Basically, it was a pissing match like people claim it was. Something that USED to be called out on the carpet over- because it's violating common carrier status that the jokers in question all have and alternately want and don't want. (They don't want the regulation, but they want the shield from vicarious liability from their customers' actions...)
The biggest problem without them is you'd end up having a tragedy of the commons. How would any of them intercommunicate to allow the Internet to be.
One of the things you can do is harshly punish the ISPs in question when they play games like this. One of the things they have right now is "common carrier" status. That's a liability shield against all sorts of things that your customers might do that's illegal. You could be held vicariously liable if you don't have that status and they commit acts of sedition, copyright infringement, etc. You used to run the very real risk of losing that status as a provider of services if you pulled a stunt like this- which kept them mostly from pulling crap like this. We need to bring that back, to be honest.
Because it's been a problem up to this point...not the corporate repository- just about any twit could make an installer/injector that was transparently fire and forget for Windows. Because of the design, it's a bit harder with most Linux distributions whether you're talking about RPM, DEB, or any other packaging system. But, for windows, whether it was GUI or not, it's just simply there. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need AVG/Avast/Avira/etc. or MalwareBytes/etc.
As such, it's a joke. Not liking it? Get Microsoft to get their act together or switch OSes...
Depends on which classes of apps you're talking about there. There's more than just games that use NDK code. That stuff..you're screwed on unless the vendor gets around to making an X86 version.
This is Intel trying to stay relevant against ARM...which is encroaching on their server space. If Intel weren't pushing all the green blow around for the vendors to take up, subsidizing these things, you'd not see X86 devices in the Android space.
Indeed. In fact, they've not been enforceable for over 145 years per the Fourteenth Amendment and Marbury v. Madison (Anything repugnant to the Constitution is void from it's beginnings...)
Now, the burning question would be, "how did they get access to his encrypted system files?"- without a warrant, they're just as screwed in light of the recent Supreme Court rulings. You need a warrant for those things- and you need to state you're looking for a specific on them before they can legitimately reach the conclusion the Mass Supreme Court arrived at. Without that, it's just like the Fourth Amendment violation I experienced about 5 years ago. No *VALID* warrant? No case. No seizure allowed.
If so, it's not hard to have them get a warrant that specifies this, not a court order to relinquish the password. They're distinctly differing notions- and the Judges there overstepped their authority. If it's legit, they could've issued a warrant for specific information and as a part thereof, compelled the unlock of the secured device for that specific information. Since they didn't...doesn't meet the sniff test in light of current precedent.
Heh... Actually, that line of bullshit might be at risk with the recent unanimous decision that law enforcement needed a warrant for mucking about on a defendent's phone. Basically, this is the same thing and it's expected to be overturned by the SCOTUS if it gets before them.
And, in recent times (as in within THIS month...) the Supreme Court of the US handed down a UNANIMOUS decision that they had to get a warrant to go digging about on a defendant's phone- this is the same thing.
You have to have a legitimate reason and a warrant to do this. It's expected that this will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned just like the mobile phone story went down.
Your reading is flawed. Hint for you: Militia means group of able-bodied people, not what you think it means. If you're an adult US Citizen...you're that "Militia" they talk to in that part of the Amendment. Using it to exclude and preclude ownership and bearing is to misunderstand quite a bit of the writings of the times ON TOP of misunderstanding the Constitution.
Can't say that I blame you. I was contemplating maybe helping get a couple of titles I'm associated with onto the platform- but after getting one...heh...
They're talking like they're going to be partnering with MadCatz on the MOJO for the next generation since they're a UI/API spec as well as a console hardware item.
They *MIGHT* survive being "absorbed" by MadCatz, but yeah, they didn't execute as good as they hoped on several fronts.
