According to what you tell me, german, english, nigerian, chinese, russian, polish, australian, mexican and all the other countries' companies do not have to adhere to US law. I have an awesome idea, then: They mirror companies the US has and then simply go there and shoot everyone in the US company and take over the then free business. Ah, no, wait. That means they all can do that here as well, no?
Your claim is outright ridiculous, as I have shown with my example: If you are active in a country and do business there (which FB clearly does in Italy) you are bound by the laws of the country. It is actually very simple.
If Facebook physically sends people into Italy to commit crimes, then Italy can arrest those people. Italy can't do shit about Facebook in the US, nor can they do anything about facebook.com other than trying to block it within their borders.
Completely relevant. Facebook has no obligation to police content to comply with the laws of any nation except the USA. Everyone else can fuck right on off. Let the government of Italy (try to) block Facebook if they're actually serious about it.
Leaving aside the international question, even in the US contracts entered into by a minor are considered invalid. Facebook does nothing to try to actively restrict access to legal adults even according to US law. There is nothing legally that Facebook can do to enforce an invalid contract such as their AUP. That is the angle the Italians are taking and to me it seems a valid one.
Wrong. 1) Contracts with minors are valid. Minors can just say "lolnope" at any point before becoming an adult and bail on the contract. 2) What "US Law" are you referring to that Facebook is supposed to adhere to? There is no law saying that minors can't enter into contracts, there is no legal requirement for an age-gate, and there would be no legal obligation for Facebook to follow any such laws if they existed when dealing with non-US citizens, as they are not covered by those laws. 3) There is nothing Facebook can do to enforce a contract that doesn't exist, you're right. That also means they have no obligation to enforce a contract that doesn't exist. They do not have to police content to ensure that depressed kids with useless parents don't kill themselves. Italy has absolutely no jurisdiction over facebook.com .
I defy anyone to explain how Italy has any jurisdiction over facebook.com . The only thing Italy can do is shut down any local facebook offices, try to block access to facebook.com within their borders, and otherwise cry about it.
Irrelevant, since the crap wasn't posted on her account.
Completely relevant. Facebook has no obligation to police content to comply with the laws of any nation except the USA. Everyone else can fuck right on off. Let the government of Italy (try to) block Facebook if they're actually serious about it.
"developers are able to offload significant chunks of processing power to the cloud—conceivably even fundamental game mechanics like physics engines or collision-detection systems."
That's what EA/Maxis said about Sim City. It was horse shit then and it's horse shit now. Offloading shit to a remote server is not a viable option for a real-time video game.
Go look at what happens when someone dies on a cruise ship. They can and do switch flags, and it is in fact successful in delaying or preventing proper investigations.
Cruise ships fly flags. They'll typically fly the flag of their principal western nation (the US, for example).
But when a crime is committed on board they'll fly the flag of the shittiest nation they can to stop investigators while they sweep the crime under the rug.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.
There's the additional "I've already seen the whole thing, why would I buy it now?". Personally I've watched, instead of played, plenty of games in the last few years.
MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.
The fact that you are modded insightful just highlights how useless slashdot is now. MS issues a HEAD request to URIs contained in chat messages. Who gives a shit if they're HTTPS or not? They're not snooping on your session or stealing ur passwurdz. They can't do that even if they wanted to unless the link you paste contains login information (in which case HTTPS does nothing for you, and you just sent it to your friend on Skype anyway).
Is it still an "appeal to authority" fallacy when the person you're appealing to isn't an authority? Digital vs. analog doesn't have shit to do with shit.
But you're still buying from Microsoft through a third party vendor. If I buy a TV from Best Buy and it has issues, I call Samsung, not Best Buy. With Google, you're not buying a product, period.
I bought a Nexus One from Google. They offered no support.
I've paid for additional storage from Google. They offered no support.
Etc.
Google is a useless piece of shit when it comes to support. It's a forum of users complaining about known bugs and Google either completely ignores it or has an intern shit out a "You should be able to fix this by doing this." post (and of course that doesn't fix the problem).
Hell, I still have deleted entries from my Calendar show up in my phone as if they've been raised from the dead despite Google "fixing" the problem years ago.
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to.
What's the practical effect of this "world of difference"? I need some ammo against the oft-repeated argument that "Apple's App Store restrictions are irrelevant because the iPad can run SSH and VNC".
And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps
The article I linked says 46 fps.
on medium
Does the PS3 version even go higher than medium?
at a sub-native resolution
The article I linked says 1366x768. (I rounded it to 720p for the reader's convenience.) How is this "sub-native" on a laptop with a 1366x768 panel?
