Recent Posts

9326

Living Room / Re: Limewire shutdown, permanently

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2010, 08:09 PM »

I find the situation oddly analogous to guns... I know... Somebody is sighing out there, but just hear it out...

-Renegade (October 28, 2010, 06:38 PM)

Yes, that would be me....

It would have been better if you had based your analogy on the knife - this is much closer to the mark.

A knife is a tool whose use is mostly benign as opposed to a firearm, (not gun, they are a subset of firearms), as you have pointed out, whose purpose isn't.

By making the comparison to a firearm you are immediately saying that the software was created intentionally to be malignant, ie. for pirating.  As such, you should have no problem with it being put down.

-4wd (October 28, 2010, 07:13 PM)

My analogies are by no means complete above. You've pointed out a different one that is more inclined towards the Limewire case or inclined towards a more objective view. I meant for the gun analogy to be extreme and skewed towards the RIAA case (gun control), hence my initial warning about laughter/sighing. (Gun control seems to me to be similar to invoking Godwin's law -- an extreme case.)

The McMillan analogy nicely points out the contradiction in the court ruling though, which is where I wanted to go. i.e. If you accept things at face value (the RIAA case/perspective), then why should McMillan be allowed to produce weapons with obvious malign intent? It's ok for these fellows over here, but not these other fellows?

Ahem... Rule of law perhaps?

But, I think you're right that "knife" would make a better analogy for an objective look at the topic. "Firearm/gun" is skewed and points out hypocrisy.

9327

Living Room / Re: Facebook is Down but Facebook is Google

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2010, 06:45 PM »

Sigh... This is bizarre...



Yet again! This happens regularly.

9328

Living Room / Re: Limewire shutdown, permanently

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2010, 06:38 PM »

"Chilling" -- Seems like a very appropriate description.

I find the situation oddly analogous to guns... I know... Somebody is sighing out there, but just hear it out...

Guns are weapons. Their original and primary intended purpose is to kill. This is not a debatable point.

The original intended object of the killing is people. Again, not an issue for debate.

Today, the intended object of killing is 1 of 3:

• People (murder/war)
• Animals (hunting)
• Targets, as in paper targets and the like

Now, nobody really objects to guns being used for target practice. (Ok, a slight exaggeration, but close enough.)

Guns are merely instruments, tools.

In the same way, software is merely a tool.

Now, I can write keylogging software, and nobody will be upset. However, if I use that inappropriately, well, mission control, we have a problem.

Gun control in Canada limits civilians to small arms like hunting rifles and shotguns, except for registered collectors. In the US, you can have military-grade small arms like M-16s or whatever -- fully automatic weapons.

Is the "attack" on Limewire an attack on "guns" in general, or is it an effort towards "gun control"?

Here are a few analogs that we need to figure out first:

Guns :: Limewire
Fully automatic guns :: Limewire
Guns :: Software
Fully automatic guns :: Software
Weapons :: Limewire
Weapons :: Software
Military (large) weapons :: Limewire
Military (large) weapons :: Software

Gun control :: Limiting software in a particular category or with a particular feature set
Gun control :: Limiting software

Killing :: Stealing
Killing :: Downloading
(Note in these 2 analogies the object is not stated.)


Some of those comparisons are simply nonsense, e.g. "Fully automatic weapons :: Software".

But depending on which view you take, you may end up at a different conclusion.

Remember, it used to be illegal to export encryption in the US as encryption was categorized as military weaponry. Today it's a different story.

Back to the issue...

Perhaps you've seen the bumper sticker:

Guns don't kill people. I do.

Which is a parody of:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The analogy is:

Software doesn't steal copyrighted material. People steal copyrighted material.

Is that applicable?

Now, if you were to manufacture a gun and market it as "the people stopper", you'd clearly be saying that it is good at killing people. However, this is essentially already out there. The McMillan company is a popular manufacturer of sniper rifles, for which their intended purpose is to kill PEOPLE. Again, "sniper rifles are for killing people" is trivial and not an issue for debate. "Snipers kill people" and "hunters kill animals".