Refurbished X-Box 360 or PS3? For $100? I don't know where YOU shop, but pretty much everywhere locally and online are selling refurbs for $150-200 on either console. Now, I'll agree the premise you're talking to is more sound at this time (Because the budget difference is realistically minimal...), but the concept they were aiming for was the best of the best in the Indie space making titles that were try before you buy for free. For all of the PS3 and X-Box 360 being "better" (Which, by they way, if you had adequate content to compare would be nearly at or on parity with those consoles for most titles...) you still don't have that with either of those two. You pay and keep paying. Which is fine because the used game market, at least for now, rocks. If they'd pulled it off a little better than they did...might be a bit of a different discussion there. As it stands, though, it's not "same price". Close, but no cigar there.
* You've got a high-end ($700-900 retail...) cell phone that you're willing to use for this purpose. * Said high-end phone doesn't bake itself running continuous duty at peak clock.
The Ouya and MadCatz MOJO are dedicated set-top devices- with fans and all. They're not designed for mobile service and are designed to actually put out peak operation continuously. A cell phone's not designed for that abuse. It can only really do it part of the time- and they're expecting you to replace the thing within 2-4 years max. The whole premise you espouse will make Samsung and the like *VERY* happy and you very poor...knock yourself out.
Actually, they have the "right" hardware overall- but the problem's more that they didn't get it out fast enough to be eclipsed by MadCatz providing a system that's usable with the Play store and can run games right straight out of that along with fielding one of the most agrressive Android set-top configurations to date at the $200-300 price point. And, there's a few "good" games, but nothing killer or showcasing- because you can get the title in the Play store as well. The only plus they have is the thing they're now axing as a requirement.
What's disappointing is the walled garden they have, combined with the dearth (again, they have some good stuff- but most of it is the dregs...) of worthy titles on the system. $99 is a compelling story with what they have. It'd work if they had better stuff in their store.
I'd think that $50B would go a long way to making something more sensible than wind/solar (Which are still and will be a boondoggle with $50B poured into it (Where in the heck do you store energy so that it's sustained instead of feast/famine? Right now, you can't realistically replace coal with either- and without the storage tech to MAKE it so...it's a waste of time and money, bluntly put...)- which would be Thorium reactors.
And one should design for those limits instead of falling back on "it's the software"- it's a brown paper bag moment to have breakable parts like that exposed in the firmware so that drivers or applications can break things.
I don't know about you, but I've spent decades making sure on digital designs and the like you CAN'T do that sort of thing. I can't be the ONLY one doing it- and it wasn't acceptable then for those items (they got REPLACED on the spot...) and it's not acceptable now (and it's illegal, pretty much like I said, to DO it the way Dell's playing it.)
If there is software that can damage those speakers in the manner that Dell's trying to claim, it fails upon UCC 2-314 and UCC 2-315 out of box.
Per Mangusson-Moss, it's not legally possible for them to claim that their warranty is voided just because there is a piece of software put onto the machine because they didn't limit their warranty in this case in writing (and if they did put it in a fine-print manner, few would buy and they'd be in deep trouble with the Texas and other States Deceptive Trade Practices Act for doing so- because it's something that is deemed unconscionable (In fact, the TDTPA has the act in question as a laundry-list item for the law...it's illegal out of box...)) and therefore, they have to PROVE (not just CLAIM) that it was the software in question for Mangusson-Moss to NOT apply here, that they did something deliberate to damage the product. Because of the explanation from one of the VLC crowd on the forum pretty much shoots that out of the water (Not realistically possible to damage the speakers unless the speakers were substandard or defective...), the Warranty STANDS. At this point, Dell has one of three options allowed them by the Uniform Commercial Code: Fix, Replace, or Refund. Seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it was a pissing match like people claim it was. Something that USED to be called out on the carpet over- because it's violating common carrier status that the jokers in question all have and alternately want and don't want. (They don't want the regulation, but they want the shield from vicarious liability from their customers' actions...)
The biggest problem without them is you'd end up having a tragedy of the commons. How would any of them intercommunicate to allow the Internet to be.
