When the music industry decided not to embrace online distribution of their content right away, they inadvertently left the door open for people to become convinced that the ability to download music for free was simply another function of the internet as common as browsing the web. Unfortunately, this has led to a generation of internet users were such activity is seen as nothing unusual enough to question whether or not it's even legal.
To these people, the concept of paying to download music isn't much different from how many of us view subscription-based websites as a waste compared to the abundance of other websites containing the same exact information for free.
To further complicate matters, many who download music through file sharing on a regular basis often become confused when told that obtaining music in this manner isn't necessarily legal, as it conflicts with their personal experience and the fact that the "illegal" files are still regularly available on these services. They regard this fact as proof their not in violation of any laws because no one has forced these files to be removed or forced the service to shut down... while completely unaware of the dynamic nature of these services that prevents any actual enforcement due to the lack of a centralized server in a tangible location.
To them, it's exactly like any other internet service, connecting to a specific machine somewhere else.
The real question these **AA groups need to ask is how to educate these people about the issues involved and allow them a chance to change their activities rather than immediately pulling them into life-destroying lawsuits.
You might want to check out the movie Crazy People. It's about an advertising exec who ends up getting thrown into an insane asylum after a few unusual ads he created (with emphasis on truth in advertising) are mistakenly published into the wild, only to become highly successful. Some of the ads are real gems, in a UHF sort of way.
"I guess that the problem Apple has with this is that when one person starts doing it, then others will follow.
Before you know it, the entire store is full of useless apps selling for ridiculous prices. This of course makes the entire store look ridiculous, thus lowering the value of the store in total."
This sounds a lot like the current state of eBay. You can't reliably judge the validity of a particular auction or seller because of crap like this throughout the site. Not to mention you also have moron buyers who bid on these auctions to reciprocate the joke and eventually waste everyone's time when the buyer refuses to pay. The buyer will claim the auction was somehow fraudulent, while the seller will file non-paying bidder reports, honestly believing they deserve $1,000,000 once someone bites on their "harmless" prank.
Apple made the right decision here, but really, the app should never have made it past Apple's iPhone App testing department to begin with. In fact, they should have already set up a contingency plan for this exact scenario well before launching the App store. But now that it's been successfully done, the coming flood of eBay-style copy-cat joke apps is inevitable.
Before you can do anything like this, you need to understand that world of business is not mutually compatible with the world of art and creativity. Many times, the ones who make the decisions will have little to no experience in creating the products they decide to sell.
As such, it's next to impossible to walk into a meeting with a powerful executive and get them to fully understand your concept with nothing more than a few bar napkin sketches of your ideas. What they do understand, however, is results. If you bring in a decent proof of concept prototype (preferable playable) and narrate about certain aspects of the game, you will significantly improve the odds of getting someone to back your project. Remember, this is not just a demonstration of the game itself, it's also a demonstration about your ability to get the job done... which is something that can't be demonstrated with cute drawings alone.
As for prototyping, there are a number of tools available for creating working game titles within the budget of the average consumer, such as Flash, Torque or Unity. As long as you're willing to take the time to learn how to use such software, you should at least be able to put some type of demo together that is adequate enough to illustrate your concept reliably.
I've been playing around with a few ideas for a free floating display for some time, though I imagine the actual physics involved in making it work would be tricky.
My first idea was to set up a series of intersecting lasers of identical wavelengths to act as a sort of "polarizing" filter on which a third beam could be reflected off the areas in the grid where the third beam was unable to pass through. The "grid" would also be warped slightly on both the horizontal and vertical axis to allow the beams to z-sort past one another in a diagonal pattern.
A more recent idea (and perhaps slightly more realistic) was to create a "grid" using tiny "water" droplets suspended within the pockets of sound waves reflected back at themselves in perfect noise canceling alignment, then using lasers to scan across them to make them light up. The tricky part is finding a fluid that could survive this kind of treatment on demand without evaporating. (I've seen footage of similar experiments where peas were suspended in mid-air by sound waves in this manner, probably going back over 10 years ago.)
I'm also toying with the idea of a display based on controlled rapid air temperature changes which could potentially be used to create a grid of free-floating thermal lenses, but I haven't quite worked out the specifics on it yet.
Keep in mind that these are primary in the range of "crack pot" ideas with no actual scientific research involved. But, they are interesting to think about.
