Actually all Sony really has to do is give people a way to run home brew on their own systems without letting pirates in and none of this would have ever happened.
Bollocks. The PS3 had Other OS support precisely until someone started hacking it to gain unauthorised access to the hypervisor including potentially the ability to run pirated games.
Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).
And Christians stake their eternal on the presumption that God is their abrahamic version of god etc etc. So for all they know they will be enjoying eternity with a trident up their backsides in the pit of Tartarus for not sacrificing goats to Zeus.
There is no more evidence for a Christian god than there is for any other, past, present or future. Which is to say none whatsoever.
I expect Samsung's tech specs will weasel out of this by saying their device is capable of displaying a 1080p signal, not necessarily displaying a 1080p native resolution. It would be sweet if it could of course, but on a 7" perhaps it's asking too much.
Come off it. The PSP is 5 years old. Besides if you're going to compare games, compare like with like. The Citadel demo you refer to is basically a walkthrough of a static landscape. It looks very pretty of course, but then it doesn't have to worry about collision detection, or enemy AI, or animation, or special effects, or physics, or networking or anything else an actual game would.
There is no doubt that a modern handheld should be able to do better than a PSP but it is difficult to infer much from that clip.
And the biggest bulls-eye appears to be on Android, in large part because its architecture is most like that of the desktop PC but also because there are so many variants in use -- too many for Google or the carriers to patch securely.
So if an exploit occurs it will likely only affect some handsets as opposed to every handset.
Electronic tags typically work by requiring someone be within proximity of a base station at certain times of the day. e.g. the tag might impose a curfew but allow someone out for a period of the day to buy groceries, go to work, sign on the dole, meet with their probation office or whatever. When the tag is not monitoring the user I am not surprised they can commit crime and get away with it.
However if the tag were to also track GPS information and relay that information, you can bet your boots that it would stop all but the most stupid recidivist offenders. After all, if a house is burgled and the tagged person's data says they were there at the time and date of the crime it would be pretty difficult to protest innocence. Arguably it is the recidivists you want to be locking up anyway so the success rate for tagging would rise as a result.
The answer is browsers should be restricting the amount of information they divulge which can be used to construct a unique id. For IE that would mean not shoving useless crap like.NET versions into the user agent, and for all browsers to consider if they really need to advertise what precise OS version is in use, what screen resolution the user has, what major/minor/build# the engine is, what plugins and what fonts the user has installed in each and every instance.
Fonts would be the easiest case to deal with I think. Not many sites need to know what fonts you have so requests to find out which fonts you have can be stopped cold by default. OS version is another one - most sites don't need to know you're running Vista or XP and those that do could be whitelisted. Other things might require the use of warning popups.
Not everything could be gotten rid of but reducing the amount of uniqueness even by a few bits would go a long way to stop cookies reattaching themselves.
Flash, Silverlight, Java, HTML5, Google Gears (which uses a variety of methods). Basically anything with local storage which falls outside what the browser / add on manages is open to abuse. But even without a shared off, the EFF reckons they can reattach the cookie in over 99% of cases just by comparing other information leaked by the browser such as its user agent string, plugins, fonts etc.
Blocking cookies is not enough. Your IP address plus a hash made from your user agent, list of plugins and other bits of data would be more than adequate for an advertiser to track you without ever issuing you a cookie. The EFF has suggested there are 10.5 bits of uniqueness in the standard user agent. If that were combined with an IP, it would be quite sufficient for an advert to be able to follow you from one site to the next.
Except flushing cookies does not mean the ads stop. If the site uses Flash then the cookies can heal themselves from shared object backups. Failing that, the advertiser might be able to make an extremely good guess and restore the cookie based on the sites a person visits, the browser user agent, the ip address, the browser's installed plugins and other metrics.
That kind of thing might not mean much for a lousy pair of shoes. However the implications for privacy in general are massive.
