yep - but now actually on a computer that has the appropriate compatible hardware/etc. Akin to a 'turnkey solution' except not.
If I downloaded UbuntuStudio now and *tried* to install it on my notebook, many things would simply not work (not necessarily in the software, but things like media buttons, the LCD display on the front bevel, etc.). So I would rather get it as a complete package - a kick-ass computer + a kick-ass applications suite (bloat!)
just curious.. are you referring to actual differences in how javascript is handled, or in how things like DOM access/structure (page layout scripting and such) are handled per browser?
The latter having nothing to do with the actual javascript syntax, semantics... i.e. the language
if you were a fan boy, you'd pretty much be a fan of "not that I have much choice in the matter".
Yes, it's wonderful that Apple doesn't bloat up the default installations of Mac OS. Then again, it's not Microsoft that's bloating up the default installations either - it's the computer manufacturers. Apple is in the sweet position to be both the OS developer and the manufacturer + distributor of their computers.
On the other hand, you -can- get a 'Windows PC' that doesn't have any bloat. You can get one that has internet-specific bloat. You can get one that has games-specific bloat (popular games server management stuff pre-installed), etc. You get a choice. Yes, I know, by far the majority of those choices will have -some- manner of bloat. But, again, you do get a choice.
Personally I don't see why anybody would actively -choose- any sort of bloat, but maybe that's just because the appropriate bloat hasn't been presented to me yet. Let's say there was a 3D graphics computer that with pre-installed Blender, The Gimp / Cinepaint, InkScape, etc. I wouldn't particularly complain about that 'bloat'.
...this isn't about removing windows. It's about removing add-on software. Know how most PCs come with anti-virus, anti-spyware, google earth, google toolbar, etc. pre-installed? That's the type of thing it might remove (I don't know the exact list of what it does remove). It's got nothing to do with removing the O/S.
On top of that - why not go the easy route and get a machine that doesn't run Windows in the first place - either O/S-less or with a Linux or BSD distribution pre-installed instead?
Soldat is a sub-$20 game that is fully, entirely, playable just fine if you don't even pay for it.
If you do pay, -you- get the extra of customizing the player character (which is only two dozen pixels high) and you get a minimap (overview of the full map with your team players indicated on it, etc.). If you do pay, the developer gets some $$$ and is more likely to keep developing.
Just playing regularly at a major 'realistic mode' server from time to time, I know that more than half of the people who showed up as 'registered' didn't pay for it - but just wanted e.g. 'red jet flames' and didn't feel like spending less than $20 (I think the price back then was $9 and it went up to $13?) for it.
Pirates don't pirate because something is too expensive - they pirate because no matter what the amount, it's "not free". Nevermind that most of them go out on a beer binge every friday night that would have paid for it. Oh well.
I don't know - is that forum also somehow managing to spoof the referrer so that it appears that you clicked that link while visiting any of the sites that they themselves put that link on?
( I'm making the assumption, of course, that they're actually checking the referrer to prevent exactly the type of scenario described by parent poster, while checking referrer sites themselves to see if they might be child pr0n sites they were unfamiliar with or did not have a solid case for. )
Any of those games were perfectly good fun - and Stryker's Run even had a very decent musical score coming out of the 4 channel (3 melodic, 1 percussion) synth on a BBC Master 512k.
Not to mention that you could get BBC Micro magazine and write new games by copying them from the pages and experiment with them. open source games as far back as then. I remember when they added a CRC routine and CRC codes in front of each line so you could easily spot where you made a typo. Or if something didn't work, you could mail it to them and you'd get your own 'patch' code published and distributed that way.
Ahhh... fond memories of, among other, Clogger.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't the flashiest games, but they were more than decent and fun.
The two methods are actually remarkably similar, just that one handles it in the lens and the other on the sensor. Both have advantages... the former you don't need a new sensor, meaning you can use it on any camera body that accepts the lens including any converter kits for fixed lens cameras. The latter means you can use -any- lens you'd like (from long focal lengths through to fisheye lenses, although the result will be somewhat odd in the latter case) as long as it fits on the camera body that has the special sensor.
