Really, which point that anonymouse has posted, especially his first post since he referenced it again, has any merit? I have repeatedly, and clearly explained the faults in his 'reasons'. If you are not capable of reading the fairly simple posts, do not try to blame that limitation on my bitchiness.
It isn't that he and you could turn out to be wrong. But that nothing he has asserted has a basis in fact or reason. ...
I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).
All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.
Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.
Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...
but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.
I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).
All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.
Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.
Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...
but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.
You don't have time because you are unable. Don't make excuses.
There was no need to 'interpret' A's statements. There was no need to reframe anything, and so I did not. I simply explained where I saw the holes in his arguments. Like I said, if you are able, show me where I was incorrect in my discussion with him?
I could be wrong, except I haven't made any claims to know what might happen. Anonymouse made some statements, in a list, about why he felt Apple would not approve Opera mini for iPhone. 3 points. Each had problems. You accuse me of putting up and knocking down strawmen with regard to A's posts. No need for me to have done so, nor have I. The weakness of any of his arguments speak for themselves. If you can't be right or defend your own positions, at least try to keep it honest.
I will it a little simpler for you: from Anonymouse's post #39, of the three points he makes, that you agree with so strongly...back one of them up. he hasn't been able to. You try. (I expect another dodge, but may be you will surprise me.
It seems pretty obvious to me. It launches other executable code on Opera's proxy's, thus falling foul of at least the "otherwise" clause. It uses interpreted code not run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s) by running JavaScript on those proxies. The quoted restriction doesn't limit itself to "other executable code" or interpreters located on the iPhone. Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.
And that's *probably* (because I have no idea) the extent of what opera mini is doing, but based on similar implementation on other devices it's *probably* not too far off the mark.
Yes, I have carefully noted your comment that "Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
I'm not sure what you mean by built in interpreters. I mean, the Objective C language could be the built-in interpreter. An app is not written solely with API calls. Any data received has to be processed or interpreted. That's where the intelligence of the App comes into play and becomes a key differentiator between one app and another.
(EDIT: The entire sentence in the agreement is "No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is
interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)." I doubt this would be happening in Opera Mini anyway.)
If an app uses solely the Provided APIs to render an outcome, then what does it matter if what it's rendering is a web page or a jpeg, or text, for that matter?
Take Flickr App for example. It makes calls to the Flickr Server and displays the results. It's permissible even though remote code is being executed on the Flickr server. As you say, that's fine because it's using Documented APIs.
DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.
Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. Pointing out the weaknesses of Anonymous' arguments, doesn't make me an asshole, just because you fail to understand the positions presented. Perhaps I am an asshole. But resorting to name calling doesn't make you right. Nor does it make Anonymouse right. I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?
As far as being willing to listen to others, that is all I am asking. Positions were taking, statements were made. I am asking for rational explanations of those, as they are demonstrably wrong or nonsensical. For the record, I have not taken a position of if it will be approved nor if it should be approved. But for those trying to give reasons that it will not, they should be able to explain why, and not just post circular arguments or factually inaccurate statements.
I get the idea you think Anonymouse needed some help. He was doing quite well without your 'help', not that it particularly well stated.
I will try to make this easier for you (again). Here are Anonymouse's points, using his own words but refactored to perhaps help you to read them clearly.
Quote:
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement.
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because b) it is, as you point out, "dangerous" because it, "doesn't provide any of the standard protections people expect to be there," and
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because c) Opera are clearly baiting Apple
Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?
2) which of those three actually make sense? I have given clear reason why each fails to stand. You see that as blather because you want to agree with Anonymouse and, I think, because you don't actually understand the discussion.
It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.
So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.
[...]
DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.
Good points, which more or less shoot down my interpretation of the text from the developers agreement that was quoted earlier. Well done.
But, yes, duplicates core functionality (of WebKit, not just of Mobile Safari) is reason enough to not accept it. Along with the fact that such duplication is likely to have an adverse affect on the iPhone user experience. (For example, sites hosting web apps, or iPhone optimized web sites, may not work as expected, confusion resulting from links not opening in the expected browser, etc.) There is also of course the concern related to SSL sessions not being encrypted end-to-end, which violates user trust and expectations, not to mention actual privacy and security of user information.
