So where did you get the idea that the contract with Apple says "that Apple will give him $X for every unit sold, even when submitted by some other party"? The lack of proof for that is your problem.
There is no need to explicitly state "even when submitted by some other party. App authors are not responsible for Apple's systems -- Apple is.
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.
That's an agreement between Apple and the infringing party. It doesn't idemnify Apple, it just gives them legal recourse to sue the infringing party to recover any losses incurred if Apple loses the case.
The original author of this game has no contractual relationship with the fraudulent uploader, so the contract doesn't apply to him.
The original author does have a contract with Apple, saying that Apple will give him $X for every unit sold. Apple therefore owe him that amount under their current contract. Apple's lack of process to prevent this is Apple's problem.
In a crash, the human body can become a projectile weapon. The biggest threat is to other passengers in the same car, but a human being can pass through a windscreen if travelling with enough momentum. Not to mention convertibles.
I gave up on trying to rationalise free will during first-year AI at uni. We were discussing it, and I wanted to bang my head on the table to prove I had free will. But then I would only be doing it to prove a preconception, which meant it didn't really prove anything at all. It's kind of weird wanting to bash your brains out to prove to yourself you're not a machine. As I said, I gave up worrying about it, cos it's one of those things you can't know.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
How is that relevant?
I was responding to the claim that religion "breed ignorance". Religion has historically sparked intelligent enquiry as well as hampering it. The medieval Catholic church was not afraid of science as it saw science as another way of understanding their God's laws of creation.
Or are you suggesting that because ancient monks practiced rudimentary science then religious consecration equals education of modern science? You seem to be suggesting that because Mendel made some breeding experiments in 1856, religious monks now know everything biology, astronomy and physics as of 2011 can teach us, surely that can't be the case.
...? What message were you reading?!? Seriously, dude, you've taken overinterpretation to a new level here. All I'm saying is that religion is not incompatible with science, and definitely doesn't discourage science, except when it sees a particular moral problem -- eg embryonic stem cell research. Whether you agree with it or not, any rational person should be able to understand why some people are against it.
And seriously are you saying evolutionary science invented racism? I'm pretty sure it predates the bronze age.
No, I'm suggesting that the term racism was invented by science and is very revealing of the pervasiveness of the belief in different "species" of human being. There was no evidence of any speciation within the human population, but because people were already racist, they did not revise this view for a very long time, even when a simple analogy with animal studies showed the parallel evolution of such similar organisms from such different ancestors to be unlikely to the point of being preposterous.
The mythology that kids are subjected to in a religious household is a psychological barrier that must be overcome later in life, if they want to advance.
That's a self-defeating argument, because if they want to advance in an increasingly religious society, they'll need religion to make them part of the in-crowd....
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
And on the flip-side I've met people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's what happens and requires monkeys giving birth to humans. Ignorance is not the sole preserve of religion. And neither is compartmentalisation. Most sciences suffer from compartmentalisation in their practitioners' thinking. Take for example (oh irony of ironies) evolution. The model of divergent evolution became widely accepted quite some time ago... for most animals. But up until a few decades ago, the model of parallel evolution lived on for one particular animal: the human being. The prevaling belief was that Africans evolved from Cro Magnon, and Europeans evolved from Neaderthal. I believe paleontologist were still looking for "the ancestor" of the Chinese. This is why "racism" is called what it is -- because they genuinely believed we were completely different animals.
HAL.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
I would start with observing an aggregation of rational purposeful behavior that generally works in the best interest of the person, but which sometimes violates societal expectations, better judgment, convenience, or personal programming.... My assumption is that we have deep-rooted programming driving us to survive and to make decisions that enhance the likelihood of our survival.
But if we are programmed to survive, anything that is in our best interests and disregards outside factors is surely expected...?
I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
Weak -- how so? We can already identify physiological differences in the brain that predispose people to religious experience regardless of upbringing, and we have a statistical model that shows a correlation between certain alleles and these neurological differences. There is a fairly strong premise there, if you ask me.
This doesn't provide us "an answer", though -- the questions it opens up are far more fundamental. Even if you are 100% convinced there is/are no god(s), should you be pushing that idea on people who are prewired to belief in such things? One of the arguments against religion has been the matter of sexual repression, which does have a negative impact on some people's lives. The problem with sexual repression is that it is the denial of a natural urge, and some people are moved to self-loathing by the fact that they continue to have these urges that they feel they shouldn't. But if religious feeling is a natural urge governed by genetic and development factors, then the same argument goes for religion: asking a genetically religious person to be atheist is repression, and may result in him or her being unhappy.
