Actually what? I said Apple would deny this app on sight. Jailbreaking your iPhone and installing MAME is completely unrelated and something the average user would probably not do. Not to mention that making a peripheral intended for jailbroken phones is a good way to incite Apple's wrath, just look at the iControlPad battle brewing.
Just because something is publicly available doesn't mean just anyone is free to reproduce and distribute it. In Facebook's TOS their users agree to give Facebook rights to distribute the data they provide to them.
By your logic it should be legal to photocopy and distribute any book that is available from the public library or record and distribute MP3s of any song that was broadcast on a radio station.
I can see how the topic of meddling with DNA to augment/fix people can be a slippery slope, but by itself the question of "is it morally wrong to cure colorblindness" seems to be the same as "is it morally wrong to cure short/far sightedness". We already normalize things like this and it's entirely by individual choice. You can choose to wear your glasses or not and now you'll be able to get your color vision corrected or not.
They didn't use the correlation to prove causation, they actually asked people "hey how'd you get the clap" and a lot of them said "I hooked up with a stranger on Facebook". That is the causation right there, the correlation came after.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually what? I said Apple would deny this app on sight. Jailbreaking your iPhone and installing MAME is completely unrelated and something the average user would probably not do. Not to mention that making a peripheral intended for jailbroken phones is a good way to incite Apple's wrath, just look at the iControlPad battle brewing.
I guess this answers the question of if ThinkGeek would consider trying to make the iCade accessory real.
... And whoever at Apple looks at the submission "iCade MAME Emulation App" will laugh maniacally as they hit the giant red DENIED button.
Just because something is publicly available doesn't mean just anyone is free to reproduce and distribute it. In Facebook's TOS their users agree to give Facebook rights to distribute the data they provide to them. By your logic it should be legal to photocopy and distribute any book that is available from the public library or record and distribute MP3s of any song that was broadcast on a radio station.
"I upgraded/switched to Ubuntu and it made my hard drive bigger!" *facepalm* Great.
I can see how the topic of meddling with DNA to augment/fix people can be a slippery slope, but by itself the question of "is it morally wrong to cure colorblindness" seems to be the same as "is it morally wrong to cure short/far sightedness". We already normalize things like this and it's entirely by individual choice. You can choose to wear your glasses or not and now you'll be able to get your color vision corrected or not.
They didn't use the correlation to prove causation, they actually asked people "hey how'd you get the clap" and a lot of them said "I hooked up with a stranger on Facebook". That is the causation right there, the correlation came after.