Light Peak is not just being touted for external devices but also to allow computers to replace their various internal databuses with a single bus. Everything from eSATA to PCI-Express could all be replaced by optical cables. I can't even imagine what such a motherboard would look like, but I assume it would have some multiple of Light Peak connectors running between HDD, USB, graphics module, video output etc. with optical modules on the endpoints. If that's the case, then there is no reason such a computer wouldn't expose USB 3.0 and an external Light Peak connector side by side since USB is running over Light Peak any way.
IMO USB 3.0 seems a bit of a lame duck for high speed storage - better than nothing but not anywhere as good as it should be. But I wonder if Light Peak is so ambitious that it might be years off from realising itself and people have no other choice but to go with USB 3.0.
The special effects were superb, the writing... not so much. I don't think I would be interested in enduring an extended edition unless James Cameron actually rewrote and reshot (for the better) some of the hokier dialogue and contrivances.
I expect you will find virtually all those advances were created by engineers and scientists, not farmers. Of course the farmer isn't stupid, and if some tech comes along which speeds up / automates / increases yield etc. then naturally they will want to use it.
The practice still extends to TV advertising. Virtually every Nintendo DS ad shows some fantastic CGI clip with the next "not in-game footage" flashed nearby. The clip will be so short that people won't have time to read the text but the lie will have been implanted. It's not just DS titles either although they are the worst offenders.
And virtually every game has bullshots before actual release. The bullshot will be superficially like the game (they might lamely claim it is rendered with in-game assets) but it will be rendered at hi resolution, full AA, full detail, full effects, and with a carefully position pose. Then the game comes out and it's nothing like that.
The moral is don't believe hype. Don't preorder. Read the real reviews (not previews or exclusive reviews). Chances everything you read up until the review flood gate opens is spin.
Lawns need to be watered and cut, neither of which is particularly green. There are grass varieties that require less water & cutting, so perhaps by law all new lawns should be required to use these.
It's not really a surprise. To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers. You can't really rely on emulation either, if you sell the game as a Linux version you really have to do a native build.
Same is true for the Mac. Most of those Mac games on Steam have running Windows code which has been rebuilt with Cider (which is a Wine variant).
Anyway I think Valve's position should be to pay someone like Cedega to support Steam on Linux and a core set of titles do too. Cedega can take their cut from any games expressly purchased on the platform.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The problem with Android is that it does implement a load of the java.* namespace, but it is not a complete implementation. This means that code written using portable Java will not always work on Android. I don't think they add anything in the java.* namespace, so you can port apps from android unless they use the android.* stuff.
That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented. It could have implemented all 100% and Oracle would still be pissed.
The reason why they're pissed is because Google chose to deliberately make a Java-like environment, one which benefited from the Java programming language but wasn't actually Java and never claimed to be. Therefore it was not subject to Oracle's licensing terms or directional interference. Since Google never claimed it was Java (as did Microsoft when they produced a bastardized version), Oracle cannot sue for licence or trademark infringement.
All they can do as they have done is rummage around for some patents that were violated in the process. The patents look pretty weak, and some of them don't even cover Android OS, just the SDK. I think what is likely to happen is that Google will vigourously defend the suit and issue a counter suit, but they won't settle for anything less than a sop to Oracle. Perhaps that sop will be to fold JavaFX into the SDK or something. I actually like JavaFX and it would be a good fit and would bring Oracle back in the game to some extent. What I absolutely don't see happening ever is Google using Java ME or dumping Dalvik.
IMO Oracle / Sun really have themselves to blame for this. Java devs love Java but they despise the glacial pace of development. Java 7 is years overdue and Java ME is stale technology, inadequate for most of the purposes it was touted for. The average STB, or smart phone has outgrown Java ME. I do not blame Google for not waiting around for Oracle's blessing and doing their own thing.
"All applications are written using the Java programming language.". This has an implication that the implementation of Android is close enough to Java to implement its quirks, which are likely covered by Oracle patents.
