This would only be pertinent if the vast majority of consumers would be even the least bit interested in knowing how to pirate ebooks. The breaking of the DVD encryption has neither stopped studios from releasing DVDs nor consumers from buying them. Music labels still release albums on iTunes even though it is trivial to get around the DRM on that system, etc.., etc... It's dangerous to make general predictions about the death of a given platform or tech based on piracy. The people that know how to perform the piracy and/or are remotely interested in learning how to do it make up an insignificantly small percentage of the people who will actually own and use that technology.
People need to stop using engine/car analogies for OS/computer discussions. Most any car manufacturer will sell crate engines to other businesses. You can call up GM Performance Parts right now and order a Corvette LS7 engine sans car. The same is true for Ford, BMW, Porsche, etc... Entire industries rely on being able to buy an engine from a manufacturer to put it in their car. The manufacturers are happy to do this because it is an extra revenue stream for them.
Assuming you're the same AC I replied to, you're contradicting yourself. If a case was 'thrown out of court' then there was no judgment and no precedent.
The lawsuit in question was ruled upon. You are probably confusing the fact that Xerox sued Apple during the same period and had that case dismissed due to the expiration of a statute of limitations. The ruling in the Apple vs Microsoft case went in Microsoft's favor. But, that lawsuit was not based on copyright infringement it was based upon the argument that Microsoft breached the licensing contract they had with Apple regarding Windows 1.0. Since it was a contractual matter no precedent was set. The court's ruling was specifically narrowly focused on the contractual issues so that it wouldn't create a more far reaching look and feel precedent.
My analogy is quite apt. Microsoft won that court case based on the facts and evidence presented regarding a specific licensing agreement regarding a specific version of Windows. That ruling in their favor was not precedent setting. The post I was replying to implied that since Microsoft won once (although the poster felt this was due to a dismissal, it wasn't) they could copy all they wanted. That is a bastardization of the definition of double jeopardy. I, correctly, pointed out that double jeopardy does not work that way. Microsoft can not freely copy Apple's work based on one narrow ruling in their favor +20 years ago.
Double Jeopardy protects a person from being tried twice for the same crime. It doesn't mean that you can't be held accountable for committing the same type of crime multiple times. If you don't believe me try this; go speeding through a school zone at 80-90mph on a weekday morning. Keep doing this until you are pulled over by the police. Get the ticket, go to trial, pay the money, go to jail, etc.... When all of that is behind you start speeding through school zones again. The next time the cops pull you over look them in the eye and calmly say, "I can do this all I want now, I've already been tried and convicted for this."
The Apple/MS look and feel lawsuit you are referring to was about a specific Microsoft product possibly borrowing the look and feel from a specific Apple product. Since both of those products predate Win 7 and Apple OS X the ruling (or dismissal, I can't really remember what happened) in that suit has no bearing whatsoever on whether there has been copying/borrowing going on with both companies current products.
By that thinking Windows 95 , 98, and 2000 haven't happened yet, nor will they for decades and centuries. I guess Office 2007 is still thousands of versions off and Adobe Illusrator 88 has yet to happen, even though it is 21 years old now.
So a company that is on the fifth (sixth?) version of its tenth operating system airs a commercial about its competitor's seventh OS release. In the commercial they attempt to insinuate that each new release is to fix the mistakes of the previous.
It makes one wonder why we aren't all still running Mac OS v1.0...
If they are lifeboat shuttles, which I don't think was mentioned, just 'shuttle', you'd hope that the lifeform scan conditions would not be satisfied with (#_of_lifeforms_on_shuttle #_of_lifeforms_on_ship) && (#_of_lifeforms_on_shuttle max_capacity_of_shuttle). One person should not be able to just make off with a lifeboat if there are other people who need rescuing, also.
That's easy to explain away. The control panel in the shuttle has an Apple-esque multitouch screen. It wouldn't register input from a keno bumping in to it.
As soon as people who write free software can band together and field something like Microsoft's R&D division I'm sure the U of W will consider it. It wasn't just software Microsoft contributed it was the enormous freaking brains that wrote the software. Smart people can make money with their smarts. Most choose to do so. Many go to work for MS because they pay their researchers extremely well. You can blather on all you want about how evil Microsoft is (which isn't possible as corporations are amoral by definition), but you have to acknowledge the costs they absorbed in helping this project. Evil doesn't usually go with altruism. Maybe IBM or RedHat could offer the same level of support. It's not Microsoft's fault that they can't, won't, or didn't.
The 360 can do 1080p on component. The only thing it won't do over component is upscale DVDs. For that you need to have either a VGA or HDMI connection.