Note that the sensor itself isn't really all that special - it's just that there's a great number of tiny lenses stuck in front of (pretty much directly on top of) the sensor's pixel sites.
Both approaches require software to actually handle things like focus and viewpoint/perspective (you can very slightly change this, check the videos), so that's not really different.
I do see much more future in this approach (which was announced long before Adobe's crazy lens) than in that of Adobe's, simply because it's much more elegant and cheaper (as if lenses aren't expensive enough, you'd go make one with multiple convex facets?).. but then, it's Adobe; If the mammoth stirs, the ground shakes.
(incorrect numbers notwithstanding - thought I just copied them from my parent poster)
It's arbitrary insofar as that the year, month and day we live in right now is arbitrary. It's based on the Gregorian calendar. What if we went by the Julian calendar? Or the Hebrew calendar? Chinese calendar? etc.
m/dd/yyyy indeed?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In the universally preferred notation (except for those who take being non-conformist to absurd levels), you'll mean the year 3141, May 9th at 2:53.58am in the morning.
So we didn't miss it - but we will be missing it, as none of us are going to be living to be that old.
Then again, this is all based on the current calendar (arbitrary) and how you interpret the numbers (arbitrary) as well as the date/time notation (arbitrary, as pointed out above) ( the last two being related to eachother as there's no, say, 31st of april.)
...where is the foundation in the assumption that if you travel back in time, your position in the three traditional dimensions (X, Y, Z) remains static?
Presume you're currently traveling along with time so that at time t0 you're at [0,0,0], at time t1 you're at [1,0,0]. If you go back to t0, then why would you still be at [1,0,0] and not automagically back at [0,0,0]?
( Note that personally I presume in this scenario that if you timetravel you'll do nothing more than would rewinding a tape; you'd immediately lose all knowledge of your timetravelling and do the exact same things all over again, completely negating the point of time travel in the first place. It's a lot more elegant than having to worry about 'materializing' in the middle of something else, or worrying about there being two you's, or you changing the course of future history or somesuch. )
the article is about the 'ultraportable' notebook (whatever that means, I guess just "small notebook, bigger than a PDA") market. anything with a 15" screen need not apply, unless that screen folds in / rolls up into a smaller package.
Once you go to a smaller form factor (not just the screen - but the entire device), costs tend to go up for almost all of the components of the machine, as well as designing things so that they'll fit in there, without overheating problems / too much RF interference, etc.
They're not a monopolist in the area of 'smart phones' convicted of abusing that monopoly. I'm sure they wouldn't mind being a monopolist in it, and I'm sure they would actually love to abuse it if they were - but they're not, so... no.
They're also not a utility service provider. No data passes through iPhones and ends up hampered or filtered due to Apple policies for that iPhone, so... no.
Anything else?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with this form of 'opening up' of the iPhone any more than the next guy ( on/. , at least), but they're not doing anything against the laws or regulations. Time to support Android, maybe.
...not sure how walmart handles these, but although they take up a lot of shelf space on the shelves in the stores, they tend to be vacuum-packed and sealed on the shelves in storage. All the shelf-stocker staff has to do is rip a sticker off to let air in and vavoom.. fluffy pillow/comforter.
And yes, this is indeed very similar to those annoying home-shopping commercials where you can actually buy bags that work much the same where you stick your own vacuum cleaner on top of some manner of valve.
which I don't see happening anytime soon, but there you go.
As far as the actual topic goes, I believe anonymous posting should be allowed, just like anonymous tips to the police regarding any illegal activity. Unfortunately, most people are not using anonymity for good reasons, but because they want to get away with whatever they're doing - be it the 'bullying' mentioned here, or libel/slander, etc; things that themselves are likely to have a negative impact on another, with no particular virtue other than the entertainment of the poster, and sometimes even illegal in and of themselves.
