Anyone remember the infamous JibJab issue over their use of the tune to "This Land Was Made For You And Me" but replacing the lyrics to poke fun at GWB? JibJab almost lost painfully to the original songwriter's estate after it was determined that their use of the tune was to satirize Bush, rather than to satirize the song itself, meaning JibJab wouldn't be entitled to coverage under satire protections laws that artists like Weird Al Yankovic use regularly in the production of their parodies. Had the song's copyright been properly renewed by the song writer's estate, JibJab would have had to pay out royalties for their use of the tune.
I imagine the same applies here. If you aren't using satire to satirize the song itself for the song's sake, then it's a derivative work that requires the copyright holder to be compensated.
So, is it possible to reliably black list someone from a specific state from your server without knowing at least some "personally identifiable information" about a user prior to their inital connection attempt? If nothing else, you probably know enough about that connection attempt to identify where it was made from if you could reliably block it by location, just from the activity logs, right?
So are you screwed even if you specifically choose not to do business with the state over this?
Much like many older "brick and mortar" stores have had to do to survive over the years, libraries need to follow suit. They either need to feature a very strong online presence (as in actually useful) or merge their resources together into a massive central location that's easily accessible and relatively clean/safe.
In recent years, libraries have gotten a bad rap for stock-housing materials that are so outdated that the materials themselves are either no longer relevant or are now historically inaccurate. These days, no one trusts anything printed over a decade ago, mainly because that's the point where the internet really started to take root in our culture. For many of us, if content isn't constantly updated as more information becomes available, the source of the content loses it's credibility.
Given how we tend to act within our own culture, our school systems have pretty much changed to adapt. As such, it's very likely that any student that goes to a library to study in the manner our generation did 15-20 years ago (nose buried deep in a book) would probably not get a decent grade. There's also the potential problem that having been born into a post-internet-boom world, they may not be able to adapt to information retrieval in that manner. It's possible that even being faced with such a task for prolonged period of time would trigger several bouts of cognitive overload. As it is, the current protocol this generation uses for handling information is to obtain it in short chunks at high speeds, relative to an information terminal... versus earlier generations who dealt with information in slower, longer chunks. The further back in time you go, the slower and longer these information chunks become, relative to our technological advancement. (books->newsprint->telephone->radio->television->personal computers->internet)
At any rate, libraries should not be trying to play up the whole "books are cool" line, and should be focusing more on how to adapt themselves to the demand for high speed information exchange. It might even make more sense for a company like Google to simply buy every library in every community, and turn them into data centers. Perhaps even establish some sort of proprietary network outside of the internet that would facilitate nothing but the absolute highest speed searches possible, then let the public utilize it via terminals at these libraries.
Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $9.95 in a jewel case, then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the "no refunds" policy at $40 as a form of "activation"? That way, if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $10, then decides they don't like it, the most they could get back is the $9.95, while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over...
Back in the late 80s, we had a Big Lots come into town with their assorted piles of junk. Though, they did occasionally have some interesting stuff... like bins full of shrink-wrapped atari game carts for the 2600/5200/7800. (I probably had over 200 titles stockpiled at one point... and only one was that crappy ET game.)
Then during the early 90's, neighbor of mine asked me to come help them out with a computer problem on a machine they had just bought. When I got their, it turned out the problem was that they bought some ancient government clunker that took 8.5" floppies! If you can imagine it... picture trying to slide a floppy the size of an entire file folder into a drive barely big enough to hold it without bending the thing. It's nearly impossible!
You determine a game's worth by how fun it is. (Obviously, this varies with the tastes of the user.)
So, how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title? First, don't buy new right off the bat. If possible, either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing. Also, hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date. This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50%.
Finally, check sites like DealNews for updates on special pricing, or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want. (Personally, I've found GoGamer to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $20 below average pricing on new titles.)
Depending on advances in technology and physics, mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself. For example, could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an "always on" wormhole, redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself?
The anime series "Gurren Lagann" used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads, allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future, effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack.
It may seem that way, but this isn't the early 90's anymore. Our society is now built around a premise of fear, rather than trust. For many, that means the majority of social interaction we have occurs from behind a computer screen. You're not likely to get abducted, raped, beaten or killed if you don't leave the comfort and safety of your home. This is the new norm... children are actually discouraged from playing outside for their well-being. This mistrust of the outside world gets carried on into adulthood.
