The MPEG LA firm, the firm that owns the patent for the H.264 codec, stated
MPEG LA, the firm that controls licensing for a number of video and other standards, announced on Thursday that it will never charge any royalties for Internet video encoded using the H.264 standard that Apple favors, as long as that video is free to end-users.
Note the language used…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
Let me say that one more time…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
I don’t see how that assures anyone that MPEG LA will make the H.264 codec “open” in any way…
I did not know that the USA could have different Security Alert status positions at the same time…
Come to find out, the USA posts a terror alert (you can add it to your page too)… See the right column? Right now, the USA is “elevated” or yellow while the USA AIR warning is “Elevated” or red…
Take from this? Take the train…
Terrorists…
I see people saying that terrorists are religious fanatics or “crazy” people. I think terrorists are those that talk others into killing because they think they are too valuable to lose for the cause… You know… The adult who would convince a child to go kill those the “adult” finds offensive (for whatever reason) because the adult is to cowardly to “fight” those they, themselves, oppose… See here for an example…
Funny how people like that always want someone else to go fight “their” fight…
Stuff
We may make mistakes more than once…
This saying applies to people, companies, and states (countries). One reason to study history is to know about past mistakes, try to avoid future/current mistakes, and to learn from past mistakes so that we become … better.
Hopefully every USA citizen has read these two documents…
Playboy announces it will be censoring its iPad application to meet Apple’s stringent “Morality Test.” I mean… Really? I know they have good articles, but … Really?
III. Oracle…driven to make money…
Oracle announces it will not pursue OpenSolaris. At the same time, Oracle sues Google and announces JAVA is not free… Anyone know what happened about this news release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)?
Before I realized it, I was watching a movie a weekend — sometimes two. I found myself less interested in reading. I would pick up a book and page through it, but what I really wanted to do was watch another movie. There were several titles I couldn’t wait to see. So came the midweek video.
Most of these movies were “family movies” or PG movies…
The author continues
During my video seduction, I experienced a perplexing spiritual struggle. I rationalized viewing discrete sex and partial nudity. I’m mature enough to handle this, I thought. There’s nothing wrong with merely viewing these things. I’m not the one doing them. Yet deep within my heart, I knew I was guilty.
Guilty of what exactly?
The author states
Before long, however, I found the sexual scenes more enticing and less offensive.
Here is what I don’t understand…
The viewing of sin, killings, sex, or other “things” does not let Satan into your heart. Those things and activities don’t even let him near your heart or soul… You do.
Watching movies isn’t different than reading a book…
Let me Explain… No, there is too much. Let me sum up…
If you are religious, you know God created all.
God created the animals, the plants, and us.
God wants us to procreate. To do so, he made sex pleasurable. Accept that fact. If it didn’t feel good (if it was really painful and unpleasant), we might not be here to worship him… Wrap your logic around that…
Being content with who you are and what you are lets you understand that sex is natural. Liking sex is natural.
If you think it isn’t natural, why did God create it and make it required for us to procreate?
You see, thinking that anything lets “SATAN” into you is a myth. You act and think on your own–nobody forces you.
God doesn’t understand why you think you are perfect and shouldn’t be tempted (by sex, etc). You are not God–you are imperfect.
Those who are not religious can also understand that humans, like most animals, are not perfect creatures… To expect perfection is … illogical.
The weakness is in you! The weakness is not created by the videos or the movies. Rather, the weakness is in your inability to rationalize and think critically about the feelings those visions create in your psyche.
Try to understand that. Try to educate yourself and grow.
God, and the rest of us humans, don’t like ignorance or those who think “something else made me do it.”
If you complain the new law is a “problem,” you should at least know what the law says… Otherwise you are ignorant and uneducated…
Understand that “undocumented migrants” are “illegal immigrants.” It is illegal to be in the USA without following the laws regarding immigration.
To say that “undocumented workers” are not illegal is like saying a man isn’t a criminal even though he stole food to feed his family… Educate yourself and think critically…
So says the 5-Judge majority as stated by Judge Alito.
Why is this a surprise? It shouldn’t be… Think about the first 10 Amendments…
They are limitations on governmental power over citizens. Shall we review?
1st - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2nd - Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th - Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7th - Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8th - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9th - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th - Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
All of these grant rights to citizens that are to be guaranteed to the citizens of the USA. I think that is a good thing…
“Liberal” Judges don’t get it and, thank God, can’t sell it…
Yahoo has a news link that states:
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”
Does he recall that the reason we have a country is that the citizens had guns? Just because people can use guns unwisely isn’t a reason to reduce the rights of the citizenry… If that were the case, Free Speech would be reduced first since most arguments and fights begin with words… Perhaps the Judges in their “Ivory Tower” have forgotten this fact… I hope they aren’t that … ignorant!
The passage of concealed carry laws has been “trumpeted” as being so dangerous by many anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign… However, none of the states with such “Shall Issue” laws has seen any of this destruction to any of their communities. While not funny, it is enlightening that the areas with the most strict gun control laws are those very places where gun violence is so bad-Chicago, Washington D.C., …
Constitutional Victory
Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.
Liberals should be granting liberal rights to the citizenry rather than reducing citizen rights. Funny that it appears to be those labeled as “conservative” that grant rights to all of us…
For those who think this will create bad violence and killings, I have a statement…
If the President of the Brady Campaign went out and bought a gun and obtained a concealed carry permit, he/she would not be any more likely to commit gun violence than any other citizen who does the same… Those you need to worry about are those criminals who break the laws and who are willing to use gun violence to “get what they want.”
Remember, the criminal is committing a crime. I don’t think making it illegal to own a firearm is going to stop a criminal from owning a firearm. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom, and it won’t work anywhere…
Think critically rather than with your emotions. One is good, the other is scary.
Of course, it has been on for a while, and I haven’t played competitively for some time… Something like 20 years ago, I was playing semi-pro ball in Puerto Rico. I quit because semi-pro and pro soccer isn’t, imho, about the better soccer team or the better soccer player, it is like the american judicial system–it is what can you get away with…
Let me give you some examples…
Chile v. Switzerland on June 21, 2010
In this game, there were many, many fouls-19 cards were issued? Can that be right?
There was a yellow card given to a Chilean player for hitting a Swiss player in the face-except he didn’t touch the Swiss player. Video clearly shows no touch occurred…
There was a yellow card given to a Chilean player for faking a foul as he was going for a goal shot. He faked a foul to try and get a penalty kick instead of simply recovering and trying to get the goal like a good soccer player…
The only goal that counted shouldn’t have because there was a player off-sides on the break-away. Video replay clearly shows the off-sides.
There was a yellow card given to a Swiss player for holding a Chilean player who was down by the Swiss goal. After being given the card, the Swiss player got up and yelled, his body clenched–all when video clearly shows he was fouling the Chilean player. Did the Swiss player have amnesia? Give me a break…
What is my problem with all this?
FIFA looks stupid, and the players and teams look worse.
Why?