Working through a wireless remote connection is like trying to tie your shoes with boxing gloves on. Either:
A) Your data set is already on the remote server. You can use your existing 3-year old laptop, no need to buy a new Haswell CPU.
B) You have to prepare the data set on your laptop and then upload it. Have fun working with a large data set on a shitty laptop, and have fun waiting for it to upload.
C) You have a a wired connection. You should be using a desktop.
The game you're talking about is a year and a half old, and is not a particularly taxing game. Modern games will perform far worse. I don't give a shit what the PS3 version looks like, the PC version I have on my PC is what it's supposed to look like. And 1366x768 will be sub-native for anyone who's screen has a resolution higher than 1366x768. Go look at the most popular laptop models. 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, and 2880x1800 for Apple's largest (pushing resolution is the ONLY thing this company does right).
Be sure to tell yourself that nonsense as you drop another $500 on a landfill-bound graphics card to play Xbox360 ports.
The other option being dropping $500 to $2000 on a landfill-bound laptop to play Xbox360 ports at worse settings and frame rates? Or dropping $1000 for the high-end, landfill-bound desktop CPU from Intel (since that's the one with the "high-end" integrated GPU) to do the same?
OpenCL-heavy tasks can be done on a compute server at home or in a data center, and you can SSH (or VNC or RDP or whatever) to use an application on a compute server from your laptop. The only real use case I see for carrying an OpenCL powerhouse with you, apart from running shaders in a high-detail 3D game, is for editing huge images or high-definition video in a vehicle or some other place with no Wi-Fi. One workaround is to downscale the video to low definition (e.g. 320x180), edit the low-definition video while away from the net, and then export the edit decision list (EDL) back to the compute server to render the result in high definition. I used to do that with AviSynth.
Running games at resolutions and detail levels that look better than doom
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to. And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps on medium at a sub-native resolution and running it as intended.
It presumes that access to more information equates to more intelligence. It doesn't. If access to information helped drive intelligence, the average person today would shit on Motzart and Einstein, and a 15 year old girl would have found the Higgs 2 years go while tweeting about Jake (he's so cuuuuuuute~!).
Then it presumes that such increased intelligence makes beings less likely to explore and seek out other beings. Horseshit. If intelligent beings didn't care about less intelligent beings, we wouldn't have people who dedicate their lives to studying the less intelligent beings we have on this planet, or people who keep pets, etc. If technologically advanced beings didn't care about exploring undeveloped places, Columbus and Magellan would have stuck their thumbs up their asses while tugging their dicks all day at home instead of all day at sea.
"How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know)."
So we can't know what we'll do when we're more intelligent, yet TFS ignores that rule and tells us anyway? Laughable.
It's as fucking bad as Tyson's line about aliens not giving a shit about us because they'd be so far advanced that we'd be nothing but bugs or dust to them.
Why would you presume such a large gap in technological advancement? Why wouldn't there be civilizations who are just somewhat more advanced, to the point where we're still a curiosity? Wouldn't a growth in advancement lead to a growth in stellar reach, and thus increase our chances of meeting despite any lack of intentional interest on their part?
Why even presume a lack of interest comes along with advancement? We're excited when we see signs of water on other planets. We're actively looking for that shit. If we found a fucking planet full of boring space slugs we'd be going out of our fucking minds with excitement. We have people who dedicate their lives to talking to parrots and apes and shit. We literally know how to twerk our black booties to tell bees where some delicious pollen is.
Since the dawn of man we have wondered if we were alone in the Universe. There is no reason to presume that any other species would be different. Indeed, there is reason to believe that such curiosity goes hand-in-hand with intelligence and increased likelihood to become the dominant species on a planet.
Sorry, but when that particular tropical storm hit the coast it was no longer a hurricane. Sorry, but there were no hurricane force winds when it hit the coast. Sorry, but when we classify storms for the landfall event, for insurance, etc., we use the landfall event, not what it was days earlier out in the ocean. Sorry, but when a storm collides with another storm nothing magical happens, the resulting storm front is reclassified. Sorry, but it doesn't matter if it's the biggest storm to hit New York in a long time, that doesn't change the definition. Sorry, but it wasn't a hurricane.
Wikipedia says it was the largest hurricane (by gale diameter) ever observed in the Atlantic basin.
Apparently there have been larger tropical storms in the Pacific. But that's kind of apples and oranges. You could also compare Jupiter's Great Red Spot, for instance.
Then Wikipedia is wrong. It wasn't an actual hurricane. It was a tropical storm.