I would still be very surprised if Opera Mini ever appeared in the App Store, nor do I think it serves any real purpose for it to. I also don't think Opera expect it to be approved, nor that they have much, if anything, to gain by an approval. I think that upwards of 99.9% of iPhone users will have no interest in using Opera on the iPhone. I do think they are using the entire process mainly as a publicity stunt and, perhaps, given the way they have gone about it, a childish opportunity to tweak Apple's nose.
Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
... a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
a) Bullshit. Please provide the SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers...
Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.
Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."
Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.
Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."
[edit to remove repeated and repeated arguments-t.]
The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser. Opinions are not facts.
If you feel it violates the SDK in some other way, please explain. The fact that it results in remote code being executed is not good enough. All browsers, all network applications result in remote code being executed. If it is because their servers interpret code, explain how that is a violation of the SDK for native apps.
[edit again:I see it is a language issue. I took your usage of the word 'that' as referring to your statement that Opera is a browser. You used it to refer to Opera only. My mistake. But they question still stands. How does it violate the SDK?
I would easy pay 10 USD or more for this tech on the iPhone! If Steve does not accept this app then he has lost it. Is there any reason not to accept this outstanding app? If it is rejected I would support any legal case against Apple and convince all I know to do the same.
soooo.... did you buy opera for your computer before it was free?
THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!
MAGIC you've just foiled thousands of dollars of gatekeeper software and subscription services without so much as lifting a finger.
That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.
It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.
The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser.
I assure you, you may simply use the rules of English grammar, which has no notion of facts and opinions, to parse my sentences for meaning.
... Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. ..., just because you fail to understand the positions presented. .... I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?... I will try to make this easier for you (again).
Here are Anonymouse's points, using his own words but refactored to perhaps help you to read them clearly.
... Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.... It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.
I'm probably making the same mistake as Gazoobee here by jumping in to defend someone, but he is 100% right in his assessment of your character IMO.
Taking a few comments from the last three posts you made, it seems to me that you are basically an angry bully. I can say that without it being an ad hominem attack because the evidence is right above. There isn't another way to interpret your constant peppering of your posts with derogatory remarks about the people you are arguing with.
They very cleverly don't cross the line into ad hominem, but as with most writing it's really about the meaning being imparted, not the technical details. You are meaner, and more insulting to everyone on the forum than Gazoobee ever is.
While you've technically escaped being in the position for anyone to ban you, there are three or four personal attacks and insults in every post you make. You are calling Gazoobee an idiot or a fool over and over again above, but because he called you an a-hole in one post, he is the bad one? If you were even a quarter as smart as you maintain you are, you would see that he is right about his assessment of you even if you disagree on the substance of what you were arguing about.
You seem to actually relish insulting people.
One argument you make is that you are not rephrasing, or misinterpreting anonymouse's remarks yet there are examples in almost every post you make. Above, you admit to "refactoring" anonymouse's remarks yourself. How is that different from "rephrasing?"
The other thing you say over and over again is how people are simply repeating their remarks but that's all you ever do yourself. You completely dominate the thread. The majority of all the posts are either from you or someone responding to you, but the content is pretty much nil. Therefore Gazoobee's comment about you "blathering" or just enjoying the sound of your own voice also seems accurate to me.
That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.
It doesn't bypass encryption. It supports HTTPS, and the communication between the phone and the proxy is encrypted.
Quote:
It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.
Comments
Really, which point that anonymouse has posted, especially his first post since he referenced it again, has any merit? I have repeatedly, and clearly explained the faults in his 'reasons'. If you are not capable of reading the fairly simple posts, do not try to blame that limitation on my bitchiness.
It isn't that he and you could turn out to be wrong. But that nothing he has asserted has a basis in fact or reason. ...
I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).
All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.
Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.
Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...
but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.
THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!
This is the reason it will get rejected.
I'll pass.
ditto
I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).
All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.
Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.
Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...
but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.
