Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.
How spelling standards have obviously fallen in the USA. 'Six' is the preferred spelling.
sic 2 (also sick)
verb ( sicced, siccing or sicked , sicking ) [ trans. ] ( sic something on)
set a dog or other animal on (someone or something) : the plan was to surprise the heck out of the grizzly by sicking the dog on him.
( sic someone on) informal set someone to pursue, keep watch on, or accompany (another).
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
Nope, The approval process has no other purpose but to deny apps Apple doesn't like.
Native apps w/o source code are next to impossible to review aside from using a full code path coverage tool. A tool could be used to ensure all code paths are tested during approval process, but clearly Apple isn't doing this or else 15 year olds wouldn't be able to sneak tethering into a flash-light app.
If tethering can slip through unnoticed, why not malware? WHAT'S THE POINT?
Malware could easily slip through unnoticed. The quick scan of the binary that Apple does detects what is linked against and if they link to anything that allows them to leave the sandbox or do anything other than use the Apple sanctioned APIs then it's detected and not approved. Thus what the malware could do is significantly limited. Tethering isn't actually doing anything malicious (what that app did was actually make a web proxy that could be accessed and used, all with available and approved APIs) and is actually not allowed for contractual reasons with the carriers. Similarly it would be entirely possible to sneak a link to a pornography site in an application, despite pornography not being allowed.
Dense or not, you're conflating rules on the developer with rules the app must follow.
It's called obtuse, deliberate or not, because contracts apply to people or to corporations, not to applications, which have not (yet?) been assigned personhood.
You said they have a review process to catch apps that are infringing on copyright. They do not. They have never stated that the review is meant to be a copyright check. They have a review process for the sole purpose of determining if an app is of suitable quality.
Additionally they have a contract with developers that states the developer will not submit content they do not own the license for and that said developer will incur all costs associated with anything that happens to Apple as a result of the application (section 11 of the contract) and that by submitting an application you are stating to Apple that everything is legit and has no reason to suspect anything illegal is transpiring.
Again - these are two separate things. They do not have a review process to prevent copyright infringement.
You're being dense, the review checks if the app is within the rules, one of the rules is "you have to have the rights to distribute this".
Dense or not, you're conflating rules on the developer with rules the app must follow. The review checks the app is within the rules for the apps (i.e. what's in the App Store Review Guidelines). The rule on "must have the rights to distribute everything submitted" is on being in the developer program (i.e. the Developer Program License Agreement).
Umm, no. you said "They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening."
The review process is not to prevent THAT soft of thing.
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material."
Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Investigating before responding != supporting. From the sound of it, only a few days have passed - and I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed off if the OTHER guy e-mail Apple first and Apple immediately pulled his app without an investigation.
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically states that you certify that you have the rights to publish anything you submit. An agreement in place to make it so Apple doesn't have to waste countless hours checking if the person submitting the app actually has the rights to. The developer that published this broke that agreement and will likely have their account terminated.
For every search performed with IE, have the first result be "Internet Explorer Filled with Viruses, Better Alternatives Available" - then when anyone searches for anything on Bing, they'll know not to use IE.
P.S. I'm aware this would be trivial to defeat on MS's part.
Shareware games of old didn't have ads in them, but many "free" apps on both iOS and Android do.
The apps that have ads in them wouldn't have been free in the first place if they couldn't put ads in them (or they would be functionally limited demos if they were free).
Just make all the questions of the type where you have to regurgitate some copyrighted information (say a piece of lyrics), which IBM won't be able to store.
The computer will sit there doing nothing while the human is charged with illegal performances of copyrighted material and is forced to pay insane fines. How is that winning?
>The reason they need a breathalyzer in the store is to ensure a "properly trained" state employee is approving the sale, not some punk at a register.
I am still entirely unclear on how a breathalyzer ensures that the person selling the alcohol is a state employee and not some kid at a register (unless the theory goes that they were having the kids who work the register use the vending machine and then selling the alcohol to the actual customer and the kids are always drunk and thus are foiled by the breathalyzer).
I might not have been clear, but I wasn't suggesting abolishing punitive damages, I was just saying that they should be spent on public services rather than given to the plaintiff.
The greedy defendant still has their bad behaviour disincentiveised, but the motivation for greedy plaintiff to file lawsuits in the hope of a big payoff goes away.
Then the incentive for reporting the undesirable behavior isn't there, though, and if you've been wronged you have to ask yourself "do I want to spend my next few months in court (likely not being able to work and being quite inconvenienced) just to hurt those that wronged me"? In effect, you'll be making the undesirable action more likely as it will be less likely to be reported and litigated as the only people who can fight back while not gaining anything are those that are well off enough that the undesirable action didn't really hurt them much.
