But conversely, Intel dumped support for their graphics on Windows. I have a Intel Core Graphics CPU / GPU which is about 2 years old. Windows 8 ships with a driver which is okay but the OpenGL ES profile is broken. Can I get new drivers from Intel and workaround this? Nope because they've dumped support. Intel Core 2nd and 3rd gen are supported, not 1st gen.
24fps was chosen as a framerate that the human brain could tolerate while still working within the limits of a mechanical projection system. 35mm projectors are becoming obsolete so it's completely reasonable to hike the frame rate now that the restriction is no longer there. It's not like 24fps doesn't have serious problems like judder, motion blur which are especially pronounced in CG and 3D but even just fast action.
It may be The Hobbit doesn't seem "cinematic" for one reason another but that could be the manner in which the post processing was done. E.g. the lack of "grain", or the colour gamut might jar with people's expectations as much as it is the frame rate.
My ZX Spectrum(s) (I had a few) used to buzz when they got hot and they had a fairly big large power brick which got hot too. Anyway, there is no reason a modern reproduction should suffer from the same issues - assuming Z80 processors were still in production they're likely conformant with modern standards, or produce an ASIC (like the C64 all-in-one a few years back), and if not I'm sure an ARM soc could emulate the ZX Spectrum with no trouble at all. Throw the board into a ZX Spectrum case complete with a rubbery keyboard, maybe enable flash some games in and it's more or less all people need.
I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been done yet. Same for the generation after like Amiga and Atari ST.
Probably one which expected Microsoft to adequately lock down the infrastructure so that tampering would be detected. Microsoft follows the same golden cage / curation approach as Apple so it's not unreasonable an expectation.
Windows 8 doesn't come with a Mahjong game any more, instead it's on the app store but it's still made and supported by Microsoft. I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about is the thing has this unskippable fucking ads that appear at random between levels, and are always promoting some other game called Tap Tiles. It's highly annoying behaviour, made worse because along with it Mahjong has turned into a buggy mess which randomly crashes and wipes out all its local data making stuff like the daily challenges a waste of time.
Ubuntu are guilty of enabling an Amazon affiliate search engine doing it in a really hamfisted way that annoyed people. They should have done it better, e.g. by providing simple checkbox on a control panel that allows a user to remove or disable "sponsored" results in the search lens stuff. But ultimately it was just them trying to drum up some extra cash for an OS which they give away for nothing. It was executed badly, but was hardly a big deal and they're certainly within their rights to do it given that Ubuntu is not a charity.
The way this has been portrayed by Stallman as spyware, and as a springboard into objecting that Ubuntu contains non-free programs just smacks of whining. Anyone who objects to those things can simply remove them or use an alternative dist.
Can't speak for the 360, but the PS3 allows you to set a parental level and it is enforced on PSN and PS Home. It works pretty well except for one glaring and inexplicable "feature". If you set the level 8 (for example) it blocks out the names of games over that level and you have more than 1 game it is impossible to tell which is which. So are you launching God of War 3 or Red Dead Redemption? Short of disabling controls or memorizing the install size, you have no way of knowing until its too late.
DVDs doesn't have DRM beyond a region encoding. It would be better described as copy protection. It just happens to be weak copy protection which has been circumvented. It doesn't mean the movie industry intended that way, or that the lack of decent copy protection in one format is a good reason not to have better copy protection or DRM in another format.
Of course they support DRM because the content providers require it. If they took a stand on DRM about the only thing you'd be watching on Netflix would be Big Buck Bunny because you sure as hell wouldn't be watching anything produced by any Hollywood studio.
Second, why the hell do you give a shit about DRM in streaming content in a subscription service any way? It's not your content, it's never your content, you're paying for a service, you can watch it on demand, your access to the content ceases with your subscription. I would have many objections to DRM in purchased content (although IMO I recognize the for it and if it must exist it should at least be a platform neutral, industry wide standard embodying first sale doctrine), but rental / streaming? It's an irrelevance.
As for Linux, I'm sure Netflix consider it unfortunate not to support the platform given they support practically every other one but until some kind of viable secure media framework appears I really don't see it happening. Perhaps when a browser like Chrome implements some form of DRM support into their HTML 5 implementation it might happen but otherwise I don't see it.
I don't even know the number. I wish to be honest it was taken away because it's just a nuisance - it takes up space and rings occasionally, always a wrong number or asking someone at another extension. Pointless.
Most companies could replace them with Skype, and a few phones in conference rooms, small meeting rooms and a few hotdesks.
