp. Then I could download items to my scratch disk on the VAX. Once it was there I then had to download it to my computer using the XTERM, YTERM, ZTERM or KERMIT protocol. That is not a joke.
AOL came along, as I remember, in the early nighties as a competitor to CompuServe. It was another "walled garden" that gave people access to the internet. There was a time when people would collect AOL discs as coasters. Again not a joke. They battled each other out and eventually AOL bought CompuServe. Why? I have no idea. But still the AOL coasters came in the mail. It really wasn't until the second half of the nighties that ISPs really started to exist.
I think it was early 1997 when my phone company offered a consumer DSL line. I split the payment with my roomate and setup an ethernet hub. Yes hub. Routers didn't exist for normal people then. In fact hubs didn't either but I worked in a tech company. From there yeah the internet pretty much exploded.
As far as self publishing goes well, do we really have to count geocities? Ok fine but that makes it what 17 years?
I realize it's easy to think we could have done this forever in the past but seriously you need to consider the technical barriers at the time before spouting the "walled garden" argument.
I would have agreed with you a month ago, but not now. I think there is a big transition going on where more people will be taking video with the Flip and Kodak Zi6 which have USB interfaces. Yes older, standard and in many cases higher quality cameras do have Firewire. But with these new point and shoot video cameras I think the average person isn't going to care about Firewire.
So exactly how does removing an article from Wikipedia help improve other articles? I'm trying to follow the logic here, an article on "My Little Pony" will automatically insert "shit trivia and geek mastubatry(sic) nonsense" into unrelated articles? Wow I had no idea that Wikipedia was so fragile! I also didn't realize that those dang Wikipedia pages could get crowded like that. I thought you could just search for things but if you have to flip through them like a regular encyclopedia then that would be irritating. Thanks for few more reasons not to use Wikipedia!
You also say "Also, im(sic) just sick of reading a general topic, something unrelated to sci-fi and then seeing links like "He also shares the name of a popular Anime character" or "Nuclear aggression was also a topic on this episode of Star Trek."" But isn't the real beauty of Wikipedia is that it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? So why don't you edit those offending articles and remove the "mastubatry(sic) nonsense?" Oh right because they were put there by other sci-fi articles and the editors are powerless to remove them except by deleting the original article. Now I got it.
Well I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad those hard working Wikipedia editors are there to protect all of us from information that you don't approve of. After all Wikipedia is really the free encyclopedia for gad_zuki!
I'm really not sure what your point is. So a person having a link to a website should just accept a cease and desist order and also accept an investigation against them?
But this isn't just any website, it's a website of a public and government run website. You know, the kind of things taxpayers give money for. So a taxpayer now can not link to something they payed for.
Huh.
Apparently we have very different definitions of the word "frivolous."
The point is that that no company with deep pockets (someone who can be sued for a ton of cash) has stepped up to the plate. COWON America isn't a ripe target.
No I'm not satisfied. Until it has been tested in court no major company will actually use these formats. There are significant questions concerning patent obstructions. While you may not agree with them, lawyers will throw up red flags. AAC and H.264 are know entities under the law and this is why they are used. Businesses generally prefer something that has a known legal foundation rather than one that could have serious financial consequences. Now Ogg/Vorbis may be completely free and in the clear. But any company that uses these formats can expect to pay lawyers a lot of money to determine that in court.
However stunts like this will only get them lumped in with other organizations that have used their good intentions to help build a couple of super highways to hell like PETA and Greenpeace. The only reason that the FSF is targeting Apple is because anything having to do with Apple gets press. Period.
Congratulations FSF! You are now the annoying guy on the corner shouting about the end of days.
So is ffmpeg not open source? It uses the LGPL license and from their license FAQ:
"FFmpeg is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). However, FFmpeg incorporates several optional modules that are covered by the GNU General Public License (GPL), notably libpostproc and libswscale. If those parts get used the GPL applies to all of FFmpeg. Read the license texts to learn how this affects programs built on top of FFmpeg or reusing FFmpeg. You may also wish to have a look at the GPL FAQ. "
Since his suggestion was to do some scripting that does essentially what VisualHub does using ffmpeg I'm not sure I see how he missed the Open Source requirement.
