Glad I'm not the only one calling bullshit on this claim. Even INCLUDING any navigation system I think it's way off, but why would you include something which can't (realistically) have any control over the car?
I find your argumentation to be borderline strawmanish and succumbent to the very intellectual dishonesty you accuse me of.
>fact: no government, historical, present day, or hypothetical, will not snoop for one reason or another, good or bad therefore, that you can find some snooping a government does is therefore without probative value.
So you're saying it's the will of the people to be under mass-surveillance, because you just said:
>western governments are democracies, they rule by consent. therefore, there is a natural limit on what their citizens will tolerate before the government is voted out.
Ergo we are snooped on because we want it? Therefore we deserve it and shouldn't complain? Wait, why is this being done in secret again?
No. I reserve the right to complain about mass surveillance, no matter the 'grade of hell' it reaches on your scale. That the Chineese happen to be a few years ahead of the west in 'enforcement' doesn't give me any great feeling of superiority.
>it is simply a matter of intellectual charity to explain to you why what the chinese government does to its citizens is far, far worse than what any government in the west does to its citizens
Ah, condescention. The hallmark of the intellectual superior!
There are clearly differences in how the information produced by the mass data mining operations are used. That's not something I was trying to hide.
To just accept mass surveillance as inevitable and then squabble about degrees of repression to me is giving up. If that's where you need to go to find your intellectual honesty, then I want nothing of it.
>that you do not understand this simple obvious truth
Anyone who doesn't think every SMS in the US (for example) is passed into the NSA is naive beyond belief. The difference is that in the west doing this snooping is still a 'dirty secret', while in china they see value in the people knowing they're monitored. Keeps everything calm. In the west being open about this would have the opposite effect, and we all want everything to remain calm, right? They all do it "for the people" of course.
The EU as a whole isn't there yet, but the infrastructure is coming up as fast as the laws can be pushed through.
Even if your local government quite dislike the idea of Total Interception, they'll still do it because information is the currency in the global military industrial information complex. If moscow will trade you information about Al-Qaeda for information about some chinesee dissident in your country...
Sheesh, nowadays you can't talk about the world we live in without sounding like a friggin nutcase.
... in distribution. The most likely explanation, as I see it, is simply that the cracked version has been 'going around' while the application itself remains anonymous in the store. No way is 80% representative for a high-visibility item in the app store; the ratio of vanilla to jailbroken phones can't possibly be tilted in that direction at this time. I think being cracked exposed your app to more people than if it hadn't been, and you're thinking about the math wrong, because most of those 80% pirates wouldn't have even known your app existed if the hadn't gotten it through their iphone-app torrent RSS feed or whatever.
I'd also like to point out that 'try-before-you-buy' doesn't mean "you try then you buy", it also means "you try and you don't buy [but also don't use the app]". I didn't check the OA, but how many of those IDs tried it and then didn't come back? Those are legitimate triers-not-buyers.
So yeah, that's todays excuse.
PS. My iphone isn't currently jailbroken, but back when it was, it never had a cracked app on it.
He's saying that Google is stealing from him. If there's a 16 byte method to stop this, and he's not doing it, this suggests he doesn't actually believe what he is saying, so he's a bald-faced liar.
My suggestion to people and organisations who don't want to be linked to or indexed is to a) use the technical tools available to guide said activities and if that's not enough, b) get off the fucking internet.
No doubt if google dropped EVERYTHING of his into their black hole (thereby "stop stealing"), he'd sue them for that!
Bookmark that speech, it'll come useful in the future.
Isn't it likely that 7.0 is a now radically different branch (maybe branched off 6.0 a long time ago) with many more engineering hours behind it than this 6.5-semi-service-pack? If so, it doesn't make any sense to lower your expectations about a future product which isn't directly based on the one you're reviewing. In fact, 6.5 might be lousy because all effort is going into mainline instead.
What I'm trying to say is that your scenario may play out, but for less conspiratory reasons.
I upgraded my Fallout 3 installation yesterday. After patching, the game wouldn't run, returning some fairly obtuse message about import ordinals. So I googled the message, and found out it's because the game now links against a newer version of "Microsoft(R) Games for Windows(TM) Live(TM)" whatever. Note that this wasn't some new patch, it's months old and yet this problem, which must realistically be hitting quite a few users, persists. This isn't something you get via Windows Update either, this is just some obscure 'distributable runtime' crap you should know you need?
