Funny. Seriously though application formats are not user facing so you can name them "BinaryBlumpers" for all I care. I just wish Linux as a desktop were not quite so castrated by Linux as a server design choices and mentality. Icculus's experiences mirrored my own when trying to discuss ways Linux could borrow from other OS's to make it a better desktop. It's all fine and dandy unless you want to add something fundamental and then a million angry server monkeys appear and throw poo. Unless the culture changes Linux will forever be relegated to server and appliance roles.

Agreed, but Steam is a distribution platform and a store. They add value by handling a lot of the purchasing and with value added integration. They are competing with the App stores for about half of their business model. It is likely not sustainable unless there is some sort of major technological shift.

Well, yes and no. Steam is not a fixed technology. One of the benefits is that across platforms it can link users together to play, chat, share scores, etc. Valve introducing not only their games to Windows Live but also their reputation and ability to audit games to determine which ones are malware or crashy or will otherwise cause users problems is a very real value, especially if MS were to walk away from that service and leave it up to third parties. Xbox, however is the most locked down and least likely of platforms. Phones and desktop OS's on the other hand are a more plausible situation.

So imagine a world where Apple announced they were going to allow absolutely any application to be distributed in the App store... but by default users would only see the ones Apple approved. Imagine, however, that users could add any company/organization they wanted to approve or disapprove of software and provide ratings for it. For example, Symantec could feed information to the Apple store and users that enabled it could (for a fee) have all applications vetted against Symantec's white/black list. Users could add the Catholic Church's whitelist to remove even apps Apple provided that did not align with the beliefs of those adherents. Users could also add Valve and see added to the store any games Valve had approved as options for purchase. Further Valve approved apps (submitted to the store by Valve) all included integration with Steam's network services to add value.

In the example above Steam is a first class citizen as much as any other distributor of software and while Apple might exclude some of their games by default for whatever reason, users could still get those games from the same place as all their other games. This is a survivable situation for Valve so long as they keep producing games and adding value with their network services (like integration with other platforms and authentication on other platforms) and Apple wins because more people can get the apps they want and Apple sells more hardware all without seriously degrading the security benefits of the current App store.

I'm not sure why you think that. Apple makes a crapton of money selling iPhones, iPods, and Macs. They make basically nothing selling software and content. They have a "razors" business model where they sell the content at near cost to motivate purchases of hardware. Their whole software and services division accounts for something like 3% of revenue. The management would have to be idiots to make any decision to try to get profit from those services at the expense of their current, super profitable, hardware business.

I'm not sure I agree. The problem with Google's solution is that it does not do just what I described, split the security auditing from the distribution. To get software Google does not approve of (for any not necessarily disclosed reason) you have to go out on a limb and try to independently verify the security of an app, and frankly 99% of users can't do that. This is one of the major reasons why there is such a malware problem on Android compared to the other phone platforms.

You're missing the point. There are also app stores for jailbroken iPhones and numerous stores for Windows and Mac OS X. The problem with them is that they are separate stores with separate policies and separate interfaces trying to compete with a pre-bundled store. That's great for power users but not so great for normal users.

Again, I disagree. Both Apple and MS retain their models because of the benefits it brings them, but the model I proposed retains those benefits and actually provides more benefit to the company. It is my belief that both MS and Apple would make more money if they had a store in place that divorced auditing from distribution, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of building such a platform. Sometimes it doesn't take legal action to get something beneficial to the user, just enlightened self interest. Look at Apple's opposition to DRM on music. They fought long and hard to get DRM removed from contracts and to paint it in a negative light in the public eye. They didn't do this out of altruism, but because it made them more money by making the whole system better for end users and thus sold more music players.

From the interview:

The interesting thing here is that Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all building app stores with serious restrictions as a way to improve security, but aside from making stronger brands and improving user experience in removing malware, they don't get a lot out of the restrictiveness. Apple doesn't make money by not allowing pornography apps. There is potential for abuse, but realistically none of the major players have been doing a lot to promote their own software with these restrictions and seem mostly focused on preventing apps that kill battery life, could be malware, or create development chains controlled by their competitors in ways that leave them strategically vulnerable.