If BestBuy needed the margin on HDMI cables they'd stop including one for free in their house-brand, Insignia, HD camcorder. Microsoft's removal of the technical certification requirement that enforced minimum resolution at 720p in no way benefits BestBuy. Your theory is pretty easily refuted.
My rerfigerator is a a computer. My thermostat is a computer. My car's engine has a computer. My remote control is a computer. I don't get persnickety about not being able to Linux on those devices. Why should I, or anyone else, get upset that I can't put Linux on a console? The other poster is right. If you want to install Linux and use it buy a device that lets you easily install and run arbitrary code. You'll never achieve the mythical "year Linux takes over the desktop" if you keep wasting time trying to put it on everything *BUT* desktop computers.
Of all the features of OS X I found interesting that one.....I had never heard of. Now that I have heard of it I can say that it doesn't qualify as "at all interesting" to me.
Absolutely file I/O is very specific. Given the limited amounts of RAM in a console the game is constantly streaming data off disc. The streaming requirements for an open-world game will be very high due to the fact that the player can go anywhere at any time. The requirements for a corridor shooter, racing game, or platformer will be much less since the game can predict what will be needed next based on the player's current position. A standard fileI/O mechanism in the console dev libraries will be to general to be a perfect fit in all cases.
DirectX doesn't handle the streaming of data from the disc. DirectX doesn't handle threading, DirectX doesn't handle physics, DirectX doesn't handle file I/O, DirectX doesn't handle (etc...). Outside of audio (which most devs forgo for other solutions), graphics, and controller input DirectX does nothing to help you develop a game.
On a non-ergonomic keyboard I can reach the 6 key with my left index finger without having to fully extend it. If I try to reach the 6 key with my right index finger I have to fully extend my finger and shift my hand forward. I don't think the positioning of the 6 key on an MS natural keyboard is the problem. I think your typing teacher was the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
This would only be pertinent if the vast majority of consumers would be even the least bit interested in knowing how to pirate ebooks. The breaking of the DVD encryption has neither stopped studios from releasing DVDs nor consumers from buying them. Music labels still release albums on iTunes even though it is trivial to get around the DRM on that system, etc.., etc... It's dangerous to make general predictions about the death of a given platform or tech based on piracy. The people that know how to perform the piracy and/or are remotely interested in learning how to do it make up an insignificantly small percentage of the people who will actually own and use that technology.
People need to stop using engine/car analogies for OS/computer discussions. Most any car manufacturer will sell crate engines to other businesses. You can call up GM Performance Parts right now and order a Corvette LS7 engine sans car. The same is true for Ford, BMW, Porsche, etc... Entire industries rely on being able to buy an engine from a manufacturer to put it in their car. The manufacturers are happy to do this because it is an extra revenue stream for them.
Sure, Brain, but how are we going to stuff our socks with mashed potatoes?
Assuming you're the same AC I replied to, you're contradicting yourself. If a case was 'thrown out of court' then there was no judgment and no precedent. The lawsuit in question was ruled upon. You are probably confusing the fact that Xerox sued Apple during the same period and had that case dismissed due to the expiration of a statute of limitations. The ruling in the Apple vs Microsoft case went in Microsoft's favor. But, that lawsuit was not based on copyright infringement it was based upon the argument that Microsoft breached the licensing contract they had with Apple regarding Windows 1.0. Since it was a contractual matter no precedent was set. The court's ruling was specifically narrowly focused on the contractual issues so that it wouldn't create a more far reaching look and feel precedent. My analogy is quite apt. Microsoft won that court case based on the facts and evidence presented regarding a specific licensing agreement regarding a specific version of Windows. That ruling in their favor was not precedent setting. The post I was replying to implied that since Microsoft won once (although the poster felt this was due to a dismissal, it wasn't) they could copy all they wanted. That is a bastardization of the definition of double jeopardy. I, correctly, pointed out that double jeopardy does not work that way. Microsoft can not freely copy Apple's work based on one narrow ruling in their favor +20 years ago.
Double Jeopardy protects a person from being tried twice for the same crime. It doesn't mean that you can't be held accountable for committing the same type of crime multiple times. If you don't believe me try this; go speeding through a school zone at 80-90mph on a weekday morning. Keep doing this until you are pulled over by the police. Get the ticket, go to trial, pay the money, go to jail, etc.... When all of that is behind you start speeding through school zones again. The next time the cops pull you over look them in the eye and calmly say, "I can do this all I want now, I've already been tried and convicted for this." The Apple/MS look and feel lawsuit you are referring to was about a specific Microsoft product possibly borrowing the look and feel from a specific Apple product. Since both of those products predate Win 7 and Apple OS X the ruling (or dismissal, I can't really remember what happened) in that suit has no bearing whatsoever on whether there has been copying/borrowing going on with both companies current products.
To all of the people who ever said, "OSS should stop copying and start innovating" - this abomination is your fault.
How often have we heard "OSS should stop copying and start innovating"? Anyone and everyone who ever said that, this abomination is your fault.
By that thinking Windows 95 , 98, and 2000 haven't happened yet, nor will they for decades and centuries. I guess Office 2007 is still thousands of versions off and Adobe Illusrator 88 has yet to happen, even though it is 21 years old now.
That same logic can be applied to the last eight years of progressive Mac OS X releases, too.
It makes one wonder why we aren't all still running Mac OS v1.0...
WTF are we all going to do???!!!!!
If you can't even explain why you pay attention to him, why do you continue to pay attention to him?
A Linux distro is made with Linux, GNU and other stuff.
A GNU/Linux distro is made with Linux, GNU, other stuff, and the rainbows and unicorns that live only in your head.
Don't post as anonymous coward next time.
If they are lifeboat shuttles, which I don't think was mentioned, just 'shuttle', you'd hope that the lifeform scan conditions would not be satisfied with (#_of_lifeforms_on_shuttle #_of_lifeforms_on_ship) && (#_of_lifeforms_on_shuttle max_capacity_of_shuttle). One person should not be able to just make off with a lifeboat if there are other people who need rescuing, also.
That's easy to explain away. The control panel in the shuttle has an Apple-esque multitouch screen. It wouldn't register input from a keno bumping in to it.
As soon as people who write free software can band together and field something like Microsoft's R&D division I'm sure the U of W will consider it. It wasn't just software Microsoft contributed it was the enormous freaking brains that wrote the software. Smart people can make money with their smarts. Most choose to do so. Many go to work for MS because they pay their researchers extremely well. You can blather on all you want about how evil Microsoft is (which isn't possible as corporations are amoral by definition), but you have to acknowledge the costs they absorbed in helping this project. Evil doesn't usually go with altruism. Maybe IBM or RedHat could offer the same level of support. It's not Microsoft's fault that they can't, won't, or didn't.
The 360 can do 1080p on component. The only thing it won't do over component is upscale DVDs. For that you need to have either a VGA or HDMI connection.
If BestBuy needed the margin on HDMI cables they'd stop including one for free in their house-brand, Insignia, HD camcorder. Microsoft's removal of the technical certification requirement that enforced minimum resolution at 720p in no way benefits BestBuy. Your theory is pretty easily refuted.
My rerfigerator is a a computer. My thermostat is a computer. My car's engine has a computer. My remote control is a computer. I don't get persnickety about not being able to Linux on those devices. Why should I, or anyone else, get upset that I can't put Linux on a console? The other poster is right. If you want to install Linux and use it buy a device that lets you easily install and run arbitrary code. You'll never achieve the mythical "year Linux takes over the desktop" if you keep wasting time trying to put it on everything *BUT* desktop computers.
Of all the features of OS X I found interesting that one.....I had never heard of. Now that I have heard of it I can say that it doesn't qualify as "at all interesting" to me.
"Rel astronomy isn't nearly as exciting as Star Wars..." Star Wars was about astronomy? Man, I *really* missed the point of those movies.
Absolutely file I/O is very specific. Given the limited amounts of RAM in a console the game is constantly streaming data off disc. The streaming requirements for an open-world game will be very high due to the fact that the player can go anywhere at any time. The requirements for a corridor shooter, racing game, or platformer will be much less since the game can predict what will be needed next based on the player's current position. A standard fileI/O mechanism in the console dev libraries will be to general to be a perfect fit in all cases.
DirectX doesn't handle the streaming of data from the disc. DirectX doesn't handle threading, DirectX doesn't handle physics, DirectX doesn't handle file I/O, DirectX doesn't handle (etc...). Outside of audio (which most devs forgo for other solutions), graphics, and controller input DirectX does nothing to help you develop a game.
On a non-ergonomic keyboard I can reach the 6 key with my left index finger without having to fully extend it. If I try to reach the 6 key with my right index finger I have to fully extend my finger and shift my hand forward. I don't think the positioning of the 6 key on an MS natural keyboard is the problem. I think your typing teacher was the problem.
Why would you make a section increasingly wide if you are trying to go vertical? Why not just make the sections increasingly long?