So let me repeat that: Super mainstream game on a super mainstream platform (Vista x64), no add-ons, I patch to the latest version and it won't start, nothing is mentioned at the developer's site.
Now I recognize good old Bethesda again. Here's how they'd be able to repro: Fully updated Vista machine, install game from DVD, apply patch, notice it won't fucking run.
I don't normally give much for the 'PC-gaming sucks' choir, but c'mon..
I'm currently looking to get Batman: Arkham Asylum for the PS3, a fairly new game. Here's the current situation courtesy of price-matching engine prisjakt.nu (in local currency): PS3=525SEK, XBox 360=499SEK, PC=329SEK. So it's a staircase from most expensive==best protected down to least protected==cheapest, exactly as predicted.
(That's around 20 McD cheeseburgers between the cost of the PS3-version vs the PC-version)
Consider this: The PS3 is still a secure platform, the XBox 360 is not. Therefore, since apparantly we pay hefty sums to compensate for software infringers and the publishers and devs are always saying how they would lower their prices if only no-one was pirating their precious bits, the games on the secure PS3 are in fact cheaper than the games on the unsecure XBox 360?
WAIT, NO THEY AREN'T!
Conclusion: The absense of software pirates will in fact NOT lead to lower prices.
In fact, I'd say the pressure works the other way, if they could price games however they wanted, prices would GO UP! Some infringement works as a safety pressure valve. Too much and the platform is destroyed, too little and the platform won't grow. Further point: Where we have console AND PC versions of a game, the PC version's always much cheaper. You know, the PC where there is the highest pressure from infringers?
So the next time these guys complain and use infringers as an excuse for their pricing, ask them to explain why the PS3 version isn't cheaper than the XBox 360 version, and I'm sure they'll give you some bullshit Sony and MS. Then ask again why we should care about infringers if the larger cost comes directly from the platform controllers...
So no kernel mode setting for me and my old 4870. Just pointing out that this isn't some ATI model wide feature, like it came across from the blurb, which to recap, says:
Another improvement coming with 2.6.31 is kernel mode-setting support for ATI Radeon graphics cards, enabling faster user switching and a more seamless startup experience.
It could have said:
Another improvement coming with 2.6.31 is kernel mode-setting support for legacy[0] ATI Radeon graphics cards, enabling faster user switching and a more seamless startup experience.
[0] AMD's own term for things older than the ATI Radeon X2100 Series.
This version adds Kernel Mode Setting (KMS) support for ATI Radeon. Hardware supported is R1XX,R2XX,R3XX,R4XX,R5XX (radeon up to X1950). Works is underway to provide support for R6XX, R7XX and newer hardware (radeon from HD2XXX to HD4XXX).
With the HD5850 and HD5870 weeks away (don't buy a new card till they're out, you'll hate yourself!), this means you have to be three GENERATIONS behind the curve for this yet unreleased kernel feature to be of use.
For their next trick, why not stop using 8-bit bytes. After all, 8-bits are so arbitrary and hard for people to count with. Why not 5 bits so it's easy for a standard human to count on one hand?
Can't wait for hard drives to break the 500 byte, I mean, 1000 byte sector size.
Might be a part of it, but I think the real issue here is that the kind of high-end games that used to push the envelope hardware-wise, now more often than not end up on the consoles instead. Since the PC gaming platform is now like three hardware generations ahead of the consoles, console games acts like a cushion on PC gaming.. I was going to say progress, but let's be specific and say qualify as graphics progress. We'll get the occasional (late) port with DX10.1, or in the future, DX11 added -- developers and publishers trying to squeeze the last bits out of a product -- but for the most part the ports won't use core features beyond what's available on the consoles.
Yes, there'll be the occasional crysis because there's still a market out there craving something to run all that hardware, but the spear-head is thinning out.
He dropped by the week of GDC to give an extended demo of this 200-player, persistent, and uniquely beautiful game world in which players have complete control--even over the very landscape. Created with tools of his own making, including a 3D modeler and renderer, Love is an incredible example of just how far a solo project can go.
Beyond any direct fines or other remedies, just halve the patent times on all their patents across the board for each infraction. Sixteen years of protection left on Xyliklopper? Now it's eight.
So it's using 100% of a core because it isn't measuring the time between frames and sleeping like a properly designed application would do? You're describing (and I'm taking you word for it) a very simple animation loop, no reason to get it wrong. That it's hogging the CPU due to essentially busy-looping just doesn't make it any less ridiculous. This isn't a benchmark, it should be properly frame-limited.
