If you are on a gurney and have no idea if you will have the surgery or not, then yeah. Or if you were waiting for approval for a bank loan and the bank simply tells you to continue to wait while they continue to review, then yeah.
Is it really that difficult a metaphor for you?
Then you are in a state of limbo, Not the surgery, or app that is in review, and as you said.
Agreed in part. My lab guy suggest that a packet sniffer wouldn't really work once the message is out the door. Accessing Googles servers and surely the security protocols would prevent it.
As one did comment, if it were possible, tracking internet pedophiles or sales scams for example, would be a no-brainer.
However, somebody else has a difference of opinion re how the GV works.
You lab guy is right. There is no way for Apple to know how Google is actually routing the calls from their servers. But they absolutely would be able to tell if the call from the iPhone itself is being made over VoIP or over their voice line. They could use a packet sniffer, of they could examine the process of a call being initiated on the iPhone to know what libraries were being used, what API calls are being invoked, etc. They required Skype to change their code to work over Wifi only and not 3G. How would they enforce this if there was no way to tell?
Even if they could not tell, which they should be able to do technically, there has to be a way for them to know, even if it is just a matter of asking the developer. I suppose if they were unable to tell, then it would be on the honour system, but that seems unlikely.
Since they claim in their response not to know if it works over 3G, then either they have not gotten that far into their review process, they have not asked Google for this information or their statement refers to their knowledge/lack of, of how google routes the calls after it has reached their servers. I expect Apple was honest in their response, so any of these would make sense.
The google voice service works regardless of if you are on a land line or cell phone. The backend is described as VoIP, because the calls are connected through the google network via VoIP. But at the two end points, your phone and the person you are calling, it is a traditional call (unless one or both ends are voip). There is talk of GV developing a full VoIP app/service, but I have only heard of that for the android so far. You cannot yet, for example, make a call from your PC/Mac and talk on the PC/Mac. You can initiate it on your PC/Mac and have it ring both your phone and the person you are calling, but those phones can be landlines or cellphones or voip lines.
The you are in a state of limbo, Not the surgery, or app the is in review, and as you said.
????
The approval of the surgery is uncertain. It is in a state of limbo. The state of the app is neither approved nor rejected. It is uncertain which it will be. It is in a state of limbo.
Do you really want to continue debating now, whether the metaphor makes more sense to apply to the app itself or the approval of the app? Hardly seems relevant.
Does not matter, if he states it a fact, it is an opinion, because he never provided a accessible quote to vertify the statement.
because there was no statement on the response to quote. He made it up. He said "Google refused to publish the details of their response. Including why their app was built export all of a user's contacts and transfer them to Teh Google's servers without notifying the user this was happening."
There is no statement, from Apple, Google or the FCC that even remotely implies this is the case. He claims google should have published that their app sends user contacts without their knowledge. This is a made up statement. He lied.
I could as easily say that Apple sends a portion of their revenue to the Klan and that Apple should explain why they do this. But, that would be making an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie.
Do I know if the GV app does sends my contacts to the google servers without my knowledge? No. Do I know if Apple does fund the Klan? No. Do I have any reason to believe either is the case? No. Should I expect Apple to cop to funding the Klan? Not if there is no reason to assume they are doing so.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
Still waiting for the screenshot that shows they asked permission to upload your contacts to their servers. Also, the link to the privacy policy that says what they'll do with it once its there.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
??
John.B. You posts are really not worth reading anymore. You repeatedly lie to make your points, which at best are weak to begin with.
How is my google borg implant working? I guess I must be a google drone because I agree with them in this case? When I agree with Apple, does that make me a Apple drone?
Once your posts have more than lies or silly comments like google borg implants, perhaps we can engage in a conversation. Until, then, I will simply continue to point out your fabrications and limitations.
How is my google borg implant working? I guess I must be a google drone because I agree with them in this case? When I agree with Apple, does that make me a Apple drone?
I'm thinking you work for Google, which was my point.
Still waiting for that screenshot and privacy policy link.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
Still waiting for the screenshot that shows they asked permission to upload your contacts to their servers. Also, the link to the privacy policy that says what they'll do with it once its there.
I see you made an addition.
See, you made an accusation that they were doing it without user consent. That is just an empty fabrication, i.e. a lie. You made the claim, so you back it up.