So we know that there are already weapons out there with the primary intended purpose of killing people.

Does that differ from the case where you have software with the primary intended purpose of stealing/downloading copyrighted material?

To what degree would you go with the gun analogies? If at all? Or further?

If you believe in gun control, I'm willing to be that you also side closer to the RIAA on this issue, while if you don't believe in gun control, you likely side closer to Limewire's position. (Comparatively in the context of that sentence, that is, and not necessarily in a broader context.)

Or perhaps, like me, you believe in gun control in one form or another, but are more inclined to view restricting software like this as a potentially dangerous path to go down. I'm kind of undecided at the moment. My fear is that this will be used as a platform to launch broader attacks on software: i.e. As the legal system is built upon precedents, this follows.

I'm in the software game as that's how I make my living. So it's not in my best interests to have people stealing/downloading my software without paying me. I need to get paid so that I can pay my bills. At the same time though, I'm concerned about limiting freedom. It's a tough issue, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand on it at the moment.

9329

Living Room / Re: I'm thinking about learning how to program.

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2010, 07:33 AM »

That depends on if he's using any generic collections or LINQ . Better: right-click anywhere in your C# code file, select 'Organize Usings', then 'Remove and Sort'.

-phitsc (October 28, 2010, 07:27 AM)

Good point.

Another thing to take notice of is the plethora of fantastic tools you get in your context menu in Visual Studio.

One that I particularly love is the refactoring.

Refactor > Encapsulate field is really useful.

You right-click on the first line, use that, then you get 5 lines for free!

Code: C# [Select]

1. private string _something;
2.  
3.         public string Something
4.         {
5.             get { return _something; }
6.             set { _something = value; }
7.         }

There's just no end to the goodies in VS~!

9330

Living Room / Re: I'm thinking about learning how to program.

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2010, 07:28 AM »

Silly me...

Code: C# [Select]

1. private static bool UserIsFedUp() // Notice that this is static.
2.         {
3.             string input = Console.ReadLine();
4.             if (input.Length >= 8)
5.             {
6.                 if (input.ToLower().Substring(0, 8) == "********") // Make sure to allow for exclamation marks.
7.                 {
8.                     return true;
9.                 }
10.             }
11.             return false;
12.         }

That's better.

Also, you can comment out "using System.Text;" as well.

"string" is in the System namespace, not the System.Text namespace.

9331

Living Room / Re: Limewire shutdown, permanently

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 09:52 PM »

@Josh

Good points. (My own software is pirated over bit torrent.)

I'm just curious if at some point we'll see a "tax" like we have on blank CDs. Dunno.

9332

Living Room / Re: I'm thinking about learning how to program.

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 09:37 PM »

Well, I just finished booking air tickets to Vietnam, and thought I'd write a little program to illustrate some simple concepts and have some fun. Hopefully this will prove to be both fun and educational in starting to learn how to program in C#!

It should also prove just how fast and productive C# is, because you can create an entire online air ticket booking system in only a few minutes and in less than 100 lines of code! See! C# ROCKS~!

What I've come up with is a program that perfectly mimics what I get from the Quantas online air ticket reservation system. Oh, did I mention that I'm flying with Singapore air?