Plesae stop calling it "super storm". It was unusual for that area. That is all. It was no where near has large a storm as have been seen in other places.
If it had happened in any other place, no one would have given a shit. But since it happened in New York, the media (and New Yorkers) won't stop talking about it.
ME was an accident, but this was CONSUMER versions of windows, and NT/2000 weren't really consumer-oriented. XP was when the two branches were essentially merged, which is of course why it was such a big improvement for everybody.
ME was a consumer version of windows, shit or not. 2000 and XP are extremely similar, and many people ran 2000 after the ME debacle. 2000 is just as much a consumer version of Windows as XP. The fact that it succeeded the NT line doesn't mean it wasn't a consumer version, it just means it had the NT kernel.
All that "great UI" boils down to is being able to keep track of the most recently accessed files in a directory. Once you've got that then you've pretty much replicated that "great interface for TV episodes".
There's not much to it really.
Wrong. It keeps track of what you've watched across series/movies, within a series across seasons, and within seasons across episodes, and within an episode, how far into it you are.
It also keeps track of when each episode's credits starts, automatically skipping to the next episode for you a few seconds after the credits start to roll.
After loading netflix, it takes a single click to resume from where you left off, and you don't have to do anything until one of the following happens:
You want to stop watching. You finish movie / the entire series (or the seasons portion netflix has if it doesn't have them all). Your client's default timeout triggers. (The PS3 has something like a 4 hour timeout, and it prompts you to hit a button with a "Are you still there?" prompt. I don't know if it's configurable or not.)
Slashdot Mirror
According to what you tell me, german, english, nigerian, chinese, russian, polish, australian, mexican and all the other countries' companies do not have to adhere to US law.
I have an awesome idea, then: They mirror companies the US has and then simply go there and shoot everyone in the US company and take over the then free business. Ah, no, wait. That means they all can do that here as well, no?
Your claim is outright ridiculous, as I have shown with my example: If you are active in a country and do business there (which FB clearly does in Italy) you are bound by the laws of the country. It is actually very simple.
If Facebook physically sends people into Italy to commit crimes, then Italy can arrest those people.
Italy can't do shit about Facebook in the US, nor can they do anything about facebook.com other than trying to block it within their borders.
They can seize facebook.it and shut down any facebook offices within their borders.
How's that going to affect facebook.com or Facebook, the US-based company? (Hint - it won't.)
They can also try to block access to Facebook.com within their borders. That's it. They have no other recourse. Facebook isn't beholden to their laws.
Leaving aside the international question, even in the US contracts entered into by a minor are considered invalid. Facebook does nothing to try to actively restrict access to legal adults even according to US law. There is nothing legally that Facebook can do to enforce an invalid contract such as their AUP. That is the angle the Italians are taking and to me it seems a valid one.
Wrong.
1) Contracts with minors are valid. Minors can just say "lolnope" at any point before becoming an adult and bail on the contract.
2) What "US Law" are you referring to that Facebook is supposed to adhere to? There is no law saying that minors can't enter into contracts, there is no legal requirement for an age-gate, and there would be no legal obligation for Facebook to follow any such laws if they existed when dealing with non-US citizens, as they are not covered by those laws.
3) There is nothing Facebook can do to enforce a contract that doesn't exist, you're right. That also means they have no obligation to enforce a contract that doesn't exist. They do not have to police content to ensure that depressed kids with useless parents don't kill themselves. Italy has absolutely no jurisdiction over facebook.com .
I defy anyone to explain how Italy has any jurisdiction over facebook.com . The only thing Italy can do is shut down any local facebook offices, try to block access to facebook.com within their borders, and otherwise cry about it.
did facebook force her to sign up?
Irrelevant, since the crap wasn't posted on her account.
Completely relevant.
Facebook has no obligation to police content to comply with the laws of any nation except the USA.
Everyone else can fuck right on off. Let the government of Italy (try to) block Facebook if they're actually serious about it.
"developers are able to offload significant chunks of processing power to the cloud—conceivably even fundamental game mechanics like physics engines or collision-detection systems."
That's what EA/Maxis said about Sim City. It was horse shit then and it's horse shit now. Offloading shit to a remote server is not a viable option for a real-time video game.
Go look at what happens when someone dies on a cruise ship.
They can and do switch flags, and it is in fact successful in delaying or preventing proper investigations.
They don't get to switch flags at will.
They in fact do though.
Cruise ships fly flags.
They'll typically fly the flag of their principal western nation (the US, for example).