Sure. Google and even MS are mostly benign monopolies toward users. MS Office was great for users but it put companies like Wang out of business. Instead of $5000 word processing machines you could get a $200 office package. Massive win for the users. Not so massive win for MS competitors.
MS Office did not put Wang out of business, not even out of the word processing business by itself. MS Office was not competing against Wang, it was competing against Lotus, WordPerfect, Quattro, etc., all of which were priced competitively. Admittedly, some of these players were late to the Windows game (although, this is at least partly because MS made it difficult for them to not be late) but it is also the case that MS included undocumented APIs in Windows exclusively for the use of Office products. There was no level playing field. MS leveraged its control of the OS into control of the office productivity software market.
Was this a massive win for users? I don't think so. It's resulted in the complete elimination of competition in this software category (sorry, but, OpenOffice is not offering real competition at this time), and users are paying for it in price, usability, and bloated inefficient software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Even the browser thing. Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers. Netscape had to monetize their browser base and selling servers wasn't really cutting it. Had there been no IE they'd have been forced to start charging...and they have every intention of doing so. They were already charging site licenses for their browser and had planned to charge everyone but academic and non-profit users.
Well, regardless of what Netscape's plans at the time were for charging for their browser, your statement that, "Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers," is not provable or disprovable. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying, "If Columbus had not discovered America, Europeans would never have migrated here." (Substitute your favorite "discoverer" of America in the preceding and the point is the same.)
In fact, I think it's quite probable that even had MS never developed a browser, Netscape would not have succeeded in charging for theirs. It's more likely that numerous third parties would have released free browsers competing with Netscape and that that would have scuttled their plans of generating revenue by selling the browser. MS's entry into the browser market, and their way of tying it to Windows, largely eliminated those possibilities from viability. (Edit: There were numerous third party browsers available at the time, most of which are forgotten relics of Internet history now.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
What most folks miss is that MS was a good thing for the computing world. I expect Google to work pretty much the same way (and be a little less evil in the process).
A contentious claim, to say the least. Many would argue that, by controlling markets and eliminating competitors, MS has done great damage both to the advancement of technology and to users. However, I think you are correct in your expectation of Google working pretty much the same way... well, except perhaps the part about being, "less evil in the process."
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that.
It's possible that I'm misremembering this, but, as I recall, although they did not prevent end users from installing other browsers, they did "block" OEMs from including other browsers, or at least from including an icon for another browser on the default Desktop. So, if my memory is correct, they did block third party browsers in the sense of making it more difficult for the average, and especially the business user (who may not have any choice in software) to obtain and use alternative browsers.
Now can you nuke ALL the other spam and make the registering process harder?
I'll check back in 10 mins to see if it's done.
We're looking into it, it seems there is a new back end system administrator.
I usually notice spammers when they post to an existing thread, the new post email notification also shows me if they're trying to hide URLs. If I come across a spammer during an idle moment, I'll nuke it. I don't have the time or patience to specifically hunt down spammers more than once a day, so I might not notice someone that posts at 6am until 6pm.
Nope, their offices are about 1 minute from mine, but I don't work for them. I have a lot of praise for Apple and don't work for them either.
I don't buy it. You have waaaaaaaaay too much emotionally invested in this thread to be some innocent bystander "protecting Google's honor".
Since you have personal knowledge (i.e. you must've run the app to be able to dispute everyone else's assertations, claims, etc.) then maybe you can share the screenshots that prove you are in the right?
I don't buy it. You have waaaaaaaaay too much emotionally invested in this thread to be some innocent bystander "protecting Google's honor".
No, I just don't like liars and like to call them on you. You have made unsubstantiated accusations and are unable to back them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Since you have personal knowledge (i.e. you must've run the app to be able to dispute everyone else's assertations, claims, etc.) then maybe you can share the screenshots that prove you are in the right?
What shall I prove to you? I did not make a claim that GV did or did not sent user contacts data with user consent. I did say if they do this, then they are in the wrong. Thus, I have no claim to proof, regardless of if you ask me to.
You made an unfounded claim. You are unable to back it up or prove it. If you cannot not, then simply admit you pulled it out of your ass, i.e you lied. Man up and admit it.
Now, I could say that you are a pedophile. Without proof, that is an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie. You would not be held to prove otherwise. Since I would have made the claim, I would be expected to back it up.
