You're stupid if you think these things are limited to Sony. People talk about how stupid religious people are with their blind faith. Well, reliance on binaries without source is blind faith too.
Re:Don't forget the jews...
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I was making fun of the article submitter's friend you stupid fucktards.
I've never had a rebate returned to me. Best buy in particular seemed to be notoriously bad. Additionally, I have a friend who was supposed to get a $30 rebate from Cingular because she got a certain phone. About 5 calls and 6 months later she still has nothing. And there is nothing you can do about it, and the companies know it too. They know you're not going to do anything judicially to get your money, so they screw over any one they want too.
I just think its stupid that this whole situation is even being considered. If a scripted film can be art, then a scripted video game is art too. The addition of interactivity does not inherently change anything besides the fact that it stimulates the brain even more. And like all art there are only a few gems amidst a vast field of coal. Although, I would say that currently there really are very few game writers that really push a story line to invoke any emotions besides happiness and hatred. Unfortunately, the grim reality regarding trends with the entertainment industry in general seems to be forced catering to the stupid primal masses, and complete disregard for anything requiring unscientifically originated creativity. If it doesn't fit the formula, it won't be funded and no one will ever find out about it.
Creativity is not directly proportional to profit, therefore corporate America (including Joe Dumbass who let himself be bought a long time ago) do not care about relaxing any of these restrictions.
I agree about the locking the computer part, and I wasn't even talking about physical access to any server. But in "the real world", aka where I work, there are employees with very high levels of access (namely the system administrator) that doesn't even have a screen saver password. Of course both my windows and linux workstations have password protected screen savers, and I habitually lock my computers before I even step away to get a drink. But we both know that there are a lot out there who don't do this. Additionally, I had another point being that the whole idea of third party trust really grants no more security than just trusting you're connecting to the right site to begin with. Just follow my previously stated points to see where I was going with that.
How many SSL certificates have you obtained? They are almost worthless as a real means of authentication. Give me access to a webmaster's computer for 5 minutes while he's out on break, and I can have a certificate for his domain in my control and be out the door. Authentication is laughable if the companies that are supposed to be the insurers of authentication do not fully authenticate the identity for themselves. That little padlock only means party C (the CA) tells party A (joe dumbass) that party B (the site) is who it says it is. What dooes party A know about party C though? Probably next to nothing. What do you know about their verification policies, without digging through page after page of documentation on their site? Zilch, even if you looked up you are going off good faith that those processes really are the processes that they go through (and isn't the whole point of these certificates to avoid the "good faith" situation). Is this site really authenticated? Nope. My point is the current infrastructure is insufficient to provide true authentication to the layman. So, besides making rich people more rich, what is the point in disabling sites that do not have a third party issued certificates? Of course, maybe I'm just mad that you're supposed to buy this crap once a year for a very high fee when it takes like 20 seconds to regenerate one of these things. The initial fee is understandable if they actually verify to some real extent the identity, but after that its just a money grubbing joke.
The camera itself? Sure, patent it. The mathematical manipulations to calculate ray convergence onto a plain is not a novel idea at all, and is in fact the very definition of focusing an image. This should NOT be patented.
If you look at this site: Stanford Lightfield Project. You will see that the basic premise behind defining a light field and mathematically manipulating it has been around sine the 30's. Whats cool here is the camera. In fact being in the photography business myself, I was just telling my father a couple months ago about how it would be easy to refocus an image if there was a lense that just captured a grid of images with slightly different perspectives from each cell. Refocusing the light field is a pretty obvious benefit to this system, I would deem not worthy of a patent, as it is just a way to mathematically manipulate a light field.
Gallery 2 does use an RDBMS. I have set it up with Postgres but I think it can do MySQL also. BTW, I have run gallery 1 with thousands of images, and while I do agree an RDBMS would have been optimal, it didn't really slow down to excrutiating levels.
Don't be stupid. This problem with Sony's DRM (you know Microsoft includes a DRM scheme of their own already in the operating system) is the fact that it had a security hole (unlike Microsoft software which never has any security problems whatsoever in the sotware that they gave you, excuse me SOLD YOU). This Sony thing is blown way out of proportion (compared with the deeds of its competitors). Don't like how they behave, fine don't buy it. But don't for a second conclude that Microsoft is somehow more ethical or even different. Don't lie to yourself and others. If you're going to boycott any one company strictly because of their unethical deeds, then you better be prepared to boycott the rest or forever brand yourself the propoganda spreading hypocrite that you present yourself as. The better of two evils is still evil, do not be so foolish as to ally with either.
I second this. I am just waiting for the moment when the technology becomes available. Its the way the internet was really intended to be run. Screw ISPs. The internet needs decentralised wireless peering.
Yeah, I don't really understand the POINT of having a live distro. And I do understand the broken/forgotten aspect. Crap I don't know, just get some software hooked up to a database that automatically mounts their crap based on a thumb print (or even their user/pass).
I just don't see how they can keep out of the red, when they're paying off slashdot editors to post every trivially relevant XBOX 360 article. Come on we're getting about 2 crapping XBOX 360 stories a day. The 360 is not revolutionary, it's hardly evolutionary. Higher poly count, higher resolution woooooo. Nothing new, nothing particularly interesting. Who the hell really cares anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
No the story should read: "Microsoft outsources to India: Press Paid-off to show in Positive Light".
You're stupid if you think these things are limited to Sony. People talk about how stupid religious people are with their blind faith. Well, reliance on binaries without source is blind faith too.
I was making fun of the article submitter's friend you stupid fucktards.
If its just going to be another corporate run ad fest (which it will eventually), then what's the difference exactly, and why should I care?
