Tools like this have been around for ages, although they are usually called "GUI test frameworks" or "automation assistants".
Tools have been around for ages that present a new GUI while hiding the old one and proxying events from the new interface back to the old one, so that you can retool the UI without modifying the application?
In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal
Wrong, sorry.
and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is.
Now ya got it!
Just to be clear: Restrictions around derivative works involve *distributing* those works. But if an individual uses a tool like this to create a "derivative work" for his own personal use, that doesn't run afoul of the law. So, no, simply *using* this tool is not illegal. But if you were to take the application, wrap it in a tool that does what this thing does, and redistribute that combined work, then you would absolutely be breaking the law (not the least of which for distributing the original work without a license).
Similarly, it's perfectly legal for me to recut "The Matrix Revolutions" so it doesn't completely suck balls and then watch that work in my home. It's simply not legal for me to distribute/perform/etc that work.
I think the issue is less about kids being kids, and more about people not being forward about these problems.
Yeah... no. The issue you're talking about is what to do about someone who already has a problem. What we're talking about is the issue of stopping people from developing said problem in the first place. Specifically, my comment is that most people who start smoking (or any other high-risk behaviour) do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences, but little sense of the actual risk (primarily because humans are piss poor at estimating risk in general).
If you know someone who is addicted to something, do you confront them with it (and deal with the defensive behavior that ensues), or do you talk behind their back to your mutual friends and say "someone really outta do something about him" ? People spiral out of control, it's natural to favor instant gratification over all else, so it takes someone outside of that bubble, a trusted friend to yank you out of the spiral. No amount of education can replace that human pillar of stability.
Though, on the topic you bring up, I can tell you this: most people who are addicted to, well, anything really (cigarettes, food, booze, etc) either know intellectually that they should quit, but either don't want to quit or don't feel they can, or they are people who are extremely defensive about their addiction, either claiming it's under control, or that it's not harmful.
As such, IMHO, actively confronting people about their addictions doesn't really accomplish that much unless they've already begun to confront it themselves (put another way, I think the "intervention" model is simplistic bullshit). Of course, once they've reached that point, the best thing friends or family can do is provide support and encouragement.
If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.
Yeah, see, and I just don't buy that conclusion. No kid would tell you that getting into an accident wouldn't be horribly painful and life threatening. The problem is *they don't believe it will happen to them in the first place*. ie, it's not that they don't comprehend the consequences, it's that the underestimate the risk.
Similarly, even if you could convey to someone the experience of addiction, they'd still suffer from the delusion that they are immune, simply because, well, people are stupid, and kids doubly so.:)
The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.
Got a citation for that? I mean, it's basically incontrovertible that nicotine is physiologically addictive, but I'd be curious to see evidence for this supposed catalytic effect created by other compounds added to the tobacco.
The idea that you can't convey the sensation of addiction is a little silly. The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does, and in this way, it's no different than any other high-risk behaviour, be it unprotected sex, driving at dangerously high speeds, etc.
Actually, you'd be surprised. *If* you can crank the brightness way way down, a backlit display can be easily read for prolonged periods of time in the dark. In my particular case, my primary e-reader is a Palm TX, and I regularly read in the dark (so as not to disturb my wife) with the backlight set as low as it can go (which, with the right third-party software, is very low). It works great, and I can read for many hours that way without any noticeable eyestrain (which is actually a bad thing when you have to go to work the next day...).
Apple is moving us towards closed computer environments.
Huh? What "us"? Apple is moving some of it's customer base to closed environments, sure, but I'm pretty sure my Linux-equipped laptop will remain perfectly open for the near future, unless Apple's insidious plan involves breaking into people's homes and replacing their gear with free iPads...
I doubt any OCR scanned books you find on torrent sites have proper formatting for your reader.
Weird, I've... *cough*... heard... that the ebooks you download from an average torrent site are OCR'd to plain text, and so are readable on basically anything that will support that format (which is, AFAIK, essentially any reader on the market today).
Granted, you will suffer from more typos and errors, and definitely imperfect page layout. But they work just fine.
Dunno -- the cutting-edge people I know are digging on Clojure pretty hard.
Any particular reason why? What does it offer over the gajillion other Lisps out there, aside from running on the JVM?
As an aside, if I'm gonna work with a functional language, I prefer it be Haskell. 'course, it doesn't currently target the JVM or CLR, though maybe some day...
Uhuh... so you determine language quality by the terseness of it's text.
Interesting.
Well, you have fun writing your terse programs with inexplicably named, but I'm sure very compact, variable and function names, while the rest of us move on to writing code other people can actually, you know, read and understand while putting up with the horrible hardship of having to type a little bit more.