...when these bastards will obtain the right to confiscate your brain and its contents using an ice cream scoop and a straw? God forbid the day we finally bridge the gap between mind and machine and create ways to extract thoughts and images directly from your brain into some government database to be used against you later on.
A couple weeks ago, a relative wanted me to download about 40 songs for free using one of the P2P services to be burned onto CDs. After explaining to them that obtaining songs this way would be a great way to get sued and showing them iTunes Music Store as an alternative, they got upset about the fact that it would cost them money to obtain same the music they could find for free elsewhere.
The mindset here, is that if it were illegal to obtain copyrighted materials for free from a P2P service, then why are these services allowed to host the files in the first place? They don't comprehend the dynamic nature of P2P networks that makes it nearly impossible to shut down such a service or impose any content enforcement on it. They just see P2P services as a single entity that exists at a fixed location in the real world.
What's more interesting, is that the older a given person is, the more likely they are to have similar hang-ups, simply because they aren't savvy enough to see it any other way.
Does anyone here remember those old "Choose your own adventure" books that was basically a printed form of a decision tree? (There used to be hundreds of the things throughout the 80's and 90's.)
Although the stories were a bit lacking, it did make reading as a kid much more enjoyable since it was interactive.
To be honest though, I'm amazed the genre never expanded to more adult readers. There's so much that could have been applied to the format to make them more interesting. For example, requiring the reader to solve complex puzzles to determine what their choices are, or remembering previous elements from the story to know what they need to do next. Span that over 1,000 pages, and you could have an adventure last several hours.
One interesting approach, a story involving a mystery requiring you to gather evidence and take statements from witnesses to build a case, then going to trial with it where the reader can choose to be either the prosecution or the defense.
Something like this could make for an interesting project for writers like Tom Clancy or John Grisham, who already write incredible linear stories like these. This would simply be an extension of their talents to make the reader far more involved in the story and the outcome.
Apple Inc is not Apple Computer... only a mere shadow of it's former self. The days of making the lives of average consumers better through creativity and innovation for the sake of progress has long passed in favor of controlling information and worshiping the almighty dollar above all else.
Jobs is basically the P.T. Barnum of the computer industry. As long as Apple spits out a new iPod every six months, anyone with enough charisma to make you think you need one would be sufficient.
They threw on a new interface skin and ran it in a near-kiosk mode to keep users from wandering "too far" into the system to find a fault with it? That's really saying something when you're product is so bad that you have to trick people into using it under the pretense that it's an entirely new product.
If only it was just about the money... we'd probably have legitimate sub-$100 copies of XP readily available to anyone wanting to buy one. But no, it's now a war over who can control the most information, and the older OSes lack the means to do this properly.
My take on the guy is that he is not the "internet bully" you have labeled him to be. It looks more like he was actually trying to help you and, instead of graciously accepting his input and ending it there, you immediately countered him with arguments on why he must be wrong. From that point on, the subject shifted from topic to grandstanding over one another.
If anything, you're probably as much to blame as the guy himself. Perhaps even more so on your part, since you are the authority figure. By allowing yourself to be a part of a recursive pissing contest like this, you are setting the example that this behavior is somehow acceptable.
Furthermore, did you consider the possibility that the guy took your immediate "corrections" to his "mistakes" as a sign of disrespect?
Being in control of a public forum requires restraint if you want people to continue visiting. You need to be seen honoring your own rules of conduct, and avoid the temptation to abuse your authority as a means of achieving a quick fix to a minor problem.
So... I guess this kind of mentality puzzles me. There are a lot of apple users out there, who, like you, acknowldge that they're being dicked around mostly even because you take interest.
To me it almost seems like an abusive relationship. You care about them, they beat you up, and you keep coming back. Why?
Because the alternatives are worse in terms usability and learning curves. Not to mention most of us have software licenses we can't transfer to alternate operating systems without excessive cost.
Trust me, a lot of us have been long-time fans of Apple Computer, but Apple Inc. is more like the abusive drunk father who's facing down a mid-life crisis while beating the kids and wife for the hell of it. Many of us are in too deep to jump ship and, of course, there's that glimmer of hope that the abuse is only temporary... even if it is wrong.
Apple charged iPod owners $10 for the 2.0 software update. There is some claim that business law requires them to do this, which is nonsense as Sony routinely give the PSP new features for free. MS released their 2.0 Zune update for free for older Zune's etc... So I'm not sure why Apple is defended in this practice when Sony and MS are possibly two of the most evil companies out there.
