It seems like a cross between CoffeeScript and JavaScript, leaning towards the JS side. I haven't tried it, but some of the new features it adds seem interesting (like the ability to use "if var isn't value { }"). I like that it translates 1:1, so that you don't have to hunt down strange errors in code that you didn't organize. However, the automatic semicolon insertion a) is already in JS, in some cases, and b) could get obnoxious.
Good points. Although, the semi-colon insertion is only partial... it mops up the edge cases where JS doesn't usually insert them (such as if a ( appears after a block or group on a previous line). It's made specifically for people who do "normal" (aka K&R) style JavaScripting and want to get rid of semi-colons altogether, but can't usually because of the annoying exceptions.
This looks very promising. However, the one concern I have is that e-ink does not work very fast; browsing the web on a Kindle or Nook leaves a lot to be desired. When you're flipping a page, you can literally watch the ink update. We're used to devices with 300+ DPI displays that scroll smoothly, play games better than specifically game-oriented devices, and have faster processors than high-end desktops of the 90s. I know I wouldn't like a phone with that slow of a screen, and I don't think most other people would tolerate it either. Because no matter how fast the hardware is, if it's not noticeable to an everyday user, it might as well not be there in the first place.
The problem with web browsing on the Kindle is that its processor is amazingly slow and rendering web pages takes a lot of CPU time. The screen update speed is orthogonal -- it's not amazingly fast, but considering how much latency 3G connections have, you're going to notice network latency long before you care about the screen.
In the end, I'll take an Internet-enabled phone with a black-and-white screen and a 1 month battery life over a retina-display phone with 2 hours of battery life.
I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that you are correct. They analyzed a different section (which is in several of their EULAs; under the Mac/iPhone App Stores' as "USE OF PRODUCTS AND THE SERVICES " and under iTunes' as "USE OF PURCHASED OR RENTED CONTENT") while quoting a section that stated that you couldn't reverse-engineer iTunes itself. A sample of what they're referring to:
Apple is the provider of the Services that permit you to license software products and digital content (the “Products”) for end user use only under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
[snip]
You agree that the Services and certain Products include security technology that limits your use of Products and that, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you shall use Products in compliance with the applicable usage rules established by Apple and its principals (“Usage Rules”), and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement.
I think the biggest reason that nobody reads these is because of the sheer size of EULA documents. They're dense paragraphs upon paragraphs of legal text. I don't think that it's the legalese that scares people away, but the fact that page numbers in the double digits is the norm.
I've found that reading and understanding is not particularly difficult, but when I install iTunes/Windows/whatnot, it's because I want to use that software. I'm sure a lot of people agree that they don't want to spend twenty, thirty minutes reading through a license that says approximately the same thing every other EULA has said before.
A shortened summary in plain English (or language of your choice, I suppose) would be best, but as the article points out, that would open them up to all of the legal holes that those 56 pages were busy closing. Creative Commons' "human-readable" licenses (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, compared to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode) are a good idea and one that I support, but as far as I know they haven't been tested in court, which makes it difficult for a company with large amounts of money at stake to embrace that.
When Paypal updates their EULA and various other policies I get an email about it and I can't remember if it's the link or in the email itself but it has a summary of what has changed since the last one.
Last time I looked over it (I don't actually use iTunes anymore), a lot of the EULA was devoted to the content and how you can't pirate it, and so on. That seems to me to be the very things that the RIAA and other groups sue over. So even though you are correct, Apple's specific terms of use have not been tested, the idea (and who knows, possibly wording as well) behind it has been successfully used in court by the owners of the licensed materials.
I am able to buy CDs without signing any contract at all. So it appears that a contract is not necessary for copyright infringement to still be illegal and the contracts are completely unnecessary for the stated purpose of "preventing piracy", which is already illegal, even without a contract.
Yes, you can have multiple accounts per console. And because it's free, I would think (based on a small sample, my friends who own PS3s), it's far more likely that there will be multiple PSN accounts, versus XBL accounts which cost money (to play online).
My PS3 has three PSN accounts on it, do three or four of my friends'. Everybody I know who has a 360 shares one Live account across everybody who uses the console.
I'm curious how they settled. Once the details are shared, then the case's importance will be truly established. For now, we can't really assume which way it went: Geohot asked for a settlement instead of dealing with further litigation, or if SECA was the one that pulled the plug. I believe it will probably end up being the former, since SECA practically prints money and could have pursued this for years, but we'll just have to wait and see.
As for the result, the "permanent injunction" that the spokesman mentioned is what makes me think the settlement went in SECA's favor. But until somebody publishes what happened, I don't know. It could mean that jailbreaking other devices is legal, or it could mean that only mobile devices are legally allowed to be cracked open.
I hope it all ended up in the favor of the consumer, but from the wording of the article and its quoted statements, I don't think it did.
The president supports repeal of the 1099 provision,
but he doesn’t like how the bill makes up for the revenue
that would be lost: It requires people who receive higher
subsidies for health insurance than they should have to
repay this money to the government.
What, exactly, would cause people to receive higher subsidies than they need? And how would the 1099 forms have fixed this?
I'm sorry, I was commenting on this puzzling statement: "The president supports repeal of the 1099 provision, but he doesn’t like how the bill makes up for the revenue that would be lost"
How in the world could the president be against reclaiming money from people who should not have gotten it in the first place?
There's also the possibility of the placebo effect. I agree with donnyg107 in that it'll be a while before we can begin to form a solid "yes, it's better" or "no, we're Reddit" answer... if you're looking for more insightful comments, that's what you'll remember more of (the same way you remember consecutive red lights, but not green ones).
I see where you're coming from, I think, but I think both of your ideas can definitely work together. You say that some people can support the antagonist, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. I think there's a difference between objectively realizing and appreciating the necessity of a villain and actively hoping he comes out on top. For example, as much as Darth Vader and the Emperor moved the Star Wars original trilogy along, I don't think anybody really wanted them to end up ruling the universe.
Unless they did, in which case, my point is moot.
Edit: Of course, drawing from another source, you do have a point when it comes to Zuko from the Avatar series. He was a "villain" (that later became a protagonist) who was given even more of a backstory than the main character, and it was very clear that the audience was supposed to be sympathetic towards him, despite the fact that his single goal in life was to kill the Avatar.