The project is a very simple console application that demonstrates the use of:

• while
• WriteLine
• ReadLine
• if... then... else...
• string.ToLower()
• string.Substring(startAtIndex, length)
• the "+=" addition operator

Code: C# [Select]

1. using System;
2. using System.Collections.Generic;
3. using System.Linq;
4. using System.Text;
5.  
6. namespace ReserveQuantasTickets
7. {
8.     class Program
9.     {
10.         static void Main(string[] args)
11.         {
12.             int price = 450;
13.             while (true) // This perfectly mimics the functionality of the Quantas online ticket reservation system.
14.             {
15.                 Console.WriteLine("********************************************************");
16.                 Console.WriteLine("******** Welcome to Quantas flight booking *************");
17.                 Console.WriteLine("********************************************************");
18.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your name the press Enter."); // User-friendly communications
19.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that we don't actually store the name as it is unimportant.
20.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your point of departure.");
21.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that the departure point is also unimportant.
22.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your destination.");
23.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that the destination is also unimportant.
24.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your departure date.");
25.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that the departure date is also unimportant.
26.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your return date.");
27.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that the return date is also unimportant.
28.                 Console.WriteLine("Please enter your departure date.");
29.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;  // Notice that the departure date is also unimportant.
30.                 Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Your tickets will cost: {0}", price+=50)); // Notice that we don't care about anything other than increasing the price.
31.                 Console.WriteLine("Press Enter to proceed to payment...");
32.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;
33.                 // The following is the actual error from the Quantas web site.
34.                 Console.WriteLine("Please review the following items");
35.                 Console.WriteLine("* We are unable to confirm the fare for the flights you have selected. Please cancel these segments and choose a different fare or flights and resubmit your confirmation request. (15012)");
36.                 Console.WriteLine("Press Enter to \"Start over\"");
37.                 if (UserIsFedUp()) break;
38.             }
39.         }
40.  
41.         private static bool UserIsFedUp() // Notice that this is static.
42.         {
43.             if (Console.ReadLine().ToLower().Substring(0, 8) == "expletive") // Make sure to allow for exclamation marks.
44.             {
45.                 return true;
46.             }
47.             else
48.             {
49.                 return false;
50.             }
51.         }
52.     }
53. }

ReserveQuantasTickets.zip (41.35 kB - downloaded 229 times.)

9333

Living Room / Re: Limewire shutdown, permanently

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 07:35 PM »

File-sharing program LimeWire has been permanently shut down after a federal judge found it guilty of assisting users in committing copyright infringement "on a massive scale."

Hmmm... I wonder what this means for the bittorrent protocol.

-Renegade (October 27, 2010, 07:25 PM)

And the HTTP Download protocol

And the FTP download protocol

And any protocol that allows files to be shared to other users

And any website that allows this (RapidShare, MediaFire, MassiveUpload)

All youtube videos containing homemade music vids to popular music

Etc, Etc...

-Stephen66515 (October 27, 2010, 07:28 PM)

Sadly, I think you're right.

I wonder how long it will be before they try to tax bandwidth just like they taxed blank CDs.

9334

Living Room / Re: Can I use a remote pc's static ip because I haven't got one?

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 07:32 PM »

DDNS won't work.

It's likely that the database has IP restrictions and will not connect unless the IP is added manually. That's pretty common. That would preclude DDNS.

I suppose a proxy service would be about the easiest. Provided they give out the same IP address all the time. I've looked around for proxies, but they're not that easy to find, and a lot look really dodgy.

9335

Living Room / Re: Limewire shutdown, permanently

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 07:25 PM »

Hmmm... I wonder what this means for the bittorrent protocol.

9336

Living Room / Re: Hallow-e'en

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2010, 01:00 AM »

This pumpkin will scare the pants off most DoCos.

-nosh (October 27, 2010, 12:39 AM)

9337

Living Room / Re: Windows 8 not to debut until 2012?

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2010, 06:59 PM »

A couple hyper-links away: http://msftkitchen.c...etails-revealed.html

Looks like Microsoft will have an app store as well.

9338

Living Room / Re: I'm thinking about learning how to program.

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2010, 04:35 PM »

Hmmm... You might want to look at Iron Python. You then have VS, .NET, and Python all in one.

9339

Living Room / Re: I'm thinking about learning how to program.

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2010, 08:39 AM »

I might be a bit biased, but C# is just so nice to work with.