Now, you have made a claim. Back up or just cop to having made it up. Substantiate it admit to being a liar.
Tulkas, as I've said before; you have way too much emotional investment in this thread to be an average joe. There is something more to your involvement with GV or Google or Apple than meets the eye.
I do think you crossed the line on your above post. Consider it reported. Enjoy your AI infraction.
Without proof, that is an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie.
An unfounded assertion is not the same as a lie. It's only a lie when the person making the unfounded assertion is aware that the assertion is false. In the case where the assertion is false, but they are not aware that it is false, they are simply mistaken. It can also be the case that an unfounded assertion is true, despite the lack of evidence to support it, so, being unfounded does not make it false. And, of course, if it were unfounded but true, it could not, by definition, be a lie.
So, there are always a number of possibilities regarding any assertion that anyone makes, be it founded or unfounded, true or false, and only one of those is an instance of a lie. So, perhaps it would be better to not start calling each other liers unless you are entirely certain that a) the statements made by another are false and b) that they know they are false.
(OK, well, I'm over simplifying a bit, there's also the situation were a statement is true, but the person making it believes it to be false. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this specific case is a lie or not.)
Tulkas, as I've said before; you have way too much emotional investment in this thread to be an average joe. There is something more to your involvement with GV or Google or Apple than meets the eye.
I do think you crossed the line on your above post. Consider it reported. Enjoy your AI infraction.
I will, if they see fit to deliver it. They may instead see your claims for what they are.
However, if someone makes unsubstantiated claims, which the have no reason to believe is true, they have lied. They are then by definition a liar. To call someone out is neither an insult nor an ad hom attack. It is a statement of fact.
Comments
If you are on a gurney and have no idea if you will have the surgery or not, then yeah. Or if you were waiting for approval for a bank loan and the bank simply tells you to continue to wait while they continue to review, then yeah.
Is it really that difficult a metaphor for you?
Then you are in a state of limbo, Not the surgery, or app that is in review, and as you said.
Agreed in part. My lab guy suggest that a packet sniffer wouldn't really work once the message is out the door. Accessing Googles servers and surely the security protocols would prevent it.
As one did comment, if it were possible, tracking internet pedophiles or sales scams for example, would be a no-brainer.
However, somebody else has a difference of opinion re how the GV works.
"Google Voice is a free Internet service that uses VoIP technology to link phone numbers together. http://www.crunchbase.com/product/google-voice
You lab guy is right. There is no way for Apple to know how Google is actually routing the calls from their servers. But they absolutely would be able to tell if the call from the iPhone itself is being made over VoIP or over their voice line. They could use a packet sniffer, of they could examine the process of a call being initiated on the iPhone to know what libraries were being used, what API calls are being invoked, etc. They required Skype to change their code to work over Wifi only and not 3G. How would they enforce this if there was no way to tell?
Even if they could not tell, which they should be able to do technically, there has to be a way for them to know, even if it is just a matter of asking the developer. I suppose if they were unable to tell, then it would be on the honour system, but that seems unlikely.
Since they claim in their response not to know if it works over 3G, then either they have not gotten that far into their review process, they have not asked Google for this information or their statement refers to their knowledge/lack of, of how google routes the calls after it has reached their servers. I expect Apple was honest in their response, so any of these would make sense.
The google voice service works regardless of if you are on a land line or cell phone. The backend is described as VoIP, because the calls are connected through the google network via VoIP. But at the two end points, your phone and the person you are calling, it is a traditional call (unless one or both ends are voip). There is talk of GV developing a full VoIP app/service, but I have only heard of that for the android so far. You cannot yet, for example, make a call from your PC/Mac and talk on the PC/Mac. You can initiate it on your PC/Mac and have it ring both your phone and the person you are calling, but those phones can be landlines or cellphones or voip lines.
No, he stated 'fact' not opinion. When
that 'fact' is made up, it is called a lie.
Does not matter, if he states it a fact, it is an opinion, because he never provided a accessible quote to vertify the statement.
The you are in a state of limbo, Not the surgery, or app the is in review, and as you said.
????
The approval of the surgery is uncertain. It is in a state of limbo. The state of the app is neither approved nor rejected. It is uncertain which it will be. It is in a state of limbo.