Strangely enough, the ones most likely to react negatively to a mere comment on the internet are probably the same individuals who fear the real world is already out to get them. Getting others to react to a comment on a website only serves to reaffirm the fantasy of ever-growing dangers lurking in the real world.
... back when a conversation would simply "die" after whatever dumbass comment was made on impulse during a brief moment of frustration?
Nowadays, we're all expected to bottle our emotions, letting them slowly fester into a mental illness that could eventually result in a random explosion of violent behavior toward anyone who might rub you the wrong way at just the right moment.
Knee-jerk reactions to off-color commentary made to a completely unrelated audience are likely going to be the cause of several future columbine-like incidences. And why? Because you can't give anyone even the slightest bit of breathing room to themselves.
The internet may have brought the world closer together, but perhaps that difference is starting to make a number of us feel claustrophobic.
Also, how do such comments reach such seemingly unrelated audiences? Is it just coincidence, or is someone constantly watching this person for some specific purpose?
After years of running a large scale message board myself, one thing I have learned is that you simply can't quantify every situation enough to objectively make the correct decision every single time. An automated system can either be inadequate and unintrusive, or, draconian and inefficient. Using a team of humans is even more chaotic, because each one ultimately ends up falling back onto their own experiences to determine right from wrong. This can vary greatly from person to person, leading to either being too lax or too iron fisted. Both extremes have their own consequences and effect upon the community being watched over.
Even a system like Slashdot's setup, where the community polices itself, isn't free of flaws. A community that polices itself will ultimately normalize with whatever the averages deem "appropriate", for better or worse. In addition, any attempt to override this average will often be met with opposition from the community when the operators' trust in the community gets put into question.
No online system will ever be perfectly safe for children. But neither is the real world.
The only real way to protect children both online and off is for the parents to be more involved in their kids' lives. Talk to them. Keep the video games and computers out in neutral parts of the home where you can actually see what's going on, rather than putting them in the bedroom. Furthermore, don't violate your kids' trust in you by monitoring their actions from behind the scenes using keyloggers or VNC servers. You can be just as effective by watching their actions out in the open when you walk by. If they make a sudden knee-jerk reaction like turning off the monitor or closing windows, you know their up to something and your actions immediately after should be enough to put the fear of god into them when they know they're doing something they shouldn't be doing.
Want your kids to grow up "right"? Then don't let others do your job for you!
Ok, this actually makes sense to me. Even if the app can identify itself as legitimate or pirated in a server/client setting, even the bandwidth used for verification of each copy of the app alone would eventually add up.
A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. This is how "supply and demand" works. If the consumers are telling you it's overpriced rather than buying it, then it is overpriced. If you paid too much in developing software that's deemed overpriced by your customer base, you can hardly blame the consumer for that. You simply over-invested in a failed project.
Whenever a developer claims to be "losing money" to piracy, one has to wonder... are the developers losing this money trying to combat piracy directly (lawsuits and DRM tactics), or is it simply a case of self-flattery, where the developer is grossly over-estimating the value of their software, thinking "If my software isn't great, then why would anyone pirate it?"
Perhaps its time for some self-reflection. You are just another pawn in an industry wide problem spanning over 30 years. Chances are, you and your app aren't special. The piracy was likely nothing more than a bulk job handled indescriminately with no concern for you or anyone else.
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
"Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications."
Doesn't this also describe practically any modification to the OS, such kernel extensions installed by any third-party program for added functionality? For example, can you imagine the chaos that would be created if everyone who owned a copy of Adobe Photoshop was suddenly accused of running an pirate copy of Mac OS X, simply *because* they installed Photoshop on their machine and rebooted it with a few extra.kext files?
Personally, I've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs. The more data they acquire, the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes. Eventually, a point will come where there will be a near 100% false-positive rate on submitted works that are original, but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.
For example:
"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."
Okay... so, is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written? There's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education. A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.
But what about authors that aren't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers? You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.
It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation, where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet. People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns, much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time. Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.
Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon, it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means. Especially in the generations to come!
Ok, so it's not that cool looking, but the potential here is great... especially once the things can be self-contained.
The main reason this thing seems kind of lame right now, is likely due to the fact that the support lattice is only a simple sphere. Give these guys a couple more years, and I bet they'll be able to support far more complex structures, perhaps even to the point of reshaping its own support lattice at varying resolutions.
Once they can manage that much, it should be possible for them to start working on complex IK chains to create virtual joints on the fly. Think of it being able to morph from a sphere to an insect like body with legs and back again, based on the environmental conditions it's deployed into.
Another potential use, moving large objects on top of it as it maintains a solid, level surface, while below, it moves in a manner similar to snakes. This could be done both as a serpentine pattern and as a method some snakes use by gripping the ground with their scales and then contract and expand their body to slide forward.
- App name squatting - List jockeying (continuous updates to apps with no description of what was actually changed) - List flooding (releasing dozens of variations of the same app with only minor differences... like a picture of a kitty!) - Born-again apps (repeated removal and relaunching of the same app over and over)
Apple Computer was the "cool" Apple that made you want to root for the underdog and wait for the "next big thing" like a kid on christmas morning.
The current Apple, however, is just plain evil and needs to be put down before it hurts us all. I love the mac, but I can't help but be unnerved by what the platform will become under this new "lock it all down" attitude Apple has.
I know a few years ago, I had some adobe software I wanted to sell through ebay. Basically, there was no problem in doing this so long as I filled out their Transfer of Ownership documents and sent a copy to the new owner to sign and then mail to adobe.
If these guys have a similar program available, then there's really no excuse for jumping the gun on the seller.
On the other hand, they may be well within their rights to do this if they specifically deny you the ability to transfer your license to a new owner right off the bat. (Though, it would make doing business with them far less attractive, especially at the prices they charge for the software.)
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone remember the infamous JibJab issue over their use of the tune to "This Land Was Made For You And Me" but replacing the lyrics to poke fun at GWB? JibJab almost lost painfully to the original songwriter's estate after it was determined that their use of the tune was to satirize Bush, rather than to satirize the song itself, meaning JibJab wouldn't be entitled to coverage under satire protections laws that artists like Weird Al Yankovic use regularly in the production of their parodies. Had the song's copyright been properly renewed by the song writer's estate, JibJab would have had to pay out royalties for their use of the tune.
I imagine the same applies here. If you aren't using satire to satirize the song itself for the song's sake, then it's a derivative work that requires the copyright holder to be compensated.
So, is it possible to reliably black list someone from a specific state from your server without knowing at least some "personally identifiable information" about a user prior to their inital connection attempt? If nothing else, you probably know enough about that connection attempt to identify where it was made from if you could reliably block it by location, just from the activity logs, right?
So are you screwed even if you specifically choose not to do business with the state over this?
Much like many older "brick and mortar" stores have had to do to survive over the years, libraries need to follow suit. They either need to feature a very strong online presence (as in actually useful) or merge their resources together into a massive central location that's easily accessible and relatively clean/safe.
In recent years, libraries have gotten a bad rap for stock-housing materials that are so outdated that the materials themselves are either no longer relevant or are now historically inaccurate. These days, no one trusts anything printed over a decade ago, mainly because that's the point where the internet really started to take root in our culture. For many of us, if content isn't constantly updated as more information becomes available, the source of the content loses it's credibility.
Given how we tend to act within our own culture, our school systems have pretty much changed to adapt. As such, it's very likely that any student that goes to a library to study in the manner our generation did 15-20 years ago (nose buried deep in a book) would probably not get a decent grade. There's also the potential problem that having been born into a post-internet-boom world, they may not be able to adapt to information retrieval in that manner. It's possible that even being faced with such a task for prolonged period of time would trigger several bouts of cognitive overload. As it is, the current protocol this generation uses for handling information is to obtain it in short chunks at high speeds, relative to an information terminal... versus earlier generations who dealt with information in slower, longer chunks. The further back in time you go, the slower and longer these information chunks become, relative to our technological advancement. (books->newsprint->telephone->radio->television->personal computers->internet)
At any rate, libraries should not be trying to play up the whole "books are cool" line, and should be focusing more on how to adapt themselves to the demand for high speed information exchange. It might even make more sense for a company like Google to simply buy every library in every community, and turn them into data centers. Perhaps even establish some sort of proprietary network outside of the internet that would facilitate nothing but the absolute highest speed searches possible, then let the public utilize it via terminals at these libraries.
Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $9.95 in a jewel case, then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the "no refunds" policy at $40 as a form of "activation"? That way, if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $10, then decides they don't like it, the most they could get back is the $9.95, while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over...
Back in the late 80s, we had a Big Lots come into town with their assorted piles of junk. Though, they did occasionally have some interesting stuff... like bins full of shrink-wrapped atari game carts for the 2600/5200/7800. (I probably had over 200 titles stockpiled at one point... and only one was that crappy ET game.)
Then during the early 90's, neighbor of mine asked me to come help them out with a computer problem on a machine they had just bought. When I got their, it turned out the problem was that they bought some ancient government clunker that took 8.5" floppies! If you can imagine it... picture trying to slide a floppy the size of an entire file folder into a drive barely big enough to hold it without bending the thing. It's nearly impossible!
You determine a game's worth by how fun it is. (Obviously, this varies with the tastes of the user.)
So, how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title? First, don't buy new right off the bat. If possible, either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing. Also, hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date. This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50%.
Finally, check sites like DealNews for updates on special pricing, or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want. (Personally, I've found GoGamer to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $20 below average pricing on new titles.)
Depending on advances in technology and physics, mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself. For example, could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an "always on" wormhole, redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself?
The anime series "Gurren Lagann" used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads, allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future, effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack.
... the very first programmer was a woman... Ada Lovelace.
Actually there were/are many more notables as well.
It may seem that way, but this isn't the early 90's anymore. Our society is now built around a premise of fear, rather than trust. For many, that means the majority of social interaction we have occurs from behind a computer screen. You're not likely to get abducted, raped, beaten or killed if you don't leave the comfort and safety of your home. This is the new norm... children are actually discouraged from playing outside for their well-being. This mistrust of the outside world gets carried on into adulthood.
Strangely enough, the ones most likely to react negatively to a mere comment on the internet are probably the same individuals who fear the real world is already out to get them. Getting others to react to a comment on a website only serves to reaffirm the fantasy of ever-growing dangers lurking in the real world.
... back when a conversation would simply "die" after whatever dumbass comment was made on impulse during a brief moment of frustration?
Nowadays, we're all expected to bottle our emotions, letting them slowly fester into a mental illness that could eventually result in a random explosion of violent behavior toward anyone who might rub you the wrong way at just the right moment.
Knee-jerk reactions to off-color commentary made to a completely unrelated audience are likely going to be the cause of several future columbine-like incidences. And why? Because you can't give anyone even the slightest bit of breathing room to themselves.
The internet may have brought the world closer together, but perhaps that difference is starting to make a number of us feel claustrophobic.
Also, how do such comments reach such seemingly unrelated audiences? Is it just coincidence, or is someone constantly watching this person for some specific purpose?
After years of running a large scale message board myself, one thing I have learned is that you simply can't quantify every situation enough to objectively make the correct decision every single time. An automated system can either be inadequate and unintrusive, or, draconian and inefficient. Using a team of humans is even more chaotic, because each one ultimately ends up falling back onto their own experiences to determine right from wrong. This can vary greatly from person to person, leading to either being too lax or too iron fisted. Both extremes have their own consequences and effect upon the community being watched over.
Even a system like Slashdot's setup, where the community polices itself, isn't free of flaws. A community that polices itself will ultimately normalize with whatever the averages deem "appropriate", for better or worse. In addition, any attempt to override this average will often be met with opposition from the community when the operators' trust in the community gets put into question.
No online system will ever be perfectly safe for children. But neither is the real world.
The only real way to protect children both online and off is for the parents to be more involved in their kids' lives. Talk to them. Keep the video games and computers out in neutral parts of the home where you can actually see what's going on, rather than putting them in the bedroom. Furthermore, don't violate your kids' trust in you by monitoring their actions from behind the scenes using keyloggers or VNC servers. You can be just as effective by watching their actions out in the open when you walk by. If they make a sudden knee-jerk reaction like turning off the monitor or closing windows, you know their up to something and your actions immediately after should be enough to put the fear of god into them when they know they're doing something they shouldn't be doing.