The syntax is very clean and simple. There isn't a lot of freaky stuff like in Perl.

I think it's a good choice because it's highly productive over a very large range of things.

Also, there is a HUGE amount of code and support for it out there.

http://www.codeproject.com/ -- Great site.

Worrying about memory issues is really not a productive use of your time. C/C++/Objective-C are simply slow that way. Now, there are things where you really need pointers, but not usually. Managed code is simply a wonderful thing.

Later on, you can look at Mono. You WILL miss Visual Studio though. Make no mistake, Visual Studio is the Death Star, and many other IDEs seem like rocks and sticks in comparison.

MonoDevelop is pretty good though. It's not VS, but it works well enough. Don't start there though. It's not the massive productivity tool that VS is.

The Mono team is very good and they really think through a lot of things in Mono, so it's definitely something to get into once you are more comfortable. Don't start with it though.

I prefer strongly-typed languages though, so I would shy away from languages like Python. Both have ups and downs. I just find strong typing is nice to work with.

But at the end of the day, I think the most important thing is the IDE. A nice IDE will help you get things done no matter the language.

.NET, to me, seems like the right way to approach things. It's faster, easier, and more productive. And you can choose any language you want just about. Don't count on having Erlang# though or Lisp#. But you can do functional programming with F# if you like.

There are 2 basic popular IDE types: the VS style ones, and the Eclipse style ones. The Borland, or whatever they're called now, IDEs are like VS. Xcode is sort of like Eclipse.

I'd recommend having a look at Eclipse at some point. You might like the way the UI builder is separate.

Have fun~! Programming is a pure joy!

9340

Living Room / Re: Just when you thought all the good ideas were taken!

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2010, 06:09 AM »

How about these ones?  (see attachment in previous post)

-Shades (October 24, 2010, 05:47 PM)

I like the beer one. This one would also be good if you want to get hammered.

9341

Living Room / Re: Welcome to Hell... iHell that is...

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2010, 05:09 AM »

I still don't think the requirements are bad.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 06:25 PM)

To be honest, I wouldn't worry about them so much if it weren't Apple. The license and copy protection stuff along with a few others are simply beyond insane, but a lot of the ones I highlighted would be fine in a sane universe.

9342

Living Room / Re: Just when you thought all the good ideas were taken!

« Last post by Renegade on October 24, 2010, 05:01 PM »

@Renegade:
Regarding the 'Best before' and 'Manufactured on' date...it depends on the product. Things that have a long shelf life have the 'Best before' date labeled onto them, while the items with a short shelf life have the 'Manufactured on' date.

At least that is how it was explained to me when I was spending my childhood in the Netherlands. Maybe it is different in your neck of the woods, but I don't think so...because all our food is controlled by only a few food companies (Unilever, Nestle, Philip Morris etc.) and they don't change things.

-Shades (October 24, 2010, 04:21 PM)

That's the thing... It's not like that. I wish it was.  There is no way to reliably predict what you'll see on a package.

It's sometimes kind of important as well. I found that out after projectile vomiting blood... Yeah... Not nice.

Incidentally, my can of wasabi peas is labeled:

MFG: 28/04/2010
EXP: 28/10/2011

Which is nice and clear. Having both like that is great. (Though the date format is ambiguous.)

9343

Living Room / Re: Welcome to Hell... iHell that is...

« Last post by Renegade on October 24, 2010, 04:50 PM »

f0dder, I think I should probably outline some of the reasons why I think those are bad ideas. Not all are obvious.

IMHO 2.14 isn't bad, as long as the Xcode packaging technology is sensible; after all, that's what enables a streamlined experience for all apps.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

I seriously doubt that it is. It's probably good for games and "most" programs, but I cannot see Apple making it robust for other software. If they had a robust standard and approved 3rd party installers, that would make more sense.

