... The words prick and prickle aren't the same simply because they share many of the same letters in the same order. So if I say you are acting like a prickle, it doesn't exactly get my point across.
...
Oh thank you for that pearl! Let my weekend begin ...
There is no free speech issue here, there is no censorship. You do not have the "right" to put on any application you may wish, nor do developers have the "right" to post apps in the store.
You are absolutely right. What some people don't know (read:choose to ignore) is that they sign contracts all the time when they use products or online services. Doing so spells out pretty clearly what rights are reserved for the COMPANY, not the consumer.
What I would urge anyone who feels their rights have been violated to do, is to reread the terms of use and terms of service for their iPhone, for iTunes, and for the app store (both on the consumer and on the developer side). I can almost guarantee that apple has written into the terms of service that they can remove content from the store without prior notification and for any reasons they see fit.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who doesn't scroll through these CONTRACTS that they are electronically signing. It's your own d*** fault.
It's your device, but the browser on the device is not yours. The browser on your desktop IS NOT YOURS. When you go and code your own browser, then it will be yours.
You mistake ownership of the IP for ownership of its embodiment.
the whole point of an iPad is it ISN'T a crappy netbook that gives the impression it can do more than it can. What the iPad will do is everything it's said to be able to do. Why is that hard to understand. You're still complaining and it's not going to get you anywhere. Nobody is stopping you from buying a Dell!
But the example I posted was NOT "crappy". Instead, it was really cool.
And the only reasonable impression of it is that it does what it does, And what it does is MUCH more than what the iPad does.
BTW, I've been waiting for a great tablet computer for years. Had Apple introduced one, I'd be all over it.
But as of now, I'm starting to look at netbooks, and I don't understand why folks think they are all crappy. There exist really nice ones too, from what I have seen in my limited research.
Most companies are pretty clear about what their devices can and can't do, and Apple's attitudes aren't a secret. If Apple's product doesn't do what you want, there are plenty of other companies willing to take your money.
Yeah, but there aren't any great tablets yet. I had high hope for Apple's itereation of the form factor, but I found myself mightily disappointed.
It is no good for surfing the 'web, and it is no good for watching video content. That is my primary use for a tablet, and the 'Pad falls down in both areas.
If that were true then they would have folded a long time ago. Perhaps you need to redefine the word people to mean the market they cater to, not the market you want them to cater to.
No. Apple is noted for giving folks what they need; for going where the puck is headed, rather than where it is now.
Folks have screamed many times at the perceived mischoices made by Apple.
how bout using the dictionary that came with your mac:
I'd have to go with number Uno of the Censor definition. As it pertains to security and political correctness.
The Mac dictionary looks fine, as far as it goes. However, by examining other good dictionaries, you will find that the Mac definintion is too narrow. The word certainly can be correctly used as defined int eh Mac dictionary, but also can be correctly used to have a broader meaning.
The Mac dictionary id fine, but is not as broad as other doctionaries.
2) You are lying because you quoted the word censorSHIP but then defined the word censor. The words prick and prickle aren't the same simply because they share many of the same letters in the same order. So if I say you are acting like a prickle, it doesn't exactly get my point across.
[QUOTE]
You're right that the words don't mean the same merely because they have a similar string of letters. But you are worng here, because Censor is the root of Censorship.
Censorship is the act of censoring. Unless you know the menaing of the root word, you cannot know the meaning of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
1)
3) Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: \\ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship\\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1591
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
See? If you don't know the menaing of Censor, the definition is opaque.
You're right that the words don't mean the same merely because they have a similar string of letters. But you are worng here, because Censor is the root of Censorship.
Censorship is the act of censoring. Unless you know the menaing of the root word, you cannot know the meaning of the word.
The word in question is censorship, not censor. As it's been pointed out we can know the definition of censorship without having to look up all associated words or its etymology. it's VERY VERY clear that censorship indicates "official" Why do you always have to spin the argument around? You're still wrong no matter how you try to brush the original topic under the carpet. Stay on track!
Quote:
See? If you don't know the meaning of Censor, the definition is opaque.
The only thing opaque is your understand of English. Censorship has a very clear meaning. Having the same root doesn't mean that you fall back to the root word, ignoring the specific definition of the word in question. Seriously, what kind of logic is that and who do you think you're going to fool here?
The word in question is censorship, not censor. As it's been pointed out we can know the definition of censorship without having to look up all associated words or its etymology. it's VERY VERY clear that censorship indicates "official"
I agree, though I'm puzzled by the apparent disconnect with the phrase self-censorship, a valid phrase according to OED, but no official government is doing the enforcement.