I can be happy they caught a break, while still not feeling any better about the fact that I get screwed over because they caught a break.
The situation described was not merely taking the test over, but taking the test over and doing worse the second time. It's not fair that I take a GPA hit due to OTHERS cheating and getting away without the punishment that was agreed upon (agreed upon being the one defined in the school rules).
If this were the olympics and the first place person legitimately won the race but the last place person cheated. Would it be fair if the race had to be re-run by everyone and the person who one the gold (originally) no longer got it? Surely it's understandable that they would feel cheated out of a gold medal that they rightfully earned. Do you think they'd feel comforted by the fact that the person who now beat them did better this time than before? Or comforted by the fact that the person who cheated wasn't kicked out of the race?
Can't speak for the parent's University, but at my former University it was campus wide policy that a minimum of 10% of all tests be photocopied for the very reason of students changing things claiming that the teacher made a mistake. Bring a false claim, and you fail the class. A 1 in 10 chance of getting an F for a point or two on a test isn't worth it (unless maybe that point would give you a D in a course you were otherwise failing, maybe, but that'd be hard to calculate and still a fair gamble).
If I'm one of the students who lost a letter grade due to the retake, it doesn't particularly make me feel any better that someone else may have done better because of the retake, let alone the fact that the retake was to allow people who cheated to not get kicked out of school as they should have been (at least according to my old school's policies).
The first two episodes are actually a mini-series (about 3 hours in total for the two "episodes"), presumably they have different licensing rights and that's why you can't watch them.
Slashdot Mirror
Web apps running under iOS will always be harder to use than native apps because Apple bans native APIs like Flash and non-Apple JavaScript. This means that web apps can't make use of device I/O such as multi-touch, sound, GPS, accelerometer, etc.
Accelerometer in MobileSafari - http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/safari-ios-accelerometer-websockets-html5
GPS in MobileSafari - http://blog.bemoko.com/2009/06/17/iphone-30-geolocation-javascript-api/
Multi Touch Gestures in MobileSafari - http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2008/07/10/touching-and-gesturing-on-the-iphone/
Sound in MobileSafari - http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/
Please do some research before saying what can and can't be done.
First we have a story on 'apps'.
How spelling standards have obviously fallen in the USA. 'Six' is the preferred spelling.
sic 2 (also sick) verb ( sicced, siccing or sicked , sicking ) [ trans. ] ( sic something on) set a dog or other animal on (someone or something) : the plan was to surprise the heck out of the grizzly by sicking the dog on him. ( sic someone on) informal set someone to pursue, keep watch on, or accompany (another).
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
Nope, The approval process has no other purpose but to deny apps Apple doesn't like.
Native apps w/o source code are next to impossible to review aside from using a full code path coverage tool. A tool could be used to ensure all code paths are tested during approval process, but clearly Apple isn't doing this or else 15 year olds wouldn't be able to sneak tethering into a flash-light app.
If tethering can slip through unnoticed, why not malware? WHAT'S THE POINT?
Malware could easily slip through unnoticed. The quick scan of the binary that Apple does detects what is linked against and if they link to anything that allows them to leave the sandbox or do anything other than use the Apple sanctioned APIs then it's detected and not approved. Thus what the malware could do is significantly limited. Tethering isn't actually doing anything malicious (what that app did was actually make a web proxy that could be accessed and used, all with available and approved APIs) and is actually not allowed for contractual reasons with the carriers. Similarly it would be entirely possible to sneak a link to a pornography site in an application, despite pornography not being allowed.
Dense or not, you're conflating rules on the developer with rules the app must follow.
It's called obtuse, deliberate or not, because contracts apply to people or to corporations, not to applications, which have not (yet?) been assigned personhood.
You said they have a review process to catch apps that are infringing on copyright. They do not. They have never stated that the review is meant to be a copyright check. They have a review process for the sole purpose of determining if an app is of suitable quality.
Additionally they have a contract with developers that states the developer will not submit content they do not own the license for and that said developer will incur all costs associated with anything that happens to Apple as a result of the application (section 11 of the contract) and that by submitting an application you are stating to Apple that everything is legit and has no reason to suspect anything illegal is transpiring.
Again - these are two separate things. They do not have a review process to prevent copyright infringement.
You're being dense, the review checks if the app is within the rules, one of the rules is "you have to have the rights to distribute this".
Dense or not, you're conflating rules on the developer with rules the app must follow. The review checks the app is within the rules for the apps (i.e. what's in the App Store Review Guidelines). The rule on "must have the rights to distribute everything submitted" is on being in the developer program (i.e. the Developer Program License Agreement).
Yes, that's what I said. Thanks!