Apple said it is required under generally accepted accounting principles to charge customers for the software upgrade. "The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,"
Needless to say, this ploy has been affectionately dubbed the "Apple Tax" by those who were duped by it.
Are you doing this because he wants to learn how to program, or are you imposing your own interests on top of his? The worst thing you could do when attempting to encourage someone to do something is to force it on them. I can't begin to tell you how many activities I truly hate now simply because someone thought it would be "good for me to try them" using scare tactics and coercion as a means of getting the desired result.
(Needless to say, I'm not a fan of religion either...)
Let's say for a moment that you come home after a long day and start to notice you have a bit of a cough, a stomach ache or even joint/muscle pain. You then hop onto your computer and post an innocent message to either a web forum you visit regularly or to a personal blog that you aren't feeling well with a brief description of what's bothering you.
Now, let's say this is a common habit you have where you make such posts every few days, particularly with days you don't feel well.
What's to stop someone with a vested interest in knowing your baseline health cycle started archiving this information? Depending on the circumstances and who is given access to this information, it could be quite easy for someone to profit directly off of your well-being.
If you have a habit of complaining about your health online on a regular basis, your little cries for sympathy could be turned against you should someone like your insurance company decide to use such a system to secretly track you in this manner. And, combined with the near free-reign various industries now have to track your daily activity without notifying you first, they could probably get away with such tactics quite easily.
It seems weird to me that this add-on wouldn't/couldn't be made retroactively compatible with all current Wii titles through a firmware update to the Wii itself. (Sort of an averaging of the combine info from both sensors, or something along those lines.) I'd imagine a game that is aware of the device could override the firmware-based driver for more specific control options.
On a side note, does this thing include a pass-through to allow use of the nunchuk controller? If not, perhaps we may soon see a new, wireless nunchuk that includes the added sensor set introduced with the MotionPlus.
Could someone potentially copyright both the "on" and "off" states of a single bit, then turn around and sue the entire electronic using population on earth for millions of dollars over trillions++ of charges of infringing upon their copyright? Has there even been a quantified limit set on how big something must be before it can be copyrighted?
Instead, show them an executable version (or video of one running) and give narration on how you managed to resolve certain issues, letting them see the results of your work. It's probably vague enough to prevent disclosing any major trade secrets and still gives some idea of your overall capabilities.
For added protection though, you might want to have your employer agree to let you have an executable version of any software you write (or at least, some form of pre-recorded clippings of the software in action using dummy information) for your portfolio beforehand.
Showing off actual code is definitely a bad idea for a number of reasons. First off, it's a huge breach of security as it could expose potential exploit point in the software. Next, it's obviously going to be a legal nightmare should that code show up somewhere you've been with it. Finally, code by itself just isn't that interesting to look at unless you can see it in action. It's unlikely the one's hiring you will be able to read and understand any code you show them, but they can probably recognize the benefits of your code through comparisons of it against something else that performs a similar function. If they see that the code is somehow faster or does a better job than the item it's compared with, it'd probably be good reason for anyone to consider hiring you on as a developer.
"AKAIK the DVD plays in an "overlay" layer... it's not rendered to the player's window like normal windows graphics but it's rather placed on top of it (in a similar fashion to directX, I assume). That would explain why screen captures (which must work at windows UI graphic level) don't capture DVD or divX frames."...Yet, freeware/shareware utilities like Capture Me have no issues whatsoever taking screen shots of such content entirely at run time without requiring any additional drivers to facilitate this ability. It's not that Apple's screen shot tools can't/couldn't do this, it's simply been designed specifically not to do it as a trade-off for having an MPAA approved DVD player as part of Mac OS X.
This kind of leads to a more frightening question... are law firms now using culturally popular crime shows from television as instruction manuals for misleading juries? Even if the real world data is a mere snooze fest to look at, are they above "jazzing it up" to make it more appealing, like showing a shiny object to a baby?
It scares me to think just how easily once can be wrongly convicted of a crime because someone "saw it on TV".
It's really surprising just how much we disconnect ourselves from our many social inhibitions when communicating over the internet versus when we're actually interacting with others in public, even when we're fully aware that the internet is far less private than physically going outside to any real-world, public location. On a sub-conscious level, mere text on a screen is somehow far less threatening to us than seeing another person or hearing their voice, even though the opposite is probably more true. (Likely due to the lengthy delay in reaction to our own actions, in addition to severely limited feedback accompanying those reactions.)