But when a crime is committed on board they'll fly the flag of the shittiest nation they can to stop investigators while they sweep the crime under the rug.
Google "flags of convenience".
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.
There's the additional "I've already seen the whole thing, why would I buy it now?".
Personally I've watched, instead of played, plenty of games in the last few years.
MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.
The fact that you are modded insightful just highlights how useless slashdot is now.
MS issues a HEAD request to URIs contained in chat messages.
Who gives a shit if they're HTTPS or not? They're not snooping on your session or stealing ur passwurdz. They can't do that even if they wanted to unless the link you paste contains login information (in which case HTTPS does nothing for you, and you just sent it to your friend on Skype anyway).
Is it still an "appeal to authority" fallacy when the person you're appealing to isn't an authority?
Digital vs. analog doesn't have shit to do with shit.
Thunderbolt isn't exciting.
We've had PCI-E over a cable for over 6 years.
But you're still buying from Microsoft through a third party vendor. If I buy a TV from Best Buy and it has issues, I call Samsung, not Best Buy. With Google, you're not buying a product, period.
I bought a Nexus One from Google.
They offered no support.
I've paid for additional storage from Google.
They offered no support.
Etc.
Google is a useless piece of shit when it comes to support. It's a forum of users complaining about known bugs and Google either completely ignores it or has an intern shit out a "You should be able to fix this by doing this." post (and of course that doesn't fix the problem).
Hell, I still have deleted entries from my Calendar show up in my phone as if they've been raised from the dead despite Google "fixing" the problem years ago.
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to.
What's the practical effect of this "world of difference"? I need some ammo against the oft-repeated argument that "Apple's App Store restrictions are irrelevant because the iPad can run SSH and VNC".
And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps
The article I linked says 46 fps.
on medium
Does the PS3 version even go higher than medium?
at a sub-native resolution
The article I linked says 1366x768. (I rounded it to 720p for the reader's convenience.) How is this "sub-native" on a laptop with a 1366x768 panel?
Working through a wireless remote connection is like trying to tie your shoes with boxing gloves on.
Either:
A) Your data set is already on the remote server. You can use your existing 3-year old laptop, no need to buy a new Haswell CPU.
B) You have to prepare the data set on your laptop and then upload it. Have fun working with a large data set on a shitty laptop, and have fun waiting for it to upload.
C) You have a a wired connection. You should be using a desktop.
The game you're talking about is a year and a half old, and is not a particularly taxing game. Modern games will perform far worse. I don't give a shit what the PS3 version looks like, the PC version I have on my PC is what it's supposed to look like. And 1366x768 will be sub-native for anyone who's screen has a resolution higher than 1366x768. Go look at the most popular laptop models. 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, and 2880x1800 for Apple's largest (pushing resolution is the ONLY thing this company does right).
Be sure to tell yourself that nonsense as you drop another $500 on a landfill-bound graphics card to play Xbox360 ports.
The other option being dropping $500 to $2000 on a landfill-bound laptop to play Xbox360 ports at worse settings and frame rates? Or dropping $1000 for the high-end, landfill-bound desktop CPU from Intel (since that's the one with the "high-end" integrated GPU) to do the same?
thank you CUDA and OpenCL
OpenCL-heavy tasks can be done on a compute server at home or in a data center, and you can SSH (or VNC or RDP or whatever) to use an application on a compute server from your laptop. The only real use case I see for carrying an OpenCL powerhouse with you, apart from running shaders in a high-detail 3D game, is for editing huge images or high-definition video in a vehicle or some other place with no Wi-Fi. One workaround is to downscale the video to low definition (e.g. 320x180), edit the low-definition video while away from the net, and then export the edit decision list (EDL) back to the compute server to render the result in high definition. I used to do that with AviSynth.
Running games at resolutions and detail levels that look better than doom
Games are the other reason for carrying a beefy GPU with you. But Skyrim looks better than Doom, Doom II, and Doom 3, and Skyrim runs playably on the HD 4000 at 720p medium.
There's a world of difference between having compute power on your machine and on a machine you have remote access to.
And there's a world of difference between running a game at 20-30 fps on medium at a sub-native resolution and running it as intended.
This article is fucking trash.
It presumes that access to more information equates to more intelligence. It doesn't.
If access to information helped drive intelligence, the average person today would shit on Motzart and Einstein, and a 15 year old girl would have found the Higgs 2 years go while tweeting about Jake (he's so cuuuuuuute~!).
Then it presumes that such increased intelligence makes beings less likely to explore and seek out other beings. Horseshit.