You have no review of plays. There is no penalty for lying. There is only an encouragement to lie, cheat, and hit…
This atmosphere, created by FIFA, coaches, and players, leads to this…
Poor sportsmanship, Lack of Soccer skills
All of this lack of honesty and sportsmanship lead to poor soccer. I think this all started when Pele was playing… Why? Most players didn’t have the skill to stop Pele so they relied on fouls, intentional fouls at that…
The Solution?
FIFA needs to step up the game and stop worrying about making so much money. Soccer is suffering. Players today think elbowing the defender in the stomach/ribs is okay and acceptable. When the defender replies by pulling the attacker’s hair, suddenly everyone is up in arms?
Give me a break. If you are going to foul and suspend Lambert for that action, you should also foul and suspend the other party…
Doing otherwise is hypocritical. If you don’t think so, you need to go take a class in reason and practice critical thinking…
My Message to FIFA, Players, and, especially, Coaches
Call the fouls or change your damn rules. FIFA, refs, and players all look stupid and lacking in reason when they try to justify the game as it is currently played.
There is NO reasoning for the game to be reduced to the fake fouls, the purple prose, the lack of pure soccer skills and enjoyment of the game.
My comment to those who foul on purpose, to those who fake fouls, to those who support this lack of sportsmanship…
If you can’t compete without it, get off the field.
If Steve showed up and told you you needed to get approval for all reading material you read by asking Apple if it was okay to read, would you oblige him?
I read a post at TwistImage that seems to think the iPhone is better than swiss cheese, bread, and the cart it road in on (including the wheels).
I had to respond…
You state:
“The phone (or calling) part is now shadowed by everything else.”
Ah..No it isn’t or all the iPhone people would be carrying a phone and an iPod or iPad…
I want one device to do everything, and we can have that today. I don’t care about Steve’s philosophical differences with Adobe or Google, and I bet most users would appreciate flash on their devices… Steve references Adobe promised it for 2 years but didn’t deliver…does that mean Steve wanted it too? What changed?
I’ve stated this before… Steve’s genius was marketing and perfecting the iTunes store. People who invest in a platform are not want to change and lose their investment. Now that all these iPod and iPhone users have spent good money on apps that only work on iDevices, they have an incentive in continuing to use iDevices even though they don’t provide all of the features people want.
Please don’t tell me you like going to Flash intensive sites on the internet with the iPad or iPhone and seeing all those blank spaces… That is not a full-web experience.
Open? H.264 is protected IP–go look it up! H.264 is as open as .gif is open… Does Apple give away any open source software besides their contribution to Darwin?
Don’t get me wrong, I like Apple–I have used their hardware since the //e (I have one of the first). However, I don’t care about Steve’s obsession with Flash, porn, Google, Android, or anything else. I care about my devices allowing me to use them for the experience I want.
Great if most people don’t care about flash. However, I want Flash. I want to be able to install my programs on the device without me having to send them to Apple for Apple’s release on the iTunes store. What if I don’t want to share or what if I use it for my purposes?
I buy a Ford, Chevy, Via, or other car, and I don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me I can’t put on Goodyear tires or use it for racing…
I buy a new refrigerator and don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me what I can put in it…
I don’t expect to buy a new Computer with Windows (whatever flavor) and expect MS to tell me I have to use their browser…… (get it yet?)
Why should I let Stevie tell me that I don’t need flash? I don’t need that Bass Ale in my refrigerator either, but I will drink one hoping the Xiliv X10 android slate is released soon–I will be buying it.
Why?
Go look at the text of the speech given by the “establishment” in the 1984 advertisement for the macintosh-yes, the famous one… The text sounds like Apple today…. Don’t think so? Go look it up.
Choice. I don’t want the government telling me what I want, and I don’t want to have to give up things I enjoy doing–those time-wasting flash games–just because Stevie has some issue with Adobe…
If you think it is about being “open,” you have bought the red herring…
I really don’t understand what the fuss is over…
I guess it is that iPhone users are not educated about the features that are available on other phones/devices so that they think Apple started each one.
Go look at the Treo 650 and tell me where Steve got his idea for icons in a row on a screen–Palm.
Did Apple do a great job on the original iPhone? Yes.
Is the new iPhone 4 the “best thing ever?” No.
1. IPS Retina View
I don’t want to see my retina… The iPhone 4 has a good display, but Steve’s comments are a lie. See here and here.
2. Lack of Flash
You may not want it, but plenty of us do. You are “right” for you, and we are “right” for us. Leave it alone and quit trying to convince me I don’t need it or want it–I do.
Now, for a negative in a sentence to prove a point.. (bad grammar idea..)
The full web experience is not seeing blank spaces where flash content is located as I browse the web… Sorry Steve, why don’t you browse to some of those popular sites while you “introduce” those devices? Ah, right… You don’t want people to see those blank spaces…
3. Lack of being “open.”
For all of Steve’s talk of “open,” the iDevice is certainly closed. If I want to put my program on the iDevice, I have to send it to Apple and let it be listed in the iTunes store… Why? What if I want to use it for me? Does Ford tell me I can’t use GoodYear tires? Does Kenmore tell me what I can put in my fridge?
4. Expandability…
I want a slot for a SD card, HDMI, USB, etc. Why can’t we have those? Would it extend the life of the device past that which Apple wants to have in the return purchase? Smart for Apple, not good for me.
5. Competition
Apple’s move isn’t about “open” or “full-web experience. Apple’s move is to control content.
Apple moves to limit Admob (Google) ads from providing useful ads for those who want them, and plenty of folk do–just look at Google’s bottom line and Apple’s purchase of iAds…
Apple wants to limit iAds to Apple devices. Steve says this removes unwanted ads and replaces them with nicely-wrapped information for the user (i.e., ads by Apple).
Apple wants all content delivered to iDevices to come from iTunes (controlled by Apple).
All of this is great for Apple, but I don’t like the limitations. Why can’t I buy an app from someone else? Why can’t I install it myself? People yell, “Apple guarantees quality and the experience…”
Give me a break! Think critically! Did all of those Palm apps crash palm devices 10 years ago? No, people swarmed to those devices… People learned what was “junk” and what wasn’t. Just as they learn via reviews and other sites. The programmers/developers guarantee quality, Apple limits. If you think otherwise, you are about to be pulled out of the water and into the boat…
Summary
I think it is great if you LOVE your iPhone and iPad. I like my Macintosh notebook and my iPhone.
My next phone likely will not be an iPhone since I (me, myself, and I) want more than what the iPhone can provide. Your mileage may differ, and I am not saying the iPhone is “wrong” per se. Rather, the iPhone (and Apple’s philosophical stance) is wrong for me. Call me idealistic or call me nuts.
I’m sure you are all aware that Helen Thomas has “retired.” I think she was forced out due to her opinions.