That would work but I've had sites where I've forgotten a password and it's been sent back to me as plaintext. I wouldn't rely on sites to do the right thing and you only need one screwed up site for thieves to potentially figure out how you encode all your passwords.
Also I don't think I was discussing risk so much as damage limitation.
I'm sure it is typical that the more viewers a service has the more it is prepared to pay. But it might also be the case that a service *doesn't* have the viewers and is using the exclusive as a hook to attract more viewers, or steal them away from a rival. In that scenario, another service with more actual viewers is being deprived of the content. Or Disney might play off two services precisely for that reason, as appears to be the case right here. My understanding is that Starz used to licence stuff to Netflix and then it didn't, and now Netflix is doing a runaround to get the content itself and depriving Starz of it in the process. That's great for Netflix users, not so great for Starz users. It's too bad that content isn't licenced like patents, in a fair and non-discriminatory way so services could all licence it if they wished and could afford it.
Different passwords for different things is a good idea.
But the issue is not brute forcing over the network. The issue is hackers stealing a database of passwords, then bruteforcing the lot of them locally. Some sites don't even bother to hash the password at all and some don't salt them or use a weak hash. So if the database is lifted, the hackers could potentially recover some or all of the passwords with little or no effort. So if you use the same email and password for an insecure site as a strong site, you are trouble.
Therefore it would be wise to arrange sites into tiers of importance. Tax / health / social security on the top. Then banks. Then cloud / email services. Then stores. Then sites with personally identifying info. Then forums and other throwaway crap. For each tier take appropriate measures to ensure uniqueness of the password and login id and use password safe to manage this mess. On the bottom tier, you could probably use the same throwaway password for every site, or a variant of it (e.g. tack on the first 4 letters of the domain host) since a compromise is a nuisance rather than as a threat.
And use something like Password Safe so you don't have to remember all this crap.
I don't think it's coincidence that scam artists will target highly religious people. It's probably the potent mix of gullibility and trustworthiness that makes them an easy mark.
Forget the mould. Bread goes stale in about 5 days. So you have delicious rock hard bread. So unless they developed a way for the bread to stay moist for 60 days, it's not much damned good.
My kids need gluten free food and a lot of gluten free breads & rolls are delivered packed in smaller portions in sealed plastic filled with nitrogen and have a shelf life of several months. I imagine that something similar would have to be done with 60 day bread. But I'm not entirely sure what the research is showing which hasn't already been put into practice with GF.
I think there is a difference. Most photographs going through a photo processor are going to be of people, trees, buildings, wildlife etc. Most things going through a 3D printer are going to be nondescript objects - decorative or functional.
Perhaps there would be the odd dumbass trying to print their cock, or a gun grip and you can refuse to print that, but most things are not going to be so clearcut.
How do you know that the candlestick you're printing out is an original design or one ripped off from a design on a web? How do you know that some jewellery with an intricate rose in it is in the public domain, or was ripped off some design company's site by hackers? How do you know if random plastic housing for some random electronic thing is some hobbiest's own design or a ripoff of the original? Is the form or function copyrightable? Is the design trademarked? Is it okay for someone to print out a model Ferrari? What about Mickey Mouse? Disney releases stuff for kids to print out in 2D, who's to say they won't do it for 3D too some day? What if someone decomposes something recognisable into smaller parts which are not recognisable.
I don't think a person in the shop do much except catch the most blatant cases. More likely the printing software would have to check the model somehow and notify the operator to potential infringement. But checking for similarity is an obviously non-trivial problem and would require that designs are registered. I don't see that happening any time soon, but maybe it will eventually.
Printing some plastic widget which holds a bunch of tempered steel and springs together can hardly be said called "printing firearms". Given the time / motivation someone could probably make the same housing out of lego, meccano, masking tape, carved wood or any other material.
Anyway I don't see Office Depot being able to enforce copyright any time soon. Maybe they'll look for obvious infringement, e.g. someone printing out Mickey Mouse, but if you print out some random widget how can they tell? The person in the shop certainly can't.
In time perhaps they might establish a database of known infringing files based on checksum but it would be easy to circumvent that (change one byte). In the long term they might resort to statistical sampling and thresholds but it's easy to see what a pain in the ass it would be to figure that out too given that someone could just rotate a design by 0.5 degrees. Maybe someone will figure a way to "watermark", distilling a design down to the position of key functional elements within it but it's obviously going to have a margin of error and if that margin is too big and throws up too many false positives Office Depot or whoever is going to have a lot of pissed off customers.
That if I load Slashdot on a phone / tablet that it'll helpfully ask if I want to download the app instead. Every single time, or even at random. I wonder if sites know how fucking annoying it is to be asked this question repeatedly.