Then there's also the question of what happens with the gap. If you have people with an unfulfilled need for something to believe in, they will surely find something. I would argue that the pick-n-mix New Age religions are the result of that. Wiccans may claim that "blessed be" is an old English witch thing, but it is not. "Blessed be the name of the Lord" is a relatively modern translation from Latin, and demonstrably so. The use of the subjunctive was already archaic in English by the time of the Protestant Reformation (which is the first time Christian texts were put in the vernacular, and certainly was massively outdated by the time the Catholic church allowed vernacular translations of the mass (mass was still in said Latin throughout my father's childhood, and I'm not old). But the Latin uses the subjunctive, and there is no way to translate "Blessed be..." to English, because that sort of expression does not exist in current language.
So the Wiccans justify themselves on demonstrably false premises, whereas (for example) Druids have no demonstrable roots in modern religious practices so their claim to be the continuation of a long-banned religion may actually be genuine. The lack of any written tradition within historical druidism makes it impossible to say.
Or can a fully secular "greater good" take the place of religion?
Are the atheist trade union activists and peace protestors driven by the same genetic factors as their religious counterparts?
All of these are very interesting questions, and that's what science is about: interesting questions.
If you're father was on a training course that was a "holiday" rather than training, he should report the training provider to the JobCentre/DWP/whoever paid for it.
The purpose of the funds he got was to train him. If he enjoyed training, all to the good. If he sat around and didn't actually receive any training, then the training provider is cheating the public purse, not him.
Nope, it was a Japanese game and was named after a hockey puck. The Americans were worried about kids making the P an F, so changed the name on import. The UK cabinets marked "Puck-man" didn't come via America.
It's a downright disgrace that they still call hockey pucks "pucks" because someone might call them "fucks". They don't, but they might. And that's disgraceful.
Oh, and if anyone wants to trust the reviewer's knowledge of ergonomics over mine, notice that in the photo he is using a laptop on a riser without an external keyboard. That's a massive, massive ergonomics no-no.
Ah, no. That thing is an "ErgoSlider", or possibly an "ErgoSlider Plus".
As you can tell from the name, the "ErgoSlider Plus+" is something completely different and totally new.
Anyway, on a more serious note, I have read several reviews complaining about the ErgoSlider causing cramps and pains. There's no easy way to carry out the rotating motion, for one thing. For another, wrist rests are bad for your wrists. Wrist rests should only be used while resting because you are supposed to keep your wrist straight and neutral while carrying out fine hand movements. The ErgoSlider has you dropping your wrist habitually, and it leads to increased movement of the wrist during operation, leading to strain on the tendons and nerves, particularly within the carpal tunnel.
No rational person would believe that insulting someone else's beliefs is a good way to win them over to their way of thinking. That leaves only two possibilities:
1: You're an unpleasant little troll.
2: You're irrational and illogical. Delusional, even.
First identify which one it is, then work on changing it and you'll find debates a lot more productive.
I have to say that while everyone is jumping on this as being about piracy if I was working on a homebrew app I would definitely want it to run from the launcher instead of requiring a complete reboot into my own loader environment. For instance a version of MAME that run from the launcher would be very cool.
Erm... do you know any MAME user who doesn't run pirated ROMs? You could have picked a better example of non-piracy.
But this new company was not being creative or producing new stuff -- what's your problem?
Copyright promotes creativity by protecting authors from getting ripped off by publishers who want to make money off someone else's work. Here justice is served.
Obviously though, it's not that he's naturally too good, but that he's just playing the same effing game he's been playing for the last 10 years, with slightly better graphics and different maps. Does a championship runner complain that tracks are getting shorter? No, he's just getting better at the sport.
You're right though. There's only so far that these games can go before the challenge runs out, and then it's time to find a new hobby.
Games need a new evolutionary kick start. Nintendo recognised this, and look at the effects the Wii has had on the market.
There are several good ideas out there that haven't yet been done to death. A decent remake of even something ancient like The Sentinel would keep most gamers occupied for days.
Slashdot Mirror
So where did you get the idea that the contract with Apple says "that Apple will give him $X for every unit sold, even when submitted by some other party"? The lack of proof for that is your problem.
There is no need to explicitly state "even when submitted by some other party. App authors are not responsible for Apple's systems -- Apple is.
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.
That's an agreement between Apple and the infringing party. It doesn't idemnify Apple, it just gives them legal recourse to sue the infringing party to recover any losses incurred if Apple loses the case.
The original author of this game has no contractual relationship with the fraudulent uploader, so the contract doesn't apply to him.
The original author does have a contract with Apple, saying that Apple will give him $X for every unit sold. Apple therefore owe him that amount under their current contract. Apple's lack of process to prevent this is Apple's problem.
HAL.
I don't see any reason that one can release the source code but keep characters used in the story under a stricter copyright.
I agree. Doesn't the GPL cover the whole work? I think they may be confusing their GPL and their LGPL....
HAL.
No he couldn't, cos it makes you blind.
In which case:
To err is human, to error is computer.
;-)
HAL.
