be that as it may, your servers are still gone and you still have to go through the bureaucracy to get them.
Re:PSP modification outlawed?
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
You're correct, of course, that's what I get for posting half asleep:)
Re:PSP modification outlawed?
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
IANAL
This kind of thing is a manipulation of the common-law system that results in, basically, legislation being written by the Sony corporate legal department.
The USA uses common law, which works almost entirely by precedent. If a new issue (such as a new license, like the PSP's) comes up, the first court ruling a judge enters to address it is considered to be the law until it's legislated by the government or overruled by a higher court.
Sony (and other companies that have done this such as MS) write a license agreement that they would like to see as a law, find the most business-friendly jurisdiction in which to sue someone, and wait for someone from that jurisdiction that can't afford to appeal to violate it. They sue them, the judge gives them their precedent, and voila, instant legal credibility for this sort of corporate fascism.
I didn't upgrade a single component of my PC for 3 years. I didn't need to, because I invested in good shit in the first place, and I didn't fall into the overclocking and insane tweaking trap.
It still can't run Far Cry at 1600 but who gives a shit? 1600 is not better than 1024 for gaming.
It's not zealotry. It's choice. Most people who use computers professionally have zero interest in spending their leisure time sitting in front of them. They'd rather go camping with their kids or what have you. I dunno where you live but around here it's just the opposite. I work all day as a developer and depending on what important stuff I have to do at home, I may spend anywhere from 0 to another 8 hours on my PC. This is what I enjoy. I don't begrudge you your camping, even though I fucking hate camping myself.
What I find far more interesting is the opposite effect: All the people --I won't call them "zealots," but I don't think I'd be too far off the mark if I did --who think that what makes or breaks a computer's value story is whether or not there are any games available. That's a hugely myopic world-view, I think. If your tent can't hold all of your kids, then it's not the right tent for you, is it?
I've always gamed on all the computers I've used and I've always ran into the "COMPUTERS ARE FOR WORK" zealots. Why do people think this way? Computers can be used for whatever you want. That's the beauty of them.
The only thing you are wrong about is the idea that Reagan had empathy for anyone at all. He was a McCarthyist red-baiter and a career opportunist that said all the right things, just like Bush does.
There's good reason for developing something from scratch, but calling anyone who uses a pre-existing component a leech is just self-righteous stupidity. What's self-righteous about it? All I'm saying is that if you're not doing anything new, you're probably not doing anything special. Working on some utility codebase that has 1000 different people's names in it already doesn't lead to greatness.
Although there is still a place for down-and-dirty development, the proliferation of easy-to-use, easy-to-implement technologies and growing masses of existing code-base Isn't this the place where the people say that coding is art? Well, what's artistic about pasting together a bunch of premade stuff?
I guess you can make sort of a pop/dada argument out of it, but I thought that the joy of creation for us geeks was in figuring out a way to do it, not in finding out what others have figured out.
nice troll. Thanks. I was half-serious, but it's nice to let loose on a friday.
Let me ask you, though: How is technology supposed to move forward if all the smart people spend their time redoing the same things? Here's how I rank level of accomplishment.
1) Visionaries that come up with entirely new ideas that change humanity forever. Examples: Einstein, Galileo, Da Vinci, Tim Berners-Lee. Depending on your perspective you might even put Vint Cerf and other inventors of the internet in this group, also. 2) People who invent something completely new to solve an existing problem that couldn't be solved before. Examples: Kernighan & Richie, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell. 3) People who take an existing idea and improve it. Examples: Linus Torvalds, Henry Ford, Wozniak and Jobs. 4) People who take others' ideas and realize them from scratch. Examples: Experienced software developers get to do this. 5) People who do nothing new or special.
It takes more intelligence to create than to copy. That's a plain fact. It takes a high degree of skill to copy -well-, but not intelligence. The idea men are the ones whose names get in the history books, their copiers get planted and rot.
To me, you are saying that the people who made C++, Java, PHP, or might be considered smart, but the people who use those languages are just not. After all, all they really did was learn other peoples' APIs. It's all relative. Some people consider me to be amazingly intelligent because I CAN learn other peoples' APIs. I personally don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything in doing so. I consider my abilities to be very insignificant in comparison to giants like Knuth or Larry Wall or hell, even the guy that sits across the aisle from me at work, who is one of the best programmers I've ever worked with. But, my company seems to think that adapting other peoples' code is as much an accomplishment as writing it myself, so as long as the paychecks cash...
I didn't mean it's worth less, I meant that it is smaller than my employer. Trust me - Google is definitely smaller than my employer, and has fewer shareholders.
What's good for my employer is good for them. If it's good for me, that's a nice side effect that gives them a little internal P.R.
I give my employer a little less than one third of my life, and they give me a paycheck. I owe them no more than what's in my contract and vice versa.
I work for a huge multi-national, though, and own no stock in the company. Shares in a relatively small corp like google are worth contributing to. Here, I'd just be one of the hundred million or so meaningless shareholders.
The flip side to their encouragement of extensive code-sharing is, how does a young programmer make a name for himself at Google? In my opinion, a system that merely strings prefab parts together is not nearly the accomplishment that a from-scratch system is. If everything you are assigned to do is already written, then what have YOU done, other than figure out other