Do you really want to continue debating now, whether the metaphor makes more sense to apply to the app itself or the approval of the app? Hardly seems relevant.
Does not matter, if he states it a fact, it is an opinion, because he never provided a accessible quote to vertify the statement.
because there was no statement on the response to quote. He made it up. He said "Google refused to publish the details of their response. Including why their app was built export all of a user's contacts and transfer them to Teh Google's servers without notifying the user this was happening."
There is no statement, from Apple, Google or the FCC that even remotely implies this is the case. He claims google should have published that their app sends user contacts without their knowledge. This is a made up statement. He lied.
I could as easily say that Apple sends a portion of their revenue to the Klan and that Apple should explain why they do this. But, that would be making an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie.
Do I know if the GV app does sends my contacts to the google servers without my knowledge? No. Do I know if Apple does fund the Klan? No. Do I have any reason to believe either is the case? No. Should I expect Apple to cop to funding the Klan? Not if there is no reason to assume they are doing so.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
Still waiting for the screenshot that shows they asked permission to upload your contacts to their servers. Also, the link to the privacy policy that says what they'll do with it once its there.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
??
John.B. You posts are really not worth reading anymore. You repeatedly lie to make your points, which at best are weak to begin with.
How is my google borg implant working? I guess I must be a google drone because I agree with them in this case? When I agree with Apple, does that make me a Apple drone?
Once your posts have more than lies or silly comments like google borg implants, perhaps we can engage in a conversation. Until, then, I will simply continue to point out your fabrications and limitations.
How is my google borg implant working? I guess I must be a google drone because I agree with them in this case? When I agree with Apple, does that make me a Apple drone?
I'm thinking you work for Google, which was my point.
Still waiting for that screenshot and privacy policy link.
Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?
Still waiting for the screenshot that shows they asked permission to upload your contacts to their servers. Also, the link to the privacy policy that says what they'll do with it once its there.
I see you made an addition.
See, you made an accusation that they were doing it without user consent. That is just an empty fabrication, i.e. a lie. You made the claim, so you back it up.
Oh you can't.
I'm thinking you work for Google, which was my point.
Still waiting for that screenshot and privacy policy link.
Nope, their offices are about 1 minute from mine, but I don't work for them. I have a lot of praise for Apple and don't work for them either.
Still waiting for you to post any relevant information to substantiate your claim. But, you know well, that your lies cannot be substantiated.
Sure. Google and even MS are mostly benign monopolies toward users. MS Office was great for users but it put companies like Wang out of business. Instead of $5000 word processing machines you could get a $200 office package. Massive win for the users. Not so massive win for MS competitors.
MS Office did not put Wang out of business, not even out of the word processing business by itself. MS Office was not competing against Wang, it was competing against Lotus, WordPerfect, Quattro, etc., all of which were priced competitively. Admittedly, some of these players were late to the Windows game (although, this is at least partly because MS made it difficult for them to not be late) but it is also the case that MS included undocumented APIs in Windows exclusively for the use of Office products. There was no level playing field. MS leveraged its control of the OS into control of the office productivity software market.
Was this a massive win for users? I don't think so. It's resulted in the complete elimination of competition in this software category (sorry, but, OpenOffice is not offering real competition at this time), and users are paying for it in price, usability, and bloated inefficient software.
Even the browser thing. Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers. Netscape had to monetize their browser base and selling servers wasn't really cutting it. Had there been no IE they'd have been forced to start charging...and they have every intention of doing so. They were already charging site licenses for their browser and had planned to charge everyone but academic and non-profit users.
Well, regardless of what Netscape's plans at the time were for charging for their browser, your statement that, "Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers," is not provable or disprovable. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying, "If Columbus had not discovered America, Europeans would never have migrated here." (Substitute your favorite "discoverer" of America in the preceding and the point is the same.)
In fact, I think it's quite probable that even had MS never developed a browser, Netscape would not have succeeded in charging for theirs. It's more likely that numerous third parties would have released free browsers competing with Netscape and that that would have scuttled their plans of generating revenue by selling the browser. MS's entry into the browser market, and their way of tying it to Windows, largely eliminated those possibilities from viability. (Edit: There were numerous third party browsers available at the time, most of which are forgotten relics of Internet history now.)