2.18 is probably sensible; most normal stuff really shouldn't be doing this - and the AppStore isn't intended for specialized stuff? of course once the AppStore becomes the only place to install software from, it's a problem.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.18   Apps that install kexts will be rejected

"kext" = Kernel EXTention. Then why are they running BSD? Dunno. It just seems like this is one of those areas that limits or excludes all low-level system utilities. I think a kext to replaced Finder would be wonderful, given how unstable/nightmarish Finder is; Finder makes Windows Explorer seem like Heaven (it's that bad).

2.21 is sensible - one of the things I hate about Windows is that apps have their individual update mechanisms, some requiring always-running crap.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.21   Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store

The always running nonsense like Java and Adobe Reader are certainly annoying, but I seriously doubt that Apple can provide a robust solution to meet the needs out there. Developers will end up hacking stuff up. If Apple provided a robust set of functionality that could be reasonably used, this wouldn't be a problem. They don't. Apple developer tools are entirely substandard.

2.25 is sensible, even if I'm not sure I entirely like it.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.25   Apps that do not run on the currently shipping OS will be rejected

Not everyone updates to the latest OS, and there are specialized issues for each one. So why this? It doesn't make sense. In a perfect world, sure.

2.26 is sensible, since it includes the "without user consent".

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.26   Apps that are set to auto-launch or to have other code automatically run at startup or login without user consent will be rejected

I choked a bit on this one. Then I thought about it again, and thought no - this needs to be there. The reason being that it eliminates all software that uses an agent. This effectively eliminates all enterprise software. It's simply a blanket that's too broad. When you install certain kinds of software, this is implicit. Adding a consent question for the user relies on Apple's installer being robust, and simply asks the question again. For a lot of software though, this should rule them out. But it should not cover agent software, which it does.

2.27 is debatable, but most apps shouldn't be doing this. There are legitimate reasons, though, like doing full-system backups.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.27   Apps that request escalation to root privileges or use setuid attributes will be rejected

Exactly. This precludes low-level system utilities, like backup software.

2.29 makes sense, as it keeps apps working even if underlying details are changed. Don't you hate Windows developers who think that "C:\Progra~1" will always refer to the user's program files folder?

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.29   Apps that do not use the appropriate Mac OS X APIs for modifying user data stored by other apps (e.g bookmarks, Address Book or Calendar entries) will be rejected

I waffled on this one as well. The standardized ways are usually the best, but Apple doesn't make certain things possible. e.g. It was only recently that Apple opened up its video and graphics API enough to allow Adobe access to hardware acceleration needed for Flash. As for  "C:\Progra~1"... Sigh... That's just silly when developers do it. i.e. Environment.SpecialFolder is the right way, the easy way, and the robust way. Apple doesn't have a track record for being open or making things easy, so I can't see this as a good thing. What it really says is:

2.29 Apps that modify user data stored by other apps will be rejected unless they stick to our rigid, limiting ways of doing things

Now, for the Addressbook or Calendar, this makes sense. But for a blanket statement across all software, which it is, doesn't make sense.

This precludes the concept of software suites. You can no longer have a suite of software that interoperates with different components of the suite. 

Again, useful for a lot of things, but too broad and limiting.

2.30 makes sense as well. Don't you hate Windows apps that think they can write to wherever they want?

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

2.30   Apps that do not comply with the Mac OS X File System documentation will be rejected

Again, this is one that I waffle on.

But I still think it's a bad idea. Here's a concrete example...

Mac OS X is simply very bad with external USB storage. It cannot maintain a connection to a device, much less read from them at acceptable levels. The only way to fix this would be to have a low-level fix, which would require access to system resources, and hence, system areas of the computer, which 2.30 excludes. It could/would also require exceptions for 2.15, 2.18, 2.21, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26 and/or 2.27.

But there's a whole boatload of WTF in there.

-f0dder (October 24, 2010, 10:27 AM)

Absolutely.

