The big sticking point on renewing the licensing agreement was not (as many people think) either cost or exclusive features (like turn-by-turn); it was branding.
All three of those are issues, and there are others such as Google wanting location data from users. You are not in a position to say which were the crucial issues in the company negotiations. They were not public. You're just going on media and blog speculation.
No it's not. That's not how inheritance taxes work.
The details of how tax is paid, and the notion of who is paying it varies depending where in the world you are. But that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. It's a woods for the trees issue.
Somebody dies. The money goes to someone else. The government takes a cut on the way.
So the questions is, is that cut being taken from the dead person or the living person?
The living person did nothing to either earn the money, nor did they do the things that caused the transaction (dying, and possibly making a will).
Thus it is clearly the dead person that is being taxed, regardless of what and particular tax jurisdiction might decide to word it or calculate it.
For what it's worth none of the tax jurisdictions I have lived in have charged income tax on top of inheritance tax. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't where you are.
No he's not wrong. You don't understand statistics and probability.
An ordinary coin has a 50% chance of landing heads.
If I toss it, and it lands tails. The next time it is no more likely to land heads. It's still 50%.
If I toss it 3 times and it lands on tails each time, the next time it's still 50% chance it'll land on heads.
If I toss it 100 times and every single time it lands on tails, guess what the probability of it landing on heads the next time is? Yup, it's still 50%.
They are independent events. The coin has no memory.
Likewise if there is an X% chance of a asteroid hitting the earth on and particular day, the fact that one has not hit the earth today does not in any way affect the chances of it hitting tomorrow.
They are independent events. One asteroid doesn't know what another asteroid did or did not do yesterday.
Likewise similar myths about choosing lottery numbers based on previous numbers are all wrong. Despite this, the mathematically ignorant nearly all think they are right.
This bears on your pro-gun arguments. You don't understand statistics. You just google and copy from pro-gun sites, anything you think sounds like it supports guns, ignoring the ones that don't sound like they support guns. You have no basis on which to judge their veracity.
You honestly think copying and pasting data for which you don't understand the stats will somehow progress your particular passion. It doesn't.
And you don't even have the manners to attribute the source of your copy and pasting. Which lowers to point of engaging with you even more.
Linking to a a blog post on a pro-gun blog means precisely nothing. I could equally post a link to a gun-control blog debunking NRA gun myths. That too would mean nothing. We can only debate specifics.
The following graphic shows the murder rate and gun ownership relationship for the states in the US, if you have problems reading graphs you will see that if there is a trend it is negative.
First of all, there is again no citation. There are unlabelled states, and a line, claimed to be linear regression for murder rate. Against percentage ownership (again, not gun control).
Considering the blue dots in a cluster at the bottom of the graph, that line does not at all appear to show the trend at all. What appears to be happening is that the single outlying state is creating the slope of the line. That's incredibly bad statistics.
But there's a bigger problem with the combination of your arguments. In another post you tried to undermine the lesson of the UK's 1997 gun control legislation on the basis that the UK's "border crossings are not that tight". Now you're trying to compare US state by US state where there are no controlled border crossings at all.
And then you're off on the racism bit again. Racism does seem to go hand in hand with gun ownership. (There's some stats to chase.)
I have taken my car to the UK a number of times in years past. It has never been searched. I have also never seen any car being searched during or after the crossing. The majority of searches happens on commercial vehicles.
...from continental Europe. Most other internal European borders on the other hand have roads that don't even have checkpoints at the border. You just keep driving and pass a sign on the road. As indeed you do between states in America.
Bring in a car from anywhere other than continental Europe, and it'll be in a bonded warehouse/yard until customs pass it.
Again its dumb to look at the UK and say their borders aren't that tight. It's tighter than most other countries in the world.
Really. In 2006, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect of the gun legislation, but in subsequent years the number of gun related homicides started falling. So, it took ten years before the law had an effect? Not very likely.
Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran's paper was called: "The impact of Australiaâ(TM)s 1996 firearms legislation: a research review with emphasis on data selection, methodological issues, and statistical outcomes"
You're too much of an idiot to distinguish between the UK and Australia.
1) You copy the data from a post on a gun-nut site, which in turn was copied from Facebook. 2) And yet you don't provide attribution. 3) But you don't have the intelligence to realise that the list on it's own means nothing. You didn't copy the argument that goes with it. 4) The data claims to be about gun ownership, NOT gun control law. Hence not the topic under discussion. 5) There are near to 200 countries in the world, not just 31. 5) Following the actual source of the data, the claim is it is derived from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate Both those lists have well over a hundred entries, with well over a hundred in common on the two lists. Thus your data is cherry picked. (At best came from wikipedia in an era when it has far less data than now. Say more than a decade ago. 6) The numbers in your data don't match the numbers on the supposed original source of wikipedia. 7) Finally you post some racist bullshit that's not even supported by your data.
Wouldn't quite work since it would severely hurt the estates of elderly that are dispersing inheritance to the decease's families. You would be surprised at how many non-wealthy people are still able to leave tens of thousands to their children.
So what? It's still taxing the dead. Whether rich or poor the dead won't need it.
As for the living that would get it if it were not taxed: it's a randomly timed windfall that they did not work for. Again, regardless of whether they are rich or middle class, it's still better than taxing earned income.
Access to guns in the UK is more difficult, but it is still rather easy.
You don't live in the UK. You are very much mistaken.
and border crossings are not that tight (unless you are dumb enough to fly).
Again, nonsense. Other than the Irish border with Northern Ireland, there aren't even any land borders. And sea ports and the channel tunnel, whilst less secure than airports, are far more secure than the land borders that most other countries have. "Not that tight" is the purest bullshit I've seen in a while.
And finally, gun laws were significantly tightened up in the UK in 1997, and since then gun related homicides have fallen, completely contradicting your claims of no evidence of correlation.
You could argue, as many clueless morons do, that one could reduce the number of guns, even though all evidence shows that reducing access to guns do in fact not reduce the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns.
Given that there's no such evidence, other than in the NRA's imagination, you must be the clueless moron.
Your strange spelling of "defence" reassures me that you're not even British. I've made my point and backed it up. You haven't backed up what you say, and have now tried to muddy the issue with criminal defamation, which no one was talking about.
WebGL is not yet a web standard. And it still has stability and security problems.
Once those three issues are sorted out then perhaps Apple will use it for iOS. But they certainly wouldn't until they are sorted. For much the same reasons they wouldn't have Flash.
So how should a startup company meet such a standard?
By starting somewhere else. Just as my company did.
Exactly. iOS is for people who want to be in jail. Stockholm syndrome anyone?
That's the amusing thing about you open-source types. You talk about freedom, but you actually want to restrict people's choices. It's not enough for you that Android is available and appears to fit your desires. You feel you have to destroy other people's choices. Thus reducing the field of choice.
Neither do Android users. They can just search Google, which indexes even competitors' markets just like Progressive auto insurance gives you several competitors' prices.
Actually, not being a web developer I wasn't aware of this, but accelerometer has been available to web-apps since iOS 4.2. And camera access came with iOS6. Also, with permission from the user.
Would it be even safer to require developers to have "relevant industry experience", "financial stability", and a "secure office not located in a residence and not shared with another business" before being allowed to sign up for the iOS developer program?
It would, and that's the standard I had to meet before writing software for Nokia. I suspect you got them from the games console developers requirements, which are similar.
For one thing, most != all. For another, I don't know about where you live, but in my home town, they have a Target, a Walmart, and a Meijer just within a few blocks of each other, so people have a choice of which hypermarket to choose.
Sure. And when they buy iOS they've made their choice of hypermarket. They have the additional benefit of knowing that when they look for an app in the hypermarket, they are seeing everything. They don't have to search in multiple hypermarkets to find their complete range of choices.