Slashdot Mirror
Glad I'm not the only one calling bullshit on this claim. Even INCLUDING any navigation system I think it's way off, but why would you include something which can't (realistically) have any control over the car?
Sample is growing fast. In the minutes since that post...
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 5,747 tested so far."
Woho!
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,026 tested so far."
3026 is a super small sample though.
Wonder how the dynamics would change if you were allowed to own it longer and longer for each resale, say +1 day for every time it changes hands.
I find your argumentation to be borderline strawmanish and succumbent to the very intellectual dishonesty you accuse me of.
>fact: no government, historical, present day, or hypothetical, will not snoop for one reason or another, good or bad therefore, that you can find some snooping a government does is therefore without probative value.
So you're saying it's the will of the people to be under mass-surveillance, because you just said:
>western governments are democracies, they rule by consent. therefore, there is a natural limit on what their citizens will tolerate before the government is voted out.
Ergo we are snooped on because we want it? Therefore we deserve it and shouldn't complain? Wait, why is this being done in secret again?
No. I reserve the right to complain about mass surveillance, no matter the 'grade of hell' it reaches on your scale. That the Chineese happen to be a few years ahead of the west in 'enforcement' doesn't give me any great feeling of superiority.
>it is simply a matter of intellectual charity to explain to you why what the chinese government does to its citizens is far, far worse than what any government in the west does to its citizens
Ah, condescention. The hallmark of the intellectual superior!
There are clearly differences in how the information produced by the mass data mining operations are used. That's not something I was trying to hide.
To just accept mass surveillance as inevitable and then squabble about degrees of repression to me is giving up. If that's where you need to go to find your intellectual honesty, then I want nothing of it.
>that you do not understand this simple obvious truth
<eye-roll>
Anyone who doesn't think every SMS in the US (for example) is passed into the NSA is naive beyond belief. The difference is that in the west doing this snooping is still a 'dirty secret', while in china they see value in the people knowing they're monitored. Keeps everything calm. In the west being open about this would have the opposite effect, and we all want everything to remain calm, right? They all do it "for the people" of course.
The EU as a whole isn't there yet, but the infrastructure is coming up as fast as the laws can be pushed through.
Even if your local government quite dislike the idea of Total Interception, they'll still do it because information is the currency in the global military industrial information complex. If moscow will trade you information about Al-Qaeda for information about some chinesee dissident in your country...
Sheesh, nowadays you can't talk about the world we live in without sounding like a friggin nutcase.
>Whether it makes it up there or not depends on how good it is
After watching this, there's no way that can be true.
All of them which aren't from Apple? My mainstream HP laptop has eSATA.
... in distribution. The most likely explanation, as I see it, is simply that the cracked version has been 'going around' while the application itself remains anonymous in the store. No way is 80% representative for a high-visibility item in the app store; the ratio of vanilla to jailbroken phones can't possibly be tilted in that direction at this time. I think being cracked exposed your app to more people than if it hadn't been, and you're thinking about the math wrong, because most of those 80% pirates wouldn't have even known your app existed if the hadn't gotten it through their iphone-app torrent RSS feed or whatever.
I'd also like to point out that 'try-before-you-buy' doesn't mean "you try then you buy", it also means "you try and you don't buy [but also don't use the app]". I didn't check the OA, but how many of those IDs tried it and then didn't come back? Those are legitimate triers-not-buyers.
So yeah, that's todays excuse.
PS. My iphone isn't currently jailbroken, but back when it was, it never had a cracked app on it.
He's saying that Google is stealing from him. If there's a 16 byte method to stop this, and he's not doing it, this suggests he doesn't actually believe what he is saying, so he's a bald-faced liar.
My suggestion to people and organisations who don't want to be linked to or indexed is to a) use the technical tools available to guide said activities and if that's not enough, b) get off the fucking internet .
No doubt if google dropped EVERYTHING of his into their black hole (thereby "stop stealing"), he'd sue them for that!
Bookmark that speech, it'll come useful in the future.
Isn't it likely that 7.0 is a now radically different branch (maybe branched off 6.0 a long time ago) with many more engineering hours behind it than this 6.5-semi-service-pack? If so, it doesn't make any sense to lower your expectations about a future product which isn't directly based on the one you're reviewing. In fact, 6.5 might be lousy because all effort is going into mainline instead.
What I'm trying to say is that your scenario may play out, but for less conspiratory reasons.
Welcome to denyhosts.