The biggest problem is that they are wide-sweeping generalizations that preclude entire genres of legitimate software. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Now, if Apple were a reasonable company, I'd be much more relaxed about it and count on them to not be morons about it, believing that legitimate system tools, agents, and other legitimate software could be developed for OS X. But Apple has a proven track record of not being reasonable. They've proved themselves to be inflexible and simply irrational again and again and again and again and again and again and again and I'm getting tired of listing so many... We all get the idea.

Basically, I see that list as a weapon for Apple to club developers with, and not a way to protect people from malicious software. The iTunes store has been hacked anyways. Apple isn't looking out for customers. It's looking for ways to stuff more cash in its pockets.

 

9344

Living Room / Re: Just when you thought all the good ideas were taken!

« Last post by Renegade on October 24, 2010, 03:40 PM »

My two ideas that I think are good:

1. standardize the basic remote control protocol (on/off, change channel, volume up/down, basic DVD controls like start pause, fat forward, etc).  Once in place and enough stuff follows it you have the joy of being able to use any remote control for the 99% of what you want.  If you need to program recordings or do picture-in-picture, then you'll have to dig up the remote for the particular unit.  But if you just want to watch something, off you go.  Oh, and when you buy a new universal remote (or need to change the batteries in the one you have), you may never have to bother with programming it.

2. standardize a 12 or 20VDC rail in homes - that way we can get rid of all those damn wall warts.  Each wall outlet will have several connections for the DC current along with the AC plugs. USB almost gets us there, but 5V and the limited current make it not quite what's needed. I don't really know enough about electrical issues to know if this is workable, but it sure seems like it should be.

-mwb1100 (October 24, 2010, 02:54 PM)

#1 would be very useful. Why are there 2 different play buttons? Multiple forward and reverse buttons? etc. etc.

#2 AC vs. DC is rather interesting. Having both would be useful. What I'd really like to see though, is standardization of plugs and adapters... I have, at my desk, 4 different kinds of plugs. It's nuts. Hmmm... Come to think of it, it would also be useful to have both 220V and 110V electricity in the house. 440V in the kitchen, workshop and laundry room would be useful if manufacturers still supported it.


Now lemme see... A good idea...

STANDARDIZED PLUGS AND JACKS EVERYWHERE
Yep. That's it. Standardized plugs and jacks for audio, video, data, telephony, AC power, DC power, mobile phone adapters, etc. etc. etc. Now, some of those already exist, and some exist in some places, but we are very far away from having sane standards. AC/DC adapters are a disaster. How many mobile phones do you have power charger adapters for? Why is the phone jack on the wall and back of the phone different from the phone jack in the phone itself?

Actually, I'd like to extend that to simply use and follow standards.

e.g. When you pick up a product at the grocer or off the pantry shelf, and you look at that date stamped on it...

• Is it MM-DD-YY or DD-MM-YY or YY-MM-DD or YY-DD-MM? - You cannot be certain in many cases. The ISO standard is clear: YYYY-MM-DD (YYYY/MM/DD)
• Assuming that you actually know what the date reads... Is it a BEST BEFORE or MANUFACTURED ON  date? Makes a difference.

Having manufacturers label things unambiguously would be very useful.

9345

Living Room / Re: Secure big file service ?

« Last post by Renegade on October 24, 2010, 01:17 AM »

GoDaddy has inexpensive services and you can get SSL there.

Most upload sites have paid services. RapidShare is one of the largest, so I'd check them out and see if they meet your needs.

9346

Living Room / Re: Welcome to Hell... iHell that is...

« Last post by Renegade on October 23, 2010, 10:20 PM »

You're right.

But to be honest, I never thought Apple would be going this far.

Basically, if you want to develop for the Mac, you're nothing more than an unpaid employee a slave.

You cannot have copy protection.
You cannot use license keys.
You cannot use installer software, except for theirs.
You cannot have bugs. (All software has bugs.)
You cannot have placeholder text. (This is common to setup for future upgrades.)

