If a reviewer had difficulty getting the correct username in, then a typical user would too. It's an indication there was something wrong with your UI.
This isn't about picking an obscure made up name for an application. This is about using a name that is similar or the same as another well known app to scam people into downloading.
His initial report OF HIS EXPERIENCE was correct. Linux Mint has chosen to hide Google away as an extra, and this resulted, as intended, in the user thinking it wasn't an option. This user stopped there. That's the fault of Mint, not the user.
Do you always believe what other people say, as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions?
khayman80's links are to your own posts, claiming Obama's birth cert to be a fake.
Of course it may be that you no longer belive in the conspiracy theory you used to expound. But denying it just makes you a liar. And reflects on the nonsense you post on other topics, such as AGW.
In 1705, Edmond Hally predicted a visible comet would appear in the sky in 1758. A successful 53 year prediction made at a time when no other person in the world realised comets could be periodic.
Predictions of stuff like flying cars is of course doomed to failure. But spotting a trend and predicting based on it is a perfectly reasonable and successful prediction technique. Both these are of that kind, and so is climate change.
You're a birther? Fuck me, you're an imbecile. I've lost what little respect I had for your opinions. You have to be insane or a deliberate liar to be a birther.
You presume his ethics conflate violence with food animals to violence to humans.
Because he already connected the two.
"These are like people who don't want to know where Meat comes from."
If you think there's value to watching animal slaughter video, but it doesn't change your behaviour towards animals, then the argument for watching human slaughter becomes very weak. It becomes about some sort of personal value of "being able to take it" or "being affected by it. Which is simply selfishness, and doesn't override the propriety of not showing it.
I guess you don't follow US politics. The house has a Republican majority. And they've been blocking the president in everything they can. They are responsible for the problems in the Affordable Care Act.
Because it shows that video level knowledge of what happens to animals in the abattoir wasn't enough to stop you from being a cause of them being killed.
It did as little good as watching a video of the beheading would do.
Did you have an emotional response to the video? That emotional response is what is needed.
No it's not. That's nothing but self serving prurience. It makes you feel proud that you can feel. Which does precisely nothing towards solving the problem of ISIS.
All that's needed is the knowledge that it happened. There is nothing further served by seeing it.
So ISIS is going to stop beheading people because they can't upload it to youtube? Please, please don't make me laugh
Classic strawman. No one has said ISIS will stop beheading people if they can't post it to YouTube.
This is about decency. Just because ISIS don't have any doesn't mean we should drop ours.
It's not in the public interest to show the video. Certain members of the public may find it interesting, but that's a different thing.
The news aspect is fully served by informing people that the beheading has happened. No one needs to see it. It's just prurience.
The people who HAVE seen it and are commenting about the effect it had on them. Well, the world doesn't revolve around them, and how profound it makes them feel to watch a snuff video.
Now... where to start with this abortion? You are measurably wrong on so many counts I don't need to comment.
You have no argument.
if I wanted Fox News, I'd read The Guardian.
Which makes no rational sense. Fox News is a very right wing tabloid like TV station. The Guardian is a mainstream left broadsheet. The closest you get to Fox News in the UK is Sky News, especially when hosted by Kay Burley. But it's far less extreme than Fox.
Which is fine, because as you said, nobody's going to jail anyway. The judge orders you to pay, if you don't owe the money you don't pay, nothing happens. End of story. (At least here in the US. I don't know if England has debtor's prison still, but strongly doubt it.)
If it's a civil matter and you don't pay, then the baliffs come round and take away your possessions for auction. If it's a fine imposed by a judge for a criminal matter, then for sure they'll put you in prison if you don't pay.
Like the business news that fills much of the BBC News channel output, especially in the morning? Or the generic political news that takes it as gospel that the the economy and growth are the most important considerations? Or Question Time that has as by far it's most frequent guest Nigel Farage of UKIP.
What you mean is the parts of the output that you don't like. And people on the other side of the political spectrum also have problems with other parts. Balance means that there are going to be things that you don't like. And everyone else too.
The BBC is never going to be the UK equivalent of Fox News, thankfully, so you aren't ever going to be happy with it. And that's a very good thing.
There is a lesson to be learned here: Don't ever, ever negotiate an agreement with two guys who show up at your door unannounced and claim that it is in your best interest to sign on the dotted line.. or else.
Why? The guy has escaped without punishment. It's a decent result for him. As the URL contained a UK trademark he would have been unlikley to be able to keep it anyway, even without the piracy he was engaged in.
Slashdot Mirror
If a reviewer had difficulty getting the correct username in, then a typical user would too. It's an indication there was something wrong with your UI.
Nonsense. The existence of apps that you wouldn't have approved doesn't indicate that there weren't plenty more that were rejected.
It's a fact that Apple has humans aided by scripts doing the reviewing. For example the reviewers sometimes catch bugs that developers never found.
In fact this new page on Apple's Website indicates that amounts to 8% of rejections.
Perhaps you're referring to some news of which I'm not aware.
First I don't believe in Walled Gardens
MS's walled garden didn't previously have enough of a bar to scammers. Any store without any selection criteria will be predominantly scamware.
(Not including desktop Linux here as there's no one to scam. But definately including Android.)
