Why in the F'n world would they give the Library of Congress this kind of power? Librarians controlling the world? Shameful. Idiots. Whatever.... IT's a bad idea! The reason Apple products work so well, and are so highly regarded is that they just work because of their tight controls. Now all the techtards are going to F-it all up.
So, then by your logic, Macs must work like shit, since Apple does not control what you are allowed to use on Macs. That is your point right? That Macs must not work well compared to iOS devices because they are not locked down.
The rest of your post is similarly flawed and useless.
The Droid X has some kind of "efuse" that checks the OS before it boots. link It has been available for a while. I wonder why apple doesn't use this...
I would think that Apple's time is spent doing something else.
Absolutely. Truth in every word. Apparently, your favorite audience, Apple, needs no more, than clashing over discounted stuff in walmarts.
And we've got our popcorn and are now in the front row to see how ``market powers' ' are gonna build perfect products.
In reality, this changes nothing, as jailbreaking was legal before this ruling. All this does is to spell it out more clearly.
I think that there's too much fuss being made over this. In addition, this is going to affect RIM and Microsoft just as much. It will affect every phone maker, smartphones or not, as the perception will be that something has changed. It hasn't.
Yeah, wired, schmired. That said, pirating apps is amazingly, amazingly easy. However you can't jailbreak iPhone4 and iPhone3GS new bootrom running iOS4.
Why hasn't Apple tried to shut down the repositories hosting the cracked apps?
That's up to the developers with apps there. There are cracked apps everywhere. There are cracked computer programs everywhere too. Just look at newsgroups. There are entire newsgroups devoted to cracked applications, books, video, music, etc.
"Apple also noted that a hacked baseband could result in operational damage to the mobile network, a claim which many critics scoff at despite the fact that baseband software is highly regulated for this very reason." ~ AppleInsider
Yeah, so far, it does appear that hackers only want to hack the baseband to unlock the SIM. Malicious hackers would prefer to steal personal data from hacked phones, rather than, say, DoS attack AT&T or something like that. Could there be inadvertent fiddling with the mobile network due to running a hacked baseband? Maybe, but we haven't really seen this yet, unless AT&T and other providers come out and say (and prove) it does.
So far. How many people would have believed that a REAL plot to hijack airliners and crash them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and other places would really happen? Not many, I would think.
Quote:
Or like you say, maybe the mobile networks are robust enough that they drop bad phones, block the IMEI and so on. I think during the time (in the past decade) when there was a lot of mobile phone theft and "cloning" of phones etc. etc. mobile network providers beefed up their security.
In reality, this changes nothing, as jailbreaking was legal before this ruling. All this does is to spell it out more clearly.
I think that there's too much fuss being made over this. In addition, this is going to affect RIM and Microsoft just as much. It will affect every phone maker, smartphones or not, as the perception will be that something has changed. It hasn't.
Mel. Read your US legislation materials instead of repeating mantras after retarded snow pissers.
Quote:
§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ... [enacted Oct. 28, 1998]
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
In reality... In reality, Mel, hordes of well-established bullshitters never ever dared publish vandalization guides before the ruling of those librarians of yours encouraged them. Until recently, it remained niche hobbyist time trashing.
In reality, Mel, this ruling is gonna impact severely Apple's AppStore and not solely the fart stuff in it but primarily truly valuable development efforts for the platform.
In reality, Mel, all that just brings what one can enjoy inside his own bedpan to the level of the official legislation.
What have I got to do with your RIM and Microsoft? Could care less about how they're now breathing.
Software developers will start leaving AppStore and seeding half-baked untested shit around instead.
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Senior Editor, Research
WIRED Magazine
Good to hear, I wondered what happened. Sounds like maybe the article author got a bit of foot-in-mouth about it.
It would have been nice to see a correction though, otherwise you have people getting a false impression of Wired for something Wired didn't do.
The ``Guide' ' was perfectly available at easily accessible location on Wired.com site this morning. The piece contained step-by-step instructions and screenshots of JB process.
Reader was also presented an advise on how to cheat and abuse Apple's warranty, when claiming Apple service for JB phone.