WTF?


Here's some from the horse's mouth. I'm highlighting some ridiculous ones:

2.1   Apps that crash will be rejected
2.2   Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected
2.3   Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected
2.4   Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected
2.5   Apps that use non-public APIs will be rejected
2.6   Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected
2.7   Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them
2.8   Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected
2.9   Apps that are primarily marketing materials or advertisements will be rejected
2.10   Apps that are intended to provide trick or fake functionality that are not clearly marked as such will be rejected
2.11   Apps that encourage excessive consumption of alcohol or illegal substances, or encourage minors to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes, will be rejected
2.12   Apps that provide incorrect diagnostic or other inaccurate device data will be rejected
2.13   Developers "spamming" the App Store with many versions of similar apps will be removed from the Mac Developer Program
2.14   Apps must be packaged and submitted using Apple's packaging technologies included in Xcode - no third party installers allowed
2.15   Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and cannot install code or resources in shared locations
2.16   Apps that download or install additional code or resources to add functionality or change their primary purpose will be rejected
2.17   Apps that download other standalone apps will be rejected
2.18   Apps that install kexts will be rejected
2.19   Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected
2.20   Apps that present a license screen at launch will be rejected
2.21   Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store
2.22   Apps must contain all language support in a single app bundle (single binary multiple language)
2.23   Apps that spawn processes that continue to run after a user has quit the app without user consent will be rejected
2.24   Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
2.25   Apps that do not run on the currently shipping OS will be rejected
2.26   Apps that are set to auto-launch or to have other code automatically run at startup or login without user consent will be rejected
2.27   Apps that request escalation to root privileges or use setuid attributes will be rejected
2.28   Apps that add their icons to the Dock or leave short cuts on the user desktop will be rejected
2.29   Apps that do not use the appropriate Mac OS X APIs for modifying user data stored by other apps (e.g bookmarks, Address Book or Calendar entries) will be rejected
2.30   Apps that do not comply with the Mac OS X File System documentation will be rejected



Some are reasonable.

Most are not.

I think 2.5 is idiotic, but it's not "pure evil". There are legitimate reasons for that, though I doubt those are Apple's motivations. Microsoft discourages this, but doesn't ban it. The Microsoft reason is because their private APIs are basically ones that they've not completely made up their minds on, and they want to reserve it for later when they finalize details enough to make it public. This is nothing surprising if you've ever dealt with developing platforms.

Their use of "without user consent" is simply wrong. Take 2.26 for example. It's logical for some software to automatically launch at startup, and this would be the default correct behavior. Apple wants to stop that? It basically stops software from becoming useful.

2.15 is simply ridiculous. WTF are they thinking?

2.24 Yet another WTF moment. This is really very, very sinister. That list is massive. The implications are immense.

2.27 So, in other words, no system utility software? Right.

2.29 "Appropriate" APIs from Apple? Ahem... And what about hiring leprechauns to do our coding too? For those that are unaware, Apple APIs are extremely restrictive. They do not present ways to let you do things as other platforms do; they present ways to stop you from doing things. I cannot begin to express just how piss poor Apple is here. ----- On another note, this essentially stops having multiple applications that work together.

etc. etc. etc. etc.

There are simply too many cases for legitimate software that they have ruled out.

I'm simply stunned. This is far worse than the iOS 3.3.1 debacle.

Evil. Simply evil.

9347

Living Room / Re: Facebook, The vein of all our lives.

« Last post by Renegade on October 23, 2010, 08:18 PM »

You'll run into the money problem. It takes a huge amount to get something like that off the ground. Just because you build it doesn't mean that they will come. Given the state of things now, you're looking at needing more money than I think anyone here has.

9348

Living Room / Re: New Supercomputer Accomplishes What Other Supercomputers Can't

« Last post by Renegade on October 23, 2010, 08:09 PM »

In thinking about its uses now in biochemistry, imagine what they'll be able to model in a decade, with the improvements and innovations made in the intervening years...