Funny about that, everyone has them, but we don’t accept those that are contrary to ours…
That makes us as biased and intolerant as those we complain about doesn’t it? If not, I’d like to hear what you think is logic…
My comment to those Jews and Arabs who are exchanging barbs about this:
The people who are replying in an angry tone or with profanity are not people who want peace or who think critically. Let me explain…
There is very little that is “right” or “wrong.” Mostly, it is a matter of what your culture finds “acceptable.” You have your opinions, and everyone else has their opinion. If you think you are always “right,” you are ignorant… What is “right” for you could be “wrong” for everyone else. Again, why do you think you are always right? Do you think Hitler killed the Jews he did because he thought he was … wrong?
The road to hell is paved not with good intentions but with those who “knew” they were “right.”
People are entitled to their opinions. Even if they are widely divergent from yours, you should try to understand their reasoning (if any). If you can not try to do so, are you not as “wrong” as they are since you have your opinion? Are you “wrong” to all of the people who called Palestine home? If you never listen to those who disagree, how do you ever learn? How do you correct your misunderstandings? How do you ever alter your view?
“Terrorists” are defined by the victors or those in power. Do research or do you forget those “freedom fighters” who killed many–not just people in the military or members of a police force. Again, the act is terrorism. The reason for the act is irrelevant isn’t it? Think!
She, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion. Nobody else has to share her opinion, and you can think she is wrong. You can think the complete opposite. Who cares? You could think 2 + 3 = 4, and you still wouldn’t be right…
The point? Take “their” side. You ran them out of their home (USA to native Americans, Jews to Palestinians, Palestinians to Jews, etc.). Who “owned it when?” Someone live there before the Jewish religion was formed? Perhaps we should return it to those with Neanderthal DNA…
Why is there a need to “hate” anyone? Jew, Arab, etc? While I think the Muslim religion is off the mark (such as requiring conversion or “taxing” those who are not Muslim), I do think people should have the ability to worship as they want so long as it doesn’t bother others.
I do think education will go a long way to changing the Muslim religion… If not, I don’t think it will survive the education of its followers. Who can support the conversion (forced or not) or the “taxing” or unfair treatment of non-believers when they don’t other religions should “tax” them or treat them differently? Logic is a funny thing… How do you justify a double standard?
Think critically. Don’t hate someone because they have an opinion or it is okay for them to hate you for your opinion. Accept that people disagree with you. Accept that you are not always “right.” Learn to communicate. If you have forgotten your history, the Jews and Arab Muslims have the same ancestors… You are simply picking a time and culture that you don’t share with each other and claiming each is “right” while the “other” is “wrong.”
That sounds like my two kids arguing…
Get over it. Grow up and sit down and talk. Listen and learn. You aren’t different, you just have different beliefs. I bet you and your spouse don’t agree on everything. One might have voted left, one right. One might like education for women, one may not. One may love mathematics, and one may like literature…
Everyone is an individual. However, we need to learn to live together… If you are going to hate someone for an opinion, then you can’t complain when people hate you…
Critical thinking. Why is it that nobody tries anymore?
You can not like what she has to say, and you have a right to say as much. However, she has a right to her opinion and a right to speak her mind.
Before you jump down my throat, understand that there is lots in each “bible” that makes no sense…
Jonah swallowed by a whale? Sure, it is documented that a child was swallowed and lived, but I don’t know that Jonah was actually swallowed… Does it matter if it is absolute truth to learn the lesson the story teaches?
Remember, it was HUMANS that wrote the texts, and we are not perfect even if you think God is… If he is perfect, I wonder how it is we are unable to think critically and solve problems–instead we act all “emotional…”
Could Jesus walk on water? I don’t think so, but do all of his teachings mean nothing if he would sink?
Why do Muslims not want you to worship an idol but get angry when you deface the image of Muḥammad? I still don’t understand that… I understand Muslims think Muḥammad wasn’t the son of God and think he was just a prophet. However, I don’t know whether Muslims get upset if an image of Jesus or Moses is defaced. If not, what is the reasoning for the double standard?
I won’t even go into some of the “religions” like Scientology that … Well, go Google/Bing/Yahoo that for yourself…
My point is that we are all individuals. Get every “group” (muslim, jew, catholic, etc.) together, and I doubt you will find any two who agree on every issue. If we can agree on that issue, why is it that people in each of those groups finds it so easy to “hate” someone in another group simply because they disagree?
People need to think critically rather than be controlled by what others think. If you let the opinions or actions of others control you, are you really following your religion?
If you don’t believe in religion/God, a double-standard should not be acceptable to your logic.
If think a double-standard is acceptable, I’d love to hear how you justify it… Do you think you are “better” than others and, therefore, can tax non-believers? How about if the other groups did so to you or others of your religion? How would you feel then about them and their practice? Think now… Don’t cave in to the ease of feeling offended. God wants you to think–that is why you have reason that differentiates you from the other life on the planet. If you aren’t religious, you hare reasoning that is documented as being “higher” or more developed than that found in other life on the planet. If you are responding emotionally, how is that helping? Remember, think…
Think Critically.
How would you feel if you were not given the same rights as everyone else simply because you believed in a different God? How would you feel if it was the same God (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) but didn’t practice the worship of that God in the same manner?
Could it be God asked each of you to worship differently?
Summary
Remember, the road to hell or damnation is not paved with good intentions… The road to damnation is not admitting your “right” may be “wrong” for other people. When you “know” you are “right” and “others” are “wrong,” how are you different from Hitler (because he “knew” he was “right”) when you treat others to a different standard just because they don’t meet certain conditions (religion, appearance, etc.)? Remember, Hitler didn’t kill Jews, homosexuals, and others because he thought he was wrong.
Hitler thought he was “right,” and he used his “justification” to do terrible things. While you might not kill so many, how is your view that “they” are “wrong” any different than Hitler’s view of the Jews or the homosexuals? You hate them because they are them and not you? You hate them because they are different or hold different beliefs? Be better than Hitler…
Tolerance and understanding. God knows. He knew we would be thrown out of Eden, and he knew we would be tested. I don’t think he knows whether we use the greatest tools he gave us (reason and freedom of though) to save us and the world. Realistically, it doesn’t look good does it?
If a child hits your child, do you suggest your child go hit the other child back? If not, you should not hate others just because they disagree with you or your views.
Failing to think critically makes everyone look … like children. Hopefully, the majority of the people on this planet can put aside childish things.
In Closing
Everyone has an opinion…
If “We” don’t like or accept those opinions that are contrary to ours, aren’t we as biased and intolerant as those we complain about just because they are “wrong?”
Stop arguing like children. Put away childish things. Growing up is hard work. So is Critical Thinking.
If Flash doesn’t work on the iPhone (or doesn’t work well), let the market decide to open the door to competing products. To deny entry to the “game” and say “you can’t compete technologically” seems like a lie… If Flash is terrible on the iPlatform, the market will see this and either Adobe will improve it or competitors, even Apple, can introduce a competing technology.
Why HTML5 isn’t the answer
HTML5 may not handle delivering codecs to your computer, returning us to the early days of the Internet when you were prompted at every site to “download the required codec…”
Apple supports its products and open standards…
Apple’s own Quicktime doesn’t stream to my iPhone Quicktime does not stream to my iPhone (See Robert Cailliau’s Standards test page), and quicktime is Apple’s own product.