The guide is no more easily accessible for site visitors; though still can be found there.
Mel. Read your US legislation materials instead of repeating mantras after retarded snow pissers.
In reality... In reality, Mel, hordes of well-established bullshitters never ever dared publish vandalization guides before the ruling of those librarians of yours encouraged them. Until recently, it remained niche hobbyist time trashing.
In reality, Mel, this ruling is gonna impact severely Apple's AppStore and not solely the fart stuff in it but primarily truly valuable development efforts for the platform.
In reality, Mel, all that just brings what one can enjoy inside his own bedpan to the level of the official legislation.
What have I got to do with your RIM and Microsoft? Could care less about how they're now breathing.
Software developers will start leaving AppStore and seeding half-baked untested shit around instead.
You've only quoted a part of it. There's a much more important part that's already been decided in court cases, and that directly pertains to jailbreaking, which the parts you quoted do not.
Quote:
(f) Reverse Engineering.—
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
This covers the issues quite well, and was designed as part of the DCMA for that very purpose. IBM has recently won a lawsuit over this issue, as have others.
The new wording adds nothing legal to this. It only make it more obvious to those, such as yourself, who aren't aware that this is already legal.
Where they mention "infringement" They are talking about the software being made for the purpose of making illegal copies of the software protected from this action by the DCMA.
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Senior Editor, Research
WIRED Magazine
Aw, no conspiracy then. But, good to hear, thanks for taking the time.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Absolutely. This is the case of Apple's iPhone Developer Program.
It's by no means the case of Cydia developers and by no means the case of an end user of Cydia application.
And Apple Insider's attempts to ``offer to the public' ' services like those were as well completely unlawful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The new wording adds nothing legal to this. It only make it more obvious to those, such as yourself, who aren't aware that this is already legal.
The discussed ruling is by no means a new wording of that code. You keep trying to mitigate its impact. The ruling introduces the exception to the part (a)(1)(A) for all cases not previously covered by the section (f).
This was precisely what I was explaining to you above. The scientific and niche use case was replaced with much wider general usage one. Sadly, but you are absolutely lost in the topic and can not offer anything more interesting than mantras of jailbreakers.
Absolutely. This is the case of Apple's iPhone Developer Program.
It's by no means the case of Cydia developers and by no means the case of an end user of Cydia application.
And Apple Insider's attempts to ``offer to the public' ' services like those were as well completely unlawful.
You're wrong. Apple's developer program has nothing to do with this.
Quote:
The discussed ruling is by no means a new wording of that code. You keep trying to mitigate its impact. The ruling introduces the exception to the part (a)(1)(A) for all cases not previously covered by the section (f).
This was precisely what I was explaining to you above. The scientific and niche use case was replaced with much wider general usage one. Sadly, but you are absolutely lost in the topic and can not offer anything more interesting than mantras of jailbreakers.
My wife is an attorney with considerable experience in these areas. We discuss this on a regular basic, as I had to deal with similar problems in my own businesses. Her reading of this is the same as mine, and I'm willing to bet that it would be for others in the business. Before this "new" ruling, this was discussed in the media, where it was pointed out that it was legal.
If it hadn't been legal, which even Apple agreed that it was, they would likely have sued those writing the software, as they did Psystar, but they didn't, because they would not have had a case.
You're wrong. Apple's developer program has nothing to do with this.
No, no, I'm not. Some development tasks and steps are all about exactly that. And developer's enrollment fee, in particular, opens door of precisely that section (f). Apple is not taking our money for nothing. You, however, prove the topic is not actually your province, I then probably should not go too far in details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
My wife is an attorney with considerable experience in these areas. We discuss this on a regular basic, as I had to deal with similar problems in my own businesses. Her reading of this is the same as mine, and I'm willing to bet that it would be for others in the business. Before this "new" ruling, this was discussed in the media, where it was pointed out that it was legal.
If it hadn't been legal, which even Apple agreed that it was, they would likely have sued those writing the software, as they did Psystar, but they didn't, because they would not have had a case.
