Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Control Your Own Destiny (Score 1) 630

by StylusEater (#33660748) Attached to: The Surprising Statistics Behind Flash and Apple

I find it equally if not more hilarious that people actually make stupid comments like this, and pathetic if they actually believe what they're saying.

Really? How can one not realize you have no control over them other than through your wallet? It is naive to think differently...

There is no good reason why people should not bring perceived problems to the attention of those in power. Your arrogance is sickening.

Of course there is a reason...those in power will only seek to maintain or maximize that power. Why should they care about you if you're already paying for something, you've already voted! If you don't like it, see my sentence above... vote by wallet or shut up.

Comment: Control Your Own Destiny (Score 1) 630

by StylusEater (#33658310) Attached to: The Surprising Statistics Behind Flash and Apple
I find it hilarious that people choose to complain over something they can actually control. If you don't like it, then stop using your iPhone. If you like your iPhone (and applications) enough then quit your bit$hin and stop thinking you should have a say in the closed platform because you don't and never will...

Comment: Internet 3 (Score 1) 341

by StylusEater (#33111388) Attached to: Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment?
If we don't take action now we'll end up with "public Internet utility" companies just like we have "public Gas and Electricity" companies. In reality they receive federal funds to keep them operating but they answer only to their stockholders and not the people. If they answered to the people...wait for it...wait for it...we'd be communists? (For those of you that think that, go look up the definition.) Nope, we wouldn't be, we'd actually have a democracy where everyone has an equal voice. Unfortunately we operate in a plutocracy (the US). My voice doesn't count as much as the board members of "insert utility company here." In order to get around this issue, the US Government along with State Governments should create a totally separate network infrastructure. We could actually catch up to most other countries, create jobs, rid ourselves of the aging copper base, and actually have a network clearly subject to the government and to the people. Then we could have a public regulatory agency lease lines to private operators to do what they want to do with their own little network on the greater public network. As it stands now we have a hodgepodge of backbone providers (funded by the US government not for the people but for the good of the lobbyists) that allow us peasants to use their network as they see fit (think telcos, cellphones, you name any communication device here...). How about that idea Slashdot? Ideally it'd be nice if the board/regulatory agency that would oversee the Internet 3, were made up of local citizens from each state with strict term limits and strict operating parameters, because I'm not a fan of ye olde Uncle Sam running it with his lobbyist sons and daughters.

Comment: Re:All music sans DRM (Score 1) 731

by StylusEater (#32278818) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

You don't - you don't "own" the original DRM music. If ownership was an issue you'd not have bought that music.

So the only music we can own is distributed on CD? Or is that not true either? What music can we own if not some of the "digital crap" being shoveled?

I thought this depended on the label?

About TWO YEARS AGO it did. So, no. As soon as the Earth did not shatter into a billion pieces when BMI sold DRM free music, the other studios followed pretty much instantly.

They did? So all label music is DRM free now? Hrm...so now it's the resellers/distributors putting DRM on tracks?

Comment: Re:All music sans DRM (Score 1) 731

by StylusEater (#32235738) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ

Only music users purchased some time ago that was under the old DRM scheme and they did not pay to upgrade.

Why should one have to pay to "upgrade" music they already own. In essence, they're trying to get us used to "renting" items and no longer "owning" them like we did before... I should be able to upgrade the track without a fee if I've already "bought" it.

All music sold on iTunes for some time now is DRM free.

I thought this depended on the label?

The engineers at Apple, when you talk to them at WWDC, are on a personal level very happy to give back to the community which Apple really heavily depends on. Apple at the heart of things is VERY much a bunch of really technical people, not marketers.

I've never been to WWDC. It's on my "todo list." It'd be great to talk to some of their developers but the cynic in me has to point out that most company workers "tow the line." On a similar note, I'm actually very impressed with Steve Jobs late night e-mail conversation with a gawker reporter. Although I might not agree with the censorship part, I am absolutely in awe that Steve would enter into such a conversation, and give such candid responses.

Comment: Re:Actually, Apple generally very Open. (Score 1) 731

by StylusEater (#32205800) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ
Webkit is LGPL. Good point. You also mention other open source projects Apple has supported. And I guess it would be silly not to mention the ones listed on their sources page. I think Adobe has something similar...

On the music front, it is important to remember they publish some of their music without DRM, but I believe they still have quite a lot of it that is not only tied to their service, but to their device ecosystem.

Please realize I'm not necessarily "bashing" the companies. They're doing what a lot of companies continue to do because we, "the market," let them... I will mention that I am personally pissed at Apple because their popularity is in large part due to the counterculture of "geeks" who pined for something different, yet useful, elegant and dare I say "easy."

Again, you bring up good points, but I still think both companies are seriously abusing the "FOSS" movement for the sake of marketing themselves as being "more open" when neither are truly open. Tricking users into thinking you're "better than the less open people" is tantamount to selling people "fresh air;" both are vaporous and in the end, quite useless, as we're all part of the same ecosystem.

Comment: Re:Mental Masterbation (Score 1) 731

by StylusEater (#32196370) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ
Have you not read the recent findings by Lady Ada et al???

Open Hardware Making Tons of Money What about open software companies that are still doing well?

Also, please narrow your definition of 'everything.' We only want open specifications (and/or open code). I don't have to give you a "double-click executable."

Comment: Mental Masterbation (Score 5, Interesting) 731

by StylusEater (#32194948) Attached to: Adobe Calls Out Apple With Ads In NY Times, WSJ
I find it very disheartening that both companies are going to great lengths to show just how "OPEN" they are, when neither of them are even close to being "open" or really staunch supporters of all things "open." Both companies have jockeyed, in open and/or behind closed doors, to make standards their bi*ches and now they complain because their "industry standards" are being threatened.

This in turn has caused people to complain loudly about "freedom!!!" I want my freedom? I ask, freedom from what? You're now encountering what Stallman et al have been talking about for ages! You're only free as far as a company's whims says you are... Ohh, now I'm supposed to feel sad for those that hooked their toolset to Adobe? or to Apple for that matter? Why not focus on developing truly standards compliant applications with Open tools and let the companies come to us for a change rather than us bowing to them for the next release? We are all masters of our own domains, now "buck up" and act like it.

Comment: Stupidity (Score 2, Insightful) 133

by StylusEater (#31545734) Attached to: Federal Judge Bars Instant Publishing of Analysts' Stock Tips
From the Article:

The banks welcomed the ruling. Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a "milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients."

Hrm... so if I were to publish my proprietary information online, our say, outside of my house, then people read it and used it before I could make money from it I can sue them for losses? Wow! what a novel idea banks!

I've got a better one, why don't you lock the content away behind a login and share it with it client until you believe it be of insufficient value, then release it? Brilliant!

Comment: It matters...but does it really? (Score 1) 686

by StylusEater (#30479260) Attached to: Not Enough Women In Computing, Or Too Many Men?
People are people, so why does it really matter if they have one set of facilities versus another? If they're are good at what they do, and get along with the gender spectrum, does it really matter in the end? If it is a matter of perspective on problems and what various minds bring to the "table of innovation," how does one account for the rest of the gender spectrum and what they have to offer versus just the two polar sides of it?

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...