I hadn't heard of Piclens before, so I took a quick peek...
It's very much quite awesome, but...
It's really only, and only, for browsing pictures. I don't see that as an extension of my mind.. in my mind, I'd be able to right-click the image and copy/save it, for example. I'd also be able to zoom in as far as I'd like, for very high resolution images. I'd also be able to have it in a window, instead of taking over the entire FireFox (in my case) workspace. Perhaps, if I alt-tabbed to another application and then clicked the FireFox button on the task bar, things wouldn't crash either (not sure if that's PixLens or FF).
If the future of web browsing is making things more shiny but less functional, they can keep it.
While at the same time, you probably completely accept that you can be carded (you can refuse to show your ID, but either you'll be denied access to whatever it is you wanted, or you'll just get arrested on the spot (if appropriate) so that they can check your identity at a later time) and that the vast majority of your purchases have to be done via credit card.
Don't get me wrong, but all of the things you mentioned are -already- being tracked. If not by the government, then by a private (business) entity. And as we have seen with phone record sharing, wiretaps, etc. the government has no problem acquiring this information. They'll even gladly admit to it later on, say it was illegal, then carry on doing it (maybe this time taking more care that it will stay a public secret, rather than become public knowledge); why wouldn't they, what are you gonna do about it?
A: "You know, the interesting thing is that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is 6,000 years old." B: "The belief that the Earth was formed in 4,004 B.C. is held only by a small, minority sect of protestants who insist on interpreting the Bible literally."
If A is true, then B cannot be true and vice versa. Either the book says it's formed in 4004 BC, which is then interpreted literally - or the book doesn't say it, and that minority sect is interpreting things non-literally.
C: "Suppose, for an instant, that you are God, telling Moses how you created the world:..." D: "It's not false, but it's not precise either. However, it is as precise as could be written down at the time, because the concept of a femto-second wouldn't become widely known for another 40 centuries."
Were they aware of the concept of an instant? Were they aware of the passage of time? Were they aware of the passage of time in the timespan of a day? Were they aware of, say, the passage of time in the timespan of one's eyes blinking? If yes to all of the above, then why was it written as a series of days (and I'll stress that it's a series of days) instead of "in the blink of an eye"? And yes, I suppose "in the blink of an eye" is a relatively modern saying, but I highly suspect similar expressions have been known long before the writings on which the book are based.
=====
Now for where I'm going with the Subject line... If something in science is proven to be wrong, inaccurate or plain misleading in a book, then that is corrected for the next print.
Yet the Bible is not corrected in any way to address falsenesses, inaccuracies, or misleading statements.
The reason for this, imho, is that the Bible should not, in any way, be taken as a book of facts, like a guide on how to be a good e.g. Christian. It is a work of, be it inspired by true events or not, fiction. Lessons can be learned from it, but then you can learn lessons from a M.A.S.K. cartoon (well, the last 15 seconds, at least, if you're dense).
But too many religious leaders (I'm expanding this outside of those that refer to the Bible) -do- present their scriptures as fact at worst or a guide at best.
=====
And that's why it keeps being brought up - because some religious leaders keep teaching that it is fact, and no authoritative person/organization is doing anything about it in the source material.
Unless the fab has unused capacity / lines to produce these chips based on other dies/masks separately, they're going to have to swap dies / masks out when they want to produce their 'pirate' copies. This swap-out takes time. Calibration takes time. It also increases the likelihood of errors; not just in the 'pirate' copies but also in the originals when they switch back. A fab is going to explain this odd higher failure rate to their customer, how?
At best somebody within the company could take the design and contract manufacture of it out to a smaller fab or sister fab that isn't booked by the same customer, and have them manufacture it during the same time the originals are produced. That'd be less noticeable, but it would also be more expensive - as the customer isn't footing part of the bill for that shadow fab.
Remember, you'd only be distributing the source code outside of App Store / iTMS. That source code, even when compiled, won't actually run on the iPhone/whatever -without- being signed. Once you distribute the signed app outside of App Store / iTMS (if that's even possible), then Apple might come after you.