If intelligent beings didn't care about less intelligent beings, we wouldn't have people who dedicate their lives to studying the less intelligent beings we have on this planet, or people who keep pets, etc.
If technologically advanced beings didn't care about exploring undeveloped places, Columbus and Magellan would have stuck their thumbs up their asses while tugging their dicks all day at home instead of all day at sea.
"How would you change if you had instant brain-level access to all information. How would you change if you were twice as smart as you are now. How about ten times as smart? (Don't answer, truth is, you're not smart enough to know)."
So we can't know what we'll do when we're more intelligent, yet TFS ignores that rule and tells us anyway? Laughable.
It's as fucking bad as Tyson's line about aliens not giving a shit about us because they'd be so far advanced that we'd be nothing but bugs or dust to them.
Why would you presume such a large gap in technological advancement? Why wouldn't there be civilizations who are just somewhat more advanced, to the point where we're still a curiosity? Wouldn't a growth in advancement lead to a growth in stellar reach, and thus increase our chances of meeting despite any lack of intentional interest on their part?
Why even presume a lack of interest comes along with advancement? We're excited when we see signs of water on other planets. We're actively looking for that shit. If we found a fucking planet full of boring space slugs we'd be going out of our fucking minds with excitement. We have people who dedicate their lives to talking to parrots and apes and shit. We literally know how to twerk our black booties to tell bees where some delicious pollen is.
Since the dawn of man we have wondered if we were alone in the Universe. There is no reason to presume that any other species would be different. Indeed, there is reason to believe that such curiosity goes hand-in-hand with intelligence and increased likelihood to become the dominant species on a planet.
Sorry, but when that particular tropical storm hit the coast it was no longer a hurricane.
Sorry, but there were no hurricane force winds when it hit the coast.
Sorry, but when we classify storms for the landfall event, for insurance, etc., we use the landfall event, not what it was days earlier out in the ocean.
Sorry, but when a storm collides with another storm nothing magical happens, the resulting storm front is reclassified.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter if it's the biggest storm to hit New York in a long time, that doesn't change the definition.
Sorry, but it wasn't a hurricane.
Wikipedia says it was the largest hurricane (by gale diameter) ever observed in the Atlantic basin.
Apparently there have been larger tropical storms in the Pacific. But that's kind of apples and oranges. You could also compare Jupiter's Great Red Spot, for instance.
Then Wikipedia is wrong. It wasn't an actual hurricane. It was a tropical storm.
Plesae stop calling it "super storm". It was unusual for that area. That is all. It was no where near has large a storm as have been seen in other places.
If it had happened in any other place, no one would have given a shit.
But since it happened in New York, the media (and New Yorkers) won't stop talking about it.
It wasn't even a fucking hurricane!
ME was an accident, but this was CONSUMER versions of windows, and NT/2000 weren't really consumer-oriented. XP was when the two branches were essentially merged, which is of course why it was such a big improvement for everybody.
ME was a consumer version of windows, shit or not.
2000 and XP are extremely similar, and many people ran 2000 after the ME debacle. 2000 is just as much a consumer version of Windows as XP.
The fact that it succeeded the NT line doesn't mean it wasn't a consumer version, it just means it had the NT kernel.
I love the windows versioning system - I don't know why they bother to even try.
If you ran consumer Windows starting around Win 3 when it became popular, you'd have;
Windows 3 / 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98 / 98SE
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
They've yet to have more than two major releases in a row that used the same versioning scheme in their branding.
You left out Windows 2000, Windows ME, and Windows NT.
All that "great UI" boils down to is being able to keep track of the most recently accessed files in a directory. Once you've got that then you've pretty much replicated that "great interface for TV episodes".
There's not much to it really.
Wrong.
It keeps track of what you've watched across series/movies, within a series across seasons, and within seasons across episodes, and within an episode, how far into it you are.
It also keeps track of when each episode's credits starts, automatically skipping to the next episode for you a few seconds after the credits start to roll.
After loading netflix, it takes a single click to resume from where you left off, and you don't have to do anything until one of the following happens:
You want to stop watching.
You finish movie / the entire series (or the seasons portion netflix has if it doesn't have them all).
Your client's default timeout triggers. (The PS3 has something like a 4 hour timeout, and it prompts you to hit a button with a "Are you still there?" prompt. I don't know if it's configurable or not.)
Is it worth throwing a minimum of 5-8 years of your life away for money?
Oh please, he's going to a white collar resort prison, not a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
I'm From Leeds. Well I was born in Leeds. Actually, I grew up in Leeds then I moved to the States.
I lived at the hospital mostly.