H264 is not open. Rather, H264 is a legally-protected codec for compressing video (a family of codecs really). H264 will not handle the creation of interactive games like Flash. Again, H264 is protected by patent law where appropriate, “In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use.” (See Wikipedia). Remember what happened to the .gif format? Right… That could happen to H264. Recall that nobody expected the issues to be raised about gif either…
What Adobe and Flash do well…
Adobe started Postscript to tell printers how to print …
Flash isn’t perfect, but it is a cross-platform system to stream video, create interactive games/apps, and other solutions. Like PDF, Flash lets created content run on multiple OSes and hardware. Flash handles all of the codecs (video and audio), the interaction, etc. for the content. The user just needs to have the software installed.
Why bring in Javascript?
Javascript is a superscript of the adopted ECMAscript standard. Bringing up Javascript into the conversation about Apple and Adobe can only be because Apple “supports” Javascript as an open standard? Javascript is a superset of the approved ECMAscript standard. What does this have to do with Apple’s position? Do you think Adobe doesn’t support Javascript?
Saying you support Standards to bolster your position
Are you saying that you would support Adobe if Adobe submitted Flash to be adopted as a Standard and it was adopted as a standard?
If so, why is a standard so important? Remember, Javascript didn’t start out as a standard, and HTML wasn’t exactly approved/standardized before delivered to the world. Who cares if “it” is a standard? Is the iPhone OS an open standard? Is Filemaker’s database app for the iPhone free or “open?” No. What matters is whether a technology/app works for its users.
Flash works.
If Flash doesn’t work on iMacs well, go ask Apple why that is… My Mac hasn’t crashed once while using Flash, and my kids are using flash all the time Too much if you ask me
My Issue
To say this is about “open” standards v. closed systems is a red herring that most people are swallowing.
My Thoughts
My position Flash is just one tool. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. I don’t care. Just stop trying to rationalize the acceptance of Apple’s position v. Adobe’s as an “open” v. “closed” debate.
Saying the Ford GT can’t race because the WTF Racing Organization says they won’t allow the GT into race does not mean the GT is inefficient, broken, terrible, or “closed.” Rather, it means the WTF Racing Organization won’t let the GT in the door to race. If the GT can run, let it into the game. If the GT blows up, stalls, or otherwise fails to perform, the market will drive it out of the game. To say the GT can’t race in your arena and then say that it is due to flaws in the GT is odd since you aren’t letting it in to race for everyone to see…
Flash runs fine in OS/X… Flash problems generally have been reported on one Mac model… Might it be that mac model has a problem? I will admit that the “problem” is real convenient for Apple now isn’t it? I wonder if Steve was “smart” enough to have a bit of “required” code to support that particular Mac that causes “problems’ with Flash??? Nah, that wouldn’t be fair…
All I will say that my mac has had NO problems with Flash. Period.
Summary
Imagine if Intel, IBM, and others said to Apple “We won’t sell you chips because the Mac OS is “closed” to your hardware.”
Who would you support in that argument? Apple? Why? Choice? Let the market decide? Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple’s products? …
If you just look at open v. closed, you are missing the point.
Who controls what you do with your car? Ford, Chevy, Honda, Lexus, or you?
Who controls what you do or watch with your television? Sony, Samsung, Sanyo, or you?
Why would you give up the ability to run something even if you wouldn’t run it?
Why not have the option? Seems to me options = competition.
I’m surfing along a wave on the ocean called the Internet, and my board catches on an article on the Clean Water Act.
The article states
Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he’s trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act’s use of “navigable” limits the government’s oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.
…
“Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans,” said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. “Unless we act, the law can’t ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted.”
Critical Thinking?
Is “spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria” on upland soil acceptable to Mr. Oberstar? Spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria on upland areas where kids play is not acceptable to me or others I have talked to regarding this topic.
Trying to limit the dumping of pollution by protecting water is like reducing the wearing of jewels in an attempt to reduce theft…
So why make a limited argument that does nothing to stop the “dumping of oil, carcinogens,” or other compounds and items that we don’t want dumped … anywhere?
Logic
No dumping = clean water and clean uplands.
Sticks and Stones…
Why hasn’t name-calling been left back in the fifth grade?
The article states Mr. Oberstar said
“I think our opponents are just in some weird place where they’re frantically trying to fix the facts to the conclusion they’re trying to drive,” he said. “What is it that they think they’re going to gain politically and otherwise by being against motherhood and apple pie?”
I tell my kids not to act all “high-and-mighty.” I think I’ll have to suggest that Mr. Oberstar isn’t for “motherhood and apple pie” just because he is for “clean water.” Give me a break…
My Thoughts. Yes, I have a few…
Name-calling makes your argument look weak on the merits (which it its). Stop…
Pulling on emotions does not address the science or logic, and using emotional responses makes me think your argument is weak (which it is). Use logic, critical thinking, and science to support your position.
I am not against clean water. Actually, I am for the appropriate regulation of water.
However, I have pointed out that regulating water does nothing for keeping upland areas clean, non-polluted, and appropriately used. We need to think bigger and protect the forest, not just the trees “we” are interested in protecting or using…
Summary
What we want to do is stop the dumping of oil, carcinogens, and other “pollution.” We want to stop the dumping everywhere, not just in water because dumping it anywhere will affect Man and the rest of the environment. Why wait the 150 years it might take the pollution to get to the water before being able to do anything about the pollution? That just doesn’t make sense…
Lets regulate the disposal of pollutants so that we can keep waters (including wetlands), uplands, and the air clean.
An article on TechCrunch, of all places, discusses segregation…
The author states
A quick look at my browser history shows that in the past 24 hours I’ve visited BBC News Online, the New York Times and the Guardian. Liberal news organisations all. But in that same time period, I’ve also checked in to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper, the Drudge Report and even Fox News (several times). According to the study, then, I’m an open minded person with a balanced news diet. But of course I’m nothing of the sort. In reality, my reasons for visiting FoxNews.com are the same as those of most of my cheese-eating, US-hating, Osama-hugging, socialist liberal friends – I’m checking in on the enemy, hoping to find something outrageous to back up my pre-existing biases against the American right. And before any Proud Hannity-waving Patriots reading this get too outraged by that confession, admit it: you visit the Guardian and the New York Times for precisely the same, if polar opposite, reasons.
Ah… No it isn’t.
What you say about your activity and browsing history says something about you and not about anyone else. You see, you aggregate everyone in with you because you are ashamed of your behaviour.
Fine, but don’t assume you are no worse than anyone else. You might be better than some too…
However, you are generalizing, and generalizing causes many problems…
There is ONE race.
The Human Race.
We are not cats and dogs that can not breed. Biologically, there may be differences between different people from different places, but the skin color is not the dividing factor. The skin color is similar to wider hips, different teeth structure, and other anatomical differences.
You see, we are what has evolved through our ancestors. Whatever gene may have given them an adaptive advantage is displayed in us today. It could be an adaptive disadvantage but one that has survived! Color may be one of those, but color is then just like other adaptive advantages depending on when/where our ancestors developed.