Yes but it's so wide open it would be very difficult to prove she's lying. She says they damaged her house, he says they didn't.
That's only one of the statements she made in the review. Others are not a matter of opinion but of fact, and ones that are trivially easy to judge - such as the outcome of a previous court case.
Again, no one has to prove she's lying. She has to show that she told the truth.
this lawsuit worked then car manufactures could sue eveytime someone wrote a review saying a car interior felt "cheap".
Giving opinions in reviews is protected in law, and that would come under this category. Several of the statements the woman made though were not opinions but claimed statements of fact, which are not protected unless true, and unless she can prove them to be true, she's going to lose.
The secrecy of the code is protected by law, and you need a considerable amount of evidence to get a court order to inspect it, if you can get one at all.
Of course you do. Just like a search warrant for property. Or are you OK with the police searching your house on a whim?
There's no justification for searching the source code unless a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed then there must be evidence of it from the behaviour of the software, not it's source.
You're just dealing in paranoia. And that is a mental problem. Hence "insane".
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e. whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK. But of course it's up to the person who made the accusation to prove that it was indeed true.
It's not for the harmed party to prove what was said about them was false.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
Yes, we all know it. It's for criminal law, not civil law. Libel is civil law.
Slashdot Mirror
The big sticking point on renewing the licensing agreement was not (as many people think) either cost or exclusive features (like turn-by-turn); it was branding.
All three of those are issues, and there are others such as Google wanting location data from users. You are not in a position to say which were the crucial issues in the company negotiations. They were not public. You're just going on media and blog speculation.
No it's not. That's not how inheritance taxes work.
The details of how tax is paid, and the notion of who is paying it varies depending where in the world you are. But that doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. It's a woods for the trees issue.
Somebody dies. The money goes to someone else. The government takes a cut on the way.
So the questions is, is that cut being taken from the dead person or the living person?
The living person did nothing to either earn the money, nor did they do the things that caused the transaction (dying, and possibly making a will).
Thus it is clearly the dead person that is being taxed, regardless of what and particular tax jurisdiction might decide to word it or calculate it.
For what it's worth none of the tax jurisdictions I have lived in have charged income tax on top of inheritance tax. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't where you are.
No he's not wrong. You don't understand statistics and probability.
An ordinary coin has a 50% chance of landing heads.
If I toss it, and it lands tails. The next time it is no more likely to land heads. It's still 50%.
If I toss it 3 times and it lands on tails each time, the next time it's still 50% chance it'll land on heads.
If I toss it 100 times and every single time it lands on tails, guess what the probability of it landing on heads the next time is? Yup, it's still 50%.
They are independent events. The coin has no memory.
Likewise if there is an X% chance of a asteroid hitting the earth on and particular day, the fact that one has not hit the earth today does not in any way affect the chances of it hitting tomorrow.
They are independent events. One asteroid doesn't know what another asteroid did or did not do yesterday.
Likewise similar myths about choosing lottery numbers based on previous numbers are all wrong. Despite this, the mathematically ignorant nearly all think they are right.
This bears on your pro-gun arguments. You don't understand statistics. You just google and copy from pro-gun sites, anything you think sounds like it supports guns, ignoring the ones that don't sound like they support guns. You have no basis on which to judge their veracity.
You honestly think copying and pasting data for which you don't understand the stats will somehow progress your particular passion. It doesn't.
And you don't even have the manners to attribute the source of your copy and pasting. Which lowers to point of engaging with you even more.
Linking to a a blog post on a pro-gun blog means precisely nothing. I could equally post a link to a gun-control blog debunking NRA gun myths. That too would mean nothing. We can only debate specifics.
The following graphic shows the murder rate and gun ownership relationship for the states in the US, if you have problems reading graphs you will see that if there is a trend it is negative.
First of all, there is again no citation. There are unlabelled states, and a line, claimed to be linear regression for murder rate. Against percentage ownership (again, not gun control).