One of the things you can do is harshly punish the ISPs in question when they play games like this. One of the things they have right now is "common carrier" status. That's a liability shield against all sorts of things that your customers might do that's illegal. You could be held vicariously liable if you don't have that status and they commit acts of sedition, copyright infringement, etc. You used to run the very real risk of losing that status as a provider of services if you pulled a stunt like this- which kept them mostly from pulling crap like this. We need to bring that back, to be honest.
The Very First Honest Cable Internet Provider
Because it's been a problem up to this point...not the corporate repository- just about any twit could make an installer/injector that was transparently fire and forget for Windows. Because of the design, it's a bit harder with most Linux distributions whether you're talking about RPM, DEB, or any other packaging system. But, for windows, whether it was GUI or not, it's just simply there. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need AVG/Avast/Avira/etc. or MalwareBytes/etc.
As such, it's a joke. Not liking it? Get Microsoft to get their act together or switch OSes...
Heh... How long did it take them to get to that? 20 *YEARS* (RHL 1.0 - November 1994) now?
Seriously Microsoft. Took you long enough.
Depends on which classes of apps you're talking about there. There's more than just games that use NDK code. That stuff..you're screwed on unless the vendor gets around to making an X86 version.
This is Intel trying to stay relevant against ARM...which is encroaching on their server space. If Intel weren't pushing all the green blow around for the vendors to take up, subsidizing these things, you'd not see X86 devices in the Android space.
Indeed. In fact, they've not been enforceable for over 145 years per the Fourteenth Amendment and Marbury v. Madison (Anything repugnant to the Constitution is void from it's beginnings...)
Precisely. There's several copies of a prominent law professor's lecture on the subject and spells out PRECISELY why you don't do things like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Now, the burning question would be, "how did they get access to his encrypted system files?"- without a warrant, they're just as screwed in light of the recent Supreme Court rulings. You need a warrant for those things- and you need to state you're looking for a specific on them before they can legitimately reach the conclusion the Mass Supreme Court arrived at. Without that, it's just like the Fourth Amendment violation I experienced about 5 years ago. No *VALID* warrant? No case. No seizure allowed.
If so, it's not hard to have them get a warrant that specifies this, not a court order to relinquish the password. They're distinctly differing notions- and the Judges there overstepped their authority. If it's legit, they could've issued a warrant for specific information and as a part thereof, compelled the unlock of the secured device for that specific information. Since they didn't...doesn't meet the sniff test in light of current precedent.
Heh... Actually, that line of bullshit might be at risk with the recent unanimous decision that law enforcement needed a warrant for mucking about on a defendent's phone. Basically, this is the same thing and it's expected to be overturned by the SCOTUS if it gets before them.
And, in recent times (as in within THIS month...) the Supreme Court of the US handed down a UNANIMOUS decision that they had to get a warrant to go digging about on a defendant's phone- this is the same thing.
You have to have a legitimate reason and a warrant to do this. It's expected that this will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned just like the mobile phone story went down.
Your reading is flawed. Hint for you: Militia means group of able-bodied people, not what you think it means. If you're an adult US Citizen...you're that "Militia" they talk to in that part of the Amendment. Using it to exclude and preclude ownership and bearing is to misunderstand quite a bit of the writings of the times ON TOP of misunderstanding the Constitution.
It shouldn't. But oh noes...we have to ban it because it made it "easy" and it's this 3D thingy we completely don't understand at all...
Can't say that I blame you. I was contemplating maybe helping get a couple of titles I'm associated with onto the platform- but after getting one...heh...
They're talking like they're going to be partnering with MadCatz on the MOJO for the next generation since they're a UI/API spec as well as a console hardware item.
They *MIGHT* survive being "absorbed" by MadCatz, but yeah, they didn't execute as good as they hoped on several fronts.