PS. By the way, you need to be modded "Flamebait." Plus get those reading comprehension skills up to snuff. He wasn't saying go buy a MacBook Air, he was using the MacBook Air as an example as to why what they are asking for is impossible. Since TFA also mentions the MacBook Air as an example of esthetics and thinness I'm finding it hard to figure out why you are jumping all over his case.
It seems like the guys at 280 Slides have been working on something similar. They have an Apple background and called their language Objective-J, from what I can tell it's an extension on JavaScript in a similar manner to way Objective-C is to C. Their Cocoa like framework on Objective-J is called Cappuccino.
Now I don't know if SproutCore is anything like what they are doing (wasn't at WWDC so I don't know the details), but the end goals of both projects seem like the same thing. A language and framework where whatever you make should just work across browsers. It's very early days for both, so we will have to see. From the article it seems like SproutCore is going to be fairly open. The 280 North guys seem like they want something similar for Objective-J and Cappuccion but they are still working on cleaning up the frameworks.
Either way, the competition should be good and hopefully bring sanity to the client side scripting world.
Gmail does however automatically send back read-reciept notification without prompting the user so loading images is immaterial. As part of a mailing list discussion I tested the readnotify.com services and I was frankly surprised by that behavior. While readnotify.com won't be able to get the detailed tracking information, they will be able to determine that someone at least opened the message.
I agree with your general sentiment, that you need to understand the whole system, critical thinking is good and teachers are only as knowledgeable as their education. Seriously, who here has never known more than a teacher or professor at one point or another? That's almost a given. Where I think you go off the tracks is where you think energy extraction could be easier "than we've been taught by our establishment".
I really hope this is the case but I have some very serious doubts. For someone to overturn the principles of thermodynamics would guarantee a Nobel prize. Proving this would have a very profound impact on most, if not all, scientific fields. So forgive for saying that I think they need to provide proof before I believe what they have TOLD me.
In this case I think they have a more efficient catalyst for a fuel cell and that the more elaborate quotes come from "what could happen 5 years from now" but lost quite a bit in the translation.
The problem with Rob Enderle is that his success rate is actually lower than Sylvia Browns "psychic predictions." He consistently gives extremely bad analysis and advice. Now does mean that what he says is wrong? No. In fact saying that Microsoft will fight it anyway they can is borderline Captain Obvious. But any article that quotes Mr. Enderle raises some serious credibility questions about the reporter and the publication/site that posts it.
Or it could be even simpler. They will have a limited supply and would rather give it to the brick and mortar Apple Stores and AT&T stores. Now they may force you to sign a contract, but since under the current system you already do that with the iTunes then I don't know how anything has changed. It may be as you say but based on the roll out last year it's more about lines outside of stores and perception of demand.
His point was that the iPhone really takes advantage of the data plan. If you don't need the data plan then getting an iPhone is overkill anyway. So wanting to pay more for a phone that you can't use most of the features for on your current plan really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are always around free Wi-Fi then maybe it might be worth it. But in my experience the only places I can guarantee free Wi-Fi are at work or home, places where I already have a computer that can get me any information I want.
Since the actual contract sign up is done through iTunes how is buying from a brick and mortar Apple Store different than buying it off the Apple Store online? My guess is that it will be available online, but only after the initial "iPhone3G Rush" has passed.
Tell that to frustrated Tivo users. Don't like GPL3 software? Use software with a BSD license. But getting the code and locking it in so that users can't modify THEIR software inside your box, isn't what we could consider "freedom".
Frustrated TiVo users? Two thirds of everyone I know is a TiVo user and the only one that was ever frustrated is the one that modded the snot out of his box and then messed with something that nuked his drive. But he also knew what the hell he was getting into.
Everyone else who just uses the damn thing is perfectly happy and couldn't care less about fiddling with the innards. So exactly where are these legions of TiVo users that are frustrated?
The problem is that even after the average end user KNOWS they care, they don't have the ability to do anything about it GPL3 or no. I'm mean be real here if TiVo, for example, was fully compliant with GPL3 and decided to stop updating the Series 2 software. Some intrepid programmer out there figures out how to add a new feature that only TiVo Series 10 boxes have and updates the software. Do you really think that the user will be able to update their TiVo with that version?
I'm not even sure they will know they care since most people use the same software/hardware box/piece of equipment until it dies a gruesome death. Then they complain about getting something else since it doesn't work the same way. Hell people already complain about updating to new versions of software.