How this ends up playing with GPLv3 is another matter entirely.
"People also have the right to be able to walk down any dark alley in the world and not get mugged. However, we can't reasonably expect this." I don't see why we can't expect that. Just because society at large has come to accept dark alley muggings as a part of life doesn't mean it's right or should be tolerated the way it is. Perhaps if it were cracked down on more, or dark alleys were, well, not quite such dark alleys (a little light goes a long way), then perhaps we can all reasonably expect to be safe regardless of the type of public street we walk down.
Now if you'd say we can't reasonably expect to be perfectly safe walking through an abandoned building, that'd be another matter.
"If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy, shut your blinds." Although I agree that you shouldn't expect complete and total privacy when the blinds are closed, there's a big difference between knowing that anybody -could- be looking in at any time, and the an extreme of, say, somebody pointing cameras through your windows and streaming the video feeds, live, to hardburnshouse.com .
I like my curtains open - it lets natural light in. I don't mind that people who walk past glance in. I don't even mind it when there's a big game on and people waiting for the bus decide to watch along with the game (and if I did mind, I'd close the curtains). That doesn't mean I'd want somebody to be peering inside 24/7 watching my every move. Nor do I think that I should feel that that is -exactly- what somebody might be doing, and that I should thus always keep my curtains closed.
If everybody does start thinking exactly that way, then that 'dystopian' future will indeed become reality.
I'll give you the "unconventional control systems", but simple JAVA/Flash games have proven that simple little addictive games can provide a lot of fun and make a ton of money for a long time now on anything with a browser capable of loading them. See also: PopCap Games.
okay, they're not for show - but they aren't exactly for -flying- either. At best you could say that the space shuttle is a 'glider' when it's not being the nose end of a rocket or drifting about in space. And it's not even a particularly -good- glider.
Slashdot Mirror
yep - but now actually on a computer that has the appropriate compatible hardware/etc. Akin to a 'turnkey solution' except not.
If I downloaded UbuntuStudio now and *tried* to install it on my notebook, many things would simply not work (not necessarily in the software, but things like media buttons, the LCD display on the front bevel, etc.). So I would rather get it as a complete package - a kick-ass computer + a kick-ass applications suite (bloat!)
just curious.. are you referring to actual differences in how javascript is handled, or in how things like DOM access/structure (page layout scripting and such) are handled per browser?
The latter having nothing to do with the actual javascript syntax, semantics... i.e. the language
if you were a fan boy, you'd pretty much be a fan of "not that I have much choice in the matter".
Yes, it's wonderful that Apple doesn't bloat up the default installations of Mac OS. Then again, it's not Microsoft that's bloating up the default installations either - it's the computer manufacturers. Apple is in the sweet position to be both the OS developer and the manufacturer + distributor of their computers.
On the other hand, you -can- get a 'Windows PC' that doesn't have any bloat. You can get one that has internet-specific bloat. You can get one that has games-specific bloat (popular games server management stuff pre-installed), etc. You get a choice.
Yes, I know, by far the majority of those choices will have -some- manner of bloat. But, again, you do get a choice.
Personally I don't see why anybody would actively -choose- any sort of bloat, but maybe that's just because the appropriate bloat hasn't been presented to me yet. Let's say there was a 3D graphics computer that with pre-installed Blender, The Gimp / Cinepaint, InkScape, etc. I wouldn't particularly complain about that 'bloat'.
...this isn't about removing windows. It's about removing add-on software. Know how most PCs come with anti-virus, anti-spyware, google earth, google toolbar, etc. pre-installed? That's the type of thing it might remove (I don't know the exact list of what it does remove). It's got nothing to do with removing the O/S.
On top of that - why not go the easy route and get a machine that doesn't run Windows in the first place - either O/S-less or with a Linux or BSD distribution pre-installed instead?