Don’t go jump on “black” was here first, so “white” is more advanced!
Hogwash. Meat-eating animals are said, by experts, to have been here before plant eaters. Does that make vegetarians more “advanced?” No, it means that it took time for evolution to allow for the development of the 7 stomachs or other advantage that allows animals to adequately use vegetative matter as a food source… Alternatively, it could mean that it took a while for eating vegetables to be an advantage over eating meat…
Think Critically rather than just assume…
What I think
If you are “white,” go visit Disparaging Terms (no longer active, my apologies–this site was run by Darrell and was an interesting read regarding said terms). Go visit Afrospear. It is another nice site about customs and people you might not be aware of but who are, contrary to what you might have ‘heard,’ exactly like you (just close your eyes and think about what they are going through).
Go visit different sites to LEARN how you have been brainwashed and how you have assumed certain truths even though you have no idea whether what you have been told is true…
Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.
Think Critically.
How can you be so ignorant to think a person’s skin color makes them better or worse than another person with another skin color?
Where do you draw the line?
What is an ethnic group? I don’t like the term “race” because I think we are one race-human. What distinguishes us? If a white person marries a black person and has a kid who marries the child of a Japanese person and a Mexican, what is their child’s race? Assuming it is “black” because there is some black in there is just as stupid as labeling them white.
What we need to do…
We need to look at our similarities rather than our differences. We are human.
Looking out for “our own”-whether the “Mexican” hotel workers described in the post on TechCrunch or other “groups-means we are focusing on one part of who we are at the expense of the whole. We will NEVER get to view us as similar if we focus on the differences.
My Solution
One law to guarantee fairness for all. No special treatment for any group–we all have the same protection under the law.
We can’t correct past errors by giving people special treatment or other value. Rather, we have to erase the incorrect action, the cause of the past bad action–the discrimination.
Realistically, we can’t give the USA back to the Souix and other tribes. We can’t track or pay anyone for all past transgressions. What we can do is guarantee, to the best of our ability, that everyone is entitled to the same treatment under the law.
If we don’t attempt to guarantee equal treatment to all, aren’t we focusing special attention on some group? If we focus ‘our’ attention on ‘our group,’ aren’t we guilty of the same behavior that caused ‘us’ the injustice, the discrimination, in the first place? We would be, in effect, putting ‘ourselves’ first ahead of ‘others.’ Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?
They found that among kids who said their parents never allowed them to watch R-rated movies, few took up drinking over the next couple of years.
What they don’t say is what was the percentage that were drinking from both groups after “the next couple of years.”
What gets me about this type of reporting is that it is incomplete and reports … nothing.
If the study doesn’t address the language, you, as a critical thinker, have to ask why they phrased their findings such that “few took up drinking over the next couple of years.” For all I know, the kids that watched R-rated movies took it up quicker but didn’t go overboard (i.e., get drunk) because they realized what drinking could do…
I drank when I was “under-age” since I grew up outside the USA. Nobody thought anything of it, and I drink “socially” now-a glass or two of wine a week. Not exactly a drunk by any means. Likewise, I was never drunk through high school. Why? I had many friends who were drunk and they all looked stupid, did stupid things, and didn’t remember a thing. We were all part of the popular group, but my friends who drank all thought the attention was good instead of being laughed at…
Trying to tell them that was met with ridicule… Of course, many of them were to become alcoholics later in life. However, I doubt R-rated movies had anything to do with whether or not they were “drunks.” Rather, what makes people drink too much is an inability to deal with emotions and disappointment, not to mention how to move forward and improve your life.
Seems like we should be teaching psychology in elementary school…
This type of reporting is like saying a blackout causes many pregnancies… I hate to break it down, but intercourse, with ejaculation while inside the female, is what causes these pregnancies. If you don’t know the difference, you are not thinking critically…
Apple had a commercial in 1984 to debut their Macintosh computer. As shown on Google, of all places:
Oh, right… You apple iDevice folks can’t watch that. Sorry, but do enjoy the ‘lite’ version of the full web experience… (note, that is sarcasm…).
I’ve updated the link to show a YouTube video so that people with an iDevice can watch the video… Imagine just seeing a blank spot on the page and you’ll understand that the iDevice, no matter how much you like yours, does not provide the full-web experience…
The commercial had a single old white male stating corporate ideology on a screen. The ideology stated:
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Fast Forward 26 years
Doesn’t that old what man sound like Steve Jobs? Let us replay that text with editorial comments inserted…
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives (Apple). We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology (for all things Apple). Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests (Adobe Flash, porn, etc.) of contradictory and confusing truths (the public wants flash). Our Unification of Thoughts (iDevice) is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people (Apple), with one will (Apple), one resolve (No Flash, and No “intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool,” and no to non-Apple-approved software), one cause (Apple). Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion (Adobe Flash is closed, Apple is Open). We shall prevail!
OMG!
I wonder if Steve actually reads that text and sees what Apple has become…
Apple 1984
I loved Apple in 1984–Woz & Jobs. I had an Apple //e, a Mac+ was on the way, and things were good.
Apple 2010
Recently, I’ve had a Powerbook Pro and an iPhone.
Apple limits applications on iPlatform and states no application can be created/published using “intermediary translation or compatibility layer[s] or tool[s].”
New Apple Strategy…
Apple’s “new” corporate strategy does not woo me or seem to make much logical sence for a user of an Apple device. I will tear down Steve’s recent “Flash Memo” to show you Apple’s and Steve’s new “Unification of Thoughts.”
First, there is open…
Steve states
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript–all open standards.
Flash is proprietary, no question. So are most of Apple’s software offerings. Perhaps they will give away Filemaker-No, I am sure Steve does not consider databases a “standard pertaining to the web.”
Second, there’s the “full web.”
Steve points out
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
But, wait… What about H.264? As you know, Steve suggests we use HTML5 and H264… However, Wikipedia states
In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[9] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 may not expire until 2028[10].
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12]
H264 is not open. Hmmm…
In addition, H264 is a family of codecs for video compression… It is not a system to let the user not worry about what codecs are used in the streaming video and it does not allow developers create interactive games. To compare Flash and H264 is like comparing Apples and IBMs…
Don’t get caught up in the “Unification of Thoughts” which isn’t stated to contain any truths. Rather, focus on the contradictory statements from the “different sides” and try to wade through the confusion to find the truth.
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Some of what Steve says is true, but it is mixed. Steve states
We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash.
Flash makes Macs crash? I’ve had my most recent mac for 3 years, and no Flash has caused it to crash. With all the Flash stuff my kids watch and play, I would have expected my Mac to crash if any Mac was going to crash due to Flash, my Mac would have been the one.
I’m just saying…
Honestly, Flash has been an issue with iMacs. However, Apple is likely the culprit since the issue with iMacs crashing does not extend to all of the other Macs. Perhaps something Apple did with the iMac is the cause. Research…
It is fine to accept what people say, but don’t accept without questioning…
Fourth, there’s battery life.
