Giving the engine for free is a massive swing to what I believe is the future of gaming.
The "future" of gaming is content, not the engine. The content can be locked up even if the engine is open. Also considering the miss to hit ratio of community mods game publishers have little to worry.
I think you're exactly right about content vs. engine. While this is a move in the right direction by Crytek, it would be even better if they released it as Free or Open Source software. They're already planning to make the source available to anyone, so it seems they're not trying to hide anything. If they released it under a copyleft license, they wouldn't even have to worry that much about competitors gaining an unfair advantage, since improvements couldn't be made proprietary.
Bad idea. All it will do is generate hundreds of bug reports. And. It doesn't really address the problem. If 'Misery' can auto-magically detect trolling why not just auto-ban or auto-suspend and give an explanation? That assumes of course that 'Misery' can detect trolling reliably -which I doubt- so realistically it's going to annoy 'normal' users, ie the ones your web site presumably wants to keep, who will just think your web site is badly written and buggy. In short: it's a stupid idea and a stupid plugin.
It's not intended to automagically detect anything.
Currently you can force users (via permissions/roles, editing their user account, or using Troll IP blacklists) to endure the following misery:
If trolls don't realize they're being punished, maybe they can be ignored longer since they won't try to circumvent the punishment.
I always thought the most effective way to combat trolls would be to silently flag their account, allowing them to post and continue viewing the forums as normal, but everything they do is completely invisible. The system could also generate fake replies to their replies and threads, also completely invisible.
Yeah, I can't vouch for Jungle Disk since I haven't tried it myself. Reading some of their docs it sounds like there is the option of encrypting everything before sending it to them, though it wasn't entirely clear whether that was the default configuration and if so, for which of their services. When I do use any storage service for things I need to stay private, I'll always use my own tools to encrypt it before I upload anyway rather than trust the service's tool.
Jungle Disk claims "The master key is based on a password YOU choose, known only to you and not stored with Jungle Disk." It doesn't say where the encrypted private key is stored, but at least they say they don't know the password used to encrypt the key.
I do not support violating Dropbox's terms of service and have no interest in using them anyway. I was only responding to the idea that anonymous file sharing is only useful for illegal purposes and is not a legitimate topic for a story.
There are a number of ways to encrypt files before uploading them anywhere, including Dropbox. However, I'd rather use a service with a standard interface, unobfuscated interface, such as IMAP or HTTP, which allows more flexibility.
For example, one can use GMail Filesystem over FUSE with eCryptfs to mount a file system that stores everything encrypted in a Gmail (and probably any IMAP) account.
Alternatively, one can use duplicity to make and restore encrypted backups using a wide variety of protocols, including IMAP, scp/ssh, ftp, rsync, HSI, WebDAV, Tahoe-LAFS, and Amazon S3.
Participating in a torrent is somewhat anonymous in that your peers' identities are not obvious. However there are much stronger anonymizing systems, such as Tor. They list many legitimate users, which may be sending messages, browsing the web or sharing files through Tor.
Even more comprehensive is Freenet, which is used to get around censorship in places like China.
I have no intention of using Dropbox and would not support those who violate its terms of service in any way. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of dismissing all issues related to anonymous file sharing simply because it can be abused.
I mostly store my data on my own machines. When I need to store private data on other peoples' machines, I encrypt it before uploading. Since Dropbox's client doesn't do that, it seems a poor choice when privacy is required.
I've never used Dropbox and never will with what I know now, so I wasn't aware they could do password recovery. It seems that Dropbox has changed their claims about privacy based on the discussion at Miguel de Icaza's post. Apparently they used to say that
Dropbox employees aren't able to access user files, and when troubleshooting an account they only have access to file metadata (filenames, file sizes, etc., not the file contents)
but now say
Dropbox employees are prohibited from viewing the content of files you store in your Dropbox account, and are only permitted to view file metadata (e.g., file names and locations).
Though the details are slim at this point what you describe seems a likely scenario. We'll have to wait until the release of the Army's distribution of Android to see what they did with it and get some idea of how they'll manage it.
According to some, 90% of all email is spam. Does that make SMTP an illegitimate protocol? Often, the easiest way to find copyright infringing works is using Google. Does that make the search engine illegitimate? Porn drove early VCR development. Is VHS an illegitimate technology?
