What's wrong with Hotz's activities? Are you saying he should not be allowed to do whatever he wants with the hardware he owns?
He is not being sued for doing whatever he wants with the hardware he owns.
He is being sued for doing illegal things with the software he does not own.
Sony is looking to ID other people working on the hack. They are not looking for evidence that Geohot did it - there is more than enough already. So there is no reason for Sony to put anything on his computers - if they fabricate evidence to ID some random people they are not going to have a case against them anyways and the real culprits will continue to do what they are doing.
Why people without PS3 feel the need to share their fantasies about using one on/.?
PS3 games don't install firmware, it comes on the game disk and you need to install it explicitly, agreeing to TOS and confirming that you indeed want to install the new firmware.
Except for the fact that there is not a lot of free memory to keep the original OS image together with the modified one this strategy might work yet it is still more complicated than just sending a constant as the post I replied to suggested.
Old firmware never had the ability to play new games. New games require the new firmware. The fact that the new firmware does not have some features of the old firmware does not make those features "gone" from the old firmware.
Sony, even if it wanted, cannot remove anything from your PS3 - it's up to you to install firmware that disables or enables various features. They have not removed anything from my PS3, certainly not the PS2 compatibility nor Other OS (that I don't care about).
DLC is there to suppress used games market, not because of "lazy developers". Releasing DLC in few weeks after the game saves sales from the flood of the used copies from the people who bought the game on the release date and have already finished it.
I, for one, reasonably expect a demo to have as many properties of the full game as possible and would be very sad if the demo ran adequately, I payed for the full game and it did not run at all. Which would be exactly the case with the game in question if my PC had problems with the DRM software and the demo shipped without it. As you can see different people have different expectations, luckily the are all being equally dispelled with "as is" and other disclaimers in the EULA.
You can't see why I am so sure because I am not so sure as you put it. It's a common sense though to protect the company from everything possible in a contract such as EULA, I don't see why EA would leave itself exposed in case of things they have been doing for the last decade. But, of course, it's possible they did and you are right, they forgot.
Indeed you can. The issue here however is different, nobody is demanding a refund and returning the software if I understand TFA correctly. People are complying about the software they have already installed and ran so they had to agree to EULA. The question is whether this particular EULA allows non-removable software installs or not.
Their EULA says nothing about installing hidden software that will never be removed.
Even by agreeing to the EULA you don't agree to "all things not mentioned."
If so where would it end? Could they search my harddrive for credit card information? Format my harddrive on a whim? Store their own stuff on my computer without telling me? Of course not!
I would not be so sure. Especially if they've licensed their DRM from a third party, which I believe is the case with the stuff EA normally uses. And yes, they could if there were provisions in EULA allowing them to do so, not necessary in a form of "And, hey, we're gonna to install hidden software that you should not know about, gedit? Lol!" This is why EA itself clears EULAs of the software they use through their own lawyers.
You are asking a wrong person - I have not read EA's EULA. I can give you a guess - yes, it did, EA has been in business for over 25 years and has surely figured out how to write an EULA protecting them from everything.
How is EA doing this different from anyone installing trojans, spyware, or virus?
The difference is that you are in a contract with EA through an EULA you had to agree in order to install and run the software. It does not matter that you did not read it or think it does not have any power because this contract is the only thing allowing you to run and install the software and otherwise you breaking the law yourself.
I know many people are confused by this so I will explain. Mind that IANAL.
You have no right to install software. It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a cd is because you are making a copy of the executable imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about. Fair use and other exceptions don't apply in this case (for example for Fair Use defense you need to be already granted some rights from the author). There is only one reason you can lawfully run the installer - it's a provision that you can do so if it necessary in order to obtain a permission from the author.
Your right to run and install software is granted in the contract, commonly called "EULA". If you don't agree with it - you have no right to run it and/or keep a copy on your hard drive. If you could not find it or failed to read for some other reason then again, you have no right because the software is a subject of the copyright laws explicitly forbidding you to do this.
So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.
To answer your question - yes. Every other PC studio's games were pirated just as well, Epic did not raise because of piracy or their games. It's a midleware company and their main product and source of revenue is Unreal Engine they have sold to everyone (and if memory serves they've got a sweet deal with Intel financing the original Unreal to promote their "revoluationary" MMX technology). There are many console companies bigger and richer than Epic who get by without releasing virtually anything on PC. And there are even more PC companies going out of business even though their games were pirated.
Sorry, I don't see your point. If I define real numbers somewhat different or just say that real numbers don't exist then still every theorem dealing with integers is valid. So? Theorems dealing with real numbers are not. Likewise if you meddle with integer number definition your integer theorems will not be all correct any more.
How does the stuff you posted prove mathematics is based on some assumptions?