Soldat is a sub-$20 game that is fully, entirely, playable just fine if you don't even pay for it.
If you do pay, -you- get the extra of customizing the player character (which is only two dozen pixels high) and you get a minimap (overview of the full map with your team players indicated on it, etc.). If you do pay, the developer gets some $$$ and is more likely to keep developing.
Just playing regularly at a major 'realistic mode' server from time to time, I know that more than half of the people who showed up as 'registered' didn't pay for it - but just wanted e.g. 'red jet flames' and didn't feel like spending less than $20 (I think the price back then was $9 and it went up to $13?) for it.
Pirates don't pirate because something is too expensive - they pirate because no matter what the amount, it's "not free". Nevermind that most of them go out on a beer binge every friday night that would have paid for it. Oh well.
1. bah, who RTFA?
2. that's dumb.
I don't know - is that forum also somehow managing to spoof the referrer so that it appears that you clicked that link while visiting any of the sites that they themselves put that link on?
( I'm making the assumption, of course, that they're actually checking the referrer to prevent exactly the type of scenario described by parent poster, while checking referrer sites themselves to see if they might be child pr0n sites they were unfamiliar with or did not have a solid case for. )
Any of those games were perfectly good fun - and Stryker's Run even had a very decent musical score coming out of the 4 channel (3 melodic, 1 percussion) synth on a BBC Master 512k.
Not to mention that you could get BBC Micro magazine and write new games by copying them from the pages and experiment with them. open source games as far back as then. I remember when they added a CRC routine and CRC codes in front of each line so you could easily spot where you made a typo. Or if something didn't work, you could mail it to them and you'd get your own 'patch' code published and distributed that way.
Ahhh... fond memories of, among other, Clogger.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't the flashiest games, but they were more than decent and fun.
The two methods are actually remarkably similar, just that one handles it in the lens and the other on the sensor. Both have advantages... the former you don't need a new sensor, meaning you can use it on any camera body that accepts the lens including any converter kits for fixed lens cameras. The latter means you can use -any- lens you'd like (from long focal lengths through to fisheye lenses, although the result will be somewhat odd in the latter case) as long as it fits on the camera body that has the special sensor.
Note that the sensor itself isn't really all that special - it's just that there's a great number of tiny lenses stuck in front of (pretty much directly on top of) the sensor's pixel sites.
Both approaches require software to actually handle things like focus and viewpoint/perspective (you can very slightly change this, check the videos), so that's not really different.
I do see much more future in this approach (which was announced long before Adobe's crazy lens) than in that of Adobe's, simply because it's much more elegant and cheaper (as if lenses aren't expensive enough, you'd go make one with multiple convex facets?).. but then, it's Adobe; If the mammoth stirs, the ground shakes.
(incorrect numbers notwithstanding - thought I just copied them from my parent poster)
It's arbitrary insofar as that the year, month and day we live in right now is arbitrary. It's based on the Gregorian calendar. What if we went by the Julian calendar? Or the Hebrew calendar? Chinese calendar? etc.
In the universally preferred notation (except for those who take being non-conformist to absurd levels), you'll mean the year 3141, May 9th at 2:53.58am in the morning.
So we didn't miss it - but we will be missing it, as none of us are going to be living to be that old.
Then again, this is all based on the current calendar (arbitrary) and how you interpret the numbers (arbitrary) as well as the date/time notation (arbitrary, as pointed out above) ( the last two being related to eachother as there's no, say, 31st of april.)
...where is the foundation in the assumption that if you travel back in time, your position in the three traditional dimensions (X, Y, Z) remains static?
Presume you're currently traveling along with time so that at time t0 you're at [0,0,0], at time t1 you're at [1,0,0]. If you go back to t0, then why would you still be at [1,0,0] and not automagically back at [0,0,0]?