I upgraded my Fallout 3 installation yesterday. After patching, the game wouldn't run, returning some fairly obtuse message about import ordinals. So I googled the message, and found out it's because the game now links against a newer version of "Microsoft(R) Games for Windows(TM) Live(TM)" whatever. Note that this wasn't some new patch, it's months old and yet this problem, which must realistically be hitting quite a few users, persists. This isn't something you get via Windows Update either, this is just some obscure 'distributable runtime' crap you should know you need?
So let me repeat that: Super mainstream game on a super mainstream platform (Vista x64), no add-ons, I patch to the latest version and it won't start, nothing is mentioned at the developer's site.
Now I recognize good old Bethesda again. Here's how they'd be able to repro: Fully updated Vista machine, install game from DVD, apply patch, notice it won't fucking run.
I don't normally give much for the 'PC-gaming sucks' choir, but c'mon..
I'm not sure how you think checksums magically protect you from buggy code. I'm sure the buggy code was both checksummed and signed.
I'm currently looking to get Batman: Arkham Asylum for the PS3, a fairly new game. Here's the current situation courtesy of price-matching engine prisjakt.nu (in local currency): PS3=525SEK, XBox 360=499SEK, PC=329SEK. So it's a staircase from most expensive==best protected down to least protected==cheapest, exactly as predicted.
(That's around 20 McD cheeseburgers between the cost of the PS3-version vs the PC-version)
Consider this: The PS3 is still a secure platform, the XBox 360 is not. Therefore, since apparantly we pay hefty sums to compensate for software infringers and the publishers and devs are always saying how they would lower their prices if only no-one was pirating their precious bits, the games on the secure PS3 are in fact cheaper than the games on the unsecure XBox 360?
WAIT, NO THEY AREN'T!
Conclusion: The absense of software pirates will in fact NOT lead to lower prices.
In fact, I'd say the pressure works the other way, if they could price games however they wanted, prices would GO UP! Some infringement works as a safety pressure valve. Too much and the platform is destroyed, too little and the platform won't grow. Further point: Where we have console AND PC versions of a game, the PC version's always much cheaper. You know, the PC where there is the highest pressure from infringers?
So the next time these guys complain and use infringers as an excuse for their pricing, ask them to explain why the PS3 version isn't cheaper than the XBox 360 version, and I'm sure they'll give you some bullshit Sony and MS. Then ask again why we should care about infringers if the larger cost comes directly from the platform controllers...
>So?
So no kernel mode setting for me and my old 4870. Just pointing out that this isn't some ATI model wide feature, like it came across from the blurb, which to recap, says:
It could have said:
[0] AMD's own term for things older than the ATI Radeon X2100 Series.
From the kernelnewbies article:
With the HD5850 and HD5870 weeks away (don't buy a new card till they're out, you'll hate yourself!), this means you have to be three GENERATIONS behind the curve for this yet unreleased kernel feature to be of use.
Not if it started with 3.5GiB.
For their next trick, why not stop using 8-bit bytes. After all, 8-bits are so arbitrary and hard for people to count with. Why not 5 bits so it's easy for a standard human to count on one hand?
Can't wait for hard drives to break the 500 byte, I mean, 1000 byte sector size.
I guess their marketing will now talk about the MacBook Pro with 3.75GB memory?
Might be a part of it, but I think the real issue here is that the kind of high-end games that used to push the envelope hardware-wise, now more often than not end up on the consoles instead. Since the PC gaming platform is now like three hardware generations ahead of the consoles, console games acts like a cushion on PC gaming.. I was going to say progress, but let's be specific and say qualify as graphics progress. We'll get the occasional (late) port with DX10.1, or in the future, DX11 added -- developers and publishers trying to squeeze the last bits out of a product -- but for the most part the ports won't use core features beyond what's available on the consoles.
Yes, there'll be the occasional crysis because there's still a market out there craving something to run all that hardware, but the spear-head is thinning out.
In this ep. of coop. Quoting:
plethysmograph? How will the know what porn we like?
Beyond any direct fines or other remedies, just halve the patent times on all their patents across the board for each infraction. Sixteen years of protection left on Xyliklopper? Now it's eight.
So it's using 100% of a core because it isn't measuring the time between frames and sleeping like a properly designed application would do? You're describing (and I'm taking you word for it) a very simple animation loop, no reason to get it wrong. That it's hogging the CPU due to essentially busy-looping just doesn't make it any less ridiculous. This isn't a benchmark, it should be properly frame-limited.