End users are not the average/. reader, they just aren't. Yes you or I would love to be able to tinker and modify things. We also know enough that when we do that we might break things. The end user just wants things to work.
A good analogy is with auto enthusiasts who install custom chips and software in their cars to get more power/fuel efficiency/whatever. Yes they get some cool features, they also know they take the risk of damaging their expensive car. Joe Average just wants his car to start when he turns the key.
Um, I'm not sure how you think movies are reviewed but the preview showings in the week before the release are for the movie critics. You know so they can get the reviews done before the Friday paper comes out. I'm not talking about previews a month or more before the release, it's the showings that are done explicitly for the critics. Do other people get into those? Of course they do, usually from radio and studio promotion give aways. Having an actual audience also lets the critics gauge public response.
As for the average people I've seen comment on it, some saw it at a midnight showing and some saw it last night. So I'm pretty sure that these people, quite a few of them who I know personally, don't "have their hand in the cookie jar."
Well since the reviews of this movie have been out for days and that most of them have been very positive I don't think they have any fear of the reviewers getting to them. They are more likely hoping that "the reviewers get to them" as well as anyone who has seen the movie. I've read very few overall negative comments on the movie from fans and the average joe.
The other problem I have with you comment is that it's in response to someone's short review of the film. It's not an ad but a person saying that the movie had some weaknesses but overall it was a good time. Something that I think that many, if not most, of the people reading slashdot just might be interested in. In addition, your opinion might also carry a bit more weight if you had actually seen the movie and confirmed it as "tripe..."
The problem isn't the "belief" in evolution (the term Darwinism is a canard really as is the use of belief but I'll go with it for now.) It's the attempt to get something that has absolutely nothing to do with science taught in a science class. The only reason evolution even enters into this is that the ID proponents have chosen that Theory to cast their rhetoric at. It's the idea that ID is an actual Theory that is the source of most of the ire directed at them. ID fails every possible requirement for being a true scientific Theory yet it's proponents use the recognition of this failure as evidence of censorship and persecution.
The idea that if someone shouts loud enough they can force any idea to be considered a valid scientific Theory is the true fear. It's not the idea that some people don't find the evolutionary Theory valid that will harm science education, it's the subornation of the scientific method. The extraordinary efforts are necessary because when one so called theory forces it's way in (whether it's ID, astrology or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) it makes it that much easier for the next to get in.
Exactly. I've been in the Apple Dev Programs and they were a per year cost. But this one doesn't say squat about it. That coupled with the low entry price speaks volumes to me. When I was doing full time Mac and Newton programming my company payed about $3000-$5000 a year (it varied because the program changed.) Right now the lowest Dev program costs $500. But for the iPhone we have a free SDK and a $99 fee to distribute applications. Of course you have to pay that fee, and get accepted into the beta SDK, to get the beta 2.0 firmware. I've applied but I don't think that I will be accepted for another couple months. Maybe June:).
But I think that Apple is trying to get as many people as they possibly can to develop applications for the iPhone. The made a barrier to entry, but it's a pretty low barrier. You can get the SDK easily and get updates to it. You might not get in the first run of AppStore devs but it will take time to write software. So that isn't that big of a deal. I'm not saying that they won't raise the price in the future, but right now they just want all the apps they can get.
Ok I've been going through some of the videos and documentation and at first blush it seems not really. Apparently you need to put your iPhone in a "dev" mode to do the uploading and debugging. It seems likes you can swap between standard or "provisioned" (dev mode.) It doesn't look like you can just load any app and still have a fully functional iPhone, the provisioned/dev state looks like it is a sort of sandbox for testing.
That is a very good question. I have no idea right now but I'm fairly sure we will get the answer to that shortly as developers start digging into the SDK.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit to hell. So how do I actually make line returns anyway?
