494 posts • joined Wednesday 17th June 2009 13:33 GMT
I reckon it's just coincidental that App consists of the first three letters of Apple.
Mainly because it is a coincidence.
Look up the etymology of the word application, then look up where the company name Apple Computers came from. They have different origins, this is what the real world calls a coincidence.
It was not a divine act from the heavenly Jobs. Trying to claim it as one is pretty absurd.
By that logic
Apple should have not bothered changing the iPhone to allow third party applications to run and instead gone back to selling overpriced PC hardware.
App is generic, store is generic, but when you use them together they're the product of Apple?
As it's been pointed out before in the context of "stores", the Apple app store is not the only one to sell "apps" and by a long way it was not the first to do so, it's like Clarks trying to trademark "shoe shop".
Give it up Reverse Lewis Mettier.
Are you mental?
Smartphone market didn't exist before Apple made it? So there were no smartphones before 2007?
Fucking hell, someone better tell RIM, Nokia, Samsung, IBM, Motorola they shouldn't have bothered and they should just stop now, and let Apple trademark the word smartphone. If they could they would.
I get it, you believe the hype that apple make everything and they were there first for everything, but let's face it, that's bullshit.
Sounds like flying
It just makes me think of the whole thing about flying being one of the safest forms of travel yet it is a great cause of anxiety in many many people.
Possibly because when things go wrong they go colossaly wrong and bad plane crashes are generally horrific in terms of losses and gruesomeness, similarly when (and it's the only one really of note) Chernobyl happened there were massive consequences.
I guess it's just perception.
I like Veal, and Zebra, Kudu, Wildebeest, Lamb, Venison, Wild Boar, Ostrich, Bison, Kangaroo, Springbok & Blesbok
Even some insects.
Nothing seems to be quite as good as a decent slice of smoked pig though.
I call parody and fair use.
So stuff Lady Gaga, actually no, belay that. I really wouldn't.
But surely the whole point of the court case is party (or parties) A versus party (or parties) B
I'm not sure why it would make a difference that it's v. said "and"
probably some bizarre legalese rules
It's the legalese and the strict adherence to the word of the law whilst remaining completely ignorant of the spirit of the law which makes those fluent in legalese a lot of money, IMO (allegedly etc.).
It seems pretty obvious to me
Whitelist - If it's on the whitelist it's bubbled to the top
Blacklist - If it's on the blacklist it's dragged down to the bottom (or excluded altogether)
There does seem to be an argument about the lexicology coming from Google, but as the article says, Google have used the terms themselves in the context of search. Any semantic argument is just a fallacy. Simply calling it by another name doesn't make it something else. You can't really choose to ignore a simple term such as blacklist or whitelist.
If you were to call a horse a dog, it would still be a horse.
I'm hoping they wont have a war against underwear, or hygeine, or cardboard.
Or daylight, I quite like daylight.
And shoes, they're useful.
Sure, a lot of references citing App store may be referring to the Apple App Store, but I think that a lot will be prefixed. I'm sure El Reg's are always prefixed.
Apple App Store
Orange App Store
Blackberry App store
Android App store
So are Apple maybe ignoring the prefix in their analysis?
You think websites appear on google just by chance?
The issue is when you attain a level of recognition through google and other websites, through word of mouth, other advertising and just generally performing better than the alternatives. Your ranking grows to number one on the google website.
The google decide to move into your market and suddenly you find that regardless of their capability or price your customer base drops and they are suddenly the market leader, meanwhile your revenues force you into administration.
You can live with the advertised services because it's clear they are adverts, but when the results are simply modified by the Mountain View Chocolate factory you have no way of competing.
I thought this was about abuse of a monopoly
Like when Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE, you could have chosen not to use the MS OS, but that was more expensive than to just use IE.
You could choose not to use google, but then you don't appear on the worlds no.1 search engine.
If google decide to move into your line of business and bumped you down their search results you lose business, it doesn't matter whether you're better, cheaper or whatever.
Their monopoly on search was home grown so I don't begrudge them that, but it shouldn't be able to be used to gain a monopoly in other markets.
Your point, Scorchio, would seem to be that people on the internet can be tracked. I do not dispute that.
My point is that Aaron Barr and yourself seem to have the (in my opinion misguided) impression that the Anonymous collective is a hierarchy and that in determining who the leaders of this hierarchy are is to have infiltrated Anonymous.
I don't think Anonymous works that way and that if ultimately you removed what you consider to be "the head" that the body would not die, it would just grow another head.
It's a simile
It's an IRC channel.
The point of a loose collective is that it expands and contracts, leadership is transient and generally irrelevant. That's what anonymous is.
Trace a bunch of people logged on, a bunch of others log in, take them down another channel opens.
There will always be more to rage against the machine.
Can you understand the simile now?
I read about this elsewhere
It's quite amusing, they got Penny (CEO) to go and speak to the Anonymous IRC and there's a log of the whole conversation - http://pastebin.com/x69Akp5L
I think more than anything this proves that corporations and organisations are just a bunch of people, and each and every one of them has their own opinions, they lie, they slander, but they're also truthful, witty & endearing. Every now and then there's a fuckwit who seems to value themselves over others though.