Just because the text language is Java says nothing of the runtime. After all, Google's GWT uses Java as a language but then it translates the Java source into Javascript that runs in a browser. Similarly, IKVM runs Java byte code dynamic but can also compile it to run natively over the.NET CLR. GCJ can compile Java byte code into native executables but doesn't guarantee compatibility etc.
"The VM is register-based, and runs classes compiled by a Java language compiler that have been transformed into the.dex format by the included "dx" tool."
Up until this point, Google could have used a different method of doing a number of things internally, bypassing Oracle's patents. However, as soon as it became clear that Google is converting the Sun-compatible* bytecode to Dalvik bytecode, it also became clear that to do so, Google would have to know how Oracle's patented code works, thus said code would be in violation of said patents.
I don't see why. A multitude of applications generate, parse or translate Java bytecode without necessarily violating patents. Every Java obfuscator / decompiler for example. Eclipse Java compiler. gcj for another. IKVM another. Why is it a patent violation to translate one machine instruction set into another anyway?
It's also worth noting that none of this translation happens at runtime. Android the OS hasnt the faintest clue what to do with a.class or.jar file. It expects Dalkvik VM bytecodes and nothing else.
As I said "The picture is either recomposed exactly as transmitted or there is very obvious blocking or black outs."
You won't get sparklies, you'll get digital glitches. Part of the signal will be missing so the TV will either black out, throw up some random garbage, block or similar. I used to program set top boxes so I'd always be hooking up to different TVs. Generally one cable was as good as the next. The only time I've seen issues was when I used older, thinner HDMI 1.2 cables when trying to output 1080p.
A properly rated and functioning HDMI 1.3 cable will work identically whether it costs $5 or $200. And if your $5 cable craps out, buy another one. Currently my 46" TV uses two HDMI cables. One came in the box with the STB and I have no idea what it is, the other was purchased in LIDL for 10 euros. Both work exactly as they should.
Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.
Not the same at all. Google has never claimed they have implemented Java, hasn't licenced the tech from Sun, hasn't used the Java trademark or logo. Microsoft did and proceeded to make their version incompatible. Android uses Java as the programming API but the actual bytecode and VM it runs under is completely different.
Partly this is to skirt around this issue, but also I suspect because it is genuinely more efficient. Dalvik is an incredibly lightweight VM, perfectly suited for its use.
IMO Oracle is just angling for a piece of the pie. Their own efforts with Java ME failed because the tech was allowed to stagnate so it was a no brainer that people moved over to Android. ME is okay, but it's just not up to the task of powering a smart phone. It's too bad for Oracle, but really they only have themselves to blame. The odd thing is they could probably still carve out a niche on Android if they ported JavaFX across - it would probably be quite a nice fit.
It's funny to hear audiophiles babble about the audio / picture quality being better when comparing one digital cable costing $200 vs another costing $5. With digital protocols with error correction, either the signal works or it doesn't. The picture is either recomposed exactly as transmitted or there is very obvious blocking or black outs. There is no subjectivity, no "richer" picture or sparklies or other nonsense.
As $5 cables do exactly what they're designed to do anyone who forks out significantly more for a "brand" is a sucker.
To be fair to Sony, they have been much pushing moddable games much harder than other consoles. Games like Little Big Planet & ModNation Racers for example. LBP2 is going to take it to insane new levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Bollocks. The PS3 had Other OS support precisely until someone started hacking it to gain unauthorised access to the hypervisor including potentially the ability to run pirated games.
And Christians stake their eternal on the presumption that God is their abrahamic version of god etc etc. So for all they know they will be enjoying eternity with a trident up their backsides in the pit of Tartarus for not sacrificing goats to Zeus.
There is no more evidence for a Christian god than there is for any other, past, present or future. Which is to say none whatsoever.
I expect Samsung's tech specs will weasel out of this by saying their device is capable of displaying a 1080p signal, not necessarily displaying a 1080p native resolution. It would be sweet if it could of course, but on a 7" perhaps it's asking too much.