Perhaps if we retired text communications in favor of real-time teleconferencing, where you actually have to see who you're talking to, you'd see people become a lot more careful about what they say and do on the internet from day to day.
Only a few years ago, I'd get laughed at for suggesting that Microsoft would eventually have a "dead man's switch" built into Windows to use as a last resort against imminent threats to their bottom line. Nothing says "back off" like taking a few hundred million "hostages" at the push of a button...
Consider for a moment that we do somehow manage to eliminate (or significantly limit) the aging process in humans. Based on trends in our current culture, it's very likely this would lead to sharp declines in child birth for a huge number of personal, social and legal reasons. This poses a serious problem when you start looking at things occurring on the microbiological level.
First off, this leaves us wide open for a plague-like epidemic the further into the future we go. As child birth declines, our genetic diversity will begin to stagnate. This means the human race could face extinction at the hands of a super-virus or antibiotic-resistant infection. (Not unlike what we're already seeing in certain types of food crops, such as bananas.)
Next, it's possible that our collective intelligence could also become stagnant. Humans seem to have a strange knack for ignoring and overlooking new concepts that contradict stuff they've been conditioned into believing is true for significant portions of their lives. (Anyone who's ever gotten themselves wrapped up into an "intelligent design vs evolution" debate, or has tried to convince a senior citizen that they're "too old to drive" knows this all too well.)
Finally, we face the possibility of society and government entering a static state. As the rich and powerful cease to age, the more likely they will retain their positions of power. This means anything about these people that impedes social progress (grudges, stereotypes, general stupidity, etc...) will never go away until something really major forces such a change to occur. (Imagine a world where the current president and his administration would never be replaced until it literally ended up killing everyone...)
Slashdot Mirror
When the music industry decided not to embrace online distribution of their content right away, they inadvertently left the door open for people to become convinced that the ability to download music for free was simply another function of the internet as common as browsing the web. Unfortunately, this has led to a generation of internet users were such activity is seen as nothing unusual enough to question whether or not it's even legal.
To these people, the concept of paying to download music isn't much different from how many of us view subscription-based websites as a waste compared to the abundance of other websites containing the same exact information for free.
To further complicate matters, many who download music through file sharing on a regular basis often become confused when told that obtaining music in this manner isn't necessarily legal, as it conflicts with their personal experience and the fact that the "illegal" files are still regularly available on these services. They regard this fact as proof their not in violation of any laws because no one has forced these files to be removed or forced the service to shut down... while completely unaware of the dynamic nature of these services that prevents any actual enforcement due to the lack of a centralized server in a tangible location.
To them, it's exactly like any other internet service, connecting to a specific machine somewhere else.
The real question these **AA groups need to ask is how to educate these people about the issues involved and allow them a chance to change their activities rather than immediately pulling them into life-destroying lawsuits.
You might want to check out the movie Crazy People. It's about an advertising exec who ends up getting thrown into an insane asylum after a few unusual ads he created (with emphasis on truth in advertising) are mistakenly published into the wild, only to become highly successful. Some of the ads are real gems, in a UHF sort of way.
"I guess that the problem Apple has with this is that when one person starts doing it, then others will follow.
Before you know it, the entire store is full of useless apps selling for ridiculous prices. This of course makes the entire store look ridiculous, thus lowering the value of the store in total."
This sounds a lot like the current state of eBay. You can't reliably judge the validity of a particular auction or seller because of crap like this throughout the site. Not to mention you also have moron buyers who bid on these auctions to reciprocate the joke and eventually waste everyone's time when the buyer refuses to pay. The buyer will claim the auction was somehow fraudulent, while the seller will file non-paying bidder reports, honestly believing they deserve $1,000,000 once someone bites on their "harmless" prank.
Apple made the right decision here, but really, the app should never have made it past Apple's iPhone App testing department to begin with. In fact, they should have already set up a contingency plan for this exact scenario well before launching the App store. But now that it's been successfully done, the coming flood of eBay-style copy-cat joke apps is inevitable.
Before you can do anything like this, you need to understand that world of business is not mutually compatible with the world of art and creativity. Many times, the ones who make the decisions will have little to no experience in creating the products they decide to sell.