In a crash, the human body can become a projectile weapon. The biggest threat is to other passengers in the same car, but a human being can pass through a windscreen if travelling with enough momentum. Not to mention convertibles.
"To error" is grammatically impossible. To point this out is pedantic.
I gave up on trying to rationalise free will during first-year AI at uni. We were discussing it, and I wanted to bang my head on the table to prove I had free will. But then I would only be doing it to prove a preconception, which meant it didn't really prove anything at all. It's kind of weird wanting to bash your brains out to prove to yourself you're not a machine. As I said, I gave up worrying about it, cos it's one of those things you can't know.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
How is that relevant?
I was responding to the claim that religion "breed ignorance". Religion has historically sparked intelligent enquiry as well as hampering it. The medieval Catholic church was not afraid of science as it saw science as another way of understanding their God's laws of creation.
Or are you suggesting that because ancient monks practiced rudimentary science then religious consecration equals education of modern science? You seem to be suggesting that because Mendel made some breeding experiments in 1856, religious monks now know everything biology, astronomy and physics as of 2011 can teach us, surely that can't be the case.
...? What message were you reading?!? Seriously, dude, you've taken overinterpretation to a new level here. All I'm saying is that religion is not incompatible with science, and definitely doesn't discourage science, except when it sees a particular moral problem -- eg embryonic stem cell research. Whether you agree with it or not, any rational person should be able to understand why some people are against it.
And seriously are you saying evolutionary science invented racism? I'm pretty sure it predates the bronze age.
No, I'm suggesting that the term racism was invented by science and is very revealing of the pervasiveness of the belief in different "species" of human being. There was no evidence of any speciation within the human population, but because people were already racist, they did not revise this view for a very long time, even when a simple analogy with animal studies showed the parallel evolution of such similar organisms from such different ancestors to be unlikely to the point of being preposterous.
HAL.
The mythology that kids are subjected to in a religious household is a psychological barrier that must be overcome later in life, if they want to advance.
That's a self-defeating argument, because if they want to advance in an increasingly religious society, they'll need religion to make them part of the in-crowd....
HAL.
Simple, it's individuality and rationalism went wrong. Religion not only breeds conformity, it breeds ignorance, even an individualist person who deflects from the mainstream will run bumbling in the dark because they literally don't know any better.
Unfortunately the majority of science in history was carried out by religious institutions. Astronomy came out of astrology, the university system was founded by catholic monks, and it was Muslim scholars who introduced the world to Al-gebra.
That and, I'm sorry to be condescending, but besides group solidarity, religiosity is related to an ability to believe contradictory statements -mental compartmentalization- they call it, and I'm pretty sure being dumb enough to not even find the contradiction helps a lot. So a radically individualist person can still be religious, but I think the ignorance aspect plays the major part. I mean, I've personally known people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's wrong and requires monkeys giving birth to humans, it really is that awful.
And on the flip-side I've met people who don't know a thing about evolution other than it's what happens and requires monkeys giving birth to humans. Ignorance is not the sole preserve of religion. And neither is compartmentalisation. Most sciences suffer from compartmentalisation in their practitioners' thinking. Take for example (oh irony of ironies) evolution. The model of divergent evolution became widely accepted quite some time ago... for most animals. But up until a few decades ago, the model of parallel evolution lived on for one particular animal: the human being. The prevaling belief was that Africans evolved from Cro Magnon, and Europeans evolved from Neaderthal. I believe paleontologist were still looking for "the ancestor" of the Chinese. This is why "racism" is called what it is -- because they genuinely believed we were completely different animals.
HAL.
I wonder how far into science education are those Daoists and Indian Yogis and what their IQs are. I mean seriously it would be an interesting thing to know, I could of course be completely wrong.
Must be one complex and accurate model to figure it will stabilize at less than 100%.
Why? Never heard of equilibrium?
HAL.
Out of curiosity, why are you so convinced that determinism is true?
He's genetically predisposed to seeing it that way... ;-p
HAL
I would start with observing an aggregation of rational purposeful behavior that generally works in the best interest of the person, but which sometimes violates societal expectations, better judgment, convenience, or personal programming.... My assumption is that we have deep-rooted programming driving us to survive and to make decisions that enhance the likelihood of our survival.
But if we are programmed to survive, anything that is in our best interests and disregards outside factors is surely expected...?
I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
Weak -- how so? We can already identify physiological differences in the brain that predispose people to religious experience regardless of upbringing, and we have a statistical model that shows a correlation between certain alleles and these neurological differences. There is a fairly strong premise there, if you ask me.
