It's also the death of paying one price for the entire Internet
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
Next you'll be saying it's the beginning of the end of interstate highways because they charge tolls in New York.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
That's a horrible argument, how the heck do you know what they were saying back then? Besides, I didn't see you say that back then, so does that mean you weren't complaining either?
Also, it's not just one rag that's tried to do it, there were others that tried, the New York Times is a higher profile case in trying to do a bizarre paywall scheme.
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
"Breath of Fresh Air"? ... only for tubers under the sea that live on gas, industrial waste and excrement.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
Next you'll be saying it's the beginning of the end of interstate highways because they charge tolls in New York.
The NYTimes started their paywall about a week after I got my iPad 2. If I wanted to read an article on the NYTimes that wasn't free, I just used Safari. Or I could always sit at my computer and read them with my web browser. In my opinion, the NYTimes wants too much to subscribe to their iPad app. I don't read that many articles to make it worth while. I mostly am interested in technology articles and I can find plenty of those free from other apps such as CNET, Engadget, and tons others. It seems to me that the NYTimes is biased against iPad users if you can read the same stories free from your computer.
I would like to see the newspaper business make profits somehow, but if they want to make people pay for access they should make everyone pay, not just iPad users.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole?to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
That is bias.
By subscribing, one commits to a bias.
With a magazine or newspaper, everything is one-sided and you know exactly who's doing the "talking". When you buy into the NY Post, you probably buy into Fox News and vice versa.
I thought all Apple users got their news directly from Steve Jobs. That way the distortion field stays in affect for all you magical apple experiences.
Here's yet another piece of the real internet unavailable to Apple lemmings.
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
That explains most of your previous posts. So sorry.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Having what to do with anything? That's a completely different argument.
Quote:
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
I couldn't care less about the paper, and I'm not relating to the article. I'm saying that since applications on devices can be easily more interactive, expansive, and monetized than a website, when does the Internet simply become ALL back-end, for-pay, application-only content?
As bad as NY Post is, I want to highlight one good thing. Their iPad subscription price is about half of the home delivery price. So at least they're offering it at a competitive price. It really disgusts me when companies are charging MORE for the online version than the print version.
Not that I'd subscribe to the Post either way, though.
NY Times gives you the online and ipad version for free when you subscribe to on of their papers.
Anyone who buys an iPad is a gullible person. So of course people will try to take them for a ride. Who else would pay $500 to $830 for a "computer" that doesn't have a USB port? Apple's insistence on banning Flash and Java from its iPhone OS has also forced users of its products to go through the App Store to view many web sites. Apple has made this a common occurrence. So, anyone who purchases an iPad really deserves to be ripped off for funding unethical companies like Apple and for failing to fully think through what they were doing.
Okay Mystic, Rot'nApple, Wigglesworth, I'm not finding the Firefox browser nor "crome" (sic) in the App Store. Oh, and Google Chrome doesn't show up either. I know that Opera is available, however that's one of three, not a good percentage.
Thank you.
Type "browser" in search and you will find a number of worthy alternatives, some free. I use Atomic, but also available on the first page are Skyfire, Opera Mini, Mercury, etc.
The original poster probably had no idea what browsers are available on the iPad, and was just naming prominent alternatives to Safari on Mac. Apply Hanlon's Razor here.
Who else would pay $500 to $830 for a "computer" that doesn't have a USB port?
Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.
Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.
Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.
Exactly. It's just an end in itself. There is no purpose in owning one aside from looking cool. It's a status symbol, just like every other product Apple makes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games
Flash can do far more things than HTML, CSS, and JavaScript can. So, obviously you are the one with a simplistic view of things. Maybe if you actually knew anything about how the Web works you'd agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday.
I actually make about $40,000 a year providing technical support for a large web site. And you?
Also, I doubt anyone who buys one is "Extremely intelligent" given they're paying hundreds of dollars for a product that can do far less than a regular computer can. You essentially have to ask permission from Apple to install anything on one and they're extremely difficult to repair, among other disadvantages.
Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.
Yep, his now two posts just got him on my ban list. I still wish this blog had a feature that also blocked answers that quoted those on one's ban list.
I still wish this blog had a feature that also blocked answers that quoted those on one's ban list.
Blog? This is a forum.
If you blocked replies that quoted his text, you'd also be blocking the rest of the reply, which might contain a quote from you or someone else; information you would want to read. It's for the best that you can't block to that extent.
Comments
The beginning of the death of the WWW
It's also the death of paying one price for the entire Internet
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
Next you'll be saying it's the beginning of the end of interstate highways because they charge tolls in New York.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
That's a horrible argument, how the heck do you know what they were saying back then? Besides, I didn't see you say that back then, so does that mean you weren't complaining either?
Also, it's not just one rag that's tried to do it, there were others that tried, the New York Times is a higher profile case in trying to do a bizarre paywall scheme.
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
"Breath of Fresh Air"? ... only for tubers under the sea that live on gas, industrial waste and excrement.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
Next you'll be saying it's the beginning of the end of interstate highways because they charge tolls in New York.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/
I would like to see the newspaper business make profits somehow, but if they want to make people pay for access they should make everyone pay, not just iPad users.