That said, I think they could all be persuaded to have more open policies, ones that would allow Steam to be a first class citizen, if they could get the same level of security. The main problem is that in all these walled garden stores the security auditing and the distribution system are tied together and managed centrally by one company. If we could persuade them to split these apart and allow third party security auditing that applies a filter to the distribution system and then put in place policies of completely open distribution, where they distribute anything... but by default apply a user editable filter that removes all the same things they do now it would still solve their security and battery woes for the mass market (potentially improving it by making it competitive) but also open up distribution for third parties like Steam.

In the above scenario Steam would face more competition as well, as much of their value added would already be bundled, but I'm sure Valve would be willing to go with it and innovate in order to earn their dollar.

Just to be clear, the right wing in the US is not advocating for fiscal conservatism. Conservatism is keeping with historical norms. Rather, they are advocating for fiscal extremism, levels of taxation progressiveness lower than anything in the last 50 years. That's the opposite of conservative.

Why does your perspective have to be so absolute? That seems to be the problem. Nothing prevents universities from bringing in any speakers they want so long as they do so within the bounds of the constitution and if they allow/pay one religion to speak they do the same for all. That seems to be the fundamental disconnect in my mind. When everyone is given equal opportunity, why do you whine about not being given more than equal opportunity?

Actually if you read the article and the actual policies at the university it claims to cite, this is about no employee making grades or employment based upon requirement that people have the same views. So no, it isn't about abortion... but lets continue.

You see I believe in freedom. For example, I believe 99% of people who shoot pigeons are jackasses. They're hunting for sport, wasting good meat, and they mostly are macho dickheads trying to compensate for their own inadequacy. I voted to give them the freedom to choose to continue this sport, even though I disapprove.

Even if I believed life began at conception I can still rationally demonstrate that that is just an opinion and unprovable. Further I can logically demonstrate it is a faith based opinion not supported by science. So even if I believe it, I would still support the right of other individuals to make their own choices based on their own beliefs and if there is a god, let him judge them.

It's called "freedom" and it's not just a bumper sticker or a campaign slogan. Maybe you should try believing in it instead of just saying it like a parrot.

Umm, yeah. Except all the other harassment about things like homosexuality, subservience to men, etc.

Is that truly what you believe the purpose of affirmative action is, punitive? Maybe you should read something that isn't from the right wing. Try reading how affirmative action changed, for example, politics and business in northern Europe removing in a few generations the prejudice of centuries.

Please. Before gay marriage Republicans fought against homosexuality being legal at all and after they lose gay marriage they'll still be fighting against the rights of gays to adopt children. Why do you hate freedom? For a party who opposes "big government" you sure do believe in the government making choices for other people and getting in people's personal business. Here's an idea, don't like gay marriage? Don't marry any gay people and shut the hell up and mind your own business.

Have you considered learning facts? They make decision making much more accurate.

Hah! I don't berate anyone unless they ask and then I berate Republicans and Democrats and independents equally. And you know what, you all deserve it for your hypocrisy and ignorance.

I think I've long since given up on changing people's point of view. People form opinions based upon irrational nonsense and then they go through huge leaps of logical gymnastics to try to justify it with a veneer of reason. My only hope is to try to promote reason and logic from an educational level and hope it can filter through to people starting to apply it in their lives, but I don't have a lot of hope. Frankly, you're probably a lost cause.

I think other posters have already covered that pretty well. The WSJ clearly was trying to misconstrue the facts and sensationalize.

This isn't about "cheerleading". I'm not particularly a fan of the NYT, but I certainly recognize them as a a normal, reputable newspaper that does research, vets their sources, makes an attempt not to print outright falsehoods, and prints retractions. Newscorp owned properties are something else. To pretend they should be given equal weight on their face is just absurd at this point. It really isn't news, it's an attempt to persuade.

If you get your news from a source that went to court to defend their constitutional right to lie to their readers/viewers, what else would such a person be called? You pretty much have to be uninformed and/or an idiot to trust such a "news" source.

