They'll have you actually read a number off the video card you purchased.
It's much more simple than you seem to think it is -- there's little chance someone's going to throw out their brand new video card.
oooh but you're forgetting that in addition to me paying cash, discarding proof of purchase and throwing away the disc i also discarded everything that came with my video card and succumbed to my penchant for spray painting my hardware and thus being unable to read any numbers from the video card...so now what do i do?;)
Why should people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should people have to take those "5 minutes out of their day to scan something", in order to correct a situation they weren't involved with? It's insane to think the customers have to "foot the bill", so to speak, to clean up after AMD's fuck up.
Yeah, let's get a class action lawsuit happening...or you could just spend the 5 minutes and fix it, what is with the 'oh i was slightly inconvenienced, i must be compensated' entitlement attitude?
What's the point of a key?
It's a value you put in memory so the CPU can compare it to another value it generated from a list of commands (machine code) they already gave you.
Why not simply generate it yourself (using that list) or remove the comparison commands from the list?
In other words: Any form of "copy protection" is seriously delusional. No exceptions.
Because the CPU comparing it isn't your CPU, when you register with Steam you send them the code and they verify it against their list.
Again you keep talking about applications while I keep trying to get you to understand I was talking about the OS.
Which is why, after we were obviously not on the same page given your first reply to my post, i clarified that i was talking about the application level, hence if you're interpreting it in the OS context it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the comment would make no sense. So taking that comment in the context in which it was not intended and continuing discussion is quite obviously pointless.
I never made any such assertion, i clearly stated that my comment was to be taken in the.Net application context, yet you have still taken that comment in the wrong context and proceeded to rant and rave about how it doesn't make sense in that context. A normal person would accept that we are talking about different things so obviously a discussion makes absolutely no sense but a retard like you would continue to argue for the sake of it.
Taking an idea and applying it to another industry IS patentable.
It may not stand a court challenge - it may be ruled "obvious", but this is how it works.
Well that's my point, there doesn't actually appear to be any invention so such things shouldn't be patentable. I understand that's currently the way it is but i suppose that's how messed up the system is.
Well, the innovative part is the breakaway plug to protect an electronic device.
But breakaway magnetic plugs already existed to protect appliances so what's the invention? What is new that didn't exist before? The thing that deserves to be protected by patent law?
The only thing i can see is that they've used it on a laptop, that's not an invention.
They have a PC; they just don't have it hooked up to a big enough monitor, nor do they have a set of PC-compatible gamepads.
And now lets go back to what started this: Instead of trying an indie PC game supporting local multiplayer... Just because they don't have their PC hooked up to a large monitor or TV doesn't preclude them from trying it, if they like it obviously they would be inclined to hook up a larger display.
Under those the amount of access that an application has to the system is still far to huge (i.e. everything the user has access to, only root/admin are forbidden).
Why? What programs are going around deleting user data hrm?
So how exactly is running a random game as.exe any different then running it as Flash or Javascript?
Because they have a different purpose, they don't need access to user data, so you don't just treat them all the same, that's stupid.
So by your logic it would be totally ok if every Javascript and Flash app had full access to the users system because running untrusted application isn't a problem?
Applications don't have full access to the user's system now, do the concepts of UAC and sudo completely elude you? I'm not anti-sandboxing because in some places it makes sense - like in the case of JS and Flash - but it's idiotic to apply that everywhere to solve a problem that no-one has.
Because I have been defining "home theater PC" broadly as any PC using a TV as a monitor. (We appear to have fallen into Layne's Law.) Is there a better term that I should have used to refer to "a PC using a TV as a monitor"?
Why does it even have to be a PC using a TV as a monitor? Wouldn't a decent monitor be just as good?
So I guess next time I meet one of them, I need to ask: "How good would a game need to be to get people to hook a PC up to a TV to play it?"
I still don't understand why it has to be hooked up to a TV, but yes if that's what you want that's what you should ask rather than asking about HTPCs.
Because they don't already have the hardware to run its multiplayer mode
That's a different problem altogether, if they don't have the hardware they're unlikely to play anyway.
I guess one option is to get players hooked on the single-player portion of a PC game and then start introducing multiplayer; is this what you were thinking of?
Well generally gamers will play the single player portion first, so yes that works.
I'll go the C# route if needed, but I was just trying to make it clear that I've been told that the HTPC niche is even smaller than the Xbox Live Indie Games niche.