Umm, no. you said "They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening."
The review process is not to prevent THAT soft of thing.
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Investigating before responding != supporting. From the sound of it, only a few days have passed - and I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed off if the OTHER guy e-mail Apple first and Apple immediately pulled his app without an investigation.
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically states that you certify that you have the rights to publish anything you submit. An agreement in place to make it so Apple doesn't have to waste countless hours checking if the person submitting the app actually has the rights to. The developer that published this broke that agreement and will likely have their account terminated.
For every search performed with IE, have the first result be "Internet Explorer Filled with Viruses, Better Alternatives Available" - then when anyone searches for anything on Bing, they'll know not to use IE. P.S. I'm aware this would be trivial to defeat on MS's part.
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
There's no ads in that version! Where are my ads?!?!?
And of course there's the fact that framing your neighbor makes you a huge asshole.
So, killing your wife = not a huge asshole. Framing your neighbor for killing your wife = huge asshole. Glad we could make the distinction :P
Shareware games of old didn't have ads in them, but many "free" apps on both iOS and Android do.
The apps that have ads in them wouldn't have been free in the first place if they couldn't put ads in them (or they would be functionally limited demos if they were free).
I have found that smart people are really bad at simple, repetitive, boring tasks.
They get bored, start daydreaming, and make mistakes.
I find that they automate away the problem, and then spend their time doing whatever they want while pretending to work.
Do not have the kids pay. They will grow up thinking this is normal.
Just make all the questions of the type where you have to regurgitate some copyrighted information (say a piece of lyrics), which IBM won't be able to store.
The computer will sit there doing nothing while the human is charged with illegal performances of copyrighted material and is forced to pay insane fines. How is that winning?
They lose the election and they're forced to leave the state!
Sounds more like a lose one, win one to me :P
In Pennsylvania it is illegal to sell alcohol to a VIP (visibly intoxicated person). If you fail the breathalyser test then sale is denied.
Wouldn't the fact that the state employee is looking at them via a CCTV verify if they are VISIBLY intoxicated?
>The reason they need a breathalyzer in the store is to ensure a "properly trained" state employee is approving the sale, not some punk at a register.
I am still entirely unclear on how a breathalyzer ensures that the person selling the alcohol is a state employee and not some kid at a register (unless the theory goes that they were having the kids who work the register use the vending machine and then selling the alcohol to the actual customer and the kids are always drunk and thus are foiled by the breathalyzer).
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I thought you had to actually be convicted to be a criminal - not just accused.
I might not have been clear, but I wasn't suggesting abolishing punitive damages, I was just saying that they should be spent on public services rather than given to the plaintiff.
The greedy defendant still has their bad behaviour disincentiveised, but the motivation for greedy plaintiff to file lawsuits in the hope of a big payoff goes away.
Then the incentive for reporting the undesirable behavior isn't there, though, and if you've been wronged you have to ask yourself "do I want to spend my next few months in court (likely not being able to work and being quite inconvenienced) just to hurt those that wronged me"? In effect, you'll be making the undesirable action more likely as it will be less likely to be reported and litigated as the only people who can fight back while not gaining anything are those that are well off enough that the undesirable action didn't really hurt them much.
I can be happy they caught a break, while still not feeling any better about the fact that I get screwed over because they caught a break.
The situation described was not merely taking the test over, but taking the test over and doing worse the second time. It's not fair that I take a GPA hit due to OTHERS cheating and getting away without the punishment that was agreed upon (agreed upon being the one defined in the school rules).
If this were the olympics and the first place person legitimately won the race but the last place person cheated. Would it be fair if the race had to be re-run by everyone and the person who one the gold (originally) no longer got it? Surely it's understandable that they would feel cheated out of a gold medal that they rightfully earned. Do you think they'd feel comforted by the fact that the person who now beat them did better this time than before? Or comforted by the fact that the person who cheated wasn't kicked out of the race?
Can't speak for the parent's University, but at my former University it was campus wide policy that a minimum of 10% of all tests be photocopied for the very reason of students changing things claiming that the teacher made a mistake. Bring a false claim, and you fail the class. A 1 in 10 chance of getting an F for a point or two on a test isn't worth it (unless maybe that point would give you a D in a course you were otherwise failing, maybe, but that'd be hard to calculate and still a fair gamble).
If I'm one of the students who lost a letter grade due to the retake, it doesn't particularly make me feel any better that someone else may have done better because of the retake, let alone the fact that the retake was to allow people who cheated to not get kicked out of school as they should have been (at least according to my old school's policies).
The first two episodes are actually a mini-series (about 3 hours in total for the two "episodes"), presumably they have different licensing rights and that's why you can't watch them.