As such, it's next to impossible to walk into a meeting with a powerful executive and get them to fully understand your concept with nothing more than a few bar napkin sketches of your ideas. What they do understand, however, is results. If you bring in a decent proof of concept prototype (preferable playable) and narrate about certain aspects of the game, you will significantly improve the odds of getting someone to back your project. Remember, this is not just a demonstration of the game itself, it's also a demonstration about your ability to get the job done... which is something that can't be demonstrated with cute drawings alone.
As for prototyping, there are a number of tools available for creating working game titles within the budget of the average consumer, such as Flash, Torque or Unity. As long as you're willing to take the time to learn how to use such software, you should at least be able to put some type of demo together that is adequate enough to illustrate your concept reliably.
I've been playing around with a few ideas for a free floating display for some time, though I imagine the actual physics involved in making it work would be tricky.
My first idea was to set up a series of intersecting lasers of identical wavelengths to act as a sort of "polarizing" filter on which a third beam could be reflected off the areas in the grid where the third beam was unable to pass through. The "grid" would also be warped slightly on both the horizontal and vertical axis to allow the beams to z-sort past one another in a diagonal pattern.
A more recent idea (and perhaps slightly more realistic) was to create a "grid" using tiny "water" droplets suspended within the pockets of sound waves reflected back at themselves in perfect noise canceling alignment, then using lasers to scan across them to make them light up. The tricky part is finding a fluid that could survive this kind of treatment on demand without evaporating. (I've seen footage of similar experiments where peas were suspended in mid-air by sound waves in this manner, probably going back over 10 years ago.)
I'm also toying with the idea of a display based on controlled rapid air temperature changes which could potentially be used to create a grid of free-floating thermal lenses, but I haven't quite worked out the specifics on it yet.
Keep in mind that these are primary in the range of "crack pot" ideas with no actual scientific research involved. But, they are interesting to think about.
...when these bastards will obtain the right to confiscate your brain and its contents using an ice cream scoop and a straw? God forbid the day we finally bridge the gap between mind and machine and create ways to extract thoughts and images directly from your brain into some government database to be used against you later on.
A couple weeks ago, a relative wanted me to download about 40 songs for free using one of the P2P services to be burned onto CDs. After explaining to them that obtaining songs this way would be a great way to get sued and showing them iTunes Music Store as an alternative, they got upset about the fact that it would cost them money to obtain same the music they could find for free elsewhere.
The mindset here, is that if it were illegal to obtain copyrighted materials for free from a P2P service, then why are these services allowed to host the files in the first place? They don't comprehend the dynamic nature of P2P networks that makes it nearly impossible to shut down such a service or impose any content enforcement on it. They just see P2P services as a single entity that exists at a fixed location in the real world.
What's more interesting, is that the older a given person is, the more likely they are to have similar hang-ups, simply because they aren't savvy enough to see it any other way.
Does anyone here remember those old "Choose your own adventure" books that was basically a printed form of a decision tree? (There used to be hundreds of the things throughout the 80's and 90's.)
Although the stories were a bit lacking, it did make reading as a kid much more enjoyable since it was interactive.
To be honest though, I'm amazed the genre never expanded to more adult readers. There's so much that could have been applied to the format to make them more interesting. For example, requiring the reader to solve complex puzzles to determine what their choices are, or remembering previous elements from the story to know what they need to do next. Span that over 1,000 pages, and you could have an adventure last several hours.
One interesting approach, a story involving a mystery requiring you to gather evidence and take statements from witnesses to build a case, then going to trial with it where the reader can choose to be either the prosecution or the defense.
Something like this could make for an interesting project for writers like Tom Clancy or John Grisham, who already write incredible linear stories like these. This would simply be an extension of their talents to make the reader far more involved in the story and the outcome.
Apple Inc is not Apple Computer... only a mere shadow of it's former self. The days of making the lives of average consumers better through creativity and innovation for the sake of progress has long passed in favor of controlling information and worshiping the almighty dollar above all else.
Jobs is basically the P.T. Barnum of the computer industry. As long as Apple spits out a new iPod every six months, anyone with enough charisma to make you think you need one would be sufficient.
They threw on a new interface skin and ran it in a near-kiosk mode to keep users from wandering "too far" into the system to find a fault with it? That's really saying something when you're product is so bad that you have to trick people into using it under the pretense that it's an entirely new product.