Put a stronger battery in the iDevice! You say people are going to be using the device all day? I can’t agree with the statement that Flash will drain the battery more than how the user will use the device.
I don’t get a full day from my iPhone, and I haven’t gotten a full day since I have had the device. I know I use my iPhone more than most, but limits on battery life is why manufacturers allow the users to switch batteries.
So Steve, your argument about battery life would force you to admit that Apple should have allowed users to switch batteries–to allow continued use without worrying (except for the time it takes to switch the battery) about battery life.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
There is touch, but the Treo650 had the UI that the iPhone uses back in 1994, three years before the introduction of the iPhone…
Steve states
Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Ah, sure. So were most web-pages that are still viewed on the iDevices… Could they be modified to be more “touch-sensitive?” Sure, but I don’t think I want all of the web to be reduced to small, bland lists of text that appears on my iPhone when sites tend to reduce their full content site to an iDevice format. Point your iDevice to Boy Genius and look at the difference between the “full site” and that site reduced for the iDevice. Which do you want to preserve?
The Full Site. Me too…
Sixth, the most important reason.
Steve states
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.
Perhaps this is the difference between Steve and Woz, but that statement by Steve is false, a blatant lie. Woz could use a presence at Apple now (in my humble opinion).
“How?” You ask.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up… Sorry, I love that quote from The Princess Bride…
There are good apps that were created using just such an intermediary layer of software. There are apps that are still in the app store that are popular. Do a Yahoo or Google search to see all of the posts about this. There are also many really bad apps that were created using just the Apple-approved options (Objective-C, Cocoa, or whatever…).
Don’t think so? Okay, I’ll link a few since you are, a little lazy… Here, here, here, and here. That is just for starters… You really need to look at the comments too…
There are many sites analyzing Steve’s Flash Memo, and most seem to come to the same conclusion… Here is just one.
Conclusions
In closing, Steve states
Flash was created during the PC era
It sure was Steve, and I want it on my mobile devices-all of them. Flash was created since 1984, since the Mac has been out. Wikipedia has a nice “History of Flash” that states
The precursor to the Flash application was SmartSketch, a drawing application for pen computers running the PenPoint OS developed by Jonathan Gay, who began working on it in college and extended the idea for Silicon Beach Software and its successors.
When PenPoint failed in the marketplace, SmartSketch was ported to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. With the Internet becoming more popular, SmartSketch was re-released as FutureSplash, a vector-based web animation in competition with Macromedia Shockwave. In 1995, SmartSketch was further modified with frame-by-frame animation features and re-released as FutureSplash Animator on multiple platforms. The product was offered to Adobe and used by Microsoft in its early work with the Internet (MSN). In 1996, FutureSplash was acquired by Macromedia and released as Flash, contracting “Future” and “Splash”.
So the technology was developed for Windows and Macintosh OS. Flash was “released” in 1996, well after Macs were out and about…
I see Steve disagrees, and this has caused Apple to become what they “rebelled” against back in 1984. That Steve (and some of you) don’t see this is the subject of my novel (not yet published).
People tend to change over time, forgetting what made them full of “drive” when they started out with an “open” mind. You get old, and you think your way is “the only way.” Wait, wasn’t that the 1984 Commercial?
Isn’t the following what Apple was against in 1984?
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
If so, why is Apple pushing it now?
My Thoughts
Now I find myself looking elsewhere because Apple has become what they fought against when they released their Macintosh. Apple wanted to provide a better experience for the user. Apple wanted to bring a pretty UI and ease of use.
What do they want now? It seems they are the old man in the 1984 video who wants to push hardware… Remember, Apple says that hardware is key. It is the iDevice that provides the user experience.
I disagree. As Apple proved when switching from the PowerPC to the x86, it is the software that keeps the user enthralled. What keeps users enthralled is not hardware, and I don’t think the OS is what keeps a user. You have to admit, nobody would use OS/X if there was no software for use on OS/X…
Looking Forward
What Apple is now pushing, I am not buying…
So, I go out into the daylight and look at all the advances in technology we have since 1984, and I find most of them make my life better… Even if some firms try to keep me bottled up within their world vision (i.e., Unification of Thoughts), I find myself wanting to be free…
There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…
A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states
“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.
Comedic Insertion
Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…
Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…
If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…
Back to the Story
I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).
Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.
A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.
People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?
Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.
We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…
It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).
Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.
Back to Nature
A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.
My Thoughts
Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).
Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.
If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…
Summary
Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.
This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.
Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…
So I am seriously considering deleting my Facebook account. At a minimum, I am thinking of not logging in again without first deleting all of the cookies stored on my computer…
If you aren’t sure why, please go read this article and the subsequent comments… Dastardly…
How could it end?
Imagine if everyone had their own domain or used a social site that did not limit acces to those who signed into the social site-Wordpress or Blogger for instance. Sites like this where you don’t have to “sign in” to read the posts.
Now, write code that creates an app, the Tailor Aggregator Program, called TAP for short, that would go out and get copies of posts from these sites and aggregate them (”tap them”) with relevant pics and post all of this information and data on you computer or mobile device. “Tailor” because the user controls, tailors, the content and how it is shown
It could be posted by date/time or could be limited in another manner…
Either way, you would have constant contact with all “you folks” just like you do know, you just wouldn’t be giving Facebook or any other site the right to sell your data.
To help you keep your own ad revenue up, the TAP software could allow a person to visit your site by tapping a comment link or by clicking said link if there was no touch screen-the process could still be called “tapping.”
This would allow constant contact by keeping sites open and would allow the user to limit whose information they saw since many add friends whose data they don’t want to see simply because they don’t want to be rude.
Be honest, who has 1453 friends and who is constantly and seriously in touch with each of them?
Just a thought. I, of course, want credit or any app created, and I expect royalty checks… :). I am starting a programming stint now to work on this idea… Wish me luck ;p
LOTRO is Lord of The Rings On-line, a Massively Multi-Player Role-Playing Game (MMRPG) set in the Tolkien Universe with stories and play based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
The game lets you play several races (Man, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit) and play several classes (Guardian, Champion, Warden, Hunter, Lore-Master (LM), Burglar, Rune-Keeper (RK), Minstrel, and Captain). Each class can use different types of armor (e.g., LMs and RKs can ony use light armor; Minstrel, Hunter, Wardens, and Burglars can use Medium armor; and Captains, Guardians, and Champions can use Heavy Armor). If you can use Heavy Armor, you can use Medium and Light armor as well, although they will not provide you with the same defense (they provide less).
When you join a fellowship (a group of players trying to accomplish a quest or a goal), you likely have a mixed group of races and classes–one or two front-liners, one or two healers, and one or two ranged attackers.
When you defeat an enemy, it is possible to allow everyone to “roll” on the resulting loot (treasure dropped by enemies or stored in chests).
The question a good player asks is “Do I need that?”
Most players don’t ask that….they just hit “roll”…
Lets say your fellowship is comprised of:
Guardian, level 64;
Champion, level 63;
Captain, level 61;
Hunter, level 60;
Rune Keeper, level 58; and
Lore Master, level 58.
