> let us remember all the Chinese workers who commited suicide
Let us remember that the suicide rate of the 1 million+ workers at Foxconn is less than a third of Chinese as a whole.
Reducing suicide rate by two-thirds is a pretty decent accomplishment.
> My music library contains somewhere on the order of 30k files; I'd gladly pay $25 to replace all the crap automagically.
One note here, it seems from initial reports that your $25 gets you 20k songs max. I would suspect that's probably a licensing limitation, along the lines of iTunes allowing you to only burn 5 copies of a playlist to CD back in the day.
Still, I'm with you, $25/yr to keep more music than I can plausibly listen to in adequate for mobile quality handy in the cloud sure strikes me as a massively worthwhile deal for time saved compared to backing up and syncing to my half-dozen iDevices myself; and I'm pretty darn sure it's likely to strike a lot of other iDevice users the same way. Even leaving completely aside the whole amnesty debate.
"It's possible that this is either an oversight or that Apple deliberately kept the old JavaScript engine for web apps in case it broke functionality that the app was depending on."
No, it's a security thing. This was noted when people first found out about Nitro.
"apparently iOS 4.3 features JS JIT. did they lift restriction from the kernel that prevented mmap-ing rwx memory pages? hmm."
http://twitter.com/mraleph/status/43030240175468544
So in 4.3 they've lifted it for Safari.app and only Safari.app. Presumably they will lift it in future for at least web app bookmarks; UIWebView in general might be somewhat more problematic security-wise, but we shall see.
"Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language instead of baboon like posturing"
I quoted the "baboon like posturing" of the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith, which is the reason VLC is not in the App Store today.
Or perhaps you have an explanation of why VLC is not in the App Store today that is not reliant on the "baboon like posturing" of the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith? Absent that, I will take his "baboon like posturing" and the consequent removal of VLC from the App Store as being conclusive evidence of the actual issues at hand, and your blathering as of no consequence.
"There's nothing at all about the App Store that prevents this, as long as your provide all of the code for your project somewhere everyone can get to."
You appear to utterly misunderstand the FSF's position. From the PC Magazine article on the VLC flap:
"The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free," wrote the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith earlier this year. "Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store."
You see "source" mentioned anywhere there? Nope. That's because it's not about the source. It's about restricting distribution to signed binaries, and about reserving the rights to remote kill malware and suchlike. There is no issue with source, as my Wolf3D example shows nicely. The issue is that the FSF refuses to accept that a consumer device capable of exploiting the user's personal and financial information really does need to have its access curated, and although sure Apple's current policies could use significant tweaking, there's no way that they can ever both satisfy the FSF and be responsible to their nontechnical users.
If the source were included (or included as an option) in the download,
That's exactly how id does it for instance, pop open the Wolf3D.ipa iTunes installed and hey presto there it is.
> would that resolve the issue?
No, the alleged issue -- the biggest, anyways, there's a few more -- is that you can't redistribute the binary (well, you can to jailbroken devices or developers who can run codesign themselves, but in the general case you can't). Source doesn't come into it at all; anyone who claims source distribution is an issue should be gently corrected that there is no impediment to including all GPL-required assets in the
Since there is no way in hell
And if you're not the general public, you can go right ahead and take the developer option mentioned above, and for the foreseeable future you'll probably be able to take advantage of the jailbreak option too. So there really is no issue here, to people who are reasonable enough to consider the user instead of just their rabid Apple-hating zealotry. 'Tis strange indeed that whilst the TOS of Android Market are similarly infringing in all the ways that are alleged to matter wrt remote kill and so forth, the Apple-bad crowd never seem to notice...
It's more like there's a whole host of genetic elements affecting what's a proper diet for you, and you've got to figure out which ones apply.
Dairy, starches, grains, and fructose are four of the most important. For my extreme northern European/Mongol ancestry, lots of the first and none of the last three is best. Take someone whose ancestry is 50 degrees of latitude south of mine, and the chances are pretty good that the exact opposite would be a good diet for them.
...there have been experiments trying a sustained 100% meat+offal/brains diet for more than a year with no problems identified...
There have been experiments trying that diet for over 8,000 years at least, resulting in the healthiest population on the planet; archaeologists routinely find skeletons of 70+ year olds with all their original teeth, the only population on Earth to produce those.
Said population being Canada's Inuit. Zero carb birth to death except for partially digested stomach contents of prey animals. As there is no edible plant matter whatsoever in the traditional Inuit habitat.
In what is no doubt a complete coincidence, since a modern "healthy" diet with plenty of vegetables was introduced to the Inuit after World War II, obesity, diabetes, and cancer have gone from nothing to epidemic proportions and lifespan is plummeting.
"Sure, the source is distributed, but it is inaccessible."
Only if you're too stupid to find your "Mobile Applications" folder, unzip the
"anyone who downloads GPL'd apps from the app store is not free to modify and distribute usable binaries."
Yes they are. The binary just needs to be signed before installation on a device (and does not need to be signed to be runnable in the simulator). The distributor can do that either with an ad hoc certificate or with a distribution certificate for distribution to be done through the App Store; or the recipient can do that with the codesign command line tool.
Seems to me that requiring the recipient be able to sign the binary to install on a device is not qualitatively different than requiring the recipient to have a compiler to compile the source in the first place.