Refurbished X-Box 360 or PS3? For $100? I don't know where YOU shop, but pretty much everywhere locally and online are selling refurbs for $150-200 on either console. Now, I'll agree the premise you're talking to is more sound at this time (Because the budget difference is realistically minimal...), but the concept they were aiming for was the best of the best in the Indie space making titles that were try before you buy for free. For all of the PS3 and X-Box 360 being "better" (Which, by they way, if you had adequate content to compare would be nearly at or on parity with those consoles for most titles...) you still don't have that with either of those two. You pay and keep paying. Which is fine because the used game market, at least for now, rocks. If they'd pulled it off a little better than they did...might be a bit of a different discussion there. As it stands, though, it's not "same price". Close, but no cigar there.
Heh... This presumes two things:
* You've got a high-end ($700-900 retail...) cell phone that you're willing to use for this purpose.
* Said high-end phone doesn't bake itself running continuous duty at peak clock.
The Ouya and MadCatz MOJO are dedicated set-top devices- with fans and all. They're not designed for mobile service and are designed to actually put out peak operation continuously. A cell phone's not designed for that abuse. It can only really do it part of the time- and they're expecting you to replace the thing within 2-4 years max. The whole premise you espouse will make Samsung and the like *VERY* happy and you very poor...knock yourself out.
Actually, they have the "right" hardware overall- but the problem's more that they didn't get it out fast enough to be eclipsed by MadCatz providing a system that's usable with the Play store and can run games right straight out of that along with fielding one of the most agrressive Android set-top configurations to date at the $200-300 price point. And, there's a few "good" games, but nothing killer or showcasing- because you can get the title in the Play store as well. The only plus they have is the thing they're now axing as a requirement.
What's disappointing is the walled garden they have, combined with the dearth (again, they have some good stuff- but most of it is the dregs...) of worthy titles on the system. $99 is a compelling story with what they have. It'd work if they had better stuff in their store.
Really? I couldv'e sworn that Valve's got most of their titles over there...must've been my imagination.
I'd think that $50B would go a long way to making something more sensible than wind/solar (Which are still and will be a boondoggle with $50B poured into it (Where in the heck do you store energy so that it's sustained instead of feast/famine? Right now, you can't realistically replace coal with either- and without the storage tech to MAKE it so...it's a waste of time and money, bluntly put...)- which would be Thorium reactors.
Then why are so damned many of them so piss-poor with that work? Not the Engineers...the Managers.
Finance "Engineering"? Seriously? I can see why you posted that Anon Coward. I wouldn't want that associated with myself- ever...
And one should design for those limits instead of falling back on "it's the software"- it's a brown paper bag moment to have breakable parts like that exposed in the firmware so that drivers or applications can break things.
I don't know about you, but I've spent decades making sure on digital designs and the like you CAN'T do that sort of thing. I can't be the ONLY one doing it- and it wasn't acceptable then for those items (they got REPLACED on the spot...) and it's not acceptable now (and it's illegal, pretty much like I said, to DO it the way Dell's playing it.)
Indeed. Enough Said.
And they're not fooling anyone either.
If there is software that can damage those speakers in the manner that Dell's trying to claim, it fails upon UCC 2-314 and UCC 2-315 out of box.
Per Mangusson-Moss, it's not legally possible for them to claim that their warranty is voided just because there is a piece of software put onto the machine because they didn't limit their warranty in this case in writing (and if they did put it in a fine-print manner, few would buy and they'd be in deep trouble with the Texas and other States Deceptive Trade Practices Act for doing so- because it's something that is deemed unconscionable (In fact, the TDTPA has the act in question as a laundry-list item for the law...it's illegal out of box...)) and therefore, they have to PROVE (not just CLAIM) that it was the software in question for Mangusson-Moss to NOT apply here, that they did something deliberate to damage the product. Because of the explanation from one of the VLC crowd on the forum pretty much shoots that out of the water (Not realistically possible to damage the speakers unless the speakers were substandard or defective...), the Warranty STANDS. At this point, Dell has one of three options allowed them by the Uniform Commercial Code: Fix, Replace, or Refund. Seriously.