Thankfully, copyright does not apply to algorithms
And, the DMCA has an explicit exception for interoperability and such, which I think this would be covered under.
I think you're confused. Perhaps you're thinking of the anti-circumvention clause which clearly doesn't apply in this case. Dropbox is not claiming copyright infringement and seems to have admitted that the DMCA takedown notice was a mistake. They are claiming that using Dropship violates their terms of service, which it probably does. However, the DMCA has nothing to say about that since it is not at all related to copyright.
Even if the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause applied, it still doesn't change the fact that you cannot copyright an algorithm. Unfortunately, you can patent one.
the US has a legal system based on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Unless one is suspected of copyright infringement, kiddie porn or terrorism, then it's straight on to the presumption of guilt and you needing to prove you didn't do it.
Sadly, it seems like those three can pretty much bypass any court oversight.
What you're describing certainly happens, but is a gross violation of the principles of the legal system. The post I responded to seemed to be implying that it was reasonable to assume that a work infringed on a copyright until it was proven non-infringing.
It's already been shown that Dropbox's claims about security are mostly bogus. If Dropbox can Hand Over Your Files to the Feds If Asked then the encryption method they use to store files on their servers is meaningless since they have the private keys anyway.
Enforcing terms of service is one thing, but making bogus accusations and trying to get the software censored outside of Dropbox is another. This is a lot like the deCSS situation, in which copyright holders tried to censor the software rather than prosecute actual copyright infringement.
Vote this article down - it's misleading flamebait in the extreme. In particular, it fails to mention that the software was designed to facilitate anonymous filesharing, which would most certainly be used for copyright infringement and illegal purposes.
I mean, from the FA, it talks about how Dropship is exploiting the Dropbox hashing algorithm, which might be copyrighted along with the rest of Dropbox (I don't know). If it was, then I could see why there would be grounds for copyright infringement, unless the OSS project could demonstrate that it arrived at that dropbox hashing algorithm through blackbox testing.
Thankfully, copyright does not apply to algorithms and the US has a legal system based on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.
The Register article you reference is talking about Android 3.0 and there is no indication that's what the Army does or intends to use. That seems very unlikely, since Android 3.0 is supposedly intended only for tablets. Though it's unclear when or if Android 3.0 will be released as Free and Open Source software, 2.x versions are actually unconditionally Open Source.
I wouldn't try to dispute any of your complaints about Google's use of data. However, I think that's unrelated to this issue because the Army does not need to give any data to Google in order to use the Open Source releases of Android. Since the Army has their own communications infrastructure, they have no need for Google's or anyone else's and would be foolish to rely on outside providers.
Whatever the DoD decides, it ought to use something that is fully under their own control, not some 3rd party, yet is maintained.
So, you're saying that any smartphone platform the DOD uses should be developed solely by them with no outside help from companies or any FLOSS development community. If they do that, they can maintain it to whatever level they want, given enough manpower. It seems the point of the project to use Android as a basis is intended to save money versus developing a platform from scratch. Not only would it take a lot more of the Army's time to develop their own system from scratch, but it would be a lot harder and more expensive to get phone manufacturers to support it.
I certainly agree that both the commercial and military approaches have tradeoffs and are appropriate for different situations. It sounds like the Army is trying to standardize on a software platform just as they did with ammunition. Just as 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition can be used in an M-24 sniper rilfe, M-240 machine gun, or M-134 minigun, the Army could use their Android distribution on HTC or Motorola phones or their own designs.
The Army is whether or not a commercial made phone or government off the shelf model is more appropriate.
As poorly written as that is, it sounds like the Army is considering using their own phone designs. I'm sure they're capable of designing hardened devices that can run Android if they need to. The Army has used hardened PC hardware for a long time.
The Google account login is only necessary for specific applications (especially the Google ones of course), not for the Android platform. The platform (not including the apps) is available under Free and Open Source licenses and can therefore be customized to use or not use any services desired. The US military has their own worldwide data networks and communications infrastructure, so it would be stupid for them to rely on any Google services.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like Sprixel? There are already a number of compilers for other languages, such as Java, Python, and Javascript, oddly enough. List of languages that compile to JS has many more.
Forget folders, I'm all about this new-fangled multi-tasking thing.