(Ok it has been a while since I've posted here but every time I preview this the line returns are ignored. If it doesn't show up properly I'm an idiot. Enough said.) Pretty much every thing you stated completely ignores the technology available at the time. In the 70's 80's and early 90's there where no ISPs. Really. In 1983 if you were really in the know you had a computer and second phone line that was dedicated to your modem. If you were in the goverment or research you connected to the naescent internet. Otherwise it was a few BBSs. Think I'm wrong? Go watch "Wargames." That's actually a movie that doesn't completely suck when it comes to computer cracking. When you watch Mathew Brodderick push a phone on an interface device tell me exactly how the "internet" was supposed to take off then even if you could self publish. Who the hell would see it? Remember in the eighties most houses had one, yes one, phone line. If a computer was using it no one could call in. If someone in the house picked up the phone it would break your connection. Sidenote So you have the prototype internet or BBSs. BBSs were used quite a bit for those with the right kit. Which pretty much meant the crackers and hackers. Ever wonder how so many cracked games spread around in the eighties? BBSs. Which also explains the explosion in disc copying software at the time. End Sidenote The idea that CompuServe was a "walled garden" is kinda cute in a way. I mean you could dial a BBS and get a local view of something, plus pay for it most of the time. Or you could pay CompuServe and actually get on what was even close to the internet at the time. Plus tame flame wars in forums! Walled garden my hairy butt. Expensive? Hell yeah. But walled? Well the wall was actually knowing what the hell it was and having the equipment to dial into it plus having access to the true internet. Asside from CompuServer there was no other way to get on the internet if you were not in a school or government organization. Period. For instance when I went to college in 1989 the way I "surfed" the internet was through a serial, yes serial, connection to a VAX server. Once I terminaled into that I could contact other servers using gopher or ftp. Then I could download items to my scratch disk on the VAX. Once it was there I then had to download it to my computer using the XTERM, YTERM, ZTERM or KERMIT protocol. That is not a joke. AOL came along, as I remember, in the early nighties as a competitor to CompuServe. It was another "walled garden" that gave people access to the internet. There was a time when people would collect AOL discs as coasters. Again not a joke. They battled each other out and eventually AOL bought CompuServe. Why? I have no idea. But still the AOL coasters came in the mail. It really wasn't until the second half of the nighties that ISPs really started to exist. I think it was early 1997 when my phone company offered a consumer DSL line. I split the payment with my roomate and setup an ethernet hub. Yes hub. Routers didn't exist for normal people then. In fact hubs didn't either but I worked in a tech company. From there yeah the internet pretty much exploded. As far as self publishing goes well, do we really have to count geocities? Ok fine but that makes it what 17 years? I realize it's easy to think we could have done this forever in the past but seriously you need to consider the technical barriers at the time before spouting the "walled garden" argument.
I would have agreed with you a month ago, but not now. I think there is a big transition going on where more people will be taking video with the Flip and Kodak Zi6 which have USB interfaces. Yes older, standard and in many cases higher quality cameras do have Firewire. But with these new point and shoot video cameras I think the average person isn't going to care about Firewire.
So exactly how does removing an article from Wikipedia help improve other articles? I'm trying to follow the logic here, an article on "My Little Pony" will automatically insert "shit trivia and geek mastubatry(sic) nonsense" into unrelated articles? Wow I had no idea that Wikipedia was so fragile! I also didn't realize that those dang Wikipedia pages could get crowded like that. I thought you could just search for things but if you have to flip through them like a regular encyclopedia then that would be irritating. Thanks for few more reasons not to use Wikipedia!
You also say "Also, im(sic) just sick of reading a general topic, something unrelated to sci-fi and then seeing links like "He also shares the name of a popular Anime character" or "Nuclear aggression was also a topic on this episode of Star Trek."" But isn't the real beauty of Wikipedia is that it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? So why don't you edit those offending articles and remove the "mastubatry(sic) nonsense?" Oh right because they were put there by other sci-fi articles and the editors are powerless to remove them except by deleting the original article. Now I got it.
Well I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad those hard working Wikipedia editors are there to protect all of us from information that you don't approve of. After all Wikipedia is really the free encyclopedia for gad_zuki!
I'm really not sure what your point is. So a person having a link to a website should just accept a cease and desist order and also accept an investigation against them?
But this isn't just any website, it's a website of a public and government run website. You know, the kind of things taxpayers give money for. So a taxpayer now can not link to something they payed for.
Huh.
Apparently we have very different definitions of the word "frivolous."
The point is that that no company with deep pockets (someone who can be sued for a ton of cash) has stepped up to the plate. COWON America isn't a ripe target.
No I'm not satisfied. Until it has been tested in court no major company will actually use these formats. There are significant questions concerning patent obstructions. While you may not agree with them, lawyers will throw up red flags. AAC and H.264 are know entities under the law and this is why they are used. Businesses generally prefer something that has a known legal foundation rather than one that could have serious financial consequences. Now Ogg/Vorbis may be completely free and in the clear. But any company that uses these formats can expect to pay lawyers a lot of money to determine that in court.
