You are not exactly right. That only covers up to $100,000
Unlike bitcoin they don't earmark the cash on a per-account basis. If a bitcoin exchange is robbed the funds are removed from specific accounts, if a bank branch is robbed and cash is stolen that isn't necessarily from anybody's account in particular.
But, tell me, how is this not exactly what people should have expected?
It absolutely is, I agree with you. My whole point is that using exchanges like that is completely stupid, you don't store your money with some random foreign entity that has no real responsibility or accountability.
Yes, just like people stop using dollars when there are bank robberies.
No, people do not stop using dollars when there are bank robberies because - as I pointed out in my original post - these bitcoin entities are unregulated and uninsured. If a bank is robbed you do not lose your money, when MtGox was robbed you lost your bitcoins.
I thought I made it pretty clear and wouldn't have to point out that the reason I explicitly said they were uninsured and unregulated is because that is contrary to the existing banking systems.
Is it? Is it really? I haven't exactly seen a decrease in the use of bitcoins. Though I aslo haven't seen a significant increase either. However among those using it they still seem to be using it.
Of course it is. I'm not saying people aren't using it but obviously the broader appeal of it is not taking hold and it is viewed as "unsafe" with the incompetence of these operators proving that point by losing customer funds. Bitcoin has a lot going for it but obviously won't go mainstream if you have exchanges continuously screwing up like this.
If bank of america and other major institutions cannot keep your info out of the hands of hackers why would you think any other website is infallible?
You wouldn't, but Bank of America is federally insured, Bitcoin exchanges are not. Obviously storing currency in one of those is a lot more risky than that other.
Maybe they trust professionals to lock down their business better than they can lock down their own PC.
And these incompetent operators is what is causing bitcoin to lose credibility. An unregulated, anonymous (insofar as bitcoin addresses just being a series of numbers not tied to anybody in particular) currency that is stored with unregulated, uninsured entities is immediately a bad idea and people supporting them and then being fleeced by them or their poor security practices and policies is really damaging bitcoin.
The other points, yes. But not this one, the new Mac Pro is a completely retarded design! Have you actually used one? When you rotate the damn thing to get to the back of its 'clever design' you end up dragging your cables around the damn thing unless you have a heap of slack on all of them. There's no facility for internal storage expansion so you end up with a whole lot of external storage on your desk (which you have to move individually if you move the system). Then they've also taken the idiotic decision to design it so you need a custom graphics card, if I wanted to use an nVidia GPU (for CUDA or just for NV-specific extensions) I would need a custom card which they don't make.
Yes the 5k imac and the TouchID are great but the new Mac Pro is a triumph of stupid design.
Also, no one made you upgrade. My 4S is still on 7 and I still see people using 6. You jumped on the bandwagon early, shit broke and you got upset.
Well yes - as the article says - you shouldn't jump on the upgrade bandwagon anymore because the quality of the software upgrades is degrading. But you can't blame the user for updating when Apple says to do so, if the software is buggy that is still Apple's fault for releasing it before it was ready.
It should be pretty obvious that the number of games would be a silly metric. The FAQ states:
Q: I want to be a certified Xbox publisher. How do I do that?
A: Companies interested in becoming a publisher for the Xbox gaming platform should write an email to newpub@microsoft.com. Interested companies will be required to show a strong commitment to retail products and a solid plan for multiple Xbox titles. Applicants will be asked to share that plan along with information about their company’s history and experience.
So contact them at the provided email address, post back when you get a response.
It is still not going to work properly and most likely be very inefficient. They aren't using off-the-shelf hardware, it is custom hardware and the software is written to take advantage of this custom functionality that the off-the-shelf hardware does not provide and would then need an additional software emulation layer.
Not to mention your whole system architecture is different. While the xbox contains its CPU and GPU on the same chip (the APU) and huge chunk of on-die RAM where the setup you listed has a standard desktop CPU connected to the GPU by the system bus. When you have a deterministic hardware setup that you are designing software for you make explicit use of the knowledge that you have X amount and X speed of CPU cache, RAM, GPU RAM and X ms of latency in communication between your processors, etc so just cobbling together off the shelf components into a PC is going to give you something very different.
How does Microsoft expect a company to demonstrate such a "track record" before becoming accepted to the Xbox developer program for the first time? PC games, Windows Phone games, or something else? Or is Microsoft mostly looking to poach companies from the other two consoles?