( Note that personally I presume in this scenario that if you timetravel you'll do nothing more than would rewinding a tape; you'd immediately lose all knowledge of your timetravelling and do the exact same things all over again, completely negating the point of time travel in the first place. It's a lot more elegant than having to worry about 'materializing' in the middle of something else, or worrying about there being two you's, or you changing the course of future history or somesuch. )
the article is about the 'ultraportable' notebook (whatever that means, I guess just "small notebook, bigger than a PDA") market. anything with a 15" screen need not apply, unless that screen folds in / rolls up into a smaller package.
Once you go to a smaller form factor (not just the screen - but the entire device), costs tend to go up for almost all of the components of the machine, as well as designing things so that they'll fit in there, without overheating problems / too much RF interference, etc.
No.
/. , at least), but they're not doing anything against the laws or regulations. Time to support Android, maybe.
They're not a monopolist in the area of 'smart phones' convicted of abusing that monopoly. I'm sure they wouldn't mind being a monopolist in it, and I'm sure they would actually love to abuse it if they were - but they're not, so... no.
They're also not a utility service provider. No data passes through iPhones and ends up hampered or filtered due to Apple policies for that iPhone, so... no.
Anything else?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with this form of 'opening up' of the iPhone any more than the next guy ( on
...not sure how walmart handles these, but although they take up a lot of shelf space on the shelves in the stores, they tend to be vacuum-packed and sealed on the shelves in storage. All the shelf-stocker staff has to do is rip a sticker off to let air in and vavoom.. fluffy pillow/comforter.
And yes, this is indeed very similar to those annoying home-shopping commercials where you can actually buy bags that work much the same where you stick your own vacuum cleaner on top of some manner of valve.
which I don't see happening anytime soon, but there you go.
As far as the actual topic goes, I believe anonymous posting should be allowed, just like anonymous tips to the police regarding any illegal activity. Unfortunately, most people are not using anonymity for good reasons, but because they want to get away with whatever they're doing - be it the 'bullying' mentioned here, or libel/slander, etc; things that themselves are likely to have a negative impact on another, with no particular virtue other than the entertainment of the poster, and sometimes even illegal in and of themselves.
I hadn't heard of Piclens before, so I took a quick peek...
It's very much quite awesome, but...
It's really only, and only, for browsing pictures. I don't see that as an extension of my mind.. in my mind, I'd be able to right-click the image and copy/save it, for example. I'd also be able to zoom in as far as I'd like, for very high resolution images. I'd also be able to have it in a window, instead of taking over the entire FireFox (in my case) workspace. Perhaps, if I alt-tabbed to another application and then clicked the FireFox button on the task bar, things wouldn't crash either (not sure if that's PixLens or FF).
If the future of web browsing is making things more shiny but less functional, they can keep it.
While at the same time, you probably completely accept that you can be carded (you can refuse to show your ID, but either you'll be denied access to whatever it is you wanted, or you'll just get arrested on the spot (if appropriate) so that they can check your identity at a later time) and that the vast majority of your purchases have to be done via credit card.
Don't get me wrong, but all of the things you mentioned are -already- being tracked. If not by the government, then by a private (business) entity. And as we have seen with phone record sharing, wiretaps, etc. the government has no problem acquiring this information. They'll even gladly admit to it later on, say it was illegal, then carry on doing it (maybe this time taking more care that it will stay a public secret, rather than become public knowledge); why wouldn't they, what are you gonna do about it?
A: "You know, the interesting thing is that the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is 6,000 years old."
..."
B: "The belief that the Earth was formed in 4,004 B.C. is held only by a small, minority sect of protestants who insist on interpreting the Bible literally."
If A is true, then B cannot be true and vice versa. Either the book says it's formed in 4004 BC, which is then interpreted literally - or the book doesn't say it, and that minority sect is interpreting things non-literally.
C: "Suppose, for an instant, that you are God, telling Moses how you created the world:
D: "It's not false, but it's not precise either. However, it is as precise as could be written down at the time, because the concept of a femto-second wouldn't become widely known for another 40 centuries."