But it's not just HTPCs, it's anyone that would potentially plug a PC into a TV or have a big monitor or be happy to play local multiplayer on their PC.
For one thing, other comments in CronoCloud's posting history make him look like he has at least some experience in the mainstream video game industry. For another, make that seven random guys
That's HTPCs again, why are you thinking of only targeting HTPCs?
They appear to believe that no single game, especially one with indie production values, is enough to create the desire
No, they appear to believe there is no desire currently.
Instead of trying an indie PC game supporting local multiplayer, they'll choose a different major-label game for the console that they already have
What's this even based on? Why wouldn't they try an indie PC game? That makes no sense.
It's clear you have no idea what backends or middle layers or what an OS is.
Still having trouble with the semantics i see, don't worry, you'll get there. The back and front ends are relevant to a specific process, there is no definition of a backend without a context, as far as a.Net application process is concerned the backend is the CLR, why? Because it doesn't go any further back than that, as far as it is concerned there is nothing else.
Windows is an OS.
Wow, i never knew.
Can you do everything you can with your mobile device as your desktop? Nothingwithstanding the software differences, there are major hardware differences.
Mouse + Keyboard on a tablet and you're good to go.
We are not talking about applications.
Of course we are, because the applications are what matters.
We are talking about Windows itself.
But we're not because fundamentally the OS must be different to run on ARM and x86, but that doesn't matter to the application, it won't care whether it's ARM or x86.
Java has to run on an OS
Thanks captain obvious.
Windows OS is written in C/C++ with some Assembly.
Captain obvious strikes again.
If that's not clear to you, you need to do more research on OS development vs application development.
Why would that not be clear?
Do you understand the reason behind the Compact framework
Yes, and that it's not relevant here.
mobile devices at the hardware level are not desktops.
Wow, you really are just padding out your post with obvious facts here.
Viruses and malware spreads exactly because on todays OSs there is no asking for privileges
Just because you're stuck back in Windows XP doesn't mean we all haven't migrated to OSes that provide privilege escalation through UAC or sudo.
Fine with me, it looks like I can't argue you out of your Win95 mindset.
Actually it appears you're the idiot stuck there because your statement: todays OSs there is no asking for privileges
Is completely false and just shows that yet again you don't know what you're talking about.
Also for about the 10th time you still fail to provide any specifics on what these applications are that are deleting all the users files, but of course continue your baseless idiocy.
Yes, for your *extreme* niche where you want local multiplayer on a TV but you don't want it on Wii or PS3 and you want it without an XBox devkit and for the people who don't want to hook their PC up to their TV there is only that solution.
Lately I've had trouble properly estimating the size of a given niche or edge case. I wrote about this difficulty in a recent journal entry. So let me say it as I understand it: Micro-ISVs tend not to qualify for the full Wii, PS3, or Xbox 360 devkit. They're a niche, I'll grant, but an extreme niche?
No, Micro-ISVs are *not* an extreme niche, ones that explicitly want the XBox to do local multiplayer and don't want to go the PC route and don't want to use C# are an extreme niche.
"Let me say that again: Most non-geek people simply have no desire to hook up their computer to their TV"
So your product should *create* that desire.
"I don't want to hook a computer up to my TV"
That's nice.
"You're overestimating the technical knowledge of at least 80% of consumers -- I'd never be able to talk Dad through hooking up a VGA cable between his TV and laptop and then get him to use the computer to watch video."
Interesting, but i'll be a good 80% of gamers are capable of hooking up their PC to their TV if there were a reason to.
It's interesting that 2 random guys on the internet are your rebuttal to local multiplayer PC gaming both of which simply see no reason to do it when of course the game that you make should be that reason. Quite frankly I don't want to hook my PC up to my TV, then again if there were some reason to do it, say a great PC-only local multiplayer game then I probably would.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll have you actually read a number off the video card you purchased.
It's much more simple than you seem to think it is -- there's little chance someone's going to throw out their brand new video card.
oooh but you're forgetting that in addition to me paying cash, discarding proof of purchase and throwing away the disc i also discarded everything that came with my video card and succumbed to my penchant for spray painting my hardware and thus being unable to read any numbers from the video card...so now what do i do? ;)
Or you are in a 2nd rate country, like the EU.
lol
Why should people have to pay for others mistakes? Why should people have to take those "5 minutes out of their day to scan something", in order to correct a situation they weren't involved with? It's insane to think the customers have to "foot the bill", so to speak, to clean up after AMD's fuck up.