The FSF has laudable goals. I don't dispute that.
However stunts like this will only get them lumped in with other organizations that have used their good intentions to help build a couple of super highways to hell like PETA and Greenpeace. The only reason that the FSF is targeting Apple is because anything having to do with Apple gets press. Period.
Congratulations FSF! You are now the annoying guy on the corner shouting about the end of days.
Since his suggestion was to do some scripting that does essentially what VisualHub does using ffmpeg I'm not sure I see how he missed the Open Source requirement.
PS. By the way, you need to be modded "Flamebait." Plus get those reading comprehension skills up to snuff. He wasn't saying go buy a MacBook Air, he was using the MacBook Air as an example as to why what they are asking for is impossible. Since TFA also mentions the MacBook Air as an example of esthetics and thinness I'm finding it hard to figure out why you are jumping all over his case.
It seems like the guys at 280 Slides have been working on something similar. They have an Apple background and called their language Objective-J, from what I can tell it's an extension on JavaScript in a similar manner to way Objective-C is to C. Their Cocoa like framework on Objective-J is called Cappuccino.
Now I don't know if SproutCore is anything like what they are doing (wasn't at WWDC so I don't know the details), but the end goals of both projects seem like the same thing. A language and framework where whatever you make should just work across browsers. It's very early days for both, so we will have to see. From the article it seems like SproutCore is going to be fairly open. The 280 North guys seem like they want something similar for Objective-J and Cappuccion but they are still working on cleaning up the frameworks.
Either way, the competition should be good and hopefully bring sanity to the client side scripting world.
Nuts, wasn't logged in so posting this again:
Gmail does however automatically send back read-reciept notification without prompting the user so loading images is immaterial. As part of a mailing list discussion I tested the readnotify.com services and I was frankly surprised by that behavior. While readnotify.com won't be able to get the detailed tracking information, they will be able to determine that someone at least opened the message.
I agree with your general sentiment, that you need to understand the whole system, critical thinking is good and teachers are only as knowledgeable as their education. Seriously, who here has never known more than a teacher or professor at one point or another? That's almost a given. Where I think you go off the tracks is where you think energy extraction could be easier "than we've been taught by our establishment".
I really hope this is the case but I have some very serious doubts. For someone to overturn the principles of thermodynamics would guarantee a Nobel prize. Proving this would have a very profound impact on most, if not all, scientific fields. So forgive for saying that I think they need to provide proof before I believe what they have TOLD me.
In this case I think they have a more efficient catalyst for a fuel cell and that the more elaborate quotes come from "what could happen 5 years from now" but lost quite a bit in the translation.
The problem with Rob Enderle is that his success rate is actually lower than Sylvia Browns "psychic predictions." He consistently gives extremely bad analysis and advice. Now does mean that what he says is wrong? No. In fact saying that Microsoft will fight it anyway they can is borderline Captain Obvious. But any article that quotes Mr. Enderle raises some serious credibility questions about the reporter and the publication/site that posts it.
Or it could be even simpler. They will have a limited supply and would rather give it to the brick and mortar Apple Stores and AT&T stores. Now they may force you to sign a contract, but since under the current system you already do that with the iTunes then I don't know how anything has changed. It may be as you say but based on the roll out last year it's more about lines outside of stores and perception of demand.
His point was that the iPhone really takes advantage of the data plan. If you don't need the data plan then getting an iPhone is overkill anyway. So wanting to pay more for a phone that you can't use most of the features for on your current plan really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are always around free Wi-Fi then maybe it might be worth it. But in my experience the only places I can guarantee free Wi-Fi are at work or home, places where I already have a computer that can get me any information I want.
Since the actual contract sign up is done through iTunes how is buying from a brick and mortar Apple Store different than buying it off the Apple Store online? My guess is that it will be available online, but only after the initial "iPhone3G Rush" has passed.
Frustrated TiVo users? Two thirds of everyone I know is a TiVo user and the only one that was ever frustrated is the one that modded the snot out of his box and then messed with something that nuked his drive. But he also knew what the hell he was getting into.
Everyone else who just uses the damn thing is perfectly happy and couldn't care less about fiddling with the innards. So exactly where are these legions of TiVo users that are frustrated?