Here's where you mistake. I'm not trying to convince people. That's rhetoric. I'm presenting a logical argument. Frankly, I don't expect people to change their minds as most people are just looking for anything to justify what they already believe. Instead I'm writing to respond to those that can still argue logically and really, fuck the rest of you. This is Slashdot, news for nerds. If you can't handle logic why would I care about your opinion?

Rational thinkers ignore the rhetoric you endorse. Wasting time coddling people who insist on believing things written by a propaganda company proven to repeatedly lie are the ones beyond hope.

I don't think "the tea party" qualifies as a comment nor as a topic of debate. You said whenever there was a comment liberals disagree with. What comments? So no, that's not even close to an example.

Further, while the Tea Party has certainly been criticized for various racist remarks made by members I don't think that is a major criticism of the Tea Party. If you to a search for "tea party criticism" the first hits have to do with: their criticism of Mitt Romney, requiring land to vote, Islam not being protected by the first amendment, mischaracterization of Jared Lee Loughner as "a liberal extremist", lack of compassion when lauding the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords", blasphemy by members, and that they can't create a coherent platform for voters. Racism doesn't even make the first two pages in Google. Perhaps you have a skewed perception of reality?

Yes, for heaven's sake. Let's just scream rhetoric and never try to address real facts or real world cases. Then we'd have to support our hyperbolic nonsense. If it is so easy, cite a few examples. Are you lazy or lying?

First, you don't seem to know what a "circular point" is. Second, we're not talking about a private organization "outlawing" free speech. Private organizations can't outlaw anything because only the government can create laws. We're not even talking about a private organization censoring speech in a location. We're talking about someone citing free speech criticizing them and their opinion on affirmative action, as though somehow they have a right to prevent people from talking about how they disagree with said person. That's not censorship it's the epitome of free speech.

Can you provide some examples of this? I read a lot of news and while I've certainly heard comments taken out of context by politicians used to insinuate racism. I don't recall seeing the vast majority of political and social issues being framed in terms of one position being racist. This sounds a lot more like the kind of inflammatory talking point you hear on "news commentary" shows and never backed up with any sort of facts.

I don't understand your argument. How is saying someone doesn't deserve a recount a potentially racist comment? What quote from Sharpton do you think is racist?

Umm, your perfect example is a hypothetical what you think Al Sharpton would do if a candidate was a democrat? That's not an example its a supposition. Your argument seems to be about people not talking about race, as an example of people talking about racism inappropriately. I guess I'm just not buying your argument. If you want to convince me you need to support it much more strongly than that. Have you really considered this objectively and come to this conclusion and if so, what convinced you of your opinion?

You make a very good point. If free speech is being infringed by the government we should all be concerned, regardless of who brings that issue to our attention or if the act is being done by a specific political party. I think, however, you go a little too far in your equivocation. The trustworthiness of our sources of information are important and by excluding particular details or simply misrepresenting the facts an issue of speech not being subsidized by a specific organization can be misrepresented as that speech being censored, and make no mistake these are very different things.

When you write, "WSJ vs. NYT" red flags go off in my mind. You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation. The Newscorp organization is a big fan of free speech, insomuch as they went to court to defend their free speech rights to publish news stories they knew were untrue and to fire the reporters who refused to present them. And hey, they're correct. They do have the right to tell complete untruths to their viewers and readers. But at the same time their actions make it abhorrent to mention them in the same breath as the NYT and make me think anyone who believes anything they read in Newscorp publications is an uninformed idiot.

You seem to have a misconception about what free speech is. Your first example is about restricting people to particular locations in order to prevent their speech from being heard... all good so far. Your second example, however, is about someone exercising their free speech to criticize someone else's speech. It is an example of free speech, not an example of free speech being restricted.

You make a good point that we should be judging articles on their merit, however, technically it was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the informal fallacy of claiming some argument is wrong based upon some characteristic of the person making the argument. The previous poster made no claim that the argument was wrong, but merely pointed out the untrustworthy nature of the publication and exposited on what they thought the content was likely to be. I highly encourage you to read a book on informal logic as it is a very useful tool/method and will help you not only argue with more precision, but refine your understanding of logically determining truths.