...but under what license will the sourcecode be released?
It seems pretty clear that it will still be available only under proprietary licenses, but there will be no charge for non-commercial use.
Giving the engine for free is a massive swing to what I believe is the future of gaming.
The "future" of gaming is content, not the engine. The content can be locked up even if the engine is open. Also considering the miss to hit ratio of community mods game publishers have little to worry.
I think you're exactly right about content vs. engine. While this is a move in the right direction by Crytek, it would be even better if they released it as Free or Open Source software. They're already planning to make the source available to anyone, so it seems they're not trying to hide anything. If they released it under a copyleft license, they wouldn't even have to worry that much about competitors gaining an unfair advantage, since improvements couldn't be made proprietary.
Bad idea.
All it will do is generate hundreds of bug reports.
And. It doesn't really address the problem. If 'Misery' can auto-magically detect trolling why not just auto-ban or auto-suspend and give an explanation?
That assumes of course that 'Misery' can detect trolling reliably -which I doubt- so realistically it's going to annoy 'normal' users, ie the ones your web site presumably wants to keep, who will just think your web site is badly written and buggy.
In short: it's a stupid idea and a stupid plugin.
It's not intended to automagically detect anything.
Currently you can force users (via permissions/roles, editing their user account, or using Troll IP blacklists) to endure the following misery:
If trolls don't realize they're being punished, maybe they can be ignored longer since they won't try to circumvent the punishment.
I always thought the most effective way to combat trolls would be to silently flag their account, allowing them to post and continue viewing the forums as normal, but everything they do is completely invisible. The system could also generate fake replies to their replies and threads, also completely invisible.
That sounds like what Cave does.
Yeah, I can't vouch for Jungle Disk since I haven't tried it myself. Reading some of their docs it sounds like there is the option of encrypting everything before sending it to them, though it wasn't entirely clear whether that was the default configuration and if so, for which of their services. When I do use any storage service for things I need to stay private, I'll always use my own tools to encrypt it before I upload anyway rather than trust the service's tool.
Jungle Disk claims "The master key is based on a password YOU choose, known only to you and not stored with Jungle Disk." It doesn't say where the encrypted private key is stored, but at least they say they don't know the password used to encrypt the key.
I do not support violating Dropbox's terms of service and have no interest in using them anyway. I was only responding to the idea that anonymous file sharing is only useful for illegal purposes and is not a legitimate topic for a story.
There are a number of ways to encrypt files before uploading them anywhere, including Dropbox. However, I'd rather use a service with a standard interface, unobfuscated interface, such as IMAP or HTTP, which allows more flexibility.
For example, one can use GMail Filesystem over FUSE with eCryptfs to mount a file system that stores everything encrypted in a Gmail (and probably any IMAP) account.
Alternatively, one can use duplicity to make and restore encrypted backups using a wide variety of protocols, including IMAP, scp/ssh, ftp, rsync, HSI, WebDAV, Tahoe-LAFS, and Amazon S3.
Participating in a torrent is somewhat anonymous in that your peers' identities are not obvious. However there are much stronger anonymizing systems, such as Tor. They list many legitimate users, which may be sending messages, browsing the web or sharing files through Tor.
Even more comprehensive is Freenet, which is used to get around censorship in places like China.
I have no intention of using Dropbox and would not support those who violate its terms of service in any way. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of dismissing all issues related to anonymous file sharing simply because it can be abused.
I mostly store my data on my own machines. When I need to store private data on other peoples' machines, I encrypt it before uploading. Since Dropbox's client doesn't do that, it seems a poor choice when privacy is required.
I've never used Dropbox and never will with what I know now, so I wasn't aware they could do password recovery. It seems that Dropbox has changed their claims about privacy based on the discussion at Miguel de Icaza's post. Apparently they used to say that
Dropbox employees aren't able to access user files, and when troubleshooting an account they only have access to file metadata (filenames, file sizes, etc., not the file contents)
but now say
Dropbox employees are prohibited from viewing the content of files you store in your Dropbox account, and are only permitted to view file metadata (e.g., file names and locations).
Though the details are slim at this point what you describe seems a likely scenario. We'll have to wait until the release of the Army's distribution of Android to see what they did with it and get some idea of how they'll manage it.