If only it was just about the money... we'd probably have legitimate sub-$100 copies of XP readily available to anyone wanting to buy one. But no, it's now a war over who can control the most information, and the older OSes lack the means to do this properly.
Even the healthy can die. It's just a matter of when, where and how.
Technically, any object that maintains a position in an orbit could be classified as a "satellite"... including the moon itself.
My take on the guy is that he is not the "internet bully" you have labeled him to be. It looks more like he was actually trying to help you and, instead of graciously accepting his input and ending it there, you immediately countered him with arguments on why he must be wrong. From that point on, the subject shifted from topic to grandstanding over one another.
If anything, you're probably as much to blame as the guy himself. Perhaps even more so on your part, since you are the authority figure. By allowing yourself to be a part of a recursive pissing contest like this, you are setting the example that this behavior is somehow acceptable.
Furthermore, did you consider the possibility that the guy took your immediate "corrections" to his "mistakes" as a sign of disrespect?
Being in control of a public forum requires restraint if you want people to continue visiting. You need to be seen honoring your own rules of conduct, and avoid the temptation to abuse your authority as a means of achieving a quick fix to a minor problem.
So... I guess this kind of mentality puzzles me. There are a lot of apple users out there, who, like you, acknowldge that they're being dicked around mostly even because you take interest.
To me it almost seems like an abusive relationship. You care about them, they beat you up, and you keep coming back. Why?
Because the alternatives are worse in terms usability and learning curves. Not to mention most of us have software licenses we can't transfer to alternate operating systems without excessive cost.
Trust me, a lot of us have been long-time fans of Apple Computer, but Apple Inc. is more like the abusive drunk father who's facing down a mid-life crisis while beating the kids and wife for the hell of it. Many of us are in too deep to jump ship and, of course, there's that glimmer of hope that the abuse is only temporary... even if it is wrong.
Apple charged iPod owners $10 for the 2.0 software update. There is some claim that business law requires them to do this, which is nonsense as Sony routinely give the PSP new features for free. MS released their 2.0 Zune update for free for older Zune's etc... So I'm not sure why Apple is defended in this practice when Sony and MS are possibly two of the most evil companies out there.
Yeah, this is the same crap they pulled on their customer base who purchased 802.11n-ready hardware, then charged them to turn it on. Their reasoning, a bunch of meaningless jargon that somehow seems to lack any basis in reality outside of Apple:
Apple said it is required under generally accepted accounting principles to charge customers for the software upgrade. "The nominal distribution fee for the 802.11n software is required in order for Apple to comply with generally accepted accounting principles for revenue recognition, which generally require that we charge for significant feature enhancements, such as 802.11n, when added to previously purchased products,"
Needless to say, this ploy has been affectionately dubbed the "Apple Tax" by those who were duped by it.
Are you doing this because he wants to learn how to program, or are you imposing your own interests on top of his? The worst thing you could do when attempting to encourage someone to do something is to force it on them. I can't begin to tell you how many activities I truly hate now simply because someone thought it would be "good for me to try them" using scare tactics and coercion as a means of getting the desired result.
(Needless to say, I'm not a fan of religion either...)
Here's one to mull over...
Let's say for a moment that you come home after a long day and start to notice you have a bit of a cough, a stomach ache or even joint/muscle pain. You then hop onto your computer and post an innocent message to either a web forum you visit regularly or to a personal blog that you aren't feeling well with a brief description of what's bothering you.
Now, let's say this is a common habit you have where you make such posts every few days, particularly with days you don't feel well.
What's to stop someone with a vested interest in knowing your baseline health cycle started archiving this information? Depending on the circumstances and who is given access to this information, it could be quite easy for someone to profit directly off of your well-being.
If you have a habit of complaining about your health online on a regular basis, your little cries for sympathy could be turned against you should someone like your insurance company decide to use such a system to secretly track you in this manner. And, combined with the near free-reign various industries now have to track your daily activity without notifying you first, they could probably get away with such tactics quite easily.
It seems weird to me that this add-on wouldn't/couldn't be made retroactively compatible with all current Wii titles through a firmware update to the Wii itself. (Sort of an averaging of the combine info from both sensors, or something along those lines.) I'd imagine a game that is aware of the device could override the firmware-based driver for more specific control options.
On a side note, does this thing include a pass-through to allow use of the nunchuk controller? If not, perhaps we may soon see a new, wireless nunchuk that includes the added sensor set introduced with the MotionPlus.