Oh, and BTW, any language that has namespaces has an import keyword. Maybe you should try it out sometime.
But you are the one who said that Flash is bad because it is closed, but simultaneously said it was okay for Apple to do the same thing.
Well, no, I didn't quite say that, but hey, let's pretend I did for a moment...
You erected the strawman, he just pointed it out.
No, I didn't.
Or do you not see how an open web and a closed cell phone are, in fact, different things, and that I might care about one but not give a shit about the other?
just by typing 'i dont justify it' after going and posting a full paragraph justifying something does NOT solve any contradictions.
I have never justified it. Ever. Never once did I say "seal hunting is okay", or any variant thereof. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
In a followup post, I then provided information demonstrating that hunting seals with a hakapik is not inhumane, despite what PETA and the media have told you. Again, I don't condone seal hunting (in general, I deeply dislike sport hunting and hunting for fur, though I'm fine with hunting for consumption), but the method used by the Inuit is no better or worse than any other (well, again, assuming the WWF knows something about the topic...).
im delivering my own opinion in this matter
No you're not. You're delivering the opinions the media gave you on the matter. See, people with their own opinions do their own research, and if you did your own research, you'd discover that "clubbing", as you so quaintly refer to it, is no more or less humane than any other form of hunting, and in fact generally more effective than using firearms. But, of course, the media didn't show you that. They showed you hunters with what appear to be clubs hitting cute whittle baby seals, so naturally you become mindlessly outraged. And now you seem incapable of actually synthesizing new, contradictory information... which, I suppose, shouldn't surprise me that much.
Now, perhaps you have problems with all forms of hunting, in which case, hey, good for you! Congrats on being morally consistent! But objecting to seal hunting simply because you object to the method is *deeply* ignorant... 'course, I expect little else from you (or anyone else who blindly believes the bullshit that comes out of the mass media).
That's called a defensive patent, and is exemplified by the patent portfolios of IBM and Microsoft, just to pick two. The idea is that if it turns out you've infringed on someone else's patent, you can threaten them with yours, and the result is usually a cross-licensing deal.
But none of that invalidates the fact that, if a company (like, say, Fingerworks) pours millions developing a key technology like multitouch, it seems reasonable that another company like, say, Apple, shouldn't be allowed to simply steal that technology without having to pay for it (in this case, they bought the company).
Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad?
Because that worthless dipshit company may have spent years and millions of dollars developing that technology, and the US was held, as a principle for a very long time, that such investments should be rewarded by a temporary monopoly so that one can benefit from those efforts?
Why? If the iPhone remains closed for eternity, that will have absolutely no effect on me. My concern is for an open web. That's it. If Apple wants to lock up their platform like a drum, hey, that's their business.
Couldn't the same be said of Flash as well?
Of course the same could be said of Flash. Of course, I never called for Adobe to open the Flash standard up, just as I never called for Apple to open their platform up. Where did you get the impression I did?
What I said was that I'd be very happy to see Flash go away, and if Apple manages to make that happen, I will happily cheer them on, as the end result is a benefit for me and for the open web in general.
Plenty of people live on an entirely plant-based diet, usually more healthily than their omnivorous neighbors.
Actually, usually not, because most vegetarians/vegans are fad-following amateurs, and as such, don't realize that, as you yourself pointed out, that B12 can't be easily acquired through non-meat sources, and should be acquired through a supplement.
But, you are correct, it is possible to live entirely on non-meat nutritional sources. It just requires careful planning so you're getting a balanced diet, including the full essential nutrient spectrum and a complete protein regime.
If, by "theirs", you mean an open, industry-supported standard, yeah... it's exactly like Microsoft.::rollseyes::
At the end of the day CUSTOMERS want Flash and Java on their phones but Apple is being a prick about it and not allowing it. Good competition will cause them to change their minds about this.
Yup, you're absolutely correct! 'course, the customers knew full well that Apple had the platform locked down, but they bought the new shiny, anyway.
So, let me ask you, who's really to blame, here?
As an aside, I need to reiterate, I actually don't give a shit about what Apple does with the platform. None at all. What I care about is an open web. And if Apple bending over their customers and giving it to them hard does that, hey, I say pound away, Apple. Pound away.
I think its hypocritical of you to not like Flash because its closed, but support Apple's development decisions
Why? If the iPhone remains closed for eternity, that will have absolutely no effect on me. My concern is for an open web. That's it. If Apple wants to lock up their platform like a drum, hey, that's their business.