Yeah, let's get a class action lawsuit happening...or you could just spend the 5 minutes and fix it, what is with the 'oh i was slightly inconvenienced, i must be compensated' entitlement attitude?
What's the point of a key? It's a value you put in memory so the CPU can compare it to another value it generated from a list of commands (machine code) they already gave you. Why not simply generate it yourself (using that list) or remove the comparison commands from the list?
In other words: Any form of "copy protection" is seriously delusional. No exceptions.
Because the CPU comparing it isn't your CPU, when you register with Steam you send them the code and they verify it against their list.
I can somewhat understand this, as having two phones on my own belt-holster is quite irritating.
Ah the belt-holster, the modern-day pocket protector.
a world where anyone could reprogram anything at any time.
Isn't that more the goal of Free Software (particularly given the changes in the GPL with v3) than Open Source?
Again you keep talking about applications while I keep trying to get you to understand I was talking about the OS.
Which is why, after we were obviously not on the same page given your first reply to my post, i clarified that i was talking about the application level, hence if you're interpreting it in the OS context it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the comment would make no sense. So taking that comment in the context in which it was not intended and continuing discussion is quite obviously pointless.
No, we don't. We have that situation with laptop computers. Huge difference.
The patent is specific to laptop computers?
But now we have a situation where what is effectively the same thing with no new invention is now locked up for another 20-odd years.
If it didn't, then the company who made the mag-safe fryer would have a ridiculously broad patent.
Which would have well expired by now.
if you can't understand why CLR isn't the OS
I never made any such assertion, i clearly stated that my comment was to be taken in the .Net application context, yet you have still taken that comment in the wrong context and proceeded to rant and rave about how it doesn't make sense in that context. A normal person would accept that we are talking about different things so obviously a discussion makes absolutely no sense but a retard like you would continue to argue for the sake of it.
This is why we can't have nice things.
WD Elements and then came the Apple TV
To deny the obvious design cloning is to reach an extreme level of Apple-loving that even I can't understand.
Taking an idea and applying it to another industry IS patentable. It may not stand a court challenge - it may be ruled "obvious", but this is how it works.
Well that's my point, there doesn't actually appear to be any invention so such things shouldn't be patentable. I understand that's currently the way it is but i suppose that's how messed up the system is.
Well, the innovative part is the breakaway plug to protect an electronic device.
But breakaway magnetic plugs already existed to protect appliances so what's the invention? What is new that didn't exist before? The thing that deserves to be protected by patent law?
The only thing i can see is that they've used it on a laptop, that's not an invention.
It depends upon how different the implementation is.
So in this case for example, what is the innovative part? What's the thing that should be protected?
The solution that works for the deep fryer is not necessarily the right solution or the best solution for every superficially similiar problem.
But in this case it is, they've taken that idea and applied to another kind of appliance, how does that deserve patent protection?
They have a PC; they just don't have it hooked up to a big enough monitor, nor do they have a set of PC-compatible gamepads.
And now lets go back to what started this: Instead of trying an indie PC game supporting local multiplayer...
Just because they don't have their PC hooked up to a large monitor or TV doesn't preclude them from trying it, if they like it obviously they would be inclined to hook up a larger display.
Under those the amount of access that an application has to the system is still far to huge (i.e. everything the user has access to, only root/admin are forbidden).
Why? What programs are going around deleting user data hrm?
So how exactly is running a random game as .exe any different then running it as Flash or Javascript?
Because they have a different purpose, they don't need access to user data, so you don't just treat them all the same, that's stupid.
So by your logic it would be totally ok if every Javascript and Flash app had full access to the users system because running untrusted application isn't a problem?
Applications don't have full access to the user's system now, do the concepts of UAC and sudo completely elude you?
I'm not anti-sandboxing because in some places it makes sense - like in the case of JS and Flash - but it's idiotic to apply that everywhere to solve a problem that no-one has.
Because I have been defining "home theater PC" broadly as any PC using a TV as a monitor. (We appear to have fallen into Layne's Law.) Is there a better term that I should have used to refer to "a PC using a TV as a monitor"?
Why does it even have to be a PC using a TV as a monitor? Wouldn't a decent monitor be just as good?
So I guess next time I meet one of them, I need to ask: "How good would a game need to be to get people to hook a PC up to a TV to play it?"
