I know this is a bit off-topic, but I wanted to see if anybody knows of an iPad-like device that lets you install LaTeX and a PDF viewer that supports annotations.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Karl Winterling <kwinterl...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's probably a mix of Apple's desire to have a consistent user > interface, control code distribution through the app store, prevent > worthy competing API's (like, say, Java ME) from challenging Cocoa > (which partially concerns money and partially consistent UI), and > assure the FCC and carriers that no one (other than people who want to > do something illegal) will get direct access to hardware and do > something questionable. > > I think it's an ethical question insofar as it relates to the freedom > consumers should have to run any code they want on their computers or, > more generally, use their computers for any (legal) purpose. Some > consumers know how to write code, so they should be able to run it on > their iphones and share it without restriction. > > Beyond protecting their kids from sexual predators, I'm really > indifferent to whether parents think it's objectionable for their kids > to look at "clad women/men." That's why you have parental controls. > It's not Apple's job to decide whether Space: 1999 is appropriate for > the average US/EU/Japan/SK family. > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> We are a fair bit off topic here, but what I see in Apple's policies >> is a desire to ensure that their devices behave in consistent, >> well-designed ways and to make that happen they have decided to do >> things like charge more money for them (presumably to pain for the >> extra work that goes into the design process), design their own >> hardware & software platform together, and to limit the kinds of >> third-party stuff that can go on them. They do this in order to >> guarantee they are easy to use and thus hope to sell more of them. >> While I certainly agree with the sentiment that they go to far to >> achieve this end (and I personally find their earlier PL-based >> restrictions to be very disappointing) I can't see how this could be >> considered an ethical issue. >> >> Robby >> >> On Friday, June 18, 2010, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: >>> I think it's both. I mentioned the ethical question because one could >>> probably find a worthwhile risk-reward solution for the short-term >>> self-interest economics question, or one could find a way to cover one's >>> own butt (perhaps involving a backroom deal and PR leverage), but I think >>> that the ethics (collective, long-term) problem of supporting the iPhone >>> iron-fisting is harder to resolve. >>> >>> Robby Findler wrote at 06/18/2010 10:33 AM: >>> >>> Why is this an ethical question and not an economic one? >>> >>> Robby >>> >>> On Friday, June 18, 2010, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Apple has been brutal with iPhone developers, running the platform as a >>> ruthless and fickle dictatorship. I believe that this is the general >>> perception of iPhone developers. >>> >>> Even if one is willing to jump through Apple's hoops, and one accepts that, >>> at any time and for any reason, Apple will have no qualms about simply >>> kicking one off the platform, instantly and without explanation... I >>> believe that there is also an ethical question of whether supporting the >>> iPhone platform is contributing to the success of Apple's ruthless, >>> anti-competitive, and closed-platform practices. >>> >>> Android, Symbian, the new Nokia Qt stuff, Java... all alternative mobile >>> device platforms for civic-minded techies to consider. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
