GHFigs

92 ms·

841.
by GHFigs 17y ago
having a touchscreen that makes things zoom by pinching. Apple doesn't actually have a patent on pinch-to-zoom. But I'll play along anyway... It's trivial, obvious, and there actually isn't any other useful way you could do it. Bullshit
842.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Making sure that there is plurality in the media is a task of the state. You've left a massive gap between ensuring it can exist and the forcing of retailers to stock it. That is something I'd like you to explain more clearly. Would you b
843.
by GHFigs 17y ago
So what's this world wide web thing I keep hearing about?
844.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Free speech doesn’t seem to be very important for Apple Let me know when they stop supporting the single most democratized mass communications medium the world has ever known . we as a society should only allow that if we also force App
845.
by GHFigs 17y ago
You can still see it. The only difference is that Apple doesn't stock it in their store.
846.
by GHFigs 17y ago
And then they went sueing other people over it. Not arbitrarily. The prior licensing arrangement between Apple and Microsoft is central to that case. And it seems that Xerox didn't actually think they gave Apple this permission Xerox su
847.
by GHFigs 17y ago
That's a poor analogy. Apple is not acting in the role of the "reader" here. They're the store . They are choosing what they want to sell . It makes no sense to attribute something as simple as not wanting to be in the soapbox business to
848.
by GHFigs 17y ago
In this case "they" is a company that sells products that you are free to not buy wielding the "weapon" of a development agreement that you are free to not enter into.
849.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Can I see the EFF's Utopia of the Future for comparison?
850.
by GHFigs 17y ago
It was very strange reading that article next to a pair of Flash-based Google ads.
851.
by GHFigs 17y ago
The 300k figure was sales as of the first day, including three weeks of pre-orders. They did not drop from 300k/day to 37k/day, because there was never a single day that they sold 300k. They sold ~14k/day over the three weeks. The 500k fi
852.
by GHFigs 17y ago
You don't understand. I'm not saying that musicians don't care about sound quality. What I am saying is that judging seriousness by the price of your gear is a giant pile of bullshit. More specifically, I'm saying I think doing so is a pa
853.
by GHFigs 17y ago
You're picking it apart but you seem to have missed his point entirely. It's not about money or even having the trivial words taken. It's about being attached to something that you aren't actually attached to, or more specifically, not havi
854.
by GHFigs 17y ago
any reasonably serious musician Snobbish bullshit like this is a bigger threat to creativity than anything the iPad does or doesn't do.
855.
by GHFigs 17y ago
it scares me that yet another device encouraging passive consumerism may become immensely popular You mean like one of these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book But seriously, think about it. Why would a "media consumption" device beco
856.
by GHFigs 17y ago
perhaps you thought you could also do some serious work on it If I can do work on the iPad, does that mean my work isn't serious?
857.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Two things I haven't seen mentioned: 1. The majority of iPhone developers aren't effected by this at all. 2. To some degree, this is is about ensuring the Mac remains a required part of iPhone/iPad development.
858.
by GHFigs 17y ago
so they cripple the tools that developers may use By only allowing the tools they use? It seems like if what you said was true they would do exactly the opposite.
859.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Going to wager it'll be in the form of a lawsuit, and that the FCC will get involved. On what basis?
860.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Because it isn't basic for everybody. It's conceptually simple, but hundreds of millions of computer and cell phone users go through through most days without ever doing it at all. It is much more familiar and convenient to them to use mess
861.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Interesting choice of example, as loading photos from a camera is something the iPad can do without third-party software.
862.
by GHFigs 17y ago
That's exactly the reporting I mean. I've seen that same article (or blog posts linking back to it) cited as evidence of that (false) claim many times. It's exactly how and why I informed myself in the first place. Even the title of the sto
863.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Myth. The methods used are already illegal under existing copyright law. The idea that they were trying to get it made illegal comes from the EFF's attempt to get it specifically exempted (i.e. made legal). There is a triennial process
864.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Behold linkbait title. Actual story: iPad runs VNC/RDP app.
865.
by GHFigs 17y ago
You'd rather pay again than watch existing content you already bought? Where did anybody buy movies in AVI format?
866.
by GHFigs 17y ago
My point exactly.
867.
by GHFigs 17y ago
It is illegal because it involves violating Apple's copyright on their firmware. The legal status was established long before there even was an iPhone to jailbreak. That filing was provoked by the EFF's attempt to get it made specifically
868.
by GHFigs 17y ago
we all know, however, that the world should have open computers and not closed ones because that creates a better experience for consumers in the long run Thanks for looking out for us, Dad.
869.
by GHFigs 17y ago
The parent poster goes on for length operating under the assumption that no one on HN that is participating in this discussion or up-voted the news item shares the same views that Doctorow does. I believe you have misinterpreted. The pare
870.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Are you willing to say consumers aren't better off because of those open systems? I'm willing to say that consumers are better off because Linux and Apache are used in places where they are the best tool for the job. I am not convinced th

More ›