Come off it. The PSP is 5 years old. Besides if you're going to compare games, compare like with like. The Citadel demo you refer to is basically a walkthrough of a static landscape. It looks very pretty of course, but then it doesn't have to worry about collision detection, or enemy AI, or animation, or special effects, or physics, or networking or anything else an actual game would. There is no doubt that a modern handheld should be able to do better than a PSP but it is difficult to infer much from that clip.
So if an exploit occurs it will likely only affect some handsets as opposed to every handset.
However if the tag were to also track GPS information and relay that information, you can bet your boots that it would stop all but the most stupid recidivist offenders. After all, if a house is burgled and the tagged person's data says they were there at the time and date of the crime it would be pretty difficult to protest innocence. Arguably it is the recidivists you want to be locking up anyway so the success rate for tagging would rise as a result.
Just don't forget the exploding neck collars if they go outside the perimeter.
Fonts would be the easiest case to deal with I think. Not many sites need to know what fonts you have so requests to find out which fonts you have can be stopped cold by default. OS version is another one - most sites don't need to know you're running Vista or XP and those that do could be whitelisted. Other things might require the use of warning popups.
Not everything could be gotten rid of but reducing the amount of uniqueness even by a few bits would go a long way to stop cookies reattaching themselves.
Flash, Silverlight, Java, HTML5, Google Gears (which uses a variety of methods). Basically anything with local storage which falls outside what the browser / add on manages is open to abuse. But even without a shared off, the EFF reckons they can reattach the cookie in over 99% of cases just by comparing other information leaked by the browser such as its user agent string, plugins, fonts etc.
Blocking cookies is not enough. Your IP address plus a hash made from your user agent, list of plugins and other bits of data would be more than adequate for an advertiser to track you without ever issuing you a cookie. The EFF has suggested there are 10.5 bits of uniqueness in the standard user agent. If that were combined with an IP, it would be quite sufficient for an advert to be able to follow you from one site to the next.
That kind of thing might not mean much for a lousy pair of shoes. However the implications for privacy in general are massive.
if (continuousLaserBeam) hack = true;
And I thought my jokes were bad.
IMO USB 3.0 seems a bit of a lame duck for high speed storage - better than nothing but not anywhere as good as it should be. But I wonder if Light Peak is so ambitious that it might be years off from realising itself and people have no other choice but to go with USB 3.0.
The special effects were superb, the writing... not so much. I don't think I would be interested in enduring an extended edition unless James Cameron actually rewrote and reshot (for the better) some of the hokier dialogue and contrivances.
I expect you will find virtually all those advances were created by engineers and scientists, not farmers. Of course the farmer isn't stupid, and if some tech comes along which speeds up / automates / increases yield etc. then naturally they will want to use it.
And virtually every game has bullshots before actual release. The bullshot will be superficially like the game (they might lamely claim it is rendered with in-game assets) but it will be rendered at hi resolution, full AA, full detail, full effects, and with a carefully position pose. Then the game comes out and it's nothing like that.
The moral is don't believe hype. Don't preorder. Read the real reviews (not previews or exclusive reviews). Chances everything you read up until the review flood gate opens is spin.
Lawns need to be watered and cut, neither of which is particularly green. There are grass varieties that require less water & cutting, so perhaps by law all new lawns should be required to use these.
Same is true for the Mac. Most of those Mac games on Steam have running Windows code which has been rebuilt with Cider (which is a Wine variant).
Anyway I think Valve's position should be to pay someone like Cedega to support Steam on Linux and a core set of titles do too. Cedega can take their cut from any games expressly purchased on the platform.
That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented. It could have implemented all 100% and Oracle would still be pissed.