According to some, 90% of all email is spam. Does that make SMTP an illegitimate protocol? Often, the easiest way to find copyright infringing works is using Google. Does that make the search engine illegitimate? Porn drove early VCR development. Is VHS an illegitimate technology?
And, the DMCA has an explicit exception for interoperability and such, which I think this would be covered under.
I think you're confused. Perhaps you're thinking of the anti-circumvention clause which clearly doesn't apply in this case. Dropbox is not claiming copyright infringement and seems to have admitted that the DMCA takedown notice was a mistake. They are claiming that using Dropship violates their terms of service, which it probably does. However, the DMCA has nothing to say about that since it is not at all related to copyright.
Even if the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause applied, it still doesn't change the fact that you cannot copyright an algorithm. Unfortunately, you can patent one.
the US has a legal system based on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Unless one is suspected of copyright infringement, kiddie porn or terrorism, then it's straight on to the presumption of guilt and you needing to prove you didn't do it.
Sadly, it seems like those three can pretty much bypass any court oversight.
What you're describing certainly happens, but is a gross violation of the principles of the legal system. The post I responded to seemed to be implying that it was reasonable to assume that a work infringed on a copyright until it was proven non-infringing.
It's already been shown that Dropbox's claims about security are mostly bogus. If Dropbox can Hand Over Your Files to the Feds If Asked then the encryption method they use to store files on their servers is meaningless since they have the private keys anyway.
Enforcing terms of service is one thing, but making bogus accusations and trying to get the software censored outside of Dropbox is another. This is a lot like the deCSS situation, in which copyright holders tried to censor the software rather than prosecute actual copyright infringement.
Vote this article down - it's misleading flamebait in the extreme. In particular, it fails to mention that the software was designed to facilitate anonymous filesharing, which would most certainly be used for copyright infringement and illegal purposes.
Yeah, anonymous file sharing has no legitimate purposes whatsoever.
I mean, from the FA, it talks about how Dropship is exploiting the Dropbox hashing algorithm, which might be copyrighted along with the rest of Dropbox (I don't know). If it was, then I could see why there would be grounds for copyright infringement, unless the OSS project could demonstrate that it arrived at that dropbox hashing algorithm through blackbox testing.
Thankfully, copyright does not apply to algorithms and the US has a legal system based on the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.
The Register article you reference is talking about Android 3.0 and there is no indication that's what the Army does or intends to use. That seems very unlikely, since Android 3.0 is supposedly intended only for tablets. Though it's unclear when or if Android 3.0 will be released as Free and Open Source software, 2.x versions are actually unconditionally Open Source.
I wouldn't try to dispute any of your complaints about Google's use of data. However, I think that's unrelated to this issue because the Army does not need to give any data to Google in order to use the Open Source releases of Android. Since the Army has their own communications infrastructure, they have no need for Google's or anyone else's and would be foolish to rely on outside providers.
Whatever the DoD decides, it ought to use something that is fully under their own control, not some 3rd party, yet is maintained.
So, you're saying that any smartphone platform the DOD uses should be developed solely by them with no outside help from companies or any FLOSS development community. If they do that, they can maintain it to whatever level they want, given enough manpower. It seems the point of the project to use Android as a basis is intended to save money versus developing a platform from scratch. Not only would it take a lot more of the Army's time to develop their own system from scratch, but it would be a lot harder and more expensive to get phone manufacturers to support it.
I certainly agree that both the commercial and military approaches have tradeoffs and are appropriate for different situations. It sounds like the Army is trying to standardize on a software platform just as they did with ammunition. Just as 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition can be used in an M-24 sniper rilfe, M-240 machine gun, or M-134 minigun, the Army could use their Android distribution on HTC or Motorola phones or their own designs.
From the article:
The Army is whether or not a commercial made phone or government off the shelf model is more appropriate.
As poorly written as that is, it sounds like the Army is considering using their own phone designs. I'm sure they're capable of designing hardened devices that can run Android if they need to. The Army has used hardened PC hardware for a long time.
The Google account login is only necessary for specific applications (especially the Google ones of course), not for the Android platform. The platform (not including the apps) is available under Free and Open Source licenses and can therefore be customized to use or not use any services desired. The US military has their own worldwide data networks and communications infrastructure, so it would be stupid for them to rely on any Google services.