PC games, mobile games, XBLA/ID@Xbox program titles, etc... or teams made up of people who have previously delivered titles. But no, you cant get in if you are a complete newbie with no experience.
Given what I've heard of the Xbox One security architecture, it's going to be a tough nut to crack, SDK or not.
And what's the point when you can just buy a cheap PC where you dont have to be concerned about cracking security or distribution legalities of linking against an unlicensed SDK or that a new update might close whatever security exploit you were using. Not to mention the available audience is much larger with the PC.
I can see how deterministic performance and targeting exact hardware is advantageous for game developers so just register as a developer for the platform if that's what you want to do.
What company's marketing department dictates what API a company needs from another company's open source middleware? Sounds more like you're desperately trying to come up with some FUD than an actual scenario that would occur.
But the answer is they would implement it themselves, contract some team to do it for them, Microsoft would charge them to do it for them or Microsoft would just do it and submit it to the codebase. Most likely if a company needs an API in a piece of open source middleware they will implement it themselves.
MS have claimed numerous patents which they will STILL not disclose.
They were already leaked some time ago. And this is covered by the community promise (i'm sure you can google that and understand the legal implications of it as well).
Its nice that MS makes FOSS-friendly noises in the server/cloud space. That is what bullies do when they get their asses kicked. If MS gets the upper hand and their vendor lock-in starts working here, then the friendliness WILL evaporate.
It is open source! Do you not understand the concept of open source? How can people here be so moronic as to think that vendor lock-in exists with open source products? It is quite unbelievable how dense some of you are.
What about it? If open source is what gets developers to use.Net then the next version will also need to be open source otherwise they will continue using the existing version or fork it.
> Since this is open-sourcing of their own software, please elaborate on how the final E in EEE is even theoretically possible.
In fact, the open sourcing of their own software is a necessary first step.
It's less about how it is possible and more why they would do it in the first place. EEE is about killing off an existing standard/product, which they tried to do with Java, if they wanted to kill open source.Net they wouldn't be creating it in the first place.
Open source a version, encourage adoption, then create proprietary but attractive features in a future version which remain closed source, use these features to leverage their own products at the expense of others.
Why would they not just keep the whole thing proprietary then? If developers were going to use the features regardless of whether they are proprietary then open sourcing it in the first place makes no sense, in fact it would create a huge risk that an innovative fork be adopted as the defacto standard instead.
The "embrace" part is a strategy to get competitors to use a Microsoft standard, the Extend is to create proprietary extensions to that standard, and the Extinguish is when competitors can no longer compete because users have come to rely on those proprietary features.
But they would be extinguishing their own product, not a competing product.
The question becomes, does Microsoft have enough clout to do it again.
Again? They haven't successfully done it even once, why would they try it again, with their own product no less. I can see them trying to kill off a competing product but why kill their own product?
The ones they are using to extort from many Android-based phones, for starters.
I understand one of the main ones is a FAT32 patent, which I can see how that would apply to the ability for the Android kernel to read/write from that file system, not sure how you think that applies to this though. The information on what all those patents were was leaked quite some time ago so which of them do you think would apply to this?
So, perhaps the plan is to support.Net on Linux for a while, then yank the support for Linux away and force everyone back to Windows and SQL Server or rewrite their application for another platform.
But it's Open Source, can Open Source not survive without a corporate sponsor?
Yeah... My guess is that, after this announcement, developers are going to say to themselves, "Great, now we don't have to learn how to use new tools to create software for Linux", and do all their work on Windows.
Since this is about open sourcing.Net how is it any different from Java? Do people not learn Linux-based tools to create Java programs because they can do it on Windows?
Then, in five or ten years, when everyone's using Microsoft's tools, they'll claim no one's using them to port to Linux, anyway, and drop support.
But it is open source, what would "dropping support" achieve when the source is out there?
Slashdot Mirror
or port your application to the GPU.
Yeah that's the answer right there, just port it to the GPU, that will surely be doable and solve all your problems.
What bitcoin exchanges have any real responsibility or accountability?
None, that's what I'm saying.
Isn't it, by definition, unregulated?
Yes.
You want FDIC insurance or something? Like a bank?
Yes, if I'm going to store my money with some other entity absolutely, but no bitcoin exchange is going to provide that.
You are not exactly right. That only covers up to $100,000
Unlike bitcoin they don't earmark the cash on a per-account basis. If a bitcoin exchange is robbed the funds are removed from specific accounts, if a bank branch is robbed and cash is stolen that isn't necessarily from anybody's account in particular.
But, tell me, how is this not exactly what people should have expected?
It absolutely is, I agree with you. My whole point is that using exchanges like that is completely stupid, you don't store your money with some random foreign entity that has no real responsibility or accountability.
Yes, just like people stop using dollars when there are bank robberies.
No, people do not stop using dollars when there are bank robberies because - as I pointed out in my original post - these bitcoin entities are unregulated and uninsured. If a bank is robbed you do not lose your money, when MtGox was robbed you lost your bitcoins.
I thought I made it pretty clear and wouldn't have to point out that the reason I explicitly said they were uninsured and unregulated is because that is contrary to the existing banking systems.
Is it? Is it really? I haven't exactly seen a decrease in the use of bitcoins. Though I aslo haven't seen a significant increase either. However among those using it they still seem to be using it.
Of course it is. I'm not saying people aren't using it but obviously the broader appeal of it is not taking hold and it is viewed as "unsafe" with the incompetence of these operators proving that point by losing customer funds. Bitcoin has a lot going for it but obviously won't go mainstream if you have exchanges continuously screwing up like this.
If bank of america and other major institutions cannot keep your info out of the hands of hackers why would you think any other website is infallible?
You wouldn't, but Bank of America is federally insured, Bitcoin exchanges are not. Obviously storing currency in one of those is a lot more risky than that other.
Maybe they trust professionals to lock down their business better than they can lock down their own PC.
And these incompetent operators is what is causing bitcoin to lose credibility. An unregulated, anonymous (insofar as bitcoin addresses just being a series of numbers not tied to anybody in particular) currency that is stored with unregulated, uninsured entities is immediately a bad idea and people supporting them and then being fleeced by them or their poor security practices and policies is really damaging bitcoin.
Or the rather cleverly designed Mac Pro.
The other points, yes. But not this one, the new Mac Pro is a completely retarded design! Have you actually used one? When you rotate the damn thing to get to the back of its 'clever design' you end up dragging your cables around the damn thing unless you have a heap of slack on all of them. There's no facility for internal storage expansion so you end up with a whole lot of external storage on your desk (which you have to move individually if you move the system). Then they've also taken the idiotic decision to design it so you need a custom graphics card, if I wanted to use an nVidia GPU (for CUDA or just for NV-specific extensions) I would need a custom card which they don't make.
Yes the 5k imac and the TouchID are great but the new Mac Pro is a triumph of stupid design.
Also, no one made you upgrade. My 4S is still on 7 and I still see people using 6. You jumped on the bandwagon early, shit broke and you got upset.
Well yes - as the article says - you shouldn't jump on the upgrade bandwagon anymore because the quality of the software upgrades is degrading. But you can't blame the user for updating when Apple says to do so, if the software is buggy that is still Apple's fault for releasing it before it was ready.
It should be pretty obvious that the number of games would be a silly metric. The FAQ states:
Q: I want to be a certified Xbox publisher. How do I do that?
A: Companies interested in becoming a publisher for the Xbox gaming platform should write an email to newpub@microsoft.com. Interested companies will be required to show a strong commitment to retail products and a solid plan for multiple Xbox titles. Applicants will be asked to share that plan along with information about their company’s history and experience.
So contact them at the provided email address, post back when you get a response.
It is still not going to work properly and most likely be very inefficient. They aren't using off-the-shelf hardware, it is custom hardware and the software is written to take advantage of this custom functionality that the off-the-shelf hardware does not provide and would then need an additional software emulation layer.
Not to mention your whole system architecture is different. While the xbox contains its CPU and GPU on the same chip (the APU) and huge chunk of on-die RAM where the setup you listed has a standard desktop CPU connected to the GPU by the system bus. When you have a deterministic hardware setup that you are designing software for you make explicit use of the knowledge that you have X amount and X speed of CPU cache, RAM, GPU RAM and X ms of latency in communication between your processors, etc so just cobbling together off the shelf components into a PC is going to give you something very different.
Cost and availability of hardware?
No you can easily put together a decent system for the $400 a console would cost you.
How does Microsoft expect a company to demonstrate such a "track record" before becoming accepted to the Xbox developer program for the first time? PC games, Windows Phone games, or something else? Or is Microsoft mostly looking to poach companies from the other two consoles?
PC games, mobile games, XBLA/ID@Xbox program titles, etc ... or teams made up of people who have previously delivered titles. But no, you cant get in if you are a complete newbie with no experience.
Given what I've heard of the Xbox One security architecture, it's going to be a tough nut to crack, SDK or not.
And what's the point when you can just buy a cheap PC where you dont have to be concerned about cracking security or distribution legalities of linking against an unlicensed SDK or that a new update might close whatever security exploit you were using. Not to mention the available audience is much larger with the PC.
I can see how deterministic performance and targeting exact hardware is advantageous for game developers so just register as a developer for the platform if that's what you want to do.
No that isn't an answer to the question, this is MIT-licensed free software so what is the problem?
What company's marketing department dictates what API a company needs from another company's open source middleware? Sounds more like you're desperately trying to come up with some FUD than an actual scenario that would occur.
But the answer is they would implement it themselves, contract some team to do it for them, Microsoft would charge them to do it for them or Microsoft would just do it and submit it to the codebase. Most likely if a company needs an API in a piece of open source middleware they will implement it themselves.
Open source, but not free to use, not free software.
Nope, you're wrong. It is under the MIT License which is a Free Software license.
MS have claimed numerous patents which they will STILL not disclose.
They were already leaked some time ago. And this is covered by the community promise (i'm sure you can google that and understand the legal implications of it as well).
Its nice that MS makes FOSS-friendly noises in the server/cloud space. That is what bullies do when they get their asses kicked. If MS gets the upper hand and their vendor lock-in starts working here, then the friendliness WILL evaporate.
It is open source! Do you not understand the concept of open source? How can people here be so moronic as to think that vendor lock-in exists with open source products? It is quite unbelievable how dense some of you are.
What about it? If open source is what gets developers to use .Net then the next version will also need to be open source otherwise they will continue using the existing version or fork it.
> Since this is open-sourcing of their own software, please elaborate on how the final E in EEE is even theoretically possible.
In fact, the open sourcing of their own software is a necessary first step.
It's less about how it is possible and more why they would do it in the first place. EEE is about killing off an existing standard/product, which they tried to do with Java, if they wanted to kill open source .Net they wouldn't be creating it in the first place.
Open source a version, encourage adoption, then create proprietary but attractive features in a future version which remain closed source, use these features to leverage their own products at the expense of others.
Why would they not just keep the whole thing proprietary then? If developers were going to use the features regardless of whether they are proprietary then open sourcing it in the first place makes no sense, in fact it would create a huge risk that an innovative fork be adopted as the defacto standard instead.
The "embrace" part is a strategy to get competitors to use a Microsoft standard, the Extend is to create proprietary extensions to that standard, and the Extinguish is when competitors can no longer compete because users have come to rely on those proprietary features.
But they would be extinguishing their own product, not a competing product.
The question becomes, does Microsoft have enough clout to do it again.
Again? They haven't successfully done it even once, why would they try it again, with their own product no less. I can see them trying to kill off a competing product but why kill their own product?
But what they did in the past was proprietary, that was the problem but this is open source so what's the issue?
The ones they are using to extort from many Android-based phones, for starters.
I understand one of the main ones is a FAT32 patent, which I can see how that would apply to the ability for the Android kernel to read/write from that file system, not sure how you think that applies to this though. The information on what all those patents were was leaked quite some time ago so which of them do you think would apply to this?
So, perhaps the plan is to support .Net on Linux for a while, then yank the support for Linux away and force everyone back to Windows and SQL Server or rewrite their application for another platform.
But it's Open Source, can Open Source not survive without a corporate sponsor?
Yeah... My guess is that, after this announcement, developers are going to say to themselves, "Great, now we don't have to learn how to use new tools to create software for Linux", and do all their work on Windows.
Since this is about open sourcing .Net how is it any different from Java? Do people not learn Linux-based tools to create Java programs because they can do it on Windows?
Then, in five or ten years, when everyone's using Microsoft's tools, they'll claim no one's using them to port to Linux, anyway, and drop support.
But it is open source, what would "dropping support" achieve when the source is out there?