The reason why they're pissed is because Google chose to deliberately make a Java-like environment, one which benefited from the Java programming language but wasn't actually Java and never claimed to be. Therefore it was not subject to Oracle's licensing terms or directional interference. Since Google never claimed it was Java (as did Microsoft when they produced a bastardized version), Oracle cannot sue for licence or trademark infringement.
All they can do as they have done is rummage around for some patents that were violated in the process. The patents look pretty weak, and some of them don't even cover Android OS, just the SDK. I think what is likely to happen is that Google will vigourously defend the suit and issue a counter suit, but they won't settle for anything less than a sop to Oracle. Perhaps that sop will be to fold JavaFX into the SDK or something. I actually like JavaFX and it would be a good fit and would bring Oracle back in the game to some extent. What I absolutely don't see happening ever is Google using Java ME or dumping Dalvik.
IMO Oracle / Sun really have themselves to blame for this. Java devs love Java but they despise the glacial pace of development. Java 7 is years overdue and Java ME is stale technology, inadequate for most of the purposes it was touted for. The average STB, or smart phone has outgrown Java ME. I do not blame Google for not waiting around for Oracle's blessing and doing their own thing.
Just because the text language is Java says nothing of the runtime. After all, Google's GWT uses Java as a language but then it translates the Java source into Javascript that runs in a browser. Similarly, IKVM runs Java byte code dynamic but can also compile it to run natively over the .NET CLR. GCJ can compile Java byte code into native executables but doesn't guarantee compatibility etc.
"The VM is register-based, and runs classes compiled by a Java language compiler that have been transformed into the .dex format by the included "dx" tool."
Up until this point, Google could have used a different method of doing a number of things internally, bypassing Oracle's patents. However, as soon as it became clear that Google is converting the Sun-compatible* bytecode to Dalvik bytecode, it also became clear that to do so, Google would have to know how Oracle's patented code works, thus said code would be in violation of said patents.
I don't see why. A multitude of applications generate, parse or translate Java bytecode without necessarily violating patents. Every Java obfuscator / decompiler for example. Eclipse Java compiler. gcj for another. IKVM another. Why is it a patent violation to translate one machine instruction set into another anyway?
It's also worth noting that none of this translation happens at runtime. Android the OS hasnt the faintest clue what to do with a .class or .jar file. It expects Dalkvik VM bytecodes and nothing else.
You won't get sparklies, you'll get digital glitches. Part of the signal will be missing so the TV will either black out, throw up some random garbage, block or similar. I used to program set top boxes so I'd always be hooking up to different TVs. Generally one cable was as good as the next. The only time I've seen issues was when I used older, thinner HDMI 1.2 cables when trying to output 1080p.
A properly rated and functioning HDMI 1.3 cable will work identically whether it costs $5 or $200. And if your $5 cable craps out, buy another one. Currently my 46" TV uses two HDMI cables. One came in the box with the STB and I have no idea what it is, the other was purchased in LIDL for 10 euros. Both work exactly as they should.
Not the same at all. Google has never claimed they have implemented Java, hasn't licenced the tech from Sun, hasn't used the Java trademark or logo. Microsoft did and proceeded to make their version incompatible. Android uses Java as the programming API but the actual bytecode and VM it runs under is completely different.
Partly this is to skirt around this issue, but also I suspect because it is genuinely more efficient. Dalvik is an incredibly lightweight VM, perfectly suited for its use.
IMO Oracle is just angling for a piece of the pie. Their own efforts with Java ME failed because the tech was allowed to stagnate so it was a no brainer that people moved over to Android. ME is okay, but it's just not up to the task of powering a smart phone. It's too bad for Oracle, but really they only have themselves to blame. The odd thing is they could probably still carve out a niche on Android if they ported JavaFX across - it would probably be quite a nice fit.
As $5 cables do exactly what they're designed to do anyone who forks out significantly more for a "brand" is a sucker.
To be fair to Sony, they have been much pushing moddable games much harder than other consoles. Games like Little Big Planet & ModNation Racers for example. LBP2 is going to take it to insane new levels.