Considering the blue dots in a cluster at the bottom of the graph, that line does not at all appear to show the trend at all. What appears to be happening is that the single outlying state is creating the slope of the line. That's incredibly bad statistics.
But there's a bigger problem with the combination of your arguments. In another post you tried to undermine the lesson of the UK's 1997 gun control legislation on the basis that the UK's "border crossings are not that tight". Now you're trying to compare US state by US state where there are no controlled border crossings at all.
And then you're off on the racism bit again. Racism does seem to go hand in hand with gun ownership. (There's some stats to chase.)
I have taken my car to the UK a number of times in years past. It has never been searched. I have also never seen any car being searched during or after the crossing. The majority of searches happens on commercial vehicles.
...from continental Europe. Most other internal European borders on the other hand have roads that don't even have checkpoints at the border. You just keep driving and pass a sign on the road. As indeed you do between states in America.
Bring in a car from anywhere other than continental Europe, and it'll be in a bonded warehouse/yard until customs pass it.
Again its dumb to look at the UK and say their borders aren't that tight. It's tighter than most other countries in the world.
Really. In 2006, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect of the gun legislation, but in subsequent years the number of gun related homicides started falling. So, it took ten years before the law had an effect? Not very likely.
Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran's paper was called:
"The impact of Australiaâ(TM)s 1996 firearms legislation: a research review with emphasis on data selection, methodological issues, and statistical outcomes"
You're too much of an idiot to distinguish between the UK and Australia.
What's wrong with this? Let me count the ways.
1) You copy the data from a post on a gun-nut site, which in turn was copied from Facebook.
2) And yet you don't provide attribution.
3) But you don't have the intelligence to realise that the list on it's own means nothing. You didn't copy the argument that goes with it.
4) The data claims to be about gun ownership, NOT gun control law. Hence not the topic under discussion.
5) There are near to 200 countries in the world, not just 31.
5) Following the actual source of the data, the claim is it is derived from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Both those lists have well over a hundred entries, with well over a hundred in common on the two lists. Thus your data is cherry picked. (At best came from wikipedia in an era when it has far less data than now. Say more than a decade ago.
6) The numbers in your data don't match the numbers on the supposed original source of wikipedia.
7) Finally you post some racist bullshit that's not even supported by your data.
You are a moron.
Wouldn't quite work since it would severely hurt the estates of elderly that are dispersing inheritance to the decease's families. You would be surprised at how many non-wealthy people are still able to leave tens of thousands to their children.
So what? It's still taxing the dead. Whether rich or poor the dead won't need it.
As for the living that would get it if it were not taxed: it's a randomly timed windfall that they did not work for. Again, regardless of whether they are rich or middle class, it's still better than taxing earned income.
Access to guns in the UK is more difficult, but it is still rather easy.
You don't live in the UK. You are very much mistaken.
and border crossings are not that tight (unless you are dumb enough to fly).
Again, nonsense. Other than the Irish border with Northern Ireland, there aren't even any land borders. And sea ports and the channel tunnel, whilst less secure than airports, are far more secure than the land borders that most other countries have. "Not that tight" is the purest bullshit I've seen in a while.
And finally, gun laws were significantly tightened up in the UK in 1997, and since then gun related homicides have fallen, completely contradicting your claims of no evidence of correlation.
You could argue, as many clueless morons do, that one could reduce the number of guns, even though all evidence shows that reducing access to guns do in fact not reduce the number of homicidal maniacs with access to guns.
Given that there's no such evidence, other than in the NRA's imagination, you must be the clueless moron.
I don't want or need it either. I have an iPhone.
Once again you're trying to move the goalposts after the goal has been scored.
"the defendant must prove at least one the following elements to avoid liability for libel:
The [substantial] truth of the defamatory communication."
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/legal/legaltopics/defendingagainstlibel
Your strange spelling of "defence" reassures me that you're not even British. I've made my point and backed it up. You haven't backed up what you say, and have now tried to muddy the issue with criminal defamation, which no one was talking about.