So its ok that Apple close everything down and make it so that you have to have a signed app (drm) to run anything on their phone, but not ok that flash is a closed format?
Aww, apparently my other comment offended a moderator. Presumably they don't know what strawmen are. Here, let me explain: I never made any value judgment regarding the iPhone, you just made that part up. That's the strawman.
In fact, I couldn't care less how open or closed their platform is (and, TBH, if people really cared, they'd vote with their wallets, which they don't, so not only do I not care about the platform, I care even less about users bitching about it). What I care about is an open web based on open standards, and a browsing experience that isn't hampered by annoying plugins. If Apple maintaining a chokehold over the iPhone achieves that, hey, works for me, I'm not one of those fools who bought an iPhone and then was surprised to discover the platform was locked up nice and tight.
Also you say "a patented codec" you know Flash supports about 6 different video codecs and 6 different audio formats right?
Oh come on. Let's get real, here. 99% of Flash videos out there are based on H.264. Can I pack, say, Theora into a Flash container and have it play on my browser? No, of course not, because Adobe defines the defacto standard implementation, and so 99% of people would never be able to watch it.
Today Linux is the only platform you can get an official 64-bit version of Flash.
Yup, and I have it installed. But it still isn't that great, and for video, inferior to an in-browser solution, IMHO. Heck, AFAIK, it still doesn't use hardware acceleration for video playback ('course, that may no longer be true now, I haven't checked recently).
So its ok that Apple close everything down and make it so that you have to have a signed app (drm) to run anything on their phone, but not ok that flash is a closed format?
Do you like erecting strawmen? Does it make you feel manly when you knock them down?
For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.
And a few stress balls, and eventually a toupee after you're done tearing all your hair out...
As you say, though, the whole thing is massively overblown thanks to organizations like PETA. Hell, in that wikipedia link, there's a rather interesting quote from a WWF study on seal hunting practices:
In 2005, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) commissioned the Independent Veterinarians Working Group Report. With reference to video evidence, the report states: "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death."[91]
Slashdot Mirror
Tools like this have been around for ages, although they are usually called "GUI test frameworks" or "automation assistants".
Tools have been around for ages that present a new GUI while hiding the old one and proxying events from the new interface back to the old one, so that you can retool the UI without modifying the application?
Link, please.
In many jurisdiction even using such a thing is illegal
Wrong, sorry.
and distributing the enhancements without permission from the copyright owner most certainly is.
Now ya got it!
Just to be clear: Restrictions around derivative works involve *distributing* those works. But if an individual uses a tool like this to create a "derivative work" for his own personal use, that doesn't run afoul of the law. So, no, simply *using* this tool is not illegal. But if you were to take the application, wrap it in a tool that does what this thing does, and redistribute that combined work, then you would absolutely be breaking the law (not the least of which for distributing the original work without a license).
Similarly, it's perfectly legal for me to recut "The Matrix Revolutions" so it doesn't completely suck balls and then watch that work in my home. It's simply not legal for me to distribute/perform/etc that work.
I think the issue is less about kids being kids, and more about people not being forward about these problems.
Yeah... no. The issue you're talking about is what to do about someone who already has a problem. What we're talking about is the issue of stopping people from developing said problem in the first place. Specifically, my comment is that most people who start smoking (or any other high-risk behaviour) do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences, but little sense of the actual risk (primarily because humans are piss poor at estimating risk in general).
If you know someone who is addicted to something, do you confront them with it (and deal with the defensive behavior that ensues), or do you talk behind their back to your mutual friends and say "someone really outta do something about him" ? People spiral out of control, it's natural to favor instant gratification over all else, so it takes someone outside of that bubble, a trusted friend to yank you out of the spiral. No amount of education can replace that human pillar of stability.
Though, on the topic you bring up, I can tell you this: most people who are addicted to, well, anything really (cigarettes, food, booze, etc) either know intellectually that they should quit, but either don't want to quit or don't feel they can, or they are people who are extremely defensive about their addiction, either claiming it's under control, or that it's not harmful.
As such, IMHO, actively confronting people about their addictions doesn't really accomplish that much unless they've already begun to confront it themselves (put another way, I think the "intervention" model is simplistic bullshit). Of course, once they've reached that point, the best thing friends or family can do is provide support and encouragement.
If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.
Yeah, see, and I just don't buy that conclusion. No kid would tell you that getting into an accident wouldn't be horribly painful and life threatening. The problem is *they don't believe it will happen to them in the first place*. ie, it's not that they don't comprehend the consequences, it's that the underestimate the risk.
