Ahem I mean, that's nice for the people who now have the chance to get their money back when Sony decided that they didn't need the product they paid for.
Well to theoretical physicists and cosmologists it is.
Any deviation to Newtonian gravity at atomic scale might end up proving the presence of alternate brane universes or give empirical evidence that could offer new insights into the nature of the universe as it is envisioned by M-theory.
Well like the topic says, did we really need a patch for Scrabble?
I mean it's not like there is something built into the game that prevents people from using house rules , nor is there (far as I am aware) any professional Scrabble scene so it is not like there is any great need for an official revision of the Scrabble rules.
The way I see it the future of PC gaming is going towards the free-to-play model like Quake Live, League of Legends and (I think) a few others out there. I believe we'll likely see less and less, story driven singleplayer games come out for the PC (at least none that'll be exclusive to the PC) in favor of free-to-play multiplayer games that are either financed by advertising or with some kind of devious micropayment system built in.
Any singleplayer game that comes out for the PC will most likely be released in parallel with console versions since games for the Xbox and Xbox 360 are relatively easy to convert into PC games - granted they'll usually have interfaces designed for the console, which in many cases sucks for PC games.
I don't think it would be considered a crack. Far as I am aware as long as you do not actually alter the code of the executable and only alter whatever the program keeps in memory (such as the pixels being painted on the screen) then it is legal.
I know of at least one multiplayer game that has a loader available to allow people to play the game through an unofficial multiplayer portal, and far as I am aware it is not illegal.
That being said, I think the only reason it is not considered illegal is because none of the software houses are fully aware of these things yet, soon as one of the larger software companies gets word that this is happening I am fairly sure they'll get uppity and take the developers of the customization kit to court - and win.
You can still use the app store on a jailbroken iPad, well you can on an iPhone anyhow.
As for why we care, I don't really know. I mean personally I always like seeing big corporations fail at stuff (in this case protecting the 'sanctity' of their stuff) but this sort of thing does seem a mite irrelevant to me as well.
Consent or no consent, once you begin altering the human genome you are beginning to change the species at a very basic level. It stands to reason that anyone who suffers from a curable disorder would more likely than not be cured; therefore probably will consider the individual (themselves) before the entire species. I mentioned cosmetic surgery (or any other kind of of surgery for that matter), well your argument is relevant for that situation as you cannot inherit silicone breasts or a facelift; now once we start altering the genes of individuals you'll be altering the entire genetic linage of that person which means you will in effect be permanently altering the species.
No matter how harmless it might seem, once we start altering the human species as a whole we need to be sure about what we are doing.
Genetically altering humans is a fairly big ethical question. Granted curing color blindness is fairly harmless, but once we know how to do that and accept it can be done it pretty much stands to reason that we will find out how to do other things and will accept doing those.
While curing color blindness and any number of genetic defects might in the long run be the best course of action, at least from a "continuation of the species"-viewpoint, at what point do we draw the line. I mean when we first begun to do surgery we did it to save life and for "the betterment of mankind", and now we are doing cosmetic surgery. In the case of cosmetic surgery the point can be made that people who have not had the surgery are at a disadvantage (Can't get certain jobs on ground of attractiveness, and so on), now when we start to do "cosmetic" DNA surgery we are tampering with humanity at a pretty basic level and run the risk of the species splitting off in to one (or several) different species, those who had have the genetic augmentations and those that have not. So once we are two different species what'll the augmented species think of the non-augmented one? Will the people who for whatever reason are not able to get or unwilling to get the augmentations done be considered as some kind of untermench or will the non-augmented line be terminated all together?
I am not advocating that we should ban all genetic medicine, far from it, personally I would love to be cured of my colorblindness and I'm sure there are any number of people with various other genetic defects that would like to be cured. This also raises the question: how do we decide what constitutes a defect, and how to we go about determining if it should be cured? Also if we are set on removing genetic defects from the gene pool how to we deal with people who do not want the cure? Do we forbid them from breeding so they will not pass on their "defective" genes?
Whatever is the case, it's a valid debate and one we'll WILL need to have before we do these sorts of things, even if they seem kind of harmless.
Slashdot Mirror
I've a hard time seeing how a game for the PS3 could in any way befit from MORE DRM.
Almost makes me glad I'm too poor to actually own a console.
ahahah!
Suck it Sony!
Ahem I mean, that's nice for the people who now have the chance to get their money back when Sony decided that they didn't need the product they paid for.
Well to theoretical physicists and cosmologists it is.
Any deviation to Newtonian gravity at atomic scale might end up proving the presence of alternate brane universes or give empirical evidence that could offer new insights into the nature of the universe as it is envisioned by M-theory.
Well like the topic says, did we really need a patch for Scrabble?
I mean it's not like there is something built into the game that prevents people from using house rules , nor is there (far as I am aware) any professional Scrabble scene so it is not like there is any great need for an official revision of the Scrabble rules.
I kind of agree with this.
The way I see it the future of PC gaming is going towards the free-to-play model like Quake Live, League of Legends and (I think) a few others out there.
I believe we'll likely see less and less, story driven singleplayer games come out for the PC (at least none that'll be exclusive to the PC) in favor of free-to-play multiplayer games that are either financed by advertising or with some kind of devious micropayment system built in.
Any singleplayer game that comes out for the PC will most likely be released in parallel with console versions since games for the Xbox and Xbox 360 are relatively easy to convert into PC games - granted they'll usually have interfaces designed for the console, which in many cases sucks for PC games.
I don't think it would be considered a crack. Far as I am aware as long as you do not actually alter the code of the executable and only alter whatever the program keeps in memory (such as the pixels being painted on the screen) then it is legal.
I know of at least one multiplayer game that has a loader available to allow people to play the game through an unofficial multiplayer portal, and far as I am aware it is not illegal.
That being said, I think the only reason it is not considered illegal is because none of the software houses are fully aware of these things yet, soon as one of the larger software companies gets word that this is happening I am fairly sure they'll get uppity and take the developers of the customization kit to court - and win.
You can still use the app store on a jailbroken iPad, well you can on an iPhone anyhow.
As for why we care, I don't really know. I mean personally I always like seeing big corporations fail at stuff (in this case protecting the 'sanctity' of their stuff) but this sort of thing does seem a mite irrelevant to me as well.
Also your signature is awfully hostile.
Ah but it is.
Consent or no consent, once you begin altering the human genome you are beginning to change the species at a very basic level.
It stands to reason that anyone who suffers from a curable disorder would more likely than not be cured; therefore probably will consider the individual (themselves) before the entire species. I mentioned cosmetic surgery (or any other kind of of surgery for that matter), well your argument is relevant for that situation as you cannot inherit silicone breasts or a facelift; now once we start altering the genes of individuals you'll be altering the entire genetic linage of that person which means you will in effect be permanently altering the species.
No matter how harmless it might seem, once we start altering the human species as a whole we need to be sure about what we are doing.
In all fairness it is a valid question to pose.
Genetically altering humans is a fairly big ethical question. Granted curing color blindness is fairly harmless, but once we know how to do that and accept it can be done it pretty much stands to reason that we will find out how to do other things and will accept doing those.
While curing color blindness and any number of genetic defects might in the long run be the best course of action, at least from a "continuation of the species"-viewpoint, at what point do we draw the line.
I mean when we first begun to do surgery we did it to save life and for "the betterment of mankind", and now we are doing cosmetic surgery. In the case of cosmetic surgery the point can be made that people who have not had the surgery are at a disadvantage (Can't get certain jobs on ground of attractiveness, and so on), now when we start to do "cosmetic" DNA surgery we are tampering with humanity at a pretty basic level and run the risk of the species splitting off in to one (or several) different species, those who had have the genetic augmentations and those that have not.
So once we are two different species what'll the augmented species think of the non-augmented one? Will the people who for whatever reason are not able to get or unwilling to get the augmentations done be considered as some kind of untermench or will the non-augmented line be terminated all together?
I am not advocating that we should ban all genetic medicine, far from it, personally I would love to be cured of my colorblindness and I'm sure there are any number of people with various other genetic defects that would like to be cured.
This also raises the question: how do we decide what constitutes a defect, and how to we go about determining if it should be cured? Also if we are set on removing genetic defects from the gene pool how to we deal with people who do not want the cure? Do we forbid them from breeding so they will not pass on their "defective" genes?
Whatever is the case, it's a valid debate and one we'll WILL need to have before we do these sorts of things, even if they seem kind of harmless.