I agree, though I'm puzzled by the apparent disconnect with the phrase self-censorship, a valid phrase according to OED, but no official government is doing the enforcement.
That's certainly a better term, IMO, and I thought about mentioning it but with so much arguing over censor and censorship I decided to let it be.
Apple is exercising self-censorship from their PoV, but if as a company they make it an official policy then would it not then simply be censorship from our PoV since it's an official policy. I no longer have access to the OED, do they make distinctions regarding government?
That's certainly a better term, IMO, and I thought about mentioning it but with so much arguing over censor and censorship I decided to let it be.
Apple is exercising self-censorship from their PoV, but if as a company they make it an official policy then would it not then simply be censorship from our PoV since it's an official policy. I no longer have access to the OED, do they make distinctions regarding government?
Sorry, my mistake. I misread, it's the New Oxford American Dictionary, built into OS X. For some reason, it doesn't have similar definitions that apply, but it may be there aren't any.
Why do you want to "look" at a netbook, you've read that they support flash, now order one already.
You haven't "looked" at an iPad so you have no idea what they are really like, yet you have already dismissed them.
I am looking forward to "the best web experience" sans Adobe Flash, it's a personal thing, using something that is flat outweighs using something that is L-shaped.
I will hold off on my decision on the iPad until I can get my hands on one, trying out netbooks is what stopped me buying one, I bought a 13" MacBook instead, I can see how an iPad might better suit my needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
But the example I posted was NOT "crappy". Instead, it was really cool.
And the only reasonable impression of it is that it does what it does, And what it does is MUCH more than what the iPad does.
BTW, I've been waiting for a great tablet computer for years. Had Apple introduced one, I'd be all over it.
But as of now, I'm starting to look at netbooks, and I don't understand why folks think they are all crappy. There exist really nice ones too, from what I have seen in my limited research.
Huh. Looking at this thread since it got bumped reminds me that iGenius had a habit of posting many, many times in a row, and almost compulsively within a thread.
Comments
... The words prick and prickle aren't the same simply because they share many of the same letters in the same order. So if I say you are acting like a prickle, it doesn't exactly get my point across.
...
Oh thank you for that pearl! Let my weekend begin ...
There is no free speech issue here, there is no censorship. You do not have the "right" to put on any application you may wish, nor do developers have the "right" to post apps in the store.
You are absolutely right. What some people don't know (read:choose to ignore) is that they sign contracts all the time when they use products or online services. Doing so spells out pretty clearly what rights are reserved for the COMPANY, not the consumer.
What I would urge anyone who feels their rights have been violated to do, is to reread the terms of use and terms of service for their iPhone, for iTunes, and for the app store (both on the consumer and on the developer side). I can almost guarantee that apple has written into the terms of service that they can remove content from the store without prior notification and for any reasons they see fit.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who doesn't scroll through these CONTRACTS that they are electronically signing. It's your own d*** fault.
I guess it's time to christen the App Store "The Axe Store"
More like "The CrApp Store"
It's your device, but the browser on the device is not yours. The browser on your desktop IS NOT YOURS. When you go and code your own browser, then it will be yours.
You mistake ownership of the IP for ownership of its embodiment.
you are making the assumption that those are all the SAME people.
No, I'm pointing out that the OP made that mistake. Next time, I'll make things clearer for you.
the whole point of an iPad is it ISN'T a crappy netbook that gives the impression it can do more than it can. What the iPad will do is everything it's said to be able to do. Why is that hard to understand. You're still complaining and it's not going to get you anywhere. Nobody is stopping you from buying a Dell!
But the example I posted was NOT "crappy". Instead, it was really cool.
And the only reasonable impression of it is that it does what it does, And what it does is MUCH more than what the iPad does.
BTW, I've been waiting for a great tablet computer for years. Had Apple introduced one, I'd be all over it.
But as of now, I'm starting to look at netbooks, and I don't understand why folks think they are all crappy. There exist really nice ones too, from what I have seen in my limited research.
Most companies are pretty clear about what their devices can and can't do, and Apple's attitudes aren't a secret. If Apple's product doesn't do what you want, there are plenty of other companies willing to take your money.
Yeah, but there aren't any great tablets yet. I had high hope for Apple's itereation of the form factor, but I found myself mightily disappointed.
It is no good for surfing the 'web, and it is no good for watching video content. That is my primary use for a tablet, and the 'Pad falls down in both areas.
I'm still waiting.
you lost me at Windows
You need to be less parochial. There's nothing wrong with Win7.
