Whenever a developer claims to be "losing money" to piracy, one has to wonder... are the developers losing this money trying to combat piracy directly (lawsuits and DRM tactics), or is it simply a case of self-flattery, where the developer is grossly over-estimating the value of their software, thinking "If my software isn't great, then why would anyone pirate it?"

Perhaps its time for some self-reflection. You are just another pawn in an industry wide problem spanning over 30 years. Chances are, you and your app aren't special. The piracy was likely nothing more than a bulk job handled indescriminately with no concern for you or anyone else.

Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!

Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.

Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?

After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?

"Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications."

Doesn't this also describe practically any modification to the OS, such kernel extensions installed by any third-party program for added functionality? For example, can you imagine the chaos that would be created if everyone who owned a copy of Adobe Photoshop was suddenly accused of running an pirate copy of Mac OS X, simply *because* they installed Photoshop on their machine and rebooted it with a few extra .kext files?

Personally, I've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs. The more data they acquire, the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes. Eventually, a point will come where there will be a near 100% false-positive rate on submitted works that are original, but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.

For example:

"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."

Okay... so, is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written? There's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education. A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.

But what about authors that aren't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers? You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.

It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation, where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet. People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns, much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time. Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.

Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon, it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means. Especially in the generations to come!

Ok, so it's not that cool looking, but the potential here is great... especially once the things can be self-contained.

The main reason this thing seems kind of lame right now, is likely due to the fact that the support lattice is only a simple sphere. Give these guys a couple more years, and I bet they'll be able to support far more complex structures, perhaps even to the point of reshaping its own support lattice at varying resolutions.

Once they can manage that much, it should be possible for them to start working on complex IK chains to create virtual joints on the fly. Think of it being able to morph from a sphere to an insect like body with legs and back again, based on the environmental conditions it's deployed into.

Another potential use, moving large objects on top of it as it maintains a solid, level surface, while below, it moves in a manner similar to snakes. This could be done both as a serpentine pattern and as a method some snakes use by gripping the ground with their scales and then contract and expand their body to slide forward.

The potential here should not be underestimated.

So lets see... we now have:

- App name squatting
- List jockeying (continuous updates to apps with no description of what was actually changed)
- List flooding (releasing dozens of variations of the same app with only minor differences... like a picture of a kitty!)
- Born-again apps (repeated removal and relaunching of the same app over and over)

Did I miss anything else?

Apple Inc. != Apple Computer Inc.

Apple Computer was the "cool" Apple that made you want to root for the underdog and wait for the "next big thing" like a kid on christmas morning.

The current Apple, however, is just plain evil and needs to be put down before it hurts us all. I love the mac, but I can't help but be unnerved by what the platform will become under this new "lock it all down" attitude Apple has.

I know a few years ago, I had some adobe software I wanted to sell through ebay. Basically, there was no problem in doing this so long as I filled out their Transfer of Ownership documents and sent a copy to the new owner to sign and then mail to adobe.

If these guys have a similar program available, then there's really no excuse for jumping the gun on the seller.

On the other hand, they may be well within their rights to do this if they specifically deny you the ability to transfer your license to a new owner right off the bat. (Though, it would make doing business with them far less attractive, especially at the prices they charge for the software.)

Just a thought, but could such a system create an environment that discourages cholesterol buildup and the formation of blood clots in the arteries/veins?

Now they just need to merge this with a federally required RFID marker to identify you and the system can simply flag you as a threat automatically whenever you act outside of set threshold determined by a collectively gathered log of your previous day to day activities.

An angel investor, that is! ("venture capitalist" for the uninitiated....)

It may be a bit more competitive now, due to the struggling economy, but for a long time, there have been groups and individuals out there just looking for innovative ideas to invest in. (Kind of similar to ABC's recent "Shark Tank" show, but without all the reality TV nonsense...)

You can find several of these investors on the internet via a web search. Most of them have actual business websites. (And not just some ad posted on craigslist...)

Just be sure to check references before making any deals to ensure their legitimacy.

Have these wind turbines registered with the National Weather Service and mark the locations in the system. Also, place transponders on the turbines to verify their operational status. If a tornado is detected near a known turbine location and the turbine fails to report its status, there probably is "something" in the area bad enough to damage a turbine.

Simply make the device itself expendable to the owner. Create a setup where any storage media on the device can be quickly removed when not in use and implement it in a way that forces the user to practice it regularly. For example, make removing the storage itself the "on/off" switch for the device.

Some other tactics I've noticed lately:

Release a undisclosed "bug fix" every few days to keep an app higher up in the listings. I've noticed a few developers who, like clockwork, release a new bug fix every week on the same app, with no info on what exactly was broken in the previous version.

Remove and relaunch the same app every couple of months. Not even a bad review can harm a clean slate.

"Theme" your apps and release dozens of variants into the same category. You might just get lucky and find a few idiots biting because one version of your app has a picture of a kitty in it!

This almost sounds like an induced form of synesthesia, a condition where someone's senses operate involuntarily as a merged experience. For example, sounds that generate visual feedback or brief changes in taste.