I pity Penny of HBGary, but the anonymous people have made fair points (albeit in a flippant and sonetimes surreal manner)
Aaron Barr seems in this case to be the fuckwit, claiming to have infiltrated anonymous, seems a bit like someone saying I've invaded Midgaard (all you mudders out there know what I'm talking about)
Let me get this straight, some actual AMERICANS are saying that the biggest and fastest is not the best?
That's colossal, it's like they've turned British.
Superpower not quite so super any more?
A genre vastly overlooked when it comes to best films.
I think the italian job misses out because it has some comedy in it.
Never mind eh?
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a whistle,
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
After practising it for 4000 years
You'd think they'd be a bit better at it by now.
They're not managing to predict the lottery numbers.
Hell, they weren't even able to predict the sex of my mates baby and that's 50/50.
Blackadder goes Forth
I saw the show they're talking about and the comments, weren't actually that funny but neither were they offensive.
It's not as if anyone said Japan was dressed like a tart and she was asking for it.
At some point you have to make light of these things, to point out the ridiculousness of it all. A prime example is Blackadder goes Forth, an entire series dedicated to making light an event in which Millions died.
Perhaps we should just stop exporting comedy shows, nobody gets us.
It took me longer to figure out what was meant by advacting, my primary thought was to acting, but second thoughts made me realise it was not. That's why I singled it out, but yes, I should if I'm going to go grammar nazi do a better job. For that reason I will be downvoting my own post.
Tounge is a good one, it was used twice.
and it's pr0n.
Nobody knows and there's no way of finding out.
Internet & Girls
Back when I moved into the internet about 18 years ago there weren't really many girls there, not real ones anyway, plenty of the virtuals, the pretenders and the few nerdy ones. As a result I have a kind of "dr. house" mentality that everyone on the internet is lying.
I met quite a few people who I knew online and they were on the whole ordinary people, but I can't say I found it anything other than surreal. Internet persona's don't tend to be exactly like a real persona.
The film sounds intreaguing, but I might end up getting irritated because I'd be thinking he was stupid for taking anything on the internet as gospel.
I don't think I can't be fooled, but I wouldn't emotionally invest myself in any online relationship.
I'll probably wait for the post cinema release, good review anyway.
Is there a wikipedia page for humour?
Perhaps you could look it up.
In the meantime, allow me to explain, the comment you replied to was a pun.
Suspended -> Hanging
Team America World Police
Do they watch these films and think "yeah! That's how it should be" completely missing the humour?
that isn't a real world?
oh gods how will I indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis?
an arm and a leg given the people you'll have to deal with.
Wait and see.
Are we talking about a passive wait and see where nobody actually does anything, or the active wait and see which means scientists (who have to be paid) monitor the situation and speculate, experiment and recommend?
Because without the shouty part you end up with the former, with the shouty part you end up with the latter. As I've pointed out, without the shouty part the majority of the populace couldn't give a stuff and these are the people paying taxes, and ultimately they make the decision as to whether anything gets done about an issue or not. And by something being done I mean it being studied, with real (paid) scientists actively doing stuff (like counting bees for instance)
Should we do the same regarding climate change? I think that's been hyped and shouty. Where do you stand on that one?
How do you judge "worth" given that worthiness is a matter of opinion? Popular opinion governs worth (and you could argue vive-versa), if a cause is popular then the shoutiness gets louder.
So has the worthiness of the save the bee campaign become shouty because of popular opinion or has the issue been exaggerated from the start? My guess (and that's all it is) is that it's driven by popular opinion in this case, on account of my bias towards liking bees.
I am also not particularly keen on the resilience of species argument (humans recovering from black death etc.) if that argument was followed every time there was an outbreak of a new virus then there would most likely be very few people around today. (HIV - who cares, we've survived plagues before, we'll do it again.) It may be accurate but it doesn't actually help us evolve as a species. You could equally point to dutch elm disease, or perhaps more appropriately potato blight.
We'll survive, but at what cost? (Should we stand idly by to wait and see?)
We've already manipulated the human population to be significantly greater than would be the case if we ignored plagues, it stands to reason that we need to do the same with the species we depend upon, hence industrialised farming.
I like bees
Much like global warming and other various subjects which are hyped, people hype them because they are important and without that hype large swathes of the population couldn't give a toss.
So it is done as a social manipulation tool, to draw attention to the fact it's done, to decry it makes the assumption that everyone else on the planet is as clued up and as good at critical thinking as you are. And you're an expert, so how is that going to be true?
Just because something is hyped up to be a bigger issue than it actually is in the eyes of an expert doesn't necessarily mean that the issue should be ignored.
I'd have thought the gun thing was relevant
When it comes to a threat.
It's one thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" when all you have is a beebee gun at most.
Another thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" whilst having access to an actual firearm with real bullets that go through people making lots of blood and such.
One is an empty threat, the other can be considered to be a genuine threat of real physical violence, with a gun.
And guns are bad mmm'kay
because you'd never pick up a virus from warez </sarcasm>
Go open source
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Three offers free US roaming, confirms stealth 4G rollout
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED