In this case, however, I believe his concerns are completely valid. People store personal information on Facebook, whose privacy policies are a constant subject of debate and, it seems, in constant flux. Information security aside, when I store my credit card information on my home computer I can feel safe that no one is going to get at it who I don't want to get at it. When I give it to some entity in the cloud, who knows what could happen without my knowledge or consent.
I agree, look at what's happened to Wikileaks and their service with Amazon (and others). You can't guarantee that some outside force won't put pressure on the provider to terminate your service, and if that's where all your data is then you're pretty much screwed. The benefit of this 'cloud computing' was supposed to be that you don't have to worry because your data is taken care of by the service, all the backups and redundancy are done for you, obviously you still need all of this.
By this definition, any picket line is classified as "Aggravated harassment in the second degree". There is communication, there is a manner which is likely to cause annoyance and there are generally placards with clearly written arguments.
No, that's why picket lines aren't staged on private property, holding up a sign in a public place isn't classified as 'written communication'.
This is a million geeks saying I AM ANONYMOUS just like the guys saying I AM SPARTACUS in that old movie.
I think you've missed the point Anonymous is a large group of people, Spartacus was one man. They can all be Anonymous, they could not all be Spartacus.
I predict once again that the prevailing opinion of/. will turn on a dime when the target is someone they don't like.
wikileaks to politicians - "if you aren't dishonest you have nothing to worry about" = good
government to citizens - "if you aren't dishonest you have nothing to worry about" = bad
Firstly the reason that argument is used is because that is the line the government itself used, it is to show the government as being hypocritical and secondly governments are answerable to citizens, not the other way around.
1. If you're turning on your high beams so often you know how to do it off the top of your head, you either live in the sticks or you're doing it wrong.
No, just because you know how to do it off the top of your head and don't live in the sticks does not mean you must be doing it wrong, in fact it means the opposite, you know how to correctly operate your vehicle. If you do not know how to do it off the top of your head you are not fully capable of operating your vehicle.
Driving is scary.
Then catch public transport, get a taxi, go with a friend, ride a bike, etc... If you find it scary then don't do it, most people don't find it scary and as such choose to drive rather than take an alternative.
Recognition of these facts
Actually they are not 'facts', 'scary' is subjective, not objective.
The Wikileaks twitter account is reporting/complaining that Amazon booted them from using their servers. Others are saying it was due to pressure from the US.
I wonder what impact that has on services like their EC2 cloud. I mean if your company does something the US government doesn't like and they can put pressure on Amazon to just cut off your services then all the supposed benefits of 'cloud computing' are bullshit.
Let's redo the analogy except let's say that you're emulating PS3 games instead.
The analogy still fails, that's about software not running on both platforms, something that's common to both smartphones and consoles. Applying that same analogy to simply referencing another platform does not work, it's far from the same thing. Apple takes it one step further than console makers - such as in this case - by explicitly disallowing references to other platforms, console makers do not do this. Hence the comparison of this situation to consoles makes no sense, there is no common ground in this scenario.
Short term profits like that only serve to weaken your carefully constructed brand that you spent time and money to build up. There is a reason that the Halo franchise is Xbox exclusive (apart from the first title, for various contractual reasons), and that Mario makes you think "Nintendo" - brand building is big business. Brand dilution is more important than short term, small profit.
Of course, but that's the same with every brand. This situation is not about exclusive titles though. Comparing this situation with iOS/Android to Consoles in order to make it seem commonplace is incorrect. Apple explicitly has a clause preventing such things on their platform, console makers do not.
The current lawsuit is the USCG suing over losing money because people were successfully opposing their claims.
No it's because the defendants to USCG filings were filing various motions that the USCG had to spend time - and therefore money - responding to.
Think about it. If the people opposing their claims had failed, USCG would have sued them instead.
-- Barbie
The people being sued by USCG didn't successfully defend the case brought by the USCG, according to TFA they filed a bunch of motions that meant the USCG either had to drop the original case or respond - at the cost of time and money, which appears to be what they are suing for - to all the additional motions. Though i suppose that if the USCG did indeed drop the case in light of the motions filed that could be interpreted as a successful defense.
You also apparently missed my facetiousness, signified with the exclamation mark
So now after all that you suggest that your statement was indeed false and that you were being facetious...right.
I am going to assume here that there are no ads or magazines or demo reels for PSN games on Xbox Live, so how is this different?
It's different firstly because your 360 game mentioning an alternative platform will not get it banned like an iphone app will, and secondly because MS hasn't banned/removed such material like Apple has. Demo reels for cross-platform games aren't prohibited from stating it. Magazines? Where have you seen magazines on consoles?
You were the one who went to the whole "it's a hardware and software difference"
of course i did, because you compared a policy issue to a technical issue.
There's no reason a 360 couldn't emulate a PS1 - it has more than enough grunt.
We'll assume that in this situation, Sony has oked it and won;t be trying to stop you from selling Playstation 1 games via XBL. What do you think Microsoft's reaction would be?
That is pretty much what this situation is: an app with Andoid news, written/converted to run on iOS, submitted for sale via Apple's store.
That is absolutely not what this situation is, firstly the PS1 is not a competing platform to the 360 - where Android is a competing platform to iOS - and secondly this issue is NOTHING to do with running the software of a competing platform. You quite simply cannot compare this situation with iOS/Android to Consoles, there is no comparable situation.
And why would MS care if you were selling PS1 games via XBL? You're giving them a profit, in fact there's absolutely nothing to stop you re-writing old games for the 360 and selling them on XBL.
Now who's reaching for the strawman? It's interesting that you seem so convinced of what my argument is, and claim to know what I am arguing, yet still seem to miss my point going off on some ad hominem.
Well here's what you wrote, it's pretty damn clear:
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
And it is absolute rubbish, that is not at all the reason why you can't run PS3 games on an XBox 360, what you wrote is absolute bullshit.
I just don;t think you like the fact that you have been called on calling someone stupid for not reading the post when you didn't notice yourself that it was written by the person you were replying to. Putdown fail.
Like i said, im not interested in the person who wrote it, that is of no consequence, it is the content of the message that matters.
In either case, what is at issue here is whether Apple can decide what it carries in its own store
No it isn't, obviously they can do whatever they want. The issue is that your statement
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
is false so you obviously can't base an argument on that.
My original point was that iPhones are a lot like consoles, in that while both are computers, both feature a tightly controlled software distribution system and operating system/hardware combination.
They are both controlled environments that simplify development for from direction (an Xbox is and Xbox is and Xbox) and simplify purchase decisions from the consumer perspective (a game sold to run on an Xbox will do so, assuming you have the necessary controllers or memory, but we can roll that in with 'as long as you have certain newer features in an iPhone, eg compass or more powerful CPU).
The same is true of the iPhone, so there are clear comparisons between the two platforms. Neither are general purpose computing environments.
Bullshit! Your post clearly stated that you made the comparison to consoles because you thought the reason you could not run PS3 software on a 360 was a policy decision in that MS 'would not let you', this is wrong. In the case of the iPhone, Apple 'will not let you' - this is a policy decision - in the case of Consoles the reason is a technical incompatibility. Yes there are clear similarities between the 2 platforms but your comparison is a policy decision vs a technical limitation which is an invalid comparison.
And I would say that you are "equally incapable of reading" and take a look at the usernames on the posts - the "he" in the post you are talking about is me.
Im not interested in the person, im interested in the comment. I didn't check the person because i thought it the pinnacle of stupidity for one to not even be able to comprehend their own post.
If you can't even keep track of who it is you're talking to, then what good are your arguments? You're just not paying attention.
Rebuttal fail. Focus on the subject rather than the person in no way detrimentally affects the argument. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with my argument, proven by the fact that you failed to refute it.
And the iPhone has different hardware and software to other smartphones, and only one store.
You could always distribute this Android magazine app via the HTML5 route, as suggested and supported by Apple, and they not only wouldn't care, they wouldn't do anything to stop it.
I'll quote it here since you're obviously incapable of reading the post i was replying to:
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
He was suggesting the only reason you can't run PS3 games on the 360 is because MS won't let you, which is rubbish, nothing will stop you from advertising that the software is available on other platforms either. However when it comes to the iphone apple can and does prevent you from referencing other mobile platforms.
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
No that is absolutely not the reason at all they have different hardware and different software so it's technically impossible. If you can make it work then nothing will stop you.
As defined, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Technological innovation doesn't count now? I thought this was news for nerds.
Not for the gamer, the end user sees 'better graphics', which is a progression, not an innovation. It takes innovation to get faster CPUs too but i haven't seen end users ever describe Intel's latest offering as 'innovative'.
It takes more than better visuals to give designers additional 'creative expression'.
Really? How does the PS2 go with HD/3D rendering? They're the most basic of functions offered by PC's (for 10+ years now - I had 3D and HD on my geforce256). So surely the PS2 could do that?
The PS2 was 3D, unless you're talking of stereoscopic 3D, but the Geforce256 didn't have that.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, however, I believe his concerns are completely valid. People store personal information on Facebook, whose privacy policies are a constant subject of debate and, it seems, in constant flux. Information security aside, when I store my credit card information on my home computer I can feel safe that no one is going to get at it who I don't want to get at it. When I give it to some entity in the cloud, who knows what could happen without my knowledge or consent.
I agree, look at what's happened to Wikileaks and their service with Amazon (and others). You can't guarantee that some outside force won't put pressure on the provider to terminate your service, and if that's where all your data is then you're pretty much screwed. The benefit of this 'cloud computing' was supposed to be that you don't have to worry because your data is taken care of by the service, all the backups and redundancy are done for you, obviously you still need all of this.
By this definition, any picket line is classified as "Aggravated harassment in the second degree". There is communication, there is a manner which is likely to cause annoyance and there are generally placards with clearly written arguments.
No, that's why picket lines aren't staged on private property, holding up a sign in a public place isn't classified as 'written communication'.
This is a million geeks saying I AM ANONYMOUS just like the guys saying I AM SPARTACUS in that old movie.
I think you've missed the point Anonymous is a large group of people, Spartacus was one man. They can all be Anonymous, they could not all be Spartacus.
I predict once again that the prevailing opinion of /. will turn on a dime when the target is someone they don't like.
wikileaks to politicians - "if you aren't dishonest you have nothing to worry about" = good
government to citizens - "if you aren't dishonest you have nothing to worry about" = bad
Firstly the reason that argument is used is because that is the line the government itself used, it is to show the government as being hypocritical and secondly governments are answerable to citizens, not the other way around.
Java (OpenJDK) is licensed under GPLv2. This is a fact, and most (reasonable people) would consider this open source.
open source != open standard
or risk significant reprisals from the US government.
what reprisals?
Attacking the site is a form of violent protest.
How so?
They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.
No, because you don't buy a subscription at a kiosk like you do when you buy from Apple.
Why should back up cameras be installed?
In case the primary one fails ;)
1. If you're turning on your high beams so often you know how to do it off the top of your head, you either live in the sticks or you're doing it wrong.
No, just because you know how to do it off the top of your head and don't live in the sticks does not mean you must be doing it wrong, in fact it means the opposite, you know how to correctly operate your vehicle. If you do not know how to do it off the top of your head you are not fully capable of operating your vehicle.
Driving is scary.
Then catch public transport, get a taxi, go with a friend, ride a bike, etc... If you find it scary then don't do it, most people don't find it scary and as such choose to drive rather than take an alternative.
Recognition of these facts
Actually they are not 'facts', 'scary' is subjective, not objective.
The Wikileaks twitter account is reporting/complaining that Amazon booted them from using their servers. Others are saying it was due to pressure from the US.
I wonder what impact that has on services like their EC2 cloud. I mean if your company does something the US government doesn't like and they can put pressure on Amazon to just cut off your services then all the supposed benefits of 'cloud computing' are bullshit.
Let's redo the analogy except let's say that you're emulating PS3 games instead.
The analogy still fails, that's about software not running on both platforms, something that's common to both smartphones and consoles. Applying that same analogy to simply referencing another platform does not work, it's far from the same thing. Apple takes it one step further than console makers - such as in this case - by explicitly disallowing references to other platforms, console makers do not do this. Hence the comparison of this situation to consoles makes no sense, there is no common ground in this scenario.
Short term profits like that only serve to weaken your carefully constructed brand that you spent time and money to build up. There is a reason that the Halo franchise is Xbox exclusive (apart from the first title, for various contractual reasons), and that Mario makes you think "Nintendo" - brand building is big business. Brand dilution is more important than short term, small profit.
Of course, but that's the same with every brand. This situation is not about exclusive titles though. Comparing this situation with iOS/Android to Consoles in order to make it seem commonplace is incorrect. Apple explicitly has a clause preventing such things on their platform, console makers do not.
The current lawsuit is the USCG suing over losing money because people were successfully opposing their claims.
No it's because the defendants to USCG filings were filing various motions that the USCG had to spend time - and therefore money - responding to.
Think about it. If the people opposing their claims had failed, USCG would have sued them instead.
-- Barbie
The people being sued by USCG didn't successfully defend the case brought by the USCG, according to TFA they filed a bunch of motions that meant the USCG either had to drop the original case or respond - at the cost of time and money, which appears to be what they are suing for - to all the additional motions. Though i suppose that if the USCG did indeed drop the case in light of the motions filed that could be interpreted as a successful defense.
You also apparently missed my facetiousness, signified with the exclamation mark
So now after all that you suggest that your statement was indeed false and that you were being facetious...right.
I am going to assume here that there are no ads or magazines or demo reels for PSN games on Xbox Live, so how is this different?
It's different firstly because your 360 game mentioning an alternative platform will not get it banned like an iphone app will, and secondly because MS hasn't banned/removed such material like Apple has. Demo reels for cross-platform games aren't prohibited from stating it. Magazines? Where have you seen magazines on consoles?
You were the one who went to the whole "it's a hardware and software difference"
of course i did, because you compared a policy issue to a technical issue.
There's no reason a 360 couldn't emulate a PS1 - it has more than enough grunt.
We'll assume that in this situation, Sony has oked it and won;t be trying to stop you from selling Playstation 1 games via XBL. What do you think Microsoft's reaction would be?