There's no problem with other apps in the same genre. The problem is where apps use a similar name and/or logo to pass themselves off AS another app.
EA isn't the villain here - scammers are.
This isn't about picking an obscure made up name for an application. This is about using a name that is similar or the same as another well known app to scam people into downloading.
I'm glad to see the scamware get the boot
However your ideological position involves leaving the known scammers there. A good clue that your ideology is no good.
His initial report OF HIS EXPERIENCE was correct. Linux Mint has chosen to hide Google away as an extra, and this resulted, as intended, in the user thinking it wasn't an option. This user stopped there. That's the fault of Mint, not the user.
Do you always believe what other people say, as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions?
khayman80's links are to your own posts, claiming Obama's birth cert to be a fake.
Of course it may be that you no longer belive in the conspiracy theory you used to expound. But denying it just makes you a liar. And reflects on the nonsense you post on other topics, such as AGW.
EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT in the past to accurately predict anything even 20 years in the future has failed MISERABLY and has been LAUGHABLY wrong.
That's quite easily proved wrong. Here's two examples:
Moore's law is a prediction that is just coming up to 50 years old, and has been uncannily accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
In 1705, Edmond Hally predicted a visible comet would appear in the sky in 1758. A successful 53 year prediction made at a time when no other person in the world realised comets could be periodic.
Predictions of stuff like flying cars is of course doomed to failure. But spotting a trend and predicting based on it is a perfectly reasonable and successful prediction technique. Both these are of that kind, and so is climate change.
Shut the fuck up you imbecile. If you can't even accept a birth certificate your head is so far up your own rectum no one can hear you.
You're a birther? Fuck me, you're an imbecile. I've lost what little respect I had for your opinions. You have to be insane or a deliberate liar to be a birther.
You presume his ethics conflate violence with food animals to violence to humans.
Because he already connected the two.
"These are like people who don't want to know where Meat comes from."
If you think there's value to watching animal slaughter video, but it doesn't change your behaviour towards animals, then the argument for watching human slaughter becomes very weak. It becomes about some sort of personal value of "being able to take it" or "being affected by it. Which is simply selfishness, and doesn't override the propriety of not showing it.
Your hate is a perfect match for the terrorists hate. Whilst other people rise above it, you demonstrate that your religion is as flawed as theirs.
I guess you don't follow US politics. The house has a Republican majority. And they've been blocking the president in everything they can. They are responsible for the problems in the Affordable Care Act.
Because it shows that video level knowledge of what happens to animals in the abattoir wasn't enough to stop you from being a cause of them being killed.
It did as little good as watching a video of the beheading would do.
Do you eat meat?
Did you have an emotional response to the video? That emotional response is what is needed.
No it's not. That's nothing but self serving prurience. It makes you feel proud that you can feel. Which does precisely nothing towards solving the problem of ISIS.
All that's needed is the knowledge that it happened. There is nothing further served by seeing it.
So ISIS is going to stop beheading people because they can't upload it to youtube? Please, please don't make me laugh
Classic strawman. No one has said ISIS will stop beheading people if they can't post it to YouTube.
This is about decency. Just because ISIS don't have any doesn't mean we should drop ours.
It's not in the public interest to show the video. Certain members of the public may find it interesting, but that's a different thing.
The news aspect is fully served by informing people that the beheading has happened. No one needs to see it. It's just prurience.
The people who HAVE seen it and are commenting about the effect it had on them. Well, the world doesn't revolve around them, and how profound it makes them feel to watch a snuff video.
Yes.
Now ... where to start with this abortion? You are measurably wrong on so many counts I don't need to comment.
You have no argument.
if I wanted Fox News, I'd read The Guardian.
Which makes no rational sense. Fox News is a very right wing tabloid like TV station. The Guardian is a mainstream left broadsheet. The closest you get to Fox News in the UK is Sky News, especially when hosted by Kay Burley. But it's far less extreme than Fox.
Which is fine, because as you said, nobody's going to jail anyway. The judge orders you to pay, if you don't owe the money you don't pay, nothing happens. End of story. (At least here in the US. I don't know if England has debtor's prison still, but strongly doubt it.)
If it's a civil matter and you don't pay, then the baliffs come round and take away your possessions for auction. If it's a fine imposed by a judge for a criminal matter, then for sure they'll put you in prison if you don't pay.
I'm talking about their news.
Like the business news that fills much of the BBC News channel output, especially in the morning? Or the generic political news that takes it as gospel that the the economy and growth are the most important considerations? Or Question Time that has as by far it's most frequent guest Nigel Farage of UKIP.
What you mean is the parts of the output that you don't like. And people on the other side of the political spectrum also have problems with other parts. Balance means that there are going to be things that you don't like. And everyone else too.
The BBC is never going to be the UK equivalent of Fox News, thankfully, so you aren't ever going to be happy with it. And that's a very good thing.
Bullshit.
There is a lesson to be learned here: Don't ever, ever negotiate an agreement with two guys who show up at your door unannounced and claim that it is in your best interest to sign on the dotted line .. or else.
Why? The guy has escaped without punishment. It's a decent result for him. As the URL contained a UK trademark he would have been unlikley to be able to keep it anyway, even without the piracy he was engaged in.