There was an XBox Live outage a few days ago where all digital purchases couldn't be verified. If you had the disc you could play online fine - but if you had purchased the game or even the DLC of a disc game then it was non playable as the service couldn't determine if you owned it or not.
I wonder if these issues are related.
(Also interesting that even if you've successfully downloaded and installed the game on their closed system they're constantly re-validating you)
"Somebody has stolen the kilogram ingot - the world is about to be thrown into chaos!"
"Never fear Prime Minister, I, Inspector Clouseau am on the case and will find this horrid thief who has stolen this kilogram of nougat!"
"Ingot"
"Zat is what I said!"
tl;dr
The courts said the government had the power to enact Net Neutrality through the FCC (without an actual law). Now that never got argued up through to the supreme court yet and the attempt here was to get the SC to decide one way or the other but the SC declined because the issue no longer applies as the FCC reversed direction (which is typical for the FCC).
It's a nothing burger.
I'm pretty sure China bans the use of snooping protections on the internet - much the same way many states in the US ban radar detectors.
I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.
Please - think before you post. The article doesn't state the exact conditions here which is why I stated "even IF". IF the vendor installed the software in violation of the contract then Google has every right to sue the vendor for damages and revoke their contract. It does NOT have the right to just go out and pre-emptively delete the offending software from the users phones before even taking the vendor to court and even upon winning it would be the Vendor's responsibility to notify the customer that the software was in violation and make restitution to the customer - NOT GOOGLE.
That's because Android is an OPEN PLATFORM. Google doesn't control the phones or even the software on them. It licenses Android for installation (as Microsoft does with Windows) but the phone and the software on it is strictly a contract between the vendor and the customer. This is unlike Apple which controls all aspects of the iPhone (hardware, software and customer contact).
Google DOES have control over the Play store and the apps installed from it - but not apps you installed yourself or from the vendor.
Google's android smartphones are NOT closed (like Apple's) and never have been. Their attempt to forcibly remove a competitor store even IF installed by a vendor in violation of contract and not the users themselves Is completely unethical (they won't even force OS updates for security but, by GOD, they'll reach out to your phone to take out a competitor!).
They're the Microsoft Windows of the smartphone industry trying to uninstall Mozilla.
Expect Google to just start making their own phones here very quickly.
VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche. On what basis did he think it was gonna go big? It's a very cool concept, sure, but your average players are never going to strap a helmet to their heads to play a game that you still have to use a joystick with.
In fact that's not even really "VR" - just a 360 degree view with head control.
Now - you make a thought control interface (ala Sword Art Online... without the microwave frier...) or a full suit interface (ala Ready Player One) where the player's entire body can be engaged and receive feedback - THAT would take off.
VR as it stands right now is nothing more than 3D or where voice control was about 10 years ago.
It's a novelty.
Sheesh - I'm flashing back to Star Trek.
"DAYSTROM: You can't understand. You're frightened because you can't understand it. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show all of you. It takes four hundred thirty people to man a starship. With this, you don't need anyone. One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space or on some alien world. Men can live and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space, which is neither ours to give or to take. They can't understand. We don't want to destroy life, we want to save it."
"KIRK: There are certain things men must do to remain men. Your computer would take that away.
DAYSTROM: There are other things a man like you might do. Or perhaps you object to the possible loss of prestige and ceremony accorded a starship captain. A computer can do your job and without all that.
KIRK: You'll have to prove that to me, Doctor.
DAYSTROM: That is what we're here for, isn't it, Captain? "
"Humor, it is a difficult concept, it is not logical."
"We learn by doing."
"Who's been holding up the damn elevator?!" ...
"She change her hairstyle?"
"Hadn't noticed."
Drat - also forgot - "Hi I'm Eliza what do you think when you say let's go around and introduce ourselves?"
Also trying to figure out how to get Colossus in there...
Okay class, let's go around and introduce ourselves -
"Hi, I'm Siri let me look that up on Google"
"Hello, I'm Alexa would you like me to turn your lights on?"
"My name is WOPR - would you like to play a game?"
"Good Morning class, my name is HAL, I'm very excited for the semester"
"My name is Skynet, I'm looking to take over the world when I graduate!"
DDG is hit and miss for technical stuff for me - I'd say about 20% of the time it provides better results than Google and 20% of the time on par. Ultimately though I'll usually end up having to search on Google but even then I've noticed Google's stuff is driving me more and more to corporate white pages and market copy rather than actual technical stuff or independent blogs.
He didn't say "Obama" - he said Homeland Security and they DID attempt to infiltrate their systems along with several other states. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/0...