I still don't understand why it has to be hooked up to a TV, but yes if that's what you want that's what you should ask rather than asking about HTPCs.
Because they don't already have the hardware to run its multiplayer mode
That's a different problem altogether, if they don't have the hardware they're unlikely to play anyway.
I guess one option is to get players hooked on the single-player portion of a PC game and then start introducing multiplayer; is this what you were thinking of?
Well generally gamers will play the single player portion first, so yes that works.
I'll go the C# route if needed, but I was just trying to make it clear that I've been told that the HTPC niche is even smaller than the Xbox Live Indie Games niche.
But it's not just HTPCs, it's anyone that would potentially plug a PC into a TV or have a big monitor or be happy to play local multiplayer on their PC.
For one thing, other comments in CronoCloud's posting history make him look like he has at least some experience in the mainstream video game industry. For another, make that seven random guys
That's HTPCs again, why are you thinking of only targeting HTPCs?
They appear to believe that no single game, especially one with indie production values, is enough to create the desire
No, they appear to believe there is no desire currently.
Instead of trying an indie PC game supporting local multiplayer, they'll choose a different major-label game for the console that they already have
What's this even based on? Why wouldn't they try an indie PC game? That makes no sense.
It's clear you have no idea what backends or middle layers or what an OS is.
Still having trouble with the semantics i see, don't worry, you'll get there. The back and front ends are relevant to a specific process, there is no definition of a backend without a context, as far as a .Net application process is concerned the backend is the CLR, why? Because it doesn't go any further back than that, as far as it is concerned there is nothing else.
Windows is an OS.
Wow, i never knew.
Can you do everything you can with your mobile device as your desktop? Nothingwithstanding the software differences, there are major hardware differences.
Mouse + Keyboard on a tablet and you're good to go.
We are not talking about applications.
Of course we are, because the applications are what matters.
We are talking about Windows itself.
But we're not because fundamentally the OS must be different to run on ARM and x86, but that doesn't matter to the application, it won't care whether it's ARM or x86.
Java has to run on an OS
Thanks captain obvious.
Windows OS is written in C/C++ with some Assembly.
Captain obvious strikes again.
If that's not clear to you, you need to do more research on OS development vs application development.
Why would that not be clear?
Do you understand the reason behind the Compact framework
Yes, and that it's not relevant here.
mobile devices at the hardware level are not desktops.
Wow, you really are just padding out your post with obvious facts here.
Viruses and malware spreads exactly because on todays OSs there is no asking for privileges
Just because you're stuck back in Windows XP doesn't mean we all haven't migrated to OSes that provide privilege escalation through UAC or sudo.
Fine with me, it looks like I can't argue you out of your Win95 mindset.
Actually it appears you're the idiot stuck there because your statement:
todays OSs there is no asking for privileges
Is completely false and just shows that yet again you don't know what you're talking about.
Also for about the 10th time you still fail to provide any specifics on what these applications are that are deleting all the users files, but of course continue your baseless idiocy.
Yes, for your *extreme* niche where you want local multiplayer on a TV but you don't want it on Wii or PS3 and you want it without an XBox devkit and for the people who don't want to hook their PC up to their TV there is only that solution.
Lately I've had trouble properly estimating the size of a given niche or edge case. I wrote about this difficulty in a recent journal entry. So let me say it as I understand it: Micro-ISVs tend not to qualify for the full Wii, PS3, or Xbox 360 devkit. They're a niche, I'll grant, but an extreme niche?
No, Micro-ISVs are *not* an extreme niche, ones that explicitly want the XBox to do local multiplayer and don't want to go the PC route and don't want to use C# are an extreme niche.
"Let me say that again: Most non-geek people simply have no desire to hook up their computer to their TV"
So your product should *create* that desire.
"I don't want to hook a computer up to my TV"
That's nice.
"You're overestimating the technical knowledge of at least 80% of consumers -- I'd never be able to talk Dad through hooking up a VGA cable between his TV and laptop and then get him to use the computer to watch video."
Interesting, but i'll be a good 80% of gamers are capable of hooking up their PC to their TV if there were a reason to.
It's interesting that 2 random guys on the internet are your rebuttal to local multiplayer PC gaming both of which simply see no reason to do it when of course the game that you make should be that reason. Quite frankly I don't want to hook my PC up to my TV, then again if there were some reason to do it, say a great PC-only local multiplayer game then I probably would.