Unfortunately, Mel, anonymous presenting credentials on the modern web has nothing to do with understanding the problem. On the contrary, this often means presenter has no valid arguments. And discussions in media can not help that.
You (and, unfortunately, I) will soon see, what happens, if JB'ing is legal, as it is now upon the recent exemption to the Code.
No, no, I'm not. Some development tasks and steps are all about exactly that. And developer's enrollment fee, in particular, opens door of precisely that section (f). Apple is not taking our money for nothing. You, however, prove the topic is not actually your province, I then probably should not go too far in details.
This has nothing to do with licensed developer programs. This has everything to do with unlicensed individuals or companies writing software to allow them to access a device so that their, or other's software will work with it. Are you sure you read the quoted portion of the DMCA carefully? It's really very clear. I don't know why you insist its saying something else. It's why these guys who cracked the DVD and Blue-Ray encryption haven't been sued, or thrown in jail either.
It's obvious I know quite a bit more about this topic than you do. Or you're trying to prove something you know is wrong for your own personal reasons.
Unfortunately, Mel, anonymous presenting credentials on the modern web has nothing to do with understanding the problem. On the contrary, this often means presenter has no valid arguments. And discussions in media can not help that.
You (and, unfortunately, I) will soon see, what happens, if JB'ing is legal, as it is now upon the recent exemption to the Code.[/QUOTE]
You have no valid arguments, and unlike myself, rarely seem to. You come very close to trolling.
Comments
Waaaaa
When was the last time you ran freeware on your MAC? You haven't' you mean to say you have only bought Apple sanction products? PUHLEASE
It is the same thing.
Waaaaaaa
Why in the F'n world would they give the Library of Congress this kind of power? Librarians controlling the world? Shameful. Idiots. Whatever.... IT's a bad idea! The reason Apple products work so well, and are so highly regarded is that they just work because of their tight controls. Now all the techtards are going to F-it all up.
So, then by your logic, Macs must work like shit, since Apple does not control what you are allowed to use on Macs. That is your point right? That Macs must not work well compared to iOS devices because they are not locked down.
The rest of your post is similarly flawed and useless.
The Droid X has some kind of "efuse" that checks the OS before it boots. link It has been available for a while. I wonder why apple doesn't use this...
I would think that Apple's time is spent doing something else.
``Beach ball' ', linuxoids, we're calling ``beach ball' '.
appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/27/apple_tightens_iphone_app_store_security_wired_pri nts_piracy_guide.html
Absolutely. Truth in every word. Apparently, your favorite audience, Apple, needs no more, than clashing over discounted stuff in walmarts.
And we've got our popcorn and are now in the front row to see how ``market powers' ' are gonna build perfect products.
In reality, this changes nothing, as jailbreaking was legal before this ruling. All this does is to spell it out more clearly.
I think that there's too much fuss being made over this. In addition, this is going to affect RIM and Microsoft just as much. It will affect every phone maker, smartphones or not, as the perception will be that something has changed. It hasn't.
Yeah, wired, schmired. That said, pirating apps is amazingly, amazingly easy. However you can't jailbreak iPhone4 and iPhone3GS new bootrom running iOS4.
Why hasn't Apple tried to shut down the repositories hosting the cracked apps?
That's up to the developers with apps there. There are cracked apps everywhere. There are cracked computer programs everywhere too. Just look at newsgroups. There are entire newsgroups devoted to cracked applications, books, video, music, etc.
"Apple also noted that a hacked baseband could result in operational damage to the mobile network, a claim which many critics scoff at despite the fact that baseband software is highly regulated for this very reason." ~ AppleInsider
Yeah, so far, it does appear that hackers only want to hack the baseband to unlock the SIM. Malicious hackers would prefer to steal personal data from hacked phones, rather than, say, DoS attack AT&T or something like that. Could there be inadvertent fiddling with the mobile network due to running a hacked baseband? Maybe, but we haven't really seen this yet, unless AT&T and other providers come out and say (and prove) it does.
So far. How many people would have believed that a REAL plot to hijack airliners and crash them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and other places would really happen? Not many, I would think.