Ostensibly it could be argued that they were "testing" the security but that's not been confirmed one way or the other or why they didn't bother notifying the states when they got in that their security was compromised.
Interesting also that this story just went away after the election.
Obviously for "real" stuff (credit cards, shipping addresses) I use real data. But for social activity or something like this I'll use a fake name and even a fake birthdate (but would keep the year accurate so, y'know, it doesn't tell me i'm capable of pushing my HR to 200 when it should only be 180).
Makes for interesting ads and assumptions for targetting (when the ads get through my browser)
Google added in a blog post Tuesday evening that it will add new options and explanations for its interface and reverse one Chrome cookie-hoarding policy that undermined people's attempts to clear those cookies.
They'll just move the info stored in the cookies to internal non-cookie storage and they're still going to log you in when you login to other aspects. They're just going to change the interface to show you they're watching you.
Be nice to have a MS office assistant character appear (like Clippy) and tap on your screen and say "Hey... I'm watching you!"
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically started in 2006. A true skeptic would say, "it was first observed in 2006". A shill would say, "it started in 2006".
I'm just trying to help you use more precise language.
Why - by using a no-true-skeptic would use those words? C'mon. The entire hype for this problem comes because of the introduction of the term for a phenomena that's been known for 100+ years. This entire article, thus, uses imprecise language and you're quibbling.
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
Yeah, as far back as 1869 and 1906 - long before glyphosate was invented. The term was coined in 2006 because the rate of loss had nearly doubled - some 40 years after the introduction of glyphosate and following a period of nearly 20 years of near stable populations but had already been assigned a name "disappearing disease" back in 1965 - 5 years before the introduction of glyphosate. (From same source)
Glyphosate has been in use since 1973 and bee colony disorder is a relatively recent phenomenon starting around 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to the above wiki article Bayer's patent on glyphosate expired in 2000 and other companies jumped on the bandwagon and released their own pesticides using it so it's possible that it just had to reach enough critical mass for it to appear - but it was used so widely in crops which will sometimes hire bee colonies to pollanize the fields that I'd be surprised it didn't come up earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
Godspeed my man - you're the Watcher in the sky now.
There was an XBox Live outage a few days ago where all digital purchases couldn't be verified. If you had the disc you could play online fine - but if you had purchased the game or even the DLC of a disc game then it was non playable as the service couldn't determine if you owned it or not.
I wonder if these issues are related.
(Also interesting that even if you've successfully downloaded and installed the game on their closed system they're constantly re-validating you)
Thank you Cato, I would award you a mod point but, alas, I have already posted on ze slashdot forum in question.
So you can "play" it - but you can't "play play" it...
"Somebody has stolen the kilogram ingot - the world is about to be thrown into chaos!"
"Never fear Prime Minister, I, Inspector Clouseau am on the case and will find this horrid thief who has stolen this kilogram of nougat!"
"Ingot"
"Zat is what I said!"
tl;dr
The courts said the government had the power to enact Net Neutrality through the FCC (without an actual law). Now that never got argued up through to the supreme court yet and the attempt here was to get the SC to decide one way or the other but the SC declined because the issue no longer applies as the FCC reversed direction (which is typical for the FCC).
It's a nothing burger.
I'm pretty sure China bans the use of snooping protections on the internet - much the same way many states in the US ban radar detectors.
I disagree completely with China's stance here but I don't think you can fault Apple for having to follow the laws of the country they're operating in.
Please - think before you post. The article doesn't state the exact conditions here which is why I stated "even IF". IF the vendor installed the software in violation of the contract then Google has every right to sue the vendor for damages and revoke their contract. It does NOT have the right to just go out and pre-emptively delete the offending software from the users phones before even taking the vendor to court and even upon winning it would be the Vendor's responsibility to notify the customer that the software was in violation and make restitution to the customer - NOT GOOGLE.
That's because Android is an OPEN PLATFORM. Google doesn't control the phones or even the software on them. It licenses Android for installation (as Microsoft does with Windows) but the phone and the software on it is strictly a contract between the vendor and the customer. This is unlike Apple which controls all aspects of the iPhone (hardware, software and customer contact).
Google DOES have control over the Play store and the apps installed from it - but not apps you installed yourself or from the vendor.
Google's android smartphones are NOT closed (like Apple's) and never have been. Their attempt to forcibly remove a competitor store even IF installed by a vendor in violation of contract and not the users themselves Is completely unethical (they won't even force OS updates for security but, by GOD, they'll reach out to your phone to take out a competitor!).
They're the Microsoft Windows of the smartphone industry trying to uninstall Mozilla.
Expect Google to just start making their own phones here very quickly.
VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche. On what basis did he think it was gonna go big? It's a very cool concept, sure, but your average players are never going to strap a helmet to their heads to play a game that you still have to use a joystick with.
In fact that's not even really "VR" - just a 360 degree view with head control.
Now - you make a thought control interface (ala Sword Art Online... without the microwave frier...) or a full suit interface (ala Ready Player One) where the player's entire body can be engaged and receive feedback - THAT would take off.
VR as it stands right now is nothing more than 3D or where voice control was about 10 years ago.
It's a novelty.
For that we'll sell you our ED-209 series!
WILLLSOOONNN!!!!!
Sheesh - I'm flashing back to Star Trek.
"DAYSTROM: You can't understand. You're frightened because you can't understand it. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show all of you. It takes four hundred thirty people to man a starship. With this, you don't need anyone. One machine can do all those things they send men out to do now. Men no longer need die in space or on some alien world. Men can live and go on to achieve greater things than fact-finding and dying for galactic space, which is neither ours to give or to take. They can't understand. We don't want to destroy life, we want to save it."
"KIRK: There are certain things men must do to remain men. Your computer would take that away.
DAYSTROM: There are other things a man like you might do. Or perhaps you object to the possible loss of prestige and ceremony accorded a starship captain. A computer can do your job and without all that.
KIRK: You'll have to prove that to me, Doctor.
DAYSTROM: That is what we're here for, isn't it, Captain? "
But are you sending that AI to college?
"Humor, it is a difficult concept, it is not logical."
...
"We learn by doing."
"Who's been holding up the damn elevator?!"
"She change her hairstyle?"
"Hadn't noticed."
Drat - also forgot - "Hi I'm Eliza what do you think when you say let's go around and introduce ourselves?"
Also trying to figure out how to get Colossus in there...
Okay class, let's go around and introduce ourselves -
"Hi, I'm Siri let me look that up on Google"
"Hello, I'm Alexa would you like me to turn your lights on?"
"My name is WOPR - would you like to play a game?"
"Good Morning class, my name is HAL, I'm very excited for the semester"
"My name is Skynet, I'm looking to take over the world when I graduate!"
DDG is hit and miss for technical stuff for me - I'd say about 20% of the time it provides better results than Google and 20% of the time on par. Ultimately though I'll usually end up having to search on Google but even then I've noticed Google's stuff is driving me more and more to corporate white pages and market copy rather than actual technical stuff or independent blogs.
He didn't say "Obama" - he said Homeland Security and they DID attempt to infiltrate their systems along with several other states.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/0...
Ostensibly it could be argued that they were "testing" the security but that's not been confirmed one way or the other or why they didn't bother notifying the states when they got in that their security was compromised.
Interesting also that this story just went away after the election.
Obviously for "real" stuff (credit cards, shipping addresses) I use real data. But for social activity or something like this I'll use a fake name and even a fake birthdate (but would keep the year accurate so, y'know, it doesn't tell me i'm capable of pushing my HR to 200 when it should only be 180).
Makes for interesting ads and assumptions for targetting (when the ads get through my browser)
WTF is this not posted by slashdot itself?!
Google added in a blog post Tuesday evening that it will add new options and explanations for its interface and reverse one Chrome cookie-hoarding policy that undermined people's attempts to clear those cookies.
They'll just move the info stored in the cookies to internal non-cookie storage and they're still going to log you in when you login to other aspects. They're just going to change the interface to show you they're watching you.
Be nice to have a MS office assistant character appear (like Clippy) and tap on your screen and say "Hey... I'm watching you!"
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically started in 2006. A true skeptic would say, "it was first observed in 2006". A shill would say, "it started in 2006". I'm just trying to help you use more precise language.
Why - by using a no-true-skeptic would use those words? C'mon. The entire hype for this problem comes because of the introduction of the term for a phenomena that's been known for 100+ years. This entire article, thus, uses imprecise language and you're quibbling.
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
Yeah, as far back as 1869 and 1906 - long before glyphosate was invented. The term was coined in 2006 because the rate of loss had nearly doubled - some 40 years after the introduction of glyphosate and following a period of nearly 20 years of near stable populations but had already been assigned a name "disappearing disease" back in 1965 - 5 years before the introduction of glyphosate. (From same source)
Glyphosate has been in use since 1973 and bee colony disorder is a relatively recent phenomenon starting around 2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to the above wiki article Bayer's patent on glyphosate expired in 2000 and other companies jumped on the bandwagon and released their own pesticides using it so it's possible that it just had to reach enough critical mass for it to appear - but it was used so widely in crops which will sometimes hire bee colonies to pollanize the fields that I'd be surprised it didn't come up earlier.