There is NO reason for the Guardian or Hunter to roll an light armor shoes that can be used by those of level 58 and up. You see, the Guardian and Hunter will want Heavy and Medium armor shoes, respectively. Also, the higher-level characters likely have better armor than that which has dropped anyway–meaning the lvl 60 Hunter likely already has shoes that provide better armor and other benefits than those provided by the level 58 shoes that are available…
If they roll on them when the Rune Keeper and Lore Master can use them now, and not use all the medium and heavy armor that may fall, they are being selfish and greedy–in my opinion.
I don’t know how else to describe it.
Similarly, the RK and LM have no reason to roll an any medium or heavy armor, especially if it is “Bind on Acquire” (that means that item is bound to the character that wins the item and can not be used by other characters).
If you really need that 10 silver pieces, at least offer to not roll for 10 silver pieces… There is no need to take something you are not going to use and simply sell to the merchant for 10 silver when another member of your group CAN and WOULD use the items on their person…
I was visiting a site for teachers, and I noticed a few threads. One deals with a student that “poops in their pants” and the other deals with a child that “drools” and spreads said drool over their desk.
Let me show you a response to the first:
i had a pooper several years ago (i teach 6th!)
it was a medical condition….can’t remember the actual name of it–something like endocrinosis (that’s not it!) encropsis….something….
anyway, he really didn’t know he was going or had control–but he would know he had gone–but he just sat in it–and smelled! whoowee!
that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.
anyway, my kid ended up in the TLC room (ED students) but it wasn’t the pooping that caused this–they had been working on that referral process in 5th grade too.
good luck!
Yes, the teacher said, “I had a pooper.”
Here is another…
As the school year has progressed, I’ve been learning more about my students (I’ve been looking at their cums, IEPs, etc.). I have one student, a male, who has a one on one aide. His IEP is as thick as a book! Anyway, I knew right off the bat that he had some form of ADHD, and that was documented in the IEP. It says he has sensory difficulties, ADHD, and processing difficulties. He is pretty smart, though. As I talked to some of his past teachers, they all told me they had a terrible time with him because he would poop his pants, starting from 1st grade on up! His former teachers would even find his “stuff” in the room (one time behind a bookcase! EEEWWW!). One teacher called the union, the health department, but no one could do anything about it.
There is a total of ONE LINE on his entire IEP that mentions “bowel problems”. There were no behavior modifications for this. Meanwhile, I know of at least 2 occasions where he has pooped his pants in my classroom - 4th grade! He refuses to acknowledge it happened, even though we smell it. Little parent support - parents have their head in the sand, don’t know what they think when he comes home after sitting in his “stuff” all day! They won’t even take him to the doctor to see if it is physiological or emotional (I think emotional). Don’t you think this kid should be in an ED class of some kind? Tomorrow I willl send him to the office if he does it again, and let them handle it. What would you suggest? Haven’t met the parents yet. Should I call another IEP for him, even though he’s not due for one until April? What if the parents don’t care? How can I deal with this for the rest of the year???
My Comment
No, I don’t think he needs to be in an ED class of some kind… Perhaps you need to act mature and deal with the situation like an adult. Complaining that YOU have to deal with the situation is not helping the student or you. Rather, your frustration and lack of patience and understanding is the problem. If you understood what encopresis was, you would know that up to 2% of “kids,” up to age 17 even, suffer from this medical condition (that can be treated and cured).
Instead, most of the teachers seemed to say make an issue out of it in class. Make the child acknowledge he did poop in his pants! As if any child wants to acknowledge to the whole class they just pooped in their pants.
Again, encopresis is a medical condition, and the child may not feel it or smell it due to the condition. While YOU, the teacher, do not understand that issue, I bet you understand a situation where people who live around a paper mill no longer smell the mill… If you can understand that, you should understand the child in your class…
Call a meeting with the parents. Explain the issue and show them what encopresis means. Ask them if they are seeing a medical doctor (physician) and recommend they see one if they currently are not discussing the issue with a physician.
Simple to solve that crap… Just be patient with them as the treatment progresses just as everyone will be patient with you, the teacher, as you try to not be so judgmental about those who you are supposed to be supporting and teaching…
Drool
The second posting dealt with a child that drooled on their desk and spread the saliva over the desk.
The poster original poster stated
I had a student (1st grade) taking the saliva out of his mouth and spreading it all over the activity table like finger paint. YUCK. It is a kid with severe food allergies and the class families go out of their way to keep this kid safe. Then he thinks nothing of spreading his germs to the others. 20 years of teaching and I have never had a kid take the drool out of their mouth and spread it around.
A comment followed that, in part, stated
that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.
Yes, parents that are “too old” to be having kids leads to kids having problems and “issues.” I’m not even going to address the judgment of the parenting style comment regarding the 9:00pm, R-rated movie… On this “rating” topic, I think the “rating” board is rather conservative (as I think, obviously, is the teacher).
The funniest yet most offensive comment was
All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.
Yes, constructive commenting…
My response?
I hate to say it, but why does a teacher respond with
” All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.”
Children are not adults, and they do not think as we do. Some children have development problems, and we should not expect them to “act” or behave like everyone else.
Yet, you will kiss someone else and share the same bacteria that is in their mouth and, likely, think nothing of it or even enjoy it… Logic in our thinking, please…
Simply make him/her clean the table and explain why such behavior is “not allowed” in your class. Punishment may not help in certain situations where a medical and/or behavioral reason explains the issue…such as encopresis (soiling of the pants by those who are already potty-trained).
Learn that your values are yours and should not be “taught” to the kids. What? Exclude a child from a group or embarrass them due to some behavior? Right, lets teach our kids that type of behavior…
Instead, we should understand their issues (at least try to understand them). A thread on here once said “I have a pooper too,” and I read that and cringed. Right, as if all of us “teachers” are perfect… The term is encopresis, and it is a medical issue that generally can be solved. Publicizing the issue and embarrassing the child does not help. Rather, that type of behavior shows an inability to be part of a solution in an appropriate way (and says something about you as a Teacher and a person doesn’t it?).
Your “drooling” child could have a behavioral problem and/or a medical problem. Talk to the parent(s), but why embarrass the child? That solves nothing and causes many other problems–social stigma, cliques, bullying, …
Talk to the child, explain your rules and reasoning, and discuss the issue with a parent or with all parents.
Whatever you decide, public embarrassment is NOT appropriate and leads to many more problems than it solves.
Summary
The teachers had not experienced anything like they were seeing (or smelling). Yet, they, like many humans, tend to jump to conclusions regarding the children, the parents, the problem, and possible solutions rather than identify the problem (such as encopresis) and how to constructively deal with the issue facing them and their classes.
Teachers are not expected to know everything, but they are expected to learn and discuss relevant issues without assuming… We know what it means when we assume…
Teachers are supposed to NOT act like kids or high-schoolers. Teachers should not want to “make an example” out of a child since such action leads to bullying, social stigma, and cliques. The teacher should want to solve the problem 1-on-1 with the student. I guess it is possible the teacher would prefer the principal deal with the teacher’s issues in front of the whole faculty… No, what was I thinking?