Rhino is an interpreter though. Sounds like they want something which compiles JS to actual bytecode and is therefore faster. Perhaps the effort required to make Rhino work the way they want is so high it's easier to write something from scratch.
The benefit would be faster performance while offering the ability to mix and match JS with Java. Since they run on the same JVM you could call from an object implemented in one language straight through to an object implemented in another. e.g. use node.js like code to service a web request but pulling the data through domain objects filled from a hibernate store. A bit like how Groovy, Jython and other JVM based languages work.
I think Java is the exception to that since if for some reason you don't like Oracle's Java (which is free and ubquitous) there are a number of other licenced implementations in software and hardware plus an open source version. And numerous app servers, web servers, frameworks, persistence models etc.
I would run a mile from using Oracle hardware and database tech though unless I was totally convinced that I could only obtain the performance and reliability required by the project from using it.
You forgot the main reason. Money laundering. The US prohibits online gambling which has seen a number of casinos using front services to disguise where the money is going to. Full Tilt Poker for example set up front businesses all around the world to take money from US gamblers, setting them up as fast as they were taken down. I suppose some casinos see it as a way to cover their tracks and make it impossible for the US or payment card processors to block their activities.
Of course, the question should be, do you really want to gamble with a casino which is trying to operate outside the law in this manner.
Slashdot Mirror
But conversely, Intel dumped support for their graphics on Windows. I have a Intel Core Graphics CPU / GPU which is about 2 years old. Windows 8 ships with a driver which is okay but the OpenGL ES profile is broken. Can I get new drivers from Intel and workaround this? Nope because they've dumped support. Intel Core 2nd and 3rd gen are supported, not 1st gen.
It may be The Hobbit doesn't seem "cinematic" for one reason another but that could be the manner in which the post processing was done. E.g. the lack of "grain", or the colour gamut might jar with people's expectations as much as it is the frame rate.
I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been done yet. Same for the generation after like Amiga and Atari ST.
Probably one which expected Microsoft to adequately lock down the infrastructure so that tampering would be detected. Microsoft follows the same golden cage / curation approach as Apple so it's not unreasonable an expectation.
Windows 8 doesn't come with a Mahjong game any more, instead it's on the app store but it's still made and supported by Microsoft. I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about is the thing has this unskippable fucking ads that appear at random between levels, and are always promoting some other game called Tap Tiles. It's highly annoying behaviour, made worse because along with it Mahjong has turned into a buggy mess which randomly crashes and wipes out all its local data making stuff like the daily challenges a waste of time.
The way this has been portrayed by Stallman as spyware, and as a springboard into objecting that Ubuntu contains non-free programs just smacks of whining. Anyone who objects to those things can simply remove them or use an alternative dist.
Can't speak for the 360, but the PS3 allows you to set a parental level and it is enforced on PSN and PS Home. It works pretty well except for one glaring and inexplicable "feature". If you set the level 8 (for example) it blocks out the names of games over that level and you have more than 1 game it is impossible to tell which is which. So are you launching God of War 3 or Red Dead Redemption? Short of disabling controls or memorizing the install size, you have no way of knowing until its too late.
Well then don't subscribe to a service which wouldn't exist in a viable form without implementing DRM. Problem solved.
DVDs doesn't have DRM beyond a region encoding. It would be better described as copy protection. It just happens to be weak copy protection which has been circumvented. It doesn't mean the movie industry intended that way, or that the lack of decent copy protection in one format is a good reason not to have better copy protection or DRM in another format.
Second, why the hell do you give a shit about DRM in streaming content in a subscription service any way? It's not your content, it's never your content, you're paying for a service, you can watch it on demand, your access to the content ceases with your subscription. I would have many objections to DRM in purchased content (although IMO I recognize the for it and if it must exist it should at least be a platform neutral, industry wide standard embodying first sale doctrine), but rental / streaming? It's an irrelevance.
As for Linux, I'm sure Netflix consider it unfortunate not to support the platform given they support practically every other one but until some kind of viable secure media framework appears I really don't see it happening. Perhaps when a browser like Chrome implements some form of DRM support into their HTML 5 implementation it might happen but otherwise I don't see it.
I don't even know the number. I wish to be honest it was taken away because it's just a nuisance - it takes up space and rings occasionally, always a wrong number or asking someone at another extension. Pointless. Most companies could replace them with Skype, and a few phones in conference rooms, small meeting rooms and a few hotdesks.
Also I don't think I was discussing risk so much as damage limitation.
Throwing it out of the nearest airlock should suffice. Or maybe bring some pigs.