If that were true then they would have folded a long time ago. Perhaps you need to redefine the word people to mean the market they cater to, not the market you want them to cater to.
No. Apple is noted for giving folks what they need; for going where the puck is headed, rather than where it is now.
Folks have screamed many times at the perceived mischoices made by Apple.
how bout using the dictionary that came with your mac:
I'd have to go with number Uno of the Censor definition. As it pertains to security and political correctness.
The Mac dictionary looks fine, as far as it goes. However, by examining other good dictionaries, you will find that the Mac definintion is too narrow. The word certainly can be correctly used as defined int eh Mac dictionary, but also can be correctly used to have a broader meaning.
The Mac dictionary id fine, but is not as broad as other doctionaries.
2) You are lying because you quoted the word censorSHIP but then defined the word censor. The words prick and prickle aren't the same simply because they share many of the same letters in the same order. So if I say you are acting like a prickle, it doesn't exactly get my point across.
[QUOTE]
You're right that the words don't mean the same merely because they have a similar string of letters. But you are worng here, because Censor is the root of Censorship.
Censorship is the act of censoring. Unless you know the menaing of the root word, you cannot know the meaning of the word.
1)
3) Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: \\ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship\\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1591
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
See? If you don't know the menaing of Censor, the definition is opaque.
You're right that the words don't mean the same merely because they have a similar string of letters. But you are worng here, because Censor is the root of Censorship.
Censorship is the act of censoring. Unless you know the menaing of the root word, you cannot know the meaning of the word.
The word in question is censorship, not censor. As it's been pointed out we can know the definition of censorship without having to look up all associated words or its etymology. it's VERY VERY clear that censorship indicates "official" Why do you always have to spin the argument around? You're still wrong no matter how you try to brush the original topic under the carpet. Stay on track!
See? If you don't know the meaning of Censor, the definition is opaque.
The only thing opaque is your understand of English. Censorship has a very clear meaning. Having the same root doesn't mean that you fall back to the root word, ignoring the specific definition of the word in question. Seriously, what kind of logic is that and who do you think you're going to fool here?
PS: I censure your unethical debating tactics.
The word in question is censorship, not censor. As it's been pointed out we can know the definition of censorship without having to look up all associated words or its etymology. it's VERY VERY clear that censorship indicates "official"
I agree, though I'm puzzled by the apparent disconnect with the phrase self-censorship, a valid phrase according to OED, but no official government is doing the enforcement.
I agree, though I'm puzzled by the apparent disconnect with the phrase self-censorship, a valid phrase according to OED, but no official government is doing the enforcement.
That's certainly a better term, IMO, and I thought about mentioning it but with so much arguing over censor and censorship I decided to let it be.
Apple is exercising self-censorship from their PoV, but if as a company they make it an official policy then would it not then simply be censorship from our PoV since it's an official policy. I no longer have access to the OED, do they make distinctions regarding government?
That's certainly a better term, IMO, and I thought about mentioning it but with so much arguing over censor and censorship I decided to let it be.
Apple is exercising self-censorship from their PoV, but if as a company they make it an official policy then would it not then simply be censorship from our PoV since it's an official policy. I no longer have access to the OED, do they make distinctions regarding government?
Sorry, my mistake. I misread, it's the New Oxford American Dictionary, built into OS X. For some reason, it doesn't have similar definitions that apply, but it may be there aren't any.
You haven't "looked" at an iPad so you have no idea what they are really like, yet you have already dismissed them.
I am looking forward to "the best web experience" sans Adobe Flash, it's a personal thing, using something that is flat outweighs using something that is L-shaped.
I will hold off on my decision on the iPad until I can get my hands on one, trying out netbooks is what stopped me buying one, I bought a 13" MacBook instead, I can see how an iPad might better suit my needs.
But the example I posted was NOT "crappy". Instead, it was really cool.
And the only reasonable impression of it is that it does what it does, And what it does is MUCH more than what the iPad does.
BTW, I've been waiting for a great tablet computer for years. Had Apple introduced one, I'd be all over it.
But as of now, I'm starting to look at netbooks, and I don't understand why folks think they are all crappy. There exist really nice ones too, from what I have seen in my limited research.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wifif...380868598?mt=8
wifi apps are allowed again!
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wifif...380868598?mt=8
No, they aren't. That useless app only shows your connected wifi network.
I still have eWifi from the wifi scanner pre-ban days, thank God.
As customers, many cherish Apple products, however if Apple falls behind the curve (which is doubtful) customers will flock elsewhere.
Sort of reminds me of someone.......