18th century called - they wanted their naive mathematics back. If you negate a definition then every theorem dealing with this definition becomes invalid. This is how modern mathematics works.
You are talking about definitions. The modern set theory deals with the sets for which the axiom of choice is true by definition (and thus it's called "axiomatic" vs "naive" theory which was trying to get away without definitions). Any field of mathematics deals with objects, properties of which are defined by such axioms. No other objects exist in mathematics. You can use different definitions to get different objects but you don't doubt your definitions. This was my point of objection vs. popular belief "oh you know, they thought parallel lines do not intersect but then discovered they do!". Nope, parallel lines as defined in Euclidean geometry still do not intersect however you are welcome to build another theory and define some other objects and call them "parallel lines" and define the property of intersection in such a way those objects of yours will always intersect but it will has nothing to do with the Euclidean geometry.
Even though the term "mathematical logic" contains the substring "math" it does not apply to the mathematics as the whole. Care to point at any assumptions in the mathematics, a single one would suffice.
You are confused - there are no assumptions in mathematics because mathematics does not deal with any real entities. There are only definitions and what you are talking about applies to them: depending on your definitions properties of defined entities will differ. Quite a trivial conclusion most sane people already realize.
Few bits are wrong, namely: not an innocent headmaster, the guy kept using illegal software after getting an explicit warning from the local DA office (there is a letter with his signature confirming he understood the warning and is going to comply) and no, he was not cleared - appeal courts supported the original judgment, the guy is a felon.
I see at least two reasons for not making a coop game:
1. It's hard. Lack of a dedicated server causes whole lot of technical challenges starting from synchronization of time and ending with synchronization of data. Remember PSO? It was killed by these issues pretty fast.
2. It's cheap - you could charge for a coop game match service in 90s but nowadays people are not going to pay you monthly fee just for that. Would you rather own a coop game or an MMO with subscription fee coming in every month?
There are more alternatives in MMO design than just two: WoW and Second Life. Story driven is just another one. I, for one, cannot play WoW because the game looks like a complete waste of time. On the other hand I've enjoyed FF11 for its story line.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with Hotz's activities? Are you saying he should not be allowed to do whatever he wants with the hardware he owns?
He is not being sued for doing whatever he wants with the hardware he owns. He is being sued for doing illegal things with the software he does not own.
Sony is looking to ID other people working on the hack. They are not looking for evidence that Geohot did it - there is more than enough already. So there is no reason for Sony to put anything on his computers - if they fabricate evidence to ID some random people they are not going to have a case against them anyways and the real culprits will continue to do what they are doing.
You know that $0.99 iPhone games still get pirated at ridiculous rate, rite? http://247wallst.com/2010/01/13/apple-app-store-has-lost-450-million-to-piracy/
You mean that explaining that the update will delete [Other OS] and [Default System] features before you proceed does not count as a warning?
Why people without PS3 feel the need to share their fantasies about using one on /.?
PS3 games don't install firmware, it comes on the game disk and you need to install it explicitly, agreeing to TOS and confirming that you indeed want to install the new firmware.
Except for the fact that there is not a lot of free memory to keep the original OS image together with the modified one this strategy might work yet it is still more complicated than just sending a constant as the post I replied to suggested.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=PSN+remote+execute+code
Old firmware never had the ability to play new games. New games require the new firmware. The fact that the new firmware does not have some features of the old firmware does not make those features "gone" from the old firmware.
When the PSN server sends the code to compute the hash then it suddenly becomes a bit more complicated.
Sony, even if it wanted, cannot remove anything from your PS3 - it's up to you to install firmware that disables or enables various features. They have not removed anything from my PS3, certainly not the PS2 compatibility nor Other OS (that I don't care about).
DLC is there to suppress used games market, not because of "lazy developers". Releasing DLC in few weeks after the game saves sales from the flood of the used copies from the people who bought the game on the release date and have already finished it.
I, for one, reasonably expect a demo to have as many properties of the full game as possible and would be very sad if the demo ran adequately, I payed for the full game and it did not run at all. Which would be exactly the case with the game in question if my PC had problems with the DRM software and the demo shipped without it. As you can see different people have different expectations, luckily the are all being equally dispelled with "as is" and other disclaimers in the EULA.
You can't see why I am so sure because I am not so sure as you put it. It's a common sense though to protect the company from everything possible in a contract such as EULA, I don't see why EA would leave itself exposed in case of things they have been doing for the last decade. But, of course, it's possible they did and you are right, they forgot.
Indeed you can. The issue here however is different, nobody is demanding a refund and returning the software if I understand TFA correctly. People are complying about the software they have already installed and ran so they had to agree to EULA. The question is whether this particular EULA allows non-removable software installs or not.