You don't have time because you are unable. Don't make excuses.
There was no need to 'interpret' A's statements. There was no need to reframe anything, and so I did not. I simply explained where I saw the holes in his arguments. Like I said, if you are able, show me where I was incorrect in my discussion with him?
I could be wrong, except I haven't made any claims to know what might happen. Anonymouse made some statements, in a list, about why he felt Apple would not approve Opera mini for iPhone. 3 points. Each had problems. You accuse me of putting up and knocking down strawmen with regard to A's posts. No need for me to have done so, nor have I. The weakness of any of his arguments speak for themselves. If you can't be right or defend your own positions, at least try to keep it honest.
I will it a little simpler for you: from Anonymouse's post #39, of the three points he makes, that you agree with so strongly...back one of them up. he hasn't been able to. You try. (I expect another dodge, but may be you will surprise me.
You don't have time because you are unable. Don't make excuses ...
I forgot to add that you are an obvious a-hole that doesn't listen to anyone but their own blabbing. So there's that factor too.
I am not going to reiterate everything I said over and over again. I see anonymouse has probably gotten tired of your "technique" and I am too.
It seems pretty obvious to me. It launches other executable code on Opera's proxy's, thus falling foul of at least the "otherwise" clause. It uses interpreted code not run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s) by running JavaScript on those proxies. The quoted restriction doesn't limit itself to "other executable code" or interpreters located on the iPhone. Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.
And that's *probably* (because I have no idea) the extent of what opera mini is doing, but based on similar implementation on other devices it's *probably* not too far off the mark.
Yes, I have carefully noted your comment that "Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
I'm not sure what you mean by built in interpreters. I mean, the Objective C language could be the built-in interpreter. An app is not written solely with API calls. Any data received has to be processed or interpreted. That's where the intelligence of the App comes into play and becomes a key differentiator between one app and another.
(EDIT: The entire sentence in the agreement is "No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is
interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)." I doubt this would be happening in Opera Mini anyway.)
If an app uses solely the Provided APIs to render an outcome, then what does it matter if what it's rendering is a web page or a jpeg, or text, for that matter?
Take Flickr App for example. It makes calls to the Flickr Server and displays the results. It's permissible even though remote code is being executed on the Flickr server. As you say, that's fine because it's using Documented APIs.
DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.
Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. Pointing out the weaknesses of Anonymous' arguments, doesn't make me an asshole, just because you fail to understand the positions presented. Perhaps I am an asshole. But resorting to name calling doesn't make you right. Nor does it make Anonymouse right. I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?
As far as being willing to listen to others, that is all I am asking. Positions were taking, statements were made. I am asking for rational explanations of those, as they are demonstrably wrong or nonsensical. For the record, I have not taken a position of if it will be approved nor if it should be approved. But for those trying to give reasons that it will not, they should be able to explain why, and not just post circular arguments or factually inaccurate statements.
I get the idea you think Anonymouse needed some help. He was doing quite well without your 'help', not that it particularly well stated.
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement.
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because b) it is, as you point out, "dangerous" because it, "doesn't provide any of the standard protections people expect to be there," and
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because c) Opera are clearly baiting Apple
Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?
2) which of those three actually make sense? I have given clear reason why each fails to stand. You see that as blather because you want to agree with Anonymouse and, I think, because you don't actually understand the discussion.
It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.
So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.
[...]
DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.
Good points, which more or less shoot down my interpretation of the text from the developers agreement that was quoted earlier. Well done.
But, yes, duplicates core functionality (of WebKit, not just of Mobile Safari) is reason enough to not accept it. Along with the fact that such duplication is likely to have an adverse affect on the iPhone user experience. (For example, sites hosting web apps, or iPhone optimized web sites, may not work as expected, confusion resulting from links not opening in the expected browser, etc.) There is also of course the concern related to SSL sessions not being encrypted end-to-end, which violates user trust and expectations, not to mention actual privacy and security of user information.