The fact that the interviewer said more that the person they were interviewing says a lot but the matter went further than that. During the discussion the host threw out a barrage of numbers and percentages and figures to supposedly underpin his claims. After the figures quoted were later falsified (wrong by a factor of 100,000x mind you) it was claimed that they were simply a hyperbole?to make a point (which begs the question if the figures are not factual do you actually have a point worth making in the first place?).
That is bias.
By subscribing, one commits to a bias.
With a magazine or newspaper, everything is one-sided and you know exactly who's doing the "talking". When you buy into the NY Post, you probably buy into Fox News and vice versa.
NOTHING.... They both are for use by Rupe's raiders only...as it should be....
BYE..BYE NY Post.. NO ONE will miss this heap of garbage.
Here's yet another piece of the real internet unavailable to Apple lemmings.
Like it or not, the New York Post is most certainly a newspaper and Fox News is most certainly a news station. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news source and Fox News is no more biased than any other major news source. That includes much of the mainstream media and even news sources like the BBC, which some people incorrectly label as being unbiased. Everybody has their agenda, and that also includes certain comedy channels.
Fox News is a welcome breath of fresh air in a media landscape dominated by leftwing partisan hacks. Some mainstream media channels, such as MSNBC, essentially serves the same function as the state run media in North Korea (KCNA), and that function is to facilitate the dissemination of leftist propaganda.
That explains most of your previous posts. So sorry.
Microsoft tried with Internet Explorer to subjugate the internet to its way for over a decade, didn't hear a pip from either of you during that time.
Having what to do with anything? That's a completely different argument.
Apple promotes HTML 5, the code with which www pages are written, yet you both conclude it's the death of www and one price internet because of the misguided actions of one local newspaper.
I couldn't care less about the paper, and I'm not relating to the article. I'm saying that since applications on devices can be easily more interactive, expansive, and monetized than a website, when does the Internet simply become ALL back-end, for-pay, application-only content?
As bad as NY Post is, I want to highlight one good thing. Their iPad subscription price is about half of the home delivery price. So at least they're offering it at a competitive price. It really disgusts me when companies are charging MORE for the online version than the print version.
Not that I'd subscribe to the Post either way, though.
NY Times gives you the online and ipad version for free when you subscribe to on of their papers.
Okay Mystic, Rot'nApple, Wigglesworth, I'm not finding the Firefox browser nor "crome" (sic) in the App Store. Oh, and Google Chrome doesn't show up either. I know that Opera is available, however that's one of three, not a good percentage.
Thank you.
Type "browser" in search and you will find a number of worthy alternatives, some free. I use Atomic, but also available on the first page are Skyfire, Opera Mini, Mercury, etc.
The original poster probably had no idea what browsers are available on the iPad, and was just naming prominent alternatives to Safari on Mac. Apply Hanlon's Razor here.
Who else would pay $500 to $830 for a "computer" that doesn't have a USB port?
Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.
Extremely intelligent people who enjoy using the latest technology and people who aren't homeless bums are the type of people that pay $500 to $830 for a tablet. These people can also afford to pay $29 for a camera adapter which gives them a USB port, if that connection is needed. Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games and for people who enjoy being bombarded with intrusive advertisements. I disable flash on my main machines and the lack of flash on an iPad is no loss at all.
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday. Also, Apple has among the highest user satisfaction rate of any company. Don't be jealous, one day you too might be able to experience what it is like to own a revolutionary piece of hardware.
Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.
Wow you mean that I might have to use an online proxy..
That is a kludge, as is using an alternative browser.
This bodes badly for Steve's model of subscription apps that he sells in his store for a big cut of the gross.
Isn't this exactly the sort of stuff that should be disallowed?
Singling out one set of users for exclusion from content.
I'm fine with them putting up pay walls for everyone but to single out one device/browser hardly seems right.
It won't effect me but I hope this is not a slippery slope.
It is kind of the opposite of a breach of net neutrality. In the classic case, a carrier discriminates against a server of information.
Here, the server is discriminating. I think they have that right. No shirt, no shoes, no service...
people who enjoy using the latest technology
Exactly. It's just an end in itself. There is no purpose in owning one aside from looking cool. It's a status symbol, just like every other product Apple makes.
Flash is mostly for losers who enjoy playing simplistic, silly games
Flash can do far more things than HTML, CSS, and JavaScript can. So, obviously you are the one with a simplistic view of things. Maybe if you actually knew anything about how the Web works you'd agree.
The iPad is great and maybe if you flip 23,275 more burgers, you too can afford to buy one someday.
I actually make about $40,000 a year providing technical support for a large web site. And you?
Also, I doubt anyone who buys one is "Extremely intelligent" given they're paying hundreds of dollars for a product that can do far less than a regular computer can. You essentially have to ask permission from Apple to install anything on one and they're extremely difficult to repair, among other disadvantages.
Just don't feed the trolls at all. He has one post. His account has no meaning.
Yep, his now two posts just got him on my ban list. I still wish this blog had a feature that also blocked answers that quoted those on one's ban list.
I still wish this blog had a feature that also blocked answers that quoted those on one's ban list.
Blog? This is a forum.
If you blocked replies that quoted his text, you'd also be blocking the rest of the reply, which might contain a quote from you or someone else; information you would want to read. It's for the best that you can't block to that extent.