Or like you say, maybe the mobile networks are robust enough that they drop bad phones, block the IMEI and so on. I think during the time (in the past decade) when there was a lot of mobile phone theft and "cloning" of phones etc. etc. mobile network providers beefed up their security.
I doubt if any system is that robust.
In reality, this changes nothing, as jailbreaking was legal before this ruling. All this does is to spell it out more clearly.
I think that there's too much fuss being made over this. In addition, this is going to affect RIM and Microsoft just as much. It will affect every phone maker, smartphones or not, as the perception will be that something has changed. It hasn't.
Mel. Read your US legislation materials instead of repeating mantras after retarded snow pissers.
§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ... [enacted Oct. 28, 1998]
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
In reality... In reality, Mel, hordes of well-established bullshitters never ever dared publish vandalization guides before the ruling of those librarians of yours encouraged them. Until recently, it remained niche hobbyist time trashing.
In reality, Mel, this ruling is gonna impact severely Apple's AppStore and not solely the fart stuff in it but primarily truly valuable development efforts for the platform.
In reality, Mel, all that just brings what one can enjoy inside his own bedpan to the level of the official legislation.
What have I got to do with your RIM and Microsoft? Could care less about how they're now breathing.
Software developers will start leaving AppStore and seeding half-baked untested shit around instead.
Heyyyy... where'd the WIRED stuff go out of the original article?
appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/27/apple_tightens_iphone_app_store_security_wired_pri nts_piracy_guide.html
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Senior Editor, Research
WIRED Magazine
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Senior Editor, Research
WIRED Magazine
Good to hear, I wondered what happened. Sounds like maybe the article author got a bit of foot-in-mouth about it.
It would have been nice to see a correction though, otherwise you have people getting a false impression of Wired for something Wired didn't do.
Reader was also presented an advise on how to cheat and abuse Apple's warranty, when claiming Apple service for JB phone.
The guide is no more easily accessible for site visitors; though still can be found there.
For the better.
Mel. Read your US legislation materials instead of repeating mantras after retarded snow pissers.
In reality... In reality, Mel, hordes of well-established bullshitters never ever dared publish vandalization guides before the ruling of those librarians of yours encouraged them. Until recently, it remained niche hobbyist time trashing.
In reality, Mel, this ruling is gonna impact severely Apple's AppStore and not solely the fart stuff in it but primarily truly valuable development efforts for the platform.
In reality, Mel, all that just brings what one can enjoy inside his own bedpan to the level of the official legislation.
What have I got to do with your RIM and Microsoft? Could care less about how they're now breathing.
Software developers will start leaving AppStore and seeding half-baked untested shit around instead.
You've only quoted a part of it. There's a much more important part that's already been decided in court cases, and that directly pertains to jailbreaking, which the parts you quoted do not.
(f) Reverse Engineering.—
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
This covers the issues quite well, and was designed as part of the DCMA for that very purpose. IBM has recently won a lawsuit over this issue, as have others.
The new wording adds nothing legal to this. It only make it more obvious to those, such as yourself, who aren't aware that this is already legal.
Where they mention "infringement" They are talking about the software being made for the purpose of making illegal copies of the software protected from this action by the DCMA.
I don't know where the Wired stuff from this article went, but I can guess: Neither Wired Magazine nor Wired.com publish the CultofMac blog. The editor and publisher of the blog, Leander Kahney, worked at Wired.com for years but left more than a year ago. So the CultofMac posting about pirating apps -- which, by the way, has since been removed from the site -- had nothing to do with Wired.
-Joanna Pearlstein
Senior Editor, Research
WIRED Magazine
Aw, no conspiracy then. But, good to hear, thanks for taking the time.
You've only quoted a part of it.
17 USC § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(f) Reverse Engineering.—
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Absolutely. This is the case of Apple's iPhone Developer Program.
It's by no means the case of Cydia developers and by no means the case of an end user of Cydia application.
And Apple Insider's attempts to ``offer to the public' ' services like those were as well completely unlawful.
The new wording adds nothing legal to this. It only make it more obvious to those, such as yourself, who aren't aware that this is already legal.