What most folks miss is that MS was a good thing for the computing world. I expect Google to work pretty much the same way (and be a little less evil in the process).
A contentious claim, to say the least. Many would argue that, by controlling markets and eliminating competitors, MS has done great damage both to the advancement of technology and to users. However, I think you are correct in your expectation of Google working pretty much the same way... well, except perhaps the part about being, "less evil in the process."
Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that.
It's possible that I'm misremembering this, but, as I recall, although they did not prevent end users from installing other browsers, they did "block" OEMs from including other browsers, or at least from including an icon for another browser on the default Desktop. So, if my memory is correct, they did block third party browsers in the sense of making it more difficult for the average, and especially the business user (who may not have any choice in software) to obtain and use alternative browsers.
Sorry, but Apple is too full of itself.
But you're not a spammer are you?
But you're not a spammer are you?
I think so. Nuked.
I think so. Nuked.
Blimey! That was quick.
Now can you nuke ALL the other spam and make the registering process harder?
I'll check back in 10 mins to see if it's done.
Blimey! That was quick.
Now can you nuke ALL the other spam and make the registering process harder?
I'll check back in 10 mins to see if it's done.
We're looking into it, it seems there is a new back end system administrator.
I usually notice spammers when they post to an existing thread, the new post email notification also shows me if they're trying to hide URLs. If I come across a spammer during an idle moment, I'll nuke it. I don't have the time or patience to specifically hunt down spammers more than once a day, so I might not notice someone that posts at 6am until 6pm.
Nope, their offices are about 1 minute from mine, but I don't work for them. I have a lot of praise for Apple and don't work for them either.
I don't buy it. You have waaaaaaaaay too much emotionally invested in this thread to be some innocent bystander "protecting Google's honor".
Since you have personal knowledge (i.e. you must've run the app to be able to dispute everyone else's assertations, claims, etc.) then maybe you can share the screenshots that prove you are in the right?
I don't buy it. You have waaaaaaaaay too much emotionally invested in this thread to be some innocent bystander "protecting Google's honor".
No, I just don't like liars and like to call them on you. You have made unsubstantiated accusations and are unable to back them up.
Since you have personal knowledge (i.e. you must've run the app to be able to dispute everyone else's assertations, claims, etc.) then maybe you can share the screenshots that prove you are in the right?
What shall I prove to you? I did not make a claim that GV did or did not sent user contacts data with user consent. I did say if they do this, then they are in the wrong. Thus, I have no claim to proof, regardless of if you ask me to.
You made an unfounded claim. You are unable to back it up or prove it. If you cannot not, then simply admit you pulled it out of your ass, i.e you lied. Man up and admit it.
Now, I could say that you are a pedophile. Without proof, that is an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie. You would not be held to prove otherwise. Since I would have made the claim, I would be expected to back it up.
Now, you have made a claim. Back up or just cop to having made it up. Substantiate it admit to being a liar.
I do think you crossed the line on your above post. Consider it reported. Enjoy your AI infraction.
Without proof, that is an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie.
An unfounded assertion is not the same as a lie. It's only a lie when the person making the unfounded assertion is aware that the assertion is false. In the case where the assertion is false, but they are not aware that it is false, they are simply mistaken. It can also be the case that an unfounded assertion is true, despite the lack of evidence to support it, so, being unfounded does not make it false. And, of course, if it were unfounded but true, it could not, by definition, be a lie.
So, there are always a number of possibilities regarding any assertion that anyone makes, be it founded or unfounded, true or false, and only one of those is an instance of a lie. So, perhaps it would be better to not start calling each other liers unless you are entirely certain that a) the statements made by another are false and b) that they know they are false.
(OK, well, I'm over simplifying a bit, there's also the situation were a statement is true, but the person making it believes it to be false. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this specific case is a lie or not.)
Tulkas, as I've said before; you have way too much emotional investment in this thread to be an average joe. There is something more to your involvement with GV or Google or Apple than meets the eye.
I do think you crossed the line on your above post. Consider it reported. Enjoy your AI infraction.
I will, if they see fit to deliver it. They may instead see your claims for what they are.
However, if someone makes unsubstantiated claims, which the have no reason to believe is true, they have lied. They are then by definition a liar. To call someone out is neither an insult nor an ad hom attack. It is a statement of fact.