Were they aware of the concept of an instant? Were they aware of the passage of time? Were they aware of the passage of time in the timespan of a day? Were they aware of, say, the passage of time in the timespan of one's eyes blinking?
If yes to all of the above, then why was it written as a series of days (and I'll stress that it's a series of days) instead of "in the blink of an eye"?
And yes, I suppose "in the blink of an eye" is a relatively modern saying, but I highly suspect similar expressions have been known long before the writings on which the book are based.
=====
Now for where I'm going with the Subject line...
If something in science is proven to be wrong, inaccurate or plain misleading in a book, then that is corrected for the next print.
Yet the Bible is not corrected in any way to address falsenesses, inaccuracies, or misleading statements.
The reason for this, imho, is that the Bible should not, in any way, be taken as a book of facts, like a guide on how to be a good e.g. Christian. It is a work of, be it inspired by true events or not, fiction. Lessons can be learned from it, but then you can learn lessons from a M.A.S.K. cartoon (well, the last 15 seconds, at least, if you're dense).
But too many religious leaders (I'm expanding this outside of those that refer to the Bible) -do- present their scriptures as fact at worst or a guide at best.
=====
And that's why it keeps being brought up - because some religious leaders keep teaching that it is fact, and no authoritative person/organization is doing anything about it in the source material.
Just my 2cts.
Unless the fab has unused capacity / lines to produce these chips based on other dies/masks separately, they're going to have to swap dies / masks out when they want to produce their 'pirate' copies. This swap-out takes time. Calibration takes time. It also increases the likelihood of errors; not just in the 'pirate' copies but also in the originals when they switch back. A fab is going to explain this odd higher failure rate to their customer, how?
At best somebody within the company could take the design and contract manufacture of it out to a smaller fab or sister fab that isn't booked by the same customer, and have them manufacture it during the same time the originals are produced. That'd be less noticeable, but it would also be more expensive - as the customer isn't footing part of the bill for that shadow fab.
Remember, you'd only be distributing the source code outside of App Store / iTMS. That source code, even when compiled, won't actually run on the iPhone/whatever -without- being signed. Once you distribute the signed app outside of App Store / iTMS (if that's even possible), then Apple might come after you.
How this ends up playing with GPLv3 is another matter entirely.
"People also have the right to be able to walk down any dark alley in the world and not get mugged. However, we can't reasonably expect this."
I don't see why we can't expect that. Just because society at large has come to accept dark alley muggings as a part of life doesn't mean it's right or should be tolerated the way it is. Perhaps if it were cracked down on more, or dark alleys were, well, not quite such dark alleys (a little light goes a long way), then perhaps we can all reasonably expect to be safe regardless of the type of public street we walk down.
Now if you'd say we can't reasonably expect to be perfectly safe walking through an abandoned building, that'd be another matter.
"If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy, shut your blinds."
Although I agree that you shouldn't expect complete and total privacy when the blinds are closed, there's a big difference between knowing that anybody -could- be looking in at any time, and the an extreme of, say, somebody pointing cameras through your windows and streaming the video feeds, live, to hardburnshouse.com .
I like my curtains open - it lets natural light in. I don't mind that people who walk past glance in. I don't even mind it when there's a big game on and people waiting for the bus decide to watch along with the game (and if I did mind, I'd close the curtains). That doesn't mean I'd want somebody to be peering inside 24/7 watching my every move. Nor do I think that I should feel that that is -exactly- what somebody might be doing, and that I should thus always keep my curtains closed.
If everybody does start thinking exactly that way, then that 'dystopian' future will indeed become reality.
On the other hand, all data you retrieve goes through Opera's servers.
I'll give you the "unconventional control systems", but simple JAVA/Flash games have proven that simple little addictive games can provide a lot of fun and make a ton of money for a long time now on anything with a browser capable of loading them. See also: PopCap Games.
okay, they're not for show - but they aren't exactly for -flying- either. At best you could say that the space shuttle is a 'glider' when it's not being the nose end of a rocket or drifting about in space. And it's not even a particularly -good- glider.