I would still be very surprised if Opera Mini ever appeared in the App Store, nor do I think it serves any real purpose for it to. I also don't think Opera expect it to be approved, nor that they have much, if anything, to gain by an approval. I think that upwards of 99.9% of iPhone users will have no interest in using Opera on the iPhone. I do think they are using the entire process mainly as a publicity stunt and, perhaps, given the way they have gone about it, a childish opportunity to tweak Apple's nose.
Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?
... a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement...
a) Bullshit. Please provide the SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers...
Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.
Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."
Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.
Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."
[edit to remove repeated and repeated arguments-t.]
The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser. Opinions are not facts.
If you feel it violates the SDK in some other way, please explain. The fact that it results in remote code being executed is not good enough. All browsers, all network applications result in remote code being executed. If it is because their servers interpret code, explain how that is a violation of the SDK for native apps.
[edit again:I see it is a language issue. I took your usage of the word 'that' as referring to your statement that Opera is a browser. You used it to refer to Opera only. My mistake. But they question still stands. How does it violate the SDK?
I would easy pay 10 USD or more for this tech on the iPhone! If Steve does not accept this app then he has lost it. Is there any reason not to accept this outstanding app? If it is rejected I would support any legal case against Apple and convince all I know to do the same.
soooo.... did you buy opera for your computer before it was free?
THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!
MAGIC you've just foiled thousands of dollars of gatekeeper software and subscription services without so much as lifting a finger.
That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.
It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.
In short, almost certain FAIL.
There's been speculation that Opera is trying to bait Apple into a trap here.
The small print under the "Express" reads: "50 million rides and counting... Transportation pick-up"
One picture being worth a thousand words, I rest my case with the above in favour of Ben's assertion...
The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser.
I assure you, you may simply use the rules of English grammar, which has no notion of facts and opinions, to parse my sentences for meaning.
... Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. ..., just because you fail to understand the positions presented. .... I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?... I will try to make this easier for you (again).
Here are Anonymouse's points, using his own words but refactored to perhaps help you to read them clearly.
... Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.... It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.
I'm probably making the same mistake as Gazoobee here by jumping in to defend someone, but he is 100% right in his assessment of your character IMO.
Taking a few comments from the last three posts you made, it seems to me that you are basically an angry bully. I can say that without it being an ad hominem attack because the evidence is right above. There isn't another way to interpret your constant peppering of your posts with derogatory remarks about the people you are arguing with.
They very cleverly don't cross the line into ad hominem, but as with most writing it's really about the meaning being imparted, not the technical details. You are meaner, and more insulting to everyone on the forum than Gazoobee ever is.
While you've technically escaped being in the position for anyone to ban you, there are three or four personal attacks and insults in every post you make. You are calling Gazoobee an idiot or a fool over and over again above, but because he called you an a-hole in one post, he is the bad one? If you were even a quarter as smart as you maintain you are, you would see that he is right about his assessment of you even if you disagree on the substance of what you were arguing about.
You seem to actually relish insulting people.
One argument you make is that you are not rephrasing, or misinterpreting anonymouse's remarks yet there are examples in almost every post you make. Above, you admit to "refactoring" anonymouse's remarks yourself. How is that different from "rephrasing?"
The other thing you say over and over again is how people are simply repeating their remarks but that's all you ever do yourself. You completely dominate the thread. The majority of all the posts are either from you or someone responding to you, but the content is pretty much nil. Therefore Gazoobee's comment about you "blathering" or just enjoying the sound of your own voice also seems accurate to me.
It can't get clearer than that.
Except Opera Mini does not interpret code on the phone. It's more like an image viewer.
This is the reason it will get rejected.
Except it's just FUD. It works fine for secure communication. The communication between the server and the client is encrypted.
The small print under the "Express" reads: "50 million rides and counting... Transportation pick-up"
One picture being worth a thousand words, I rest my case with the above in favour of Ben's assertion...
How does a silly marketing stunt equal "baiting Apple into a trap"?
What is the trap exactly?
Also, the 50 million number is referring to the current number of active Opera Mini users.
That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.
It doesn't bypass encryption. It supports HTTPS, and the communication between the phone and the proxy is encrypted.
It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.
What security concerns?
What security concerns?
Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.