-kyrathaba (October 23, 2010, 10:24 AM)

It's very exciting to think about these things.

The things that mostly interest me are in physics, but who cares? It's all really fun to find out about.

9349

Living Room / Re: Welcome to Hell... iHell that is...

« Last post by Renegade on October 23, 2010, 07:34 PM »

And finally, did you know the review guidelines for Apple's new App Store reject (among others) Java apps?

-Lashiec (October 23, 2010, 05:24 PM)

Huh? Really?    I didn't see any guidelines so I didn't know.

They're excluding Java software? 

Sigh...

Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.

I don't program in Java, but I certainly can't see excluding a major language as a good thing. Choice is good.

This is really what I'm worried about. I'm worried that Apple has gotten too powerful and their control-freakishness may infect other companies. I'm worried that down the road we may have our desktops, phones, laptops, TVs, cameras, and eventually homes all locked down into someone else's vision of what's good for us. (I include homes because home automation and the "digital home" is coming.)

Computers are being integrated into everything, and locking down and excluding people is simply NOT a good thing. This is what the FSF is all about. This is why there's a GPL. This is in part why organizations like the EFF exist.

But it doesn't matter... We are all throwing our money at the slavers, begging for bigger, better shackles.

If I'm guilty of starting a witch-hunt, I think it's for good reason. There are metaphorical witches out there, and they're not like Wendy.

Apple is pretty much THE leader out there. Asking which direction they are leading us in is, well... I suppose people have different opinions on that.

9350

Living Room / Re: Windows Mobile 7 Review

« Last post by Renegade on October 22, 2010, 07:42 PM »

Very promising unless you live in Canada and you are a Telus subscriber. Telus is seriously fouling the bathwater these days - they're offering feature crippled versions of some smartphones (a lesser version of the Samsung Galaxy S, for example) or not offering others at all. With the Windows 7 phones that they've announced, they're not bringing in any of the high spec phones that I've read about and drooled over, offering instead a couple of base models from LG and HTC. If I'm going to live with a phone for three years, I want to start off with something cutting edge.

I guess I'll have to go carrier shopping...

Canada - great place but cursed by a huge land mass and a small population. Apple has the Canadian population so mesmerized that other manufacturers have been steadily pulling out/scaling back on the productst that they offer here. The potential sales aren't enough to offsest the marketing and shipping costs.

-Darwin (October 22, 2010, 09:20 AM)

I didn't know it was so bad. (I'm Canadian, just haven't lived there in 15 years.)

But it's not very surprising. Carriers regularly screw things up. They're the same people that haven't improved audio quality in umpteen decades since the origin of the phone.

I need to get a phone here in Australia, and simply dreading every step of the way. Options?

* iPhone - Ummm... Nice phone. Evil company. MonoTouch makes the platform tolerable to deal with.
* Android phone - Skeptical about getting something decent as the market seems a tad thin there. MonoDroid is still under development.
* Windows Mobile 7 - Too new for here I guess. I doubt I'd be able to get one for a while anyways. This would be best though as I could easily write software for it better than any other platform. Microsoft simply has the best tools and platforms out there. .NET and C# is the way.
* Blackberry - I don't have the business need for it.
* bada - Very attractive platform for development, but it's really a first mover situation now, and I'm too small for that. C++ beats Obj-C any day. Uses Eclipse as the IDE, so it's better than Xcode, but still not Visual Studio.
* Symbian - Meh. Never been really interested in it.
* Other - Huh? Like what's left that's viable?  

I'm leaning towards an Android at the moment. Still not too sure though... The carrier contracts here don't thrill me. I'll end up paying double for half as much as I had before, if I get that much. (The carriers are just insanely expensive for what they deliver.)

Still, if things go well, I may very well end up buying different phones to develop on. It's really about what *I* want as a starting point.