Similarly, even if you could convey to someone the experience of addiction, they'd still suffer from the delusion that they are immune, simply because, well, people are stupid, and kids doubly so. :)
The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.
Got a citation for that? I mean, it's basically incontrovertible that nicotine is physiologically addictive, but I'd be curious to see evidence for this supposed catalytic effect created by other compounds added to the tobacco.
Or go a day without food and see how that feels.
The idea that you can't convey the sensation of addiction is a little silly. The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does, and in this way, it's no different than any other high-risk behaviour, be it unprotected sex, driving at dangerously high speeds, etc.
Actually, you'd be surprised. *If* you can crank the brightness way way down, a backlit display can be easily read for prolonged periods of time in the dark. In my particular case, my primary e-reader is a Palm TX, and I regularly read in the dark (so as not to disturb my wife) with the backlight set as low as it can go (which, with the right third-party software, is very low). It works great, and I can read for many hours that way without any noticeable eyestrain (which is actually a bad thing when you have to go to work the next day...).
Apple is moving us towards closed computer environments.
Huh? What "us"? Apple is moving some of it's customer base to closed environments, sure, but I'm pretty sure my Linux-equipped laptop will remain perfectly open for the near future, unless Apple's insidious plan involves breaking into people's homes and replacing their gear with free iPads...
I doubt any OCR scanned books you find on torrent sites have proper formatting for your reader.
Weird, I've... *cough*... heard... that the ebooks you download from an average torrent site are OCR'd to plain text, and so are readable on basically anything that will support that format (which is, AFAIK, essentially any reader on the market today).
Granted, you will suffer from more typos and errors, and definitely imperfect page layout. But they work just fine.
Dunno -- the cutting-edge people I know are digging on Clojure pretty hard.
Any particular reason why? What does it offer over the gajillion other Lisps out there, aside from running on the JVM?
As an aside, if I'm gonna work with a functional language, I prefer it be Haskell. 'course, it doesn't currently target the JVM or CLR, though maybe some day...
Uhuh... so you determine language quality by the terseness of it's text.
Interesting.
Well, you have fun writing your terse programs with inexplicably named, but I'm sure very compact, variable and function names, while the rest of us move on to writing code other people can actually, you know, read and understand while putting up with the horrible hardship of having to type a little bit more.
Oh, and BTW, any language that has namespaces has an import keyword. Maybe you should try it out sometime.
I just think that promoting closed devices that intentionally buck standards (even defacto ones, that aren't as open as some may like) is a bad idea
Yeah, but we're talking about bucking a pseudo-open, defacto standard in lieu of a fully open, industry standard. Sounds like a positive thing to me.
But you are the one who said that Flash is bad because it is closed, but simultaneously said it was okay for Apple to do the same thing.
Well, no, I didn't quite say that, but hey, let's pretend I did for a moment...
You erected the strawman, he just pointed it out.
No, I didn't.
Or do you not see how an open web and a closed cell phone are, in fact, different things, and that I might care about one but not give a shit about the other?
just by typing 'i dont justify it' after going and posting a full paragraph justifying something does NOT solve any contradictions.
I have never justified it. Ever. Never once did I say "seal hunting is okay", or any variant thereof. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
In a followup post, I then provided information demonstrating that hunting seals with a hakapik is not inhumane, despite what PETA and the media have told you. Again, I don't condone seal hunting (in general, I deeply dislike sport hunting and hunting for fur, though I'm fine with hunting for consumption), but the method used by the Inuit is no better or worse than any other (well, again, assuming the WWF knows something about the topic...).
im delivering my own opinion in this matter
No you're not. You're delivering the opinions the media gave you on the matter. See, people with their own opinions do their own research, and if you did your own research, you'd discover that "clubbing", as you so quaintly refer to it, is no more or less humane than any other form of hunting, and in fact generally more effective than using firearms. But, of course, the media didn't show you that. They showed you hunters with what appear to be clubs hitting cute whittle baby seals, so naturally you become mindlessly outraged. And now you seem incapable of actually synthesizing new, contradictory information... which, I suppose, shouldn't surprise me that much.
Now, perhaps you have problems with all forms of hunting, in which case, hey, good for you! Congrats on being morally consistent! But objecting to seal hunting simply because you object to the method is *deeply* ignorant... 'course, I expect little else from you (or anyone else who blindly believes the bullshit that comes out of the mass media).
That's called a defensive patent, and is exemplified by the patent portfolios of IBM and Microsoft, just to pick two. The idea is that if it turns out you've infringed on someone else's patent, you can threaten them with yours, and the result is usually a cross-licensing deal.