I'm sure it is typical that the more viewers a service has the more it is prepared to pay. But it might also be the case that a service *doesn't* have the viewers and is using the exclusive as a hook to attract more viewers, or steal them away from a rival. In that scenario, another service with more actual viewers is being deprived of the content. Or Disney might play off two services precisely for that reason, as appears to be the case right here. My understanding is that Starz used to licence stuff to Netflix and then it didn't, and now Netflix is doing a runaround to get the content itself and depriving Starz of it in the process. That's great for Netflix users, not so great for Starz users. It's too bad that content isn't licenced like patents, in a fair and non-discriminatory way so services could all licence it if they wished and could afford it.
But the issue is not brute forcing over the network. The issue is hackers stealing a database of passwords, then bruteforcing the lot of them locally. Some sites don't even bother to hash the password at all and some don't salt them or use a weak hash. So if the database is lifted, the hackers could potentially recover some or all of the passwords with little or no effort. So if you use the same email and password for an insecure site as a strong site, you are trouble.
Therefore it would be wise to arrange sites into tiers of importance. Tax / health / social security on the top. Then banks. Then cloud / email services. Then stores. Then sites with personally identifying info. Then forums and other throwaway crap. For each tier take appropriate measures to ensure uniqueness of the password and login id and use password safe to manage this mess. On the bottom tier, you could probably use the same throwaway password for every site, or a variant of it (e.g. tack on the first 4 letters of the domain host) since a compromise is a nuisance rather than as a threat.
And use something like Password Safe so you don't have to remember all this crap.
I expect they go where they can maximize their returns and screw the end viewers.
I don't think it's coincidence that scam artists will target highly religious people. It's probably the potent mix of gullibility and trustworthiness that makes them an easy mark.
My kids need gluten free food and a lot of gluten free breads & rolls are delivered packed in smaller portions in sealed plastic filled with nitrogen and have a shelf life of several months. I imagine that something similar would have to be done with 60 day bread. But I'm not entirely sure what the research is showing which hasn't already been put into practice with GF.
Perhaps there would be the odd dumbass trying to print their cock, or a gun grip and you can refuse to print that, but most things are not going to be so clearcut.
How do you know that the candlestick you're printing out is an original design or one ripped off from a design on a web? How do you know that some jewellery with an intricate rose in it is in the public domain, or was ripped off some design company's site by hackers? How do you know if random plastic housing for some random electronic thing is some hobbiest's own design or a ripoff of the original? Is the form or function copyrightable? Is the design trademarked? Is it okay for someone to print out a model Ferrari? What about Mickey Mouse? Disney releases stuff for kids to print out in 2D, who's to say they won't do it for 3D too some day? What if someone decomposes something recognisable into smaller parts which are not recognisable.
I don't think a person in the shop do much except catch the most blatant cases. More likely the printing software would have to check the model somehow and notify the operator to potential infringement. But checking for similarity is an obviously non-trivial problem and would require that designs are registered. I don't see that happening any time soon, but maybe it will eventually.
Anyway I don't see Office Depot being able to enforce copyright any time soon. Maybe they'll look for obvious infringement, e.g. someone printing out Mickey Mouse, but if you print out some random widget how can they tell? The person in the shop certainly can't.
In time perhaps they might establish a database of known infringing files based on checksum but it would be easy to circumvent that (change one byte). In the long term they might resort to statistical sampling and thresholds but it's easy to see what a pain in the ass it would be to figure that out too given that someone could just rotate a design by 0.5 degrees. Maybe someone will figure a way to "watermark", distilling a design down to the position of key functional elements within it but it's obviously going to have a margin of error and if that margin is too big and throws up too many false positives Office Depot or whoever is going to have a lot of pissed off customers.
That if I load Slashdot on a phone / tablet that it'll helpfully ask if I want to download the app instead. Every single time, or even at random. I wonder if sites know how fucking annoying it is to be asked this question repeatedly.
Rhino is an interpreter though. Sounds like they want something which compiles JS to actual bytecode and is therefore faster. Perhaps the effort required to make Rhino work the way they want is so high it's easier to write something from scratch.
The benefit would be faster performance while offering the ability to mix and match JS with Java. Since they run on the same JVM you could call from an object implemented in one language straight through to an object implemented in another. e.g. use node.js like code to service a web request but pulling the data through domain objects filled from a hibernate store. A bit like how Groovy, Jython and other JVM based languages work.
I would run a mile from using Oracle hardware and database tech though unless I was totally convinced that I could only obtain the performance and reliability required by the project from using it.
Of course, the question should be, do you really want to gamble with a casino which is trying to operate outside the law in this manner.