Want your kids to grow up "right"? Then don't let others do your job for you!
getting your name off of a sexual predator list after suffering a frivolous statutory rape charge.
In other words, you lost control of the situation after it was mirrored from the original source.
More on "the frizzies"
For anyone still scratching their heads... here...
For anyone else, congrats on "getting it"
Just had to say it.
Ok, this actually makes sense to me. Even if the app can identify itself as legitimate or pirated in a server/client setting, even the bandwidth used for verification of each copy of the app alone would eventually add up.
A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. This is how "supply and demand" works. If the consumers are telling you it's overpriced rather than buying it, then it is overpriced. If you paid too much in developing software that's deemed overpriced by your customer base, you can hardly blame the consumer for that. You simply over-invested in a failed project.
Whenever a developer claims to be "losing money" to piracy, one has to wonder... are the developers losing this money trying to combat piracy directly (lawsuits and DRM tactics), or is it simply a case of self-flattery, where the developer is grossly over-estimating the value of their software, thinking "If my software isn't great, then why would anyone pirate it?"
Perhaps its time for some self-reflection. You are just another pawn in an industry wide problem spanning over 30 years. Chances are, you and your app aren't special. The piracy was likely nothing more than a bulk job handled indescriminately with no concern for you or anyone else.
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
"Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications."
Doesn't this also describe practically any modification to the OS, such kernel extensions installed by any third-party program for added functionality? For example, can you imagine the chaos that would be created if everyone who owned a copy of Adobe Photoshop was suddenly accused of running an pirate copy of Mac OS X, simply *because* they installed Photoshop on their machine and rebooted it with a few extra .kext files?
Personally, I've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs. The more data they acquire, the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes. Eventually, a point will come where there will be a near 100% false-positive rate on submitted works that are original, but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.
For example:
"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."
Okay... so, is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written? There's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education. A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.
But what about authors that aren't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers? You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.
It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation, where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet. People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns, much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time. Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.
Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon, it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means. Especially in the generations to come!
Ok, so it's not that cool looking, but the potential here is great... especially once the things can be self-contained.
The main reason this thing seems kind of lame right now, is likely due to the fact that the support lattice is only a simple sphere. Give these guys a couple more years, and I bet they'll be able to support far more complex structures, perhaps even to the point of reshaping its own support lattice at varying resolutions.
Once they can manage that much, it should be possible for them to start working on complex IK chains to create virtual joints on the fly. Think of it being able to morph from a sphere to an insect like body with legs and back again, based on the environmental conditions it's deployed into.
Another potential use, moving large objects on top of it as it maintains a solid, level surface, while below, it moves in a manner similar to snakes. This could be done both as a serpentine pattern and as a method some snakes use by gripping the ground with their scales and then contract and expand their body to slide forward.
The potential here should not be underestimated.
So lets see... we now have:
- App name squatting
- List jockeying (continuous updates to apps with no description of what was actually changed)
- List flooding (releasing dozens of variations of the same app with only minor differences... like a picture of a kitty!)
- Born-again apps (repeated removal and relaunching of the same app over and over)
Did I miss anything else?
Apple Inc. != Apple Computer Inc.
Apple Computer was the "cool" Apple that made you want to root for the underdog and wait for the "next big thing" like a kid on christmas morning.
The current Apple, however, is just plain evil and needs to be put down before it hurts us all. I love the mac, but I can't help but be unnerved by what the platform will become under this new "lock it all down" attitude Apple has.
I know a few years ago, I had some adobe software I wanted to sell through ebay. Basically, there was no problem in doing this so long as I filled out their Transfer of Ownership documents and sent a copy to the new owner to sign and then mail to adobe.
If these guys have a similar program available, then there's really no excuse for jumping the gun on the seller.
On the other hand, they may be well within their rights to do this if they specifically deny you the ability to transfer your license to a new owner right off the bat. (Though, it would make doing business with them far less attractive, especially at the prices they charge for the software.)