WebGL is not yet a web standard. And it still has stability and security problems.
Once those three issues are sorted out then perhaps Apple will use it for iOS. But they certainly wouldn't until they are sorted. For much the same reasons they wouldn't have Flash.
So how should a startup company meet such a standard?
By starting somewhere else. Just as my company did.
Exactly. iOS is for people who want to be in jail. Stockholm syndrome anyone?
That's the amusing thing about you open-source types. You talk about freedom, but you actually want to restrict people's choices. It's not enough for you that Android is available and appears to fit your desires. You feel you have to destroy other people's choices. Thus reducing the field of choice.
Neither do Android users. They can just search Google, which indexes even competitors' markets just like Progressive auto insurance gives you several competitors' prices.
You mean like this?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=android+fart+apps&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=QBfCUMarILP34QTNtoDwAQ&safe=strict
I hope not. I really hope you don't consider this a suitable substitute for a dedicated search for apps in a store.
Actually, not being a web developer I wasn't aware of this, but accelerometer has been available to web-apps since iOS 4.2. And camera access came with iOS6. Also, with permission from the user.
So I guess that settles that one.
Would it be even safer to require developers to have "relevant industry experience", "financial stability", and a "secure office not located in a residence and not shared with another business" before being allowed to sign up for the iOS developer program?
It would, and that's the standard I had to meet before writing software for Nokia. I suspect you got them from the games console developers requirements, which are similar.
For one thing, most != all. For another, I don't know about where you live, but in my home town, they have a Target, a Walmart, and a Meijer just within a few blocks of each other, so people have a choice of which hypermarket to choose.
Sure. And when they buy iOS they've made their choice of hypermarket. They have the additional benefit of knowing that when they look for an app in the hypermarket, they are seeing everything. They don't have to search in multiple hypermarkets to find their complete range of choices.
Yes but it's so wide open it would be very difficult to prove she's lying. She says they damaged her house, he says they didn't.
That's only one of the statements she made in the review. Others are not a matter of opinion but of fact, and ones that are trivially easy to judge - such as the outcome of a previous court case.
Again, no one has to prove she's lying. She has to show that she told the truth.
this lawsuit worked then car manufactures could sue eveytime someone wrote a review saying a car interior felt "cheap".
Giving opinions in reviews is protected in law, and that would come under this category. Several of the statements the woman made though were not opinions but claimed statements of fact, which are not protected unless true, and unless she can prove them to be true, she's going to lose.
Then find me a single open source program that has been found to have any illegal code embedded. A worm, a trojan, anything. Good luck!
Really? The third link on a google search:
http://blog.seculert.com/2012/02/citadel-open-source-malware-project.html
The secrecy of the code is protected by law, and you need a considerable amount of evidence to get a court order to inspect it, if you can get one at all.
Of course you do. Just like a search warrant for property. Or are you OK with the police searching your house on a whim?
There's no justification for searching the source code unless a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed then there must be evidence of it from the behaviour of the software, not it's source.
You're just dealing in paranoia. And that is a mental problem. Hence "insane".
You're mistaken.
She's not the one attempting to use the force of law to get her way.
That's not a legal argument.
You're wrong.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e. whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
Your blog says you went to law school. One can only assume you were kicked out pretty soon. Because you're wrong on this fairly basic element of law.
The plaintiff has several things to prove, but the falsity of the statement isn't one of them.
"the defendant must prove at least one the following elements to avoid liability for libel:
The [substantial] truth of the defamatory communication."
http://www.pa-newspaper.org/legal/legaltopics/defendingagainstlibel
As I said.
Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK. But of course it's up to the person who made the accusation to prove that it was indeed true.
It's not for the harmed party to prove what was said about them was false.
This is of course the way it should be.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
Yes, we all know it. It's for criminal law, not civil law. Libel is civil law.
If she lost it's because she couldn't show beyond reasonable doubt that it was true.