Their EULA says nothing about installing hidden software that will never be removed.
Even by agreeing to the EULA you don't agree to "all things not mentioned."
If so where would it end? Could they search my harddrive for credit card information? Format my harddrive on a whim? Store their own stuff on my computer without telling me? Of course not!
I would not be so sure. Especially if they've licensed their DRM from a third party, which I believe is the case with the stuff EA normally uses. And yes, they could if there were provisions in EULA allowing them to do so, not necessary in a form of "And, hey, we're gonna to install hidden software that you should not know about, gedit? Lol!" This is why EA itself clears EULAs of the software they use through their own lawyers.
You are asking a wrong person - I have not read EA's EULA. I can give you a guess - yes, it did, EA has been in business for over 25 years and has surely figured out how to write an EULA protecting them from everything.
How is EA doing this different from anyone installing trojans, spyware, or virus?
The difference is that you are in a contract with EA through an EULA you had to agree in order to install and run the software. It does not matter that you did not read it or think it does not have any power because this contract is the only thing allowing you to run and install the software and otherwise you breaking the law yourself.
I know many people are confused by this so I will explain. Mind that IANAL.
You have no right to install software. It's an act of making a copy (in fact even running off a cd is because you are making a copy of the executable imagine in RAM) and this what copyright is all about. Fair use and other exceptions don't apply in this case (for example for Fair Use defense you need to be already granted some rights from the author). There is only one reason you can lawfully run the installer - it's a provision that you can do so if it necessary in order to obtain a permission from the author.
Your right to run and install software is granted in the contract, commonly called "EULA". If you don't agree with it - you have no right to run it and/or keep a copy on your hard drive. If you could not find it or failed to read for some other reason then again, you have no right because the software is a subject of the copyright laws explicitly forbidding you to do this.
So either you have explicitly allowed EA to do whatever they asked you in the EULA when you have entered that contract or you are a criminal, illegally copying a protected work.
To answer your question - yes. Every other PC studio's games were pirated just as well, Epic did not raise because of piracy or their games. It's a midleware company and their main product and source of revenue is Unreal Engine they have sold to everyone (and if memory serves they've got a sweet deal with Intel financing the original Unreal to promote their "revoluationary" MMX technology). There are many console companies bigger and richer than Epic who get by without releasing virtually anything on PC. And there are even more PC companies going out of business even though their games were pirated.
Sorry, I don't see your point. If I define real numbers somewhat different or just say that real numbers don't exist then still every theorem dealing with integers is valid. So? Theorems dealing with real numbers are not. Likewise if you meddle with integer number definition your integer theorems will not be all correct any more.
How does the stuff you posted prove mathematics is based on some assumptions?
18th century called - they wanted their naive mathematics back. If you negate a definition then every theorem dealing with this definition becomes invalid. This is how modern mathematics works.
You are talking about definitions. The modern set theory deals with the sets for which the axiom of choice is true by definition (and thus it's called "axiomatic" vs "naive" theory which was trying to get away without definitions). Any field of mathematics deals with objects, properties of which are defined by such axioms. No other objects exist in mathematics. You can use different definitions to get different objects but you don't doubt your definitions. This was my point of objection vs. popular belief "oh you know, they thought parallel lines do not intersect but then discovered they do!". Nope, parallel lines as defined in Euclidean geometry still do not intersect however you are welcome to build another theory and define some other objects and call them "parallel lines" and define the property of intersection in such a way those objects of yours will always intersect but it will has nothing to do with the Euclidean geometry.
Even though the term "mathematical logic" contains the substring "math" it does not apply to the mathematics as the whole. Care to point at any assumptions in the mathematics, a single one would suffice.
You are confused - there are no assumptions in mathematics because mathematics does not deal with any real entities. There are only definitions and what you are talking about applies to them: depending on your definitions properties of defined entities will differ. Quite a trivial conclusion most sane people already realize.
Few bits are wrong, namely: not an innocent headmaster, the guy kept using illegal software after getting an explicit warning from the local DA office (there is a letter with his signature confirming he understood the warning and is going to comply) and no, he was not cleared - appeal courts supported the original judgment, the guy is a felon.
I see at least two reasons for not making a coop game: 1. It's hard. Lack of a dedicated server causes whole lot of technical challenges starting from synchronization of time and ending with synchronization of data. Remember PSO? It was killed by these issues pretty fast. 2. It's cheap - you could charge for a coop game match service in 90s but nowadays people are not going to pay you monthly fee just for that. Would you rather own a coop game or an MMO with subscription fee coming in every month? There are more alternatives in MMO design than just two: WoW and Second Life. Story driven is just another one. I, for one, cannot play WoW because the game looks like a complete waste of time. On the other hand I've enjoyed FF11 for its story line.