But none of that invalidates the fact that, if a company (like, say, Fingerworks) pours millions developing a key technology like multitouch, it seems reasonable that another company like, say, Apple, shouldn't be allowed to simply steal that technology without having to pay for it (in this case, they bought the company).
Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad?
Because that worthless dipshit company may have spent years and millions of dollars developing that technology, and the US was held, as a principle for a very long time, that such investments should be rewarded by a temporary monopoly so that one can benefit from those efforts?
Of course the same could be said of Flash. Of course, I never called for Adobe to open the Flash standard up, just as I never called for Apple to open their platform up. Where did you get the impression I did?
What I said was that I'd be very happy to see Flash go away, and if Apple manages to make that happen, I will happily cheer them on, as the end result is a benefit for me and for the open web in general.
Plenty of people live on an entirely plant-based diet, usually more healthily than their omnivorous neighbors.
Actually, usually not, because most vegetarians/vegans are fad-following amateurs, and as such, don't realize that, as you yourself pointed out, that B12 can't be easily acquired through non-meat sources, and should be acquired through a supplement.
But, you are correct, it is possible to live entirely on non-meat nutritional sources. It just requires careful planning so you're getting a balanced diet, including the full essential nutrient spectrum and a complete protein regime.
Apples desire to kill anything that isn't theirs
If, by "theirs", you mean an open, industry-supported standard, yeah... it's exactly like Microsoft. ::rollseyes::
At the end of the day CUSTOMERS want Flash and Java on their phones but Apple is being a prick about it and not allowing it. Good competition will cause them to change their minds about this.
Yup, you're absolutely correct! 'course, the customers knew full well that Apple had the platform locked down, but they bought the new shiny, anyway.
So, let me ask you, who's really to blame, here?
As an aside, I need to reiterate, I actually don't give a shit about what Apple does with the platform. None at all. What I care about is an open web. And if Apple bending over their customers and giving it to them hard does that, hey, I say pound away, Apple. Pound away.
I think its hypocritical of you to not like Flash because its closed, but support Apple's development decisions
Why? If the iPhone remains closed for eternity, that will have absolutely no effect on me. My concern is for an open web. That's it. If Apple wants to lock up their platform like a drum, hey, that's their business.
So its ok that Apple close everything down and make it so that you have to have a signed app (drm) to run anything on their phone, but not ok that flash is a closed format?
Aww, apparently my other comment offended a moderator. Presumably they don't know what strawmen are. Here, let me explain: I never made any value judgment regarding the iPhone, you just made that part up. That's the strawman.
In fact, I couldn't care less how open or closed their platform is (and, TBH, if people really cared, they'd vote with their wallets, which they don't, so not only do I not care about the platform, I care even less about users bitching about it). What I care about is an open web based on open standards, and a browsing experience that isn't hampered by annoying plugins. If Apple maintaining a chokehold over the iPhone achieves that, hey, works for me, I'm not one of those fools who bought an iPhone and then was surprised to discover the platform was locked up nice and tight.
Also you say "a patented codec" you know Flash supports about 6 different video codecs and 6 different audio formats right?
Oh come on. Let's get real, here. 99% of Flash videos out there are based on H.264. Can I pack, say, Theora into a Flash container and have it play on my browser? No, of course not, because Adobe defines the defacto standard implementation, and so 99% of people would never be able to watch it.
Today Linux is the only platform you can get an official 64-bit version of Flash.
Yup, and I have it installed. But it still isn't that great, and for video, inferior to an in-browser solution, IMHO. Heck, AFAIK, it still doesn't use hardware acceleration for video playback ('course, that may no longer be true now, I haven't checked recently).
So its ok that Apple close everything down and make it so that you have to have a signed app (drm) to run anything on their phone, but not ok that flash is a closed format?
Do you like erecting strawmen? Does it make you feel manly when you knock them down?
For developing in Flash, you need a specific app that costs $700 and only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. For developing in HTML5/Javascript, you need a text editor and a web browser.
And a few stress balls, and eventually a toupee after you're done tearing all your hair out...
Shooting them is A) the most humane way to go about it
Actually, fun fact: Shooting them isn't necessarily the most humane way to go about it. The problem is that, unless you're a very good shot, you're far more likely to wound the animal rather than killing it outright. But a well-placed strike with a hakapik is very quick and effective in trained hands, comparable with established and acceptable humane killing practices according to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.
As you say, though, the whole thing is massively overblown thanks to organizations like PETA. Hell, in that wikipedia link, there's a rather interesting quote from a WWF study on seal hunting practices:
But, hey, what does the WWF know?