Recursion #
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:39 GMT
n. See Recursion.
"YouTube even provides, in proper postmodern style, a parody clip of Hitler furious at all the Downfall parody clips"
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:27 GMT
I like apple products, but where MS blatantly lie and mislead you Apple are honest about doing it their way or the highway.
I have had reason to work with Apple's iTunes people in terms of supplying content from my employer (a large broadcast company) and they are just as obtuse then too.
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:39 GMT
happy to take the piss out of others, throw teddy out of cot when they are the target
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:39 GMT
There's a lovely one circulating where Adolf is a tad annoyed to have had his beloved Honda VFR replaced with a BMW motocycle.
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:39 GMT
n. See Recursion.
"YouTube even provides, in proper postmodern style, a parody clip of Hitler furious at all the Downfall parody clips"
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 14:48 GMT
...Apple pulled the plug on an app that provided a feed from another source that the developer of the app had no control over?
Seriously?
Pfft
So what happens if a developer produces an app that provides a direct feed from say, El Reg, and Vulture Central decide to publish a story on, let's say a maker of a well known mobile telephony device, and someone posts in the comments page to that story a link to a website that says "Ra ra ra ra apple fanboi ra ra ra ra overpriced handset ra ra ra ra raving maniacs ra ra ra ra", Apple would pull the plug on the app?
Again I say, Seriously?
Pfft
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 15:06 GMT
@Fred Bauer: wouldn't it be more like self-referencing?
Wasn't the first one (at least it was for me) about being banned from Xbox Live?
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 15:06 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wKO3rID9g&feature=related
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 15:06 GMT
...but I read the words "kicked off" to mean "originated" rather than "removed from".
Which conjures up a completely different scenario.
How could an evil megalomaniac possibly have been responsible for a gadget which has brought untold benefits to mankind?
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 15:06 GMT
Job could very be hitler's son. there is no company (except MPAA/RIAA members) more anti-consumer then Apple.
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 15:58 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4n--IXg6HY
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:44 GMT
Anti-consumer? Holy underpants Batman... But... but you're a consumer?
However, unless you're a robot you don't have to buy anything - the bad people in the adverts won't come and take you away if you refuse to buy what they're trying to sell.
GO! Use your mighty consumer power! Stick it to the man! That'll teach him. He might be anti-consumer, but you can be anti-company and see how he likes that.
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
apple not lying.......
Sure remmeber they said the Iphone 3G was 3G speeds yet in offical tests ran at 2.5G.. which was confirmed by alot of different IT professionals from different fields of IT.. Sure
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
Shareholders don't like lawsuits. They don't like it when their baby is insulted or blamed for things beyond its control. So they instruct their board of directors to be risk-averse. Extremely risk-averse.
Pretty much anything could be offensive to *somebody*, so Apple's employees are told to play it as safe as possible. What Apple are doing is a symptom of the lawyer-happy society their HQ is based in. ("When in doubt, sue. Even when not in doubt, sue anyway as they might settle out of court just to shut you up." Either way, the lawyers win.)
And in case you think it's only Apple doing this, I suggest you pay closer attention to the news. (And no, it's not just the US either. The UK -- to pick just one EU member nation -- has become infamous as the capital of "libel tourism".)
Stop blaming the corporations. They're obliged to follow exactly the same damned, bat's-arse laws as you and I. The difference is that they're much bigger, wealthier targets and thus far more likely to get sued for money.
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
Sure apple dont lie and steal other peoples patents...
Or ban iphone app's saying they break the policy they incorporate those apps into the iphone's next release and claim new features which were already there...
Sure no lies at all.....
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
you might not like Apple, I might not like Apple, but please leave comments like "Job could very be hitler's son" out of this discussion
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
Does the Jesus phone not have a generic "RSS reader" program? Why do people need special software to read particular feeds?
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
'nuff said. As in, I don't have anything else to say, but this box requires it, so I'm just typing some stuff anyway, tra-la-la la-la
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WB7pw78sf0
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
These parodies are top quality and, additionally, serve to promote the film. I'll certainly be renting this in the near future!
Posted Wednesday 3rd June 2009 22:47 GMT
Using someone's video to parody them is fair use. Using someone's video to parody something ELSE is not. So the video that uses the clip from Downfall to make fun of the MPIAA is NOT fair use.
Back in the real work, it's always going to happen (and think how idiotic people would have to be to object) - nevertheless, the point stands.
Posted Thursday 4th June 2009 09:13 GMT
Telling people what they can or can't have. When something is available for me to purchase, it is MY choice whether or not I buy it. I don't need the censorship police making choices for me.
This is just another reason I will never buy an Apple product.
Posted Thursday 4th June 2009 09:13 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIL3Jkezgj0
Posted Friday 5th June 2009 07:47 GMT
is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fbrUjjivw
The original film, incidentally, is fantastic.