That is pretty much what this situation is: an app with Andoid news, written/converted to run on iOS, submitted for sale via Apple's store.
That is absolutely not what this situation is, firstly the PS1 is not a competing platform to the 360 - where Android is a competing platform to iOS - and secondly this issue is NOTHING to do with running the software of a competing platform. You quite simply cannot compare this situation with iOS/Android to Consoles, there is no comparable situation.
And why would MS care if you were selling PS1 games via XBL? You're giving them a profit, in fact there's absolutely nothing to stop you re-writing old games for the 360 and selling them on XBL.
Now who's reaching for the strawman? It's interesting that you seem so convinced of what my argument is, and claim to know what I am arguing, yet still seem to miss my point going off on some ad hominem.
Well here's what you wrote, it's pretty damn clear:
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
And it is absolute rubbish, that is not at all the reason why you can't run PS3 games on an XBox 360, what you wrote is absolute bullshit.
I just don;t think you like the fact that you have been called on calling someone stupid for not reading the post when you didn't notice yourself that it was written by the person you were replying to. Putdown fail.
Like i said, im not interested in the person who wrote it, that is of no consequence, it is the content of the message that matters.
In either case, what is at issue here is whether Apple can decide what it carries in its own store
No it isn't, obviously they can do whatever they want. The issue is that your statement
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
is false so you obviously can't base an argument on that.
My original point was that iPhones are a lot like consoles, in that while both are computers, both feature a tightly controlled software distribution system and operating system/hardware combination.
They are both controlled environments that simplify development for from direction (an Xbox is and Xbox is and Xbox) and simplify purchase decisions from the consumer perspective (a game sold to run on an Xbox will do so, assuming you have the necessary controllers or memory, but we can roll that in with 'as long as you have certain newer features in an iPhone, eg compass or more powerful CPU).
The same is true of the iPhone, so there are clear comparisons between the two platforms. Neither are general purpose computing environments.
Bullshit! Your post clearly stated that you made the comparison to consoles because you thought the reason you could not run PS3 software on a 360 was a policy decision in that MS 'would not let you', this is wrong. In the case of the iPhone, Apple 'will not let you' - this is a policy decision - in the case of Consoles the reason is a technical incompatibility. Yes there are clear similarities between the 2 platforms but your comparison is a policy decision vs a technical limitation which is an invalid comparison.
And I would say that you are "equally incapable of reading" and take a look at the usernames on the posts - the "he" in the post you are talking about is me.
Im not interested in the person, im interested in the comment. I didn't check the person because i thought it the pinnacle of stupidity for one to not even be able to comprehend their own post.
If you can't even keep track of who it is you're talking to, then what good are your arguments? You're just not paying attention.
Rebuttal fail. Focus on the subject rather than the person in no way detrimentally affects the argument. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with my argument, proven by the fact that you failed to refute it.
And the iPhone has different hardware and software to other smartphones, and only one store.
You could always distribute this Android magazine app via the HTML5 route, as suggested and supported by Apple, and they not only wouldn't care, they wouldn't do anything to stop it.
I'll quote it here since you're obviously incapable of reading the post i was replying to:
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
He was suggesting the only reason you can't run PS3 games on the 360 is because MS won't let you, which is rubbish, nothing will stop you from advertising that the software is available on other platforms either. However when it comes to the iphone apple can and does prevent you from referencing other mobile platforms.
So, why can't I run my PS3 games on my Xbox 360? Microsoft won't allow it!
No that is absolutely not the reason at all they have different hardware and different software so it's technically impossible. If you can make it work then nothing will stop you.
As defined, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
What retarded definition of a monopoly is that?
The current lawsuit is the USCG suing over losing money because people were successfully opposing their claims.
No it's because the defendants to USCG filings were filing various motions that the USCG had to spend time - and therefore money - responding to.
i found that more to be in the move from 2D to 3D, that was a big step that affected the world you could play in.
Technological innovation doesn't count now? I thought this was news for nerds.
Not for the gamer, the end user sees 'better graphics', which is a progression, not an innovation. It takes innovation to get faster CPUs too but i haven't seen end users ever describe Intel's latest offering as 'innovative'.
It takes more than better visuals to give designers additional 'creative expression'.
PC games are written by people who could not code on embedded machines if their life depended on it. Sloppy code.
So Carmack is good when he writes for embedded machines but sloppy when he writes for PCs?
but can be enjoyable as brainless eye-candy.
The point is he is claiming that is innovation, it just isn't.
Really? How does the PS2 go with HD/3D rendering? They're the most basic of functions offered by PC's (for 10+ years now - I had 3D and HD on my geforce256). So surely the PS2 could do that?
The PS2 was 3D, unless you're talking of stereoscopic 3D, but the Geforce256 didn't have that.