" I am also free to distribute my modified work so others can use it; This I cannot do on iOS without paying Apple $100 for the privilege..."
Not true. Even if you don't have a cert for your own devices, you can throw a binary compiled with the free(gratis) Xcode download up wherever you want, and the recipient can run codesign on it with their cert. Is that a GPL violation? I say it's no more a violation than requiring a compiler to compile the source, or a 3D card to run an OpenGL program, or enough memory to load the program, or any other restriction that makes a particular set of source not runnable on a particular device. Is it a GPL violation that I can't run a piece of GPL'd Windows source on my Mac? Well, how exactly do you distinguish "not having a device certificate available to sign the binary" from "not having the Windows OS available to link the binary to" as a restriction on your alleged user rights? I see no point of legal difference.
"I would like to know where you got this number (92%), because I suspect it is much lower. I have no proof of this, though, and I'd like to know what the number actually is."
That was what Flurry pegged it at in their last monthly update I read, sometime around April. Granted that their source pool is only those devices running apps with the Flurry SDK installed, but I'm willing to bet that's acceptably representative of all devices. In any case, there is no publicly available info that's any better than what Flurry (and their competitors like Mobclix) provide.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...
So zip up the source files and drop them in the app package you submit to Apple. That's what id did with the wolf3d sources. Presto, source distributed along with every download from the App Store, now go sit in the corner with a nice big cup of STFU.
Since that alleged objection is so trivially dealt with, the FSF is taking the position that Section 6 of GPLv2 is incompatible with App Store distribution, since Apple limits the distribution of the downloads to the five devices linked to the downloader's Apple ID. In other words, their position is that Apple must remove the signing requirement for device installs before iOS devices can be GPL-compatible at all.
Well, nobody sane thinks that ever might happen.
You have the option to sign yourself whatever code you want on whatever devices you purchase by joining the iOS developer program; and furthermore you can sign it to be ad hoc installed on another couple hundred devices of people who trust you enough to give you their device IDs. If you're not interested in working with either of those options, then that's a pretty clear indication that what you're up on your high horse about has nothing to do with what's actually best for the vast majority (as in the 92% that have not jailbroken their devices) of users.
"No, but we're perfectly capable of building them
OK; you show me a solar panel that came into existence using no fossil fuels to
a) Mine and refine the metals such as cadium telluride needed as inputs
b) Construct the solar cells
c) Transport the panel to the place of installation
d) Distribute the electricity it converts into light, heat, and other such applications of electricity
Absent that evidence, I shall presume you accept that my postulation that sustaining civilization rules out carbon neutrality is, indeed, undeniable.
"WTF, seriously, NOONE, and I mean NOONE is proposing that. The most extreme proposals are more along the lines of planting more trees and building some solar power plants"
Oh, so solar cells, batteries, transmission towers, and a distributed energy grid all grow on trees now do they?
Anybody who thinks that agriculture, let alone civilization, can possibly be made carbon neutral is at least one of a complete fool or sadly ignorant. My statement "hunter-gatherer societies which are the only ones carbon neutral" stands.
Not that I particularly care to argue the point, being in the "By the God of your choice I WISH that the climate alarmists are right so we can eliminate Ice Ages! w00t!" camp myself.
There are (at least) two camps in the global warming skeptics camp
No, there's at least five.
1. those who deny it is happening
As you say. But there's hardly any of those.
2. Those who deny it's unprecedented.
That the remains of 11th C. Viking settlements in Greenland have beech trees frozen in their permafrost is an example of the kind of evidence that people in this camp find compelling.
3. Those who deny the "anthropogenic" part but agree that recent decades are at least unusual, because of the sun or cosmic rays or ocean currents or whatever.
4. those like me who know it's happening but don't think it's worth changing our entire civilization
Indeed, under any even remotely plausible set of assumptions adaption to warmth is a far superior idea to going back to the hunter-gatherer societies which are the only ones carbon neutral.
5. Those of us who think that even if you take all the worst alarmist propaganda at face value, global warming is a FANTASTIC idea and we should be doing EVERYTHING WE CAN to speed it on its way!
Logic here being, I believe the worst possible generally accepted scenario is AGW topping out at around 6C up from now and about 1.4 billion deaths. Bad, that, you think?
Well, from geology we know that ever since C02 dropped below 500 ppm we've been having these Ice Age thingys, and we're pretty much at the peak temperature for recorded interglacials, and their depths are -- coincidentally enough -- just about 6C colder than now. And the estimates of the total human population worldwide that could feed themselves in a full on Ice Age vary wildly, but I haven't seen an estimate over 600 million and they go as low as 20 million. Either way, we're talking seven billion plus people dead at the very least.
The alternative that through AGW we shift that curve up so that world temperatures cycle between 6C warmer than now to current temperatures; hey, that sounds awesome! Let's DO IT!
Adobe isn't exactly known for their open source efforts, but they do a hell of a lot more of it than Apple does
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Projects
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
That is a very interesting definition of "more" you must be using. It does not appear to correspond in any factual way to the definition of "greater quantity" which a reality-based person would expect.
(Hint: C doesn't have closures,
Apple's version of C does.
http://developer.apple.com/mac/articles/cocoa/introblocksgcd.html
No, they're not released for the iPhone
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