So, teachers… Please research.
A simple google or yahoo for “poop pants 10-year old” would bring up references to encopresis and, likely, your forum topic. How hard would it be for you to look at those definitions, call a meeting with the parents, and suggest some medical care/follow-up?
Regarding the child that drooled, I think the simple response is to make the child clean up the saliva and desktop, discuss why such behavior is not allowed in the class, and call a parent meeting if the child continues with the behavior-in case there is a medical or psychological reason for the student’s behavior.
Please tell me you wouldn’t have reacted like most of those other responders… Identify the problem, solve the problem. Creating more problems for the child creates by publicly getting the child to admit their actions, embarrassing the child, or other “punishment” may more problems for you since you will have to deal with name-calling, social cliques, bullying, and other kid-related problems.
Please tell me that you as adults don’t continue to name-call? If so, please look up bullying and other psychology-related posts that discusses why people name-call or attempt to make others “look bad.” You might learn something and become more mature-not to mention a better person.
Bill Thompson has a post over on the BBC where he argues copyright law needs to be severely limited, in his words
This has got to stop. We have to say “enough is enough” to those who hold copyrights in songs and images and words and videos. We must refuse to remake the digital world in order to serve only their interests.
Right…
Why does he argue this is important?
He states
It would be a tragedy if the network the people of East Africa found, now that they have fast fibre links to the rest of the internet, was locked-down, limited and restricted by laws passed to placate fearful Western rights holders and they decided, as a result, that it wasn’t worth joining.
Lack of Logic and Reason
Bill does not seem to realize that freedom is helped by Copyright. Wait, you say. That can’t be! I can’t download all the movies, books, and songs I want! How is that free?!
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…
I have an idea for (a book, a movie, or a song). I go through the “trouble” to take the time to create this “content” to release it to the world. I can release it into the Public Domain if I so want, but I might want to be compensated for the “trouble,” time and effort, it took for me to create this “work.” So I release it as copyrighted material.
The material gets out there and is purchased or licensed (for a fee) by those who appreciate the content enough to pay for it. Those who don’t want to buy it are not forced to buy anything.
My “content” goes through marketing, publishing, and distribution–all employing many people. This “content” I copyrighted and made available for purchase or license is helping support jobs (perhaps yours?).
Yet, Bill argues copyright should be severely limited so that “people of East Africa” can have access to all of this data-not to “placate fearful Western rights holders,” but to support their rights to their own copyrighted material that is now available to the rest of the world due to their “fast fibre links to the rest of the [I]nternet.”
People, everything in life is not free. If everything was free, how would you get paid? Nobody would be selling anything?
Does the “content” being a digital file rather than an actual CD or DVD make it “less valuable” for those who want the content or does it simply make the distribution of that content easier and less restrictive?
I don’t think Bill suggests you walk into the local market to steal the candy you want without paying for the merchandise. Yet, he suggests that “digital content” should be freely-available without legal protections?
He states
There is so much more to online life than watching ripped-off copies of big-budget movies or looking at low-resolution cameraphone videos of bands.
What does he mean by “ripped-off?” Does he mean “stolen” or simply “copied?” It makes a difference doesn’t it?
While there IS more to the Internet, Copyright should still protect “content.”
Why?
Google can not copy my material and reproduce it on their site in its entirety. Why? Copyright laws prevent that type of “cut and paste” copying of copyrighted material.
If Copyright were weakened, all of those who create “content” may make NO money from the content itself since Google, Yahoo, or any wahoo with an illegal site (e.g., illegal torrent site for example) could copy all of the content and post it on their site. People would flock to these sites to get all of the data in one place. As a creator of “content,” would you keep creating if all of your work and time was benefiting someone somewhere else rather than you?
Not unless you were already independently wealthy and didn’t care…
BBC…
The post states Bill works for the BBC. I wonder how much of their content copy-righted material Bill has released to YouTube-especially if the BBC was protecting their legal right to some of that material.
Last time I looked, the BBC took Copyright pretty seriously…
Copyright Notice
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.
Doesn’t that make Bill right?
No. As a matter of fact, that makes Bill wrong.
Here is why…
The legal Copyright lets the BBC (the content provider) dictate who can use what content and how they can use it.
Notice the BBC allows you to ‘
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
That likely makes Bill happy since it means the people of East Africa (and everywhere else) can use the copyrighted material owned and provided by the BBC for non-commercial use. This Copyright Law protects the BBC from someone putting all of this data up on their server in hopes of attracting everyone to their site to get content. BBC makes money, Bill can keep his job, and people who have NO creative talent can not benefit by “stealing” everyone’s content.
Bill should be supporting Copyright Law. Just because he doesn’t think everything should have a cost doesn’t mean he is right.
Want to see him agree?
The BBC site states
Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet. He is currently working with the BBC on its archive project.
Ask Bill to agree to not sign any contract for any “independent” journalism that gives the distributor or contractor any ability to limit the distribution, publication, or other legal right to the “content” Bill is asked to create for the company hiring him. Basically, ask Bill to release all of his work into the Public Domain.
My guess is that Bill will not agree to reduce the value of his “time” and “effort” such that he can not afford to do what he likes to do.
In Closing
Copyright Law isn’t the problem. The problem is the removal of the “fair use” clause under USA law and similar provisions for such use under International Law.
If I purchase a DVD of “Criminal Intent,” I feel as if I am buying is the ability to watch the content-the movie. In reality, you are purchasing a license to view the content (movie) on the enclosed media (the DVD). I know, that doesn’t seem logical…
If you copy “Criminal Intent” to your iPhone or other device, you are in violation of the DMCA in the USA and other international laws.
The “fair use” provisions would protect you from prosecution when you copy the movie in case your kids destroy the media on which the content is distributed. Again, the public thinks they are purchasing the right to view the content rather than view the content on the media provided.
While I don’t think any distributor or Copyright holder would sue you if you bought the movie and copied it to any device, they could. Either way, you have NO right to distribute the content over the internet to thousands/millions of other people. You can lend your DVD to others (so long as you don’t view the content while you have loaned the DVD out to your friend). A single person still controls the media and the content on that media–remember, you have no right to charge admission for others to view that material…
Taking gum without paying for it is a crime in the UK. Taking content without a legal right is also a crime. Just because we don’t want to pay for a Jaguar doesn’t mean we can just go take it without paying. Just because I think East Africa might appreciate Bill’s work doesn’t mean that he is willing to give away his work without being paid.
Even if Bill gives away his work for free, Copyright Law lets HIM decide that nobody else can sell his material either–guaranteeing the “free” nature of that material.
You see? Copyright allows the content creator to decide whether or not to protect the content and to what extent such content is to be protected.
Pocosin is a Native American word meaning a "swamp on a hill." "Poco" and "sin" are two Spanish words meaning "little" and "without." The site offers my perspectives on news, technology, legal issues, politics, and social issues.
Contact
Subscribe
Aug 26, 2010 
No Comments 
Apple, H.264, Open, video encoding