The discussed ruling is by no means a new wording of that code. You keep trying to mitigate its impact. The ruling introduces the exception to the part (a)(1)(A) for all cases not previously covered by the section (f).
This was precisely what I was explaining to you above. The scientific and niche use case was replaced with much wider general usage one. Sadly, but you are absolutely lost in the topic and can not offer anything more interesting than mantras of jailbreakers.
17 USC § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Absolutely. This is the case of Apple's iPhone Developer Program.
It's by no means the case of Cydia developers and by no means the case of an end user of Cydia application.
And Apple Insider's attempts to ``offer to the public' ' services like those were as well completely unlawful.
You're wrong. Apple's developer program has nothing to do with this.
The discussed ruling is by no means a new wording of that code. You keep trying to mitigate its impact. The ruling introduces the exception to the part (a)(1)(A) for all cases not previously covered by the section (f).
This was precisely what I was explaining to you above. The scientific and niche use case was replaced with much wider general usage one. Sadly, but you are absolutely lost in the topic and can not offer anything more interesting than mantras of jailbreakers.
My wife is an attorney with considerable experience in these areas. We discuss this on a regular basic, as I had to deal with similar problems in my own businesses. Her reading of this is the same as mine, and I'm willing to bet that it would be for others in the business. Before this "new" ruling, this was discussed in the media, where it was pointed out that it was legal.
If it hadn't been legal, which even Apple agreed that it was, they would likely have sued those writing the software, as they did Psystar, but they didn't, because they would not have had a case.
You're wrong. Apple's developer program has nothing to do with this.
No, no, I'm not. Some development tasks and steps are all about exactly that. And developer's enrollment fee, in particular, opens door of precisely that section (f). Apple is not taking our money for nothing. You, however, prove the topic is not actually your province, I then probably should not go too far in details.
My wife is an attorney with considerable experience in these areas. We discuss this on a regular basic, as I had to deal with similar problems in my own businesses. Her reading of this is the same as mine, and I'm willing to bet that it would be for others in the business. Before this "new" ruling, this was discussed in the media, where it was pointed out that it was legal.
If it hadn't been legal, which even Apple agreed that it was, they would likely have sued those writing the software, as they did Psystar, but they didn't, because they would not have had a case.
Unfortunately, Mel, anonymous presenting credentials on the modern web has nothing to do with understanding the problem. On the contrary, this often means presenter has no valid arguments. And discussions in media can not help that.
You (and, unfortunately, I) will soon see, what happens, if JB'ing is legal, as it is now upon the recent exemption to the Code.
No, no, I'm not. Some development tasks and steps are all about exactly that. And developer's enrollment fee, in particular, opens door of precisely that section (f). Apple is not taking our money for nothing. You, however, prove the topic is not actually your province, I then probably should not go too far in details.
This has nothing to do with licensed developer programs. This has everything to do with unlicensed individuals or companies writing software to allow them to access a device so that their, or other's software will work with it. Are you sure you read the quoted portion of the DMCA carefully? It's really very clear. I don't know why you insist its saying something else. It's why these guys who cracked the DVD and Blue-Ray encryption haven't been sued, or thrown in jail either.
It's obvious I know quite a bit more about this topic than you do. Or you're trying to prove something you know is wrong for your own personal reasons.
Unfortunately, Mel, anonymous presenting credentials on the modern web has nothing to do with understanding the problem. On the contrary, this often means presenter has no valid arguments. And discussions in media can not help that.
You (and, unfortunately, I) will soon see, what happens, if JB'ing is legal, as it is now upon the recent exemption to the Code.[/QUOTE]
You have no valid arguments, and unlike myself, rarely seem to. You come very close to trolling.
This has everything to do...
By saying ``this' ' you mean the recent ruling of LoC? Yep.
But people were enrolling Apple developer program since years before this ruling's seen the daylight.
So your rant is actually senseless.
It's obvious...
While it should be factual.
You have no valid arguments, and unlike myself, rarely seem to. You come very close to trolling.
My method consists in never crossing the line.