Could someone potentially copyright both the "on" and "off" states of a single bit, then turn around and sue the entire electronic using population on earth for millions of dollars over trillions++ of charges of infringing upon their copyright? Has there even been a quantified limit set on how big something must be before it can be copyrighted?
Instead, show them an executable version (or video of one running) and give narration on how you managed to resolve certain issues, letting them see the results of your work. It's probably vague enough to prevent disclosing any major trade secrets and still gives some idea of your overall capabilities.
For added protection though, you might want to have your employer agree to let you have an executable version of any software you write (or at least, some form of pre-recorded clippings of the software in action using dummy information) for your portfolio beforehand.
Showing off actual code is definitely a bad idea for a number of reasons. First off, it's a huge breach of security as it could expose potential exploit point in the software. Next, it's obviously going to be a legal nightmare should that code show up somewhere you've been with it. Finally, code by itself just isn't that interesting to look at unless you can see it in action. It's unlikely the one's hiring you will be able to read and understand any code you show them, but they can probably recognize the benefits of your code through comparisons of it against something else that performs a similar function. If they see that the code is somehow faster or does a better job than the item it's compared with, it'd probably be good reason for anyone to consider hiring you on as a developer.
"AKAIK the DVD plays in an "overlay" layer... it's not rendered to the player's window like normal windows graphics but it's rather placed on top of it (in a similar fashion to directX, I assume). That would explain why screen captures (which must work at windows UI graphic level) don't capture DVD or divX frames." ...Yet, freeware/shareware utilities like Capture Me have no issues whatsoever taking screen shots of such content entirely at run time without requiring any additional drivers to facilitate this ability. It's not that Apple's screen shot tools can't/couldn't do this, it's simply been designed specifically not to do it as a trade-off for having an MPAA approved DVD player as part of Mac OS X.
This kind of leads to a more frightening question... are law firms now using culturally popular crime shows from television as instruction manuals for misleading juries? Even if the real world data is a mere snooze fest to look at, are they above "jazzing it up" to make it more appealing, like showing a shiny object to a baby?
It scares me to think just how easily once can be wrongly convicted of a crime because someone "saw it on TV".
It's really surprising just how much we disconnect ourselves from our many social inhibitions when communicating over the internet versus when we're actually interacting with others in public, even when we're fully aware that the internet is far less private than physically going outside to any real-world, public location. On a sub-conscious level, mere text on a screen is somehow far less threatening to us than seeing another person or hearing their voice, even though the opposite is probably more true. (Likely due to the lengthy delay in reaction to our own actions, in addition to severely limited feedback accompanying those reactions.)
Perhaps if we retired text communications in favor of real-time teleconferencing, where you actually have to see who you're talking to, you'd see people become a lot more careful about what they say and do on the internet from day to day.
Only a few years ago, I'd get laughed at for suggesting that Microsoft would eventually have a "dead man's switch" built into Windows to use as a last resort against imminent threats to their bottom line. Nothing says "back off" like taking a few hundred million "hostages" at the push of a button...
Consider for a moment that we do somehow manage to eliminate (or significantly limit) the aging process in humans. Based on trends in our current culture, it's very likely this would lead to sharp declines in child birth for a huge number of personal, social and legal reasons. This poses a serious problem when you start looking at things occurring on the microbiological level.
First off, this leaves us wide open for a plague-like epidemic the further into the future we go. As child birth declines, our genetic diversity will begin to stagnate. This means the human race could face extinction at the hands of a super-virus or antibiotic-resistant infection. (Not unlike what we're already seeing in certain types of food crops, such as bananas.)
Next, it's possible that our collective intelligence could also become stagnant. Humans seem to have a strange knack for ignoring and overlooking new concepts that contradict stuff they've been conditioned into believing is true for significant portions of their lives. (Anyone who's ever gotten themselves wrapped up into an "intelligent design vs evolution" debate, or has tried to convince a senior citizen that they're "too old to drive" knows this all too well.)
Finally, we face the possibility of society and government entering a static state. As the rich and powerful cease to age, the more likely they will retain their positions of power. This means anything about these people that impedes social progress (grudges, stereotypes, general stupidity, etc...) will never go away until something really major forces such a change to occur. (Imagine a world where the current president and his administration would never be replaced until it literally ended up killing everyone...)