This doesn't provide us "an answer", though -- the questions it opens up are far more fundamental. Even if you are 100% convinced there is/are no god(s), should you be pushing that idea on people who are prewired to belief in such things? One of the arguments against religion has been the matter of sexual repression, which does have a negative impact on some people's lives. The problem with sexual repression is that it is the denial of a natural urge, and some people are moved to self-loathing by the fact that they continue to have these urges that they feel they shouldn't. But if religious feeling is a natural urge governed by genetic and development factors, then the same argument goes for religion: asking a genetically religious person to be atheist is repression, and may result in him or her being unhappy.
Then there's also the question of what happens with the gap. If you have people with an unfulfilled need for something to believe in, they will surely find something. I would argue that the pick-n-mix New Age religions are the result of that. Wiccans may claim that "blessed be" is an old English witch thing, but it is not. "Blessed be the name of the Lord" is a relatively modern translation from Latin, and demonstrably so. The use of the subjunctive was already archaic in English by the time of the Protestant Reformation (which is the first time Christian texts were put in the vernacular, and certainly was massively outdated by the time the Catholic church allowed vernacular translations of the mass (mass was still in said Latin throughout my father's childhood, and I'm not old). But the Latin uses the subjunctive, and there is no way to translate "Blessed be..." to English, because that sort of expression does not exist in current language.
So the Wiccans justify themselves on demonstrably false premises, whereas (for example) Druids have no demonstrable roots in modern religious practices so their claim to be the continuation of a long-banned religion may actually be genuine. The lack of any written tradition within historical druidism makes it impossible to say.
Or can a fully secular "greater good" take the place of religion?
Are the atheist trade union activists and peace protestors driven by the same genetic factors as their religious counterparts?
All of these are very interesting questions, and that's what science is about: interesting questions.
HAL.
If you're father was on a training course that was a "holiday" rather than training, he should report the training provider to the JobCentre/DWP/whoever paid for it.
The purpose of the funds he got was to train him. If he enjoyed training, all to the good. If he sat around and didn't actually receive any training, then the training provider is cheating the public purse, not him.
HAL.
Also, plenty of USB devices require power, so one USB port on the tablet itself would probably not support them.
So... we just need to reintroduce the concept of a monitor with integrated USB hub. The docking station is dead, long live the USB-hub-monitor!
Nope, it was a Japanese game and was named after a hockey puck. The Americans were worried about kids making the P an F, so changed the name on import. The UK cabinets marked "Puck-man" didn't come via America.
It's a downright disgrace that they still call hockey pucks "pucks" because someone might call them "fucks". They don't, but they might. And that's disgraceful.
HAL.
Oh, and if anyone wants to trust the reviewer's knowledge of ergonomics over mine, notice that in the photo he is using a laptop on a riser without an external keyboard. That's a massive, massive ergonomics no-no.
HAL.
Ah, no. That thing is an "ErgoSlider", or possibly an "ErgoSlider Plus".
As you can tell from the name, the "ErgoSlider Plus+" is something completely different and totally new.
Anyway, on a more serious note, I have read several reviews complaining about the ErgoSlider causing cramps and pains. There's no easy way to carry out the rotating motion, for one thing. For another, wrist rests are bad for your wrists. Wrist rests should only be used while resting because you are supposed to keep your wrist straight and neutral while carrying out fine hand movements. The ErgoSlider has you dropping your wrist habitually, and it leads to increased movement of the wrist during operation, leading to strain on the tendons and nerves, particularly within the carpal tunnel.
HAL
Now what are we to make of that post?
No rational person would believe that insulting someone else's beliefs is a good way to win them over to their way of thinking. That leaves only two possibilities:
1: You're an unpleasant little troll.
2: You're irrational and illogical. Delusional, even.
First identify which one it is, then work on changing it and you'll find debates a lot more productive.
HAL
I have to say that while everyone is jumping on this as being about piracy if I was working on a homebrew app I would definitely want it to run from the launcher instead of requiring a complete reboot into my own loader environment. For instance a version of MAME that run from the launcher would be very cool.
Erm... do you know any MAME user who doesn't run pirated ROMs? You could have picked a better example of non-piracy.
Not a criticism, just an observation....
But this new company was not being creative or producing new stuff -- what's your problem?
Copyright promotes creativity by protecting authors from getting ripped off by publishers who want to make money off someone else's work. Here justice is served.
HAL.
Obviously though, it's not that he's naturally too good, but that he's just playing the same effing game he's been playing for the last 10 years, with slightly better graphics and different maps. Does a championship runner complain that tracks are getting shorter? No, he's just getting better at the sport. You're right though. There's only so far that these games can go before the challenge runs out, and then it's time to find a new hobby. Games need a new evolutionary kick start. Nintendo recognised this, and look at the effects the Wii has had on the market. There are several good ideas out there that haven't yet been done to death. A decent remake of even something ancient like The Sentinel would keep most gamers occupied for days.
Somebody will be suing claiming it causes cancer. Or bronchitis at the very least.
We've been waiting for the first major nanotech lawsuit for a while, and this may be it.
HAL.