The problem is that even after the average end user KNOWS they care, they don't have the ability to do anything about it GPL3 or no. I'm mean be real here if TiVo, for example, was fully compliant with GPL3 and decided to stop updating the Series 2 software. Some intrepid programmer out there figures out how to add a new feature that only TiVo Series 10 boxes have and updates the software. Do you really think that the user will be able to update their TiVo with that version?
/. reader, they just aren't. Yes you or I would love to be able to tinker and modify things. We also know enough that when we do that we might break things. The end user just wants things to work.
I'm not even sure they will know they care since most people use the same software/hardware box/piece of equipment until it dies a gruesome death. Then they complain about getting something else since it doesn't work the same way. Hell people already complain about updating to new versions of software.
End users are not the average
A good analogy is with auto enthusiasts who install custom chips and software in their cars to get more power/fuel efficiency/whatever. Yes they get some cool features, they also know they take the risk of damaging their expensive car. Joe Average just wants his car to start when he turns the key.
Um, I'm not sure how you think movies are reviewed but the preview showings in the week before the release are for the movie critics. You know so they can get the reviews done before the Friday paper comes out. I'm not talking about previews a month or more before the release, it's the showings that are done explicitly for the critics. Do other people get into those? Of course they do, usually from radio and studio promotion give aways. Having an actual audience also lets the critics gauge public response.
As for the average people I've seen comment on it, some saw it at a midnight showing and some saw it last night. So I'm pretty sure that these people, quite a few of them who I know personally, don't "have their hand in the cookie jar."
Well since the reviews of this movie have been out for days and that most of them have been very positive I don't think they have any fear of the reviewers getting to them. They are more likely hoping that "the reviewers get to them" as well as anyone who has seen the movie. I've read very few overall negative comments on the movie from fans and the average joe.
The other problem I have with you comment is that it's in response to someone's short review of the film. It's not an ad but a person saying that the movie had some weaknesses but overall it was a good time. Something that I think that many, if not most, of the people reading slashdot just might be interested in. In addition, your opinion might also carry a bit more weight if you had actually seen the movie and confirmed it as "tripe..."
The problem isn't the "belief" in evolution (the term Darwinism is a canard really as is the use of belief but I'll go with it for now.) It's the attempt to get something that has absolutely nothing to do with science taught in a science class. The only reason evolution even enters into this is that the ID proponents have chosen that Theory to cast their rhetoric at. It's the idea that ID is an actual Theory that is the source of most of the ire directed at them. ID fails every possible requirement for being a true scientific Theory yet it's proponents use the recognition of this failure as evidence of censorship and persecution. The idea that if someone shouts loud enough they can force any idea to be considered a valid scientific Theory is the true fear. It's not the idea that some people don't find the evolutionary Theory valid that will harm science education, it's the subornation of the scientific method. The extraordinary efforts are necessary because when one so called theory forces it's way in (whether it's ID, astrology or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) it makes it that much easier for the next to get in.
Exactly. I've been in the Apple Dev Programs and they were a per year cost. But this one doesn't say squat about it. That coupled with the low entry price speaks volumes to me. When I was doing full time Mac and Newton programming my company payed about $3000-$5000 a year (it varied because the program changed.) Right now the lowest Dev program costs $500. But for the iPhone we have a free SDK and a $99 fee to distribute applications. Of course you have to pay that fee, and get accepted into the beta SDK, to get the beta 2.0 firmware. I've applied but I don't think that I will be accepted for another couple months. Maybe June :).
But I think that Apple is trying to get as many people as they possibly can to develop applications for the iPhone. The made a barrier to entry, but it's a pretty low barrier. You can get the SDK easily and get updates to it. You might not get in the first run of AppStore devs but it will take time to write software. So that isn't that big of a deal. I'm not saying that they won't raise the price in the future, but right now they just want all the apps they can get.
Ok I've been going through some of the videos and documentation and at first blush it seems not really. Apparently you need to put your iPhone in a "dev" mode to do the uploading and debugging. It seems likes you can swap between standard or "provisioned" (dev mode.) It doesn't look like you can just load any app and still have a fully functional iPhone, the provisioned/dev state looks like it is a sort of sandbox for testing.
That is a very good question. I have no idea right now but I'm fairly sure we will get the answer to that shortly as developers start digging into the SDK.