...boy I hate those worthless jews.
I think the stupid CD cover art is far worse than the name.
I've never had a rebate returned to me. Best buy in particular seemed to be notoriously bad. Additionally, I have a friend who was supposed to get a $30 rebate from Cingular because she got a certain phone. About 5 calls and 6 months later she still has nothing. And there is nothing you can do about it, and the companies know it too. They know you're not going to do anything judicially to get your money, so they screw over any one they want too.
I just think its stupid that this whole situation is even being considered. If a scripted film can be art, then a scripted video game is art too. The addition of interactivity does not inherently change anything besides the fact that it stimulates the brain even more. And like all art there are only a few gems amidst a vast field of coal. Although, I would say that currently there really are very few game writers that really push a story line to invoke any emotions besides happiness and hatred. Unfortunately, the grim reality regarding trends with the entertainment industry in general seems to be forced catering to the stupid primal masses, and complete disregard for anything requiring unscientifically originated creativity. If it doesn't fit the formula, it won't be funded and no one will ever find out about it.
Creativity is not directly proportional to profit, therefore corporate America (including Joe Dumbass who let himself be bought a long time ago) do not care about relaxing any of these restrictions.
I agree about the locking the computer part, and I wasn't even talking about physical access to any server. But in "the real world", aka where I work, there are employees with very high levels of access (namely the system administrator) that doesn't even have a screen saver password. Of course both my windows and linux workstations have password protected screen savers, and I habitually lock my computers before I even step away to get a drink. But we both know that there are a lot out there who don't do this. Additionally, I had another point being that the whole idea of third party trust really grants no more security than just trusting you're connecting to the right site to begin with. Just follow my previously stated points to see where I was going with that.
How many SSL certificates have you obtained? They are almost worthless as a real means of authentication. Give me access to a webmaster's computer for 5 minutes while he's out on break, and I can have a certificate for his domain in my control and be out the door. Authentication is laughable if the companies that are supposed to be the insurers of authentication do not fully authenticate the identity for themselves. That little padlock only means party C (the CA) tells party A (joe dumbass) that party B (the site) is who it says it is. What dooes party A know about party C though? Probably next to nothing. What do you know about their verification policies, without digging through page after page of documentation on their site? Zilch, even if you looked up you are going off good faith that those processes really are the processes that they go through (and isn't the whole point of these certificates to avoid the "good faith" situation). Is this site really authenticated? Nope. My point is the current infrastructure is insufficient to provide true authentication to the layman. So, besides making rich people more rich, what is the point in disabling sites that do not have a third party issued certificates? Of course, maybe I'm just mad that you're supposed to buy this crap once a year for a very high fee when it takes like 20 seconds to regenerate one of these things. The initial fee is understandable if they actually verify to some real extent the identity, but after that its just a money grubbing joke.
Yes, but then the parents of these two ten year olds saw the heracy, and killed their sons. Groundbreaking, indeed.
Outsource here to Oklahoma. It would probably be comparable to outsourcing to India.
Do they ever plan to build and test a Tesla death ray? Oh please, oh please!!!
The camera itself? Sure, patent it. The mathematical manipulations to calculate ray convergence onto a plain is not a novel idea at all, and is in fact the very definition of focusing an image. This should NOT be patented.
If you look at this site: Stanford Lightfield Project. You will see that the basic premise behind defining a light field and mathematically manipulating it has been around sine the 30's. Whats cool here is the camera. In fact being in the photography business myself, I was just telling my father a couple months ago about how it would be easy to refocus an image if there was a lense that just captured a grid of images with slightly different perspectives from each cell. Refocusing the light field is a pretty obvious benefit to this system, I would deem not worthy of a patent, as it is just a way to mathematically manipulate a light field.
Gallery 2 does use an RDBMS. I have set it up with Postgres but I think it can do MySQL also. BTW, I have run gallery 1 with thousands of images, and while I do agree an RDBMS would have been optimal, it didn't really slow down to excrutiating levels.
Wow, gocr will scan barcodes in images. Neato!
Don't be stupid. This problem with Sony's DRM (you know Microsoft includes a DRM scheme of their own already in the operating system) is the fact that it had a security hole (unlike Microsoft software which never has any security problems whatsoever in the sotware that they gave you, excuse me SOLD YOU). This Sony thing is blown way out of proportion (compared with the deeds of its competitors). Don't like how they behave, fine don't buy it. But don't for a second conclude that Microsoft is somehow more ethical or even different. Don't lie to yourself and others. If you're going to boycott any one company strictly because of their unethical deeds, then you better be prepared to boycott the rest or forever brand yourself the propoganda spreading hypocrite that you present yourself as. The better of two evils is still evil, do not be so foolish as to ally with either.
errr, I mean gtkpod
Well, if Microsoft would take a little from the open source world, gtkpod, then THEY wouldn't have to reverse engineer anything :-P.
The only odd statement out of the bunch is "secret underground garages". The others are common terms among internet companies.
I second this. I am just waiting for the moment when the technology becomes available. Its the way the internet was really intended to be run. Screw ISPs. The internet needs decentralised wireless peering.
Yeah, I don't really understand the POINT of having a live distro. And I do understand the broken/forgotten aspect. Crap I don't know, just get some software hooked up to a database that automatically mounts their crap based on a thumb print (or even their user/pass).
I just don't see how they can keep out of the red, when they're paying off slashdot editors to post every trivially relevant XBOX 360 article. Come on we're getting about 2 crapping XBOX 360 stories a day. The 360 is not revolutionary, it's hardly evolutionary. Higher poly count, higher resolution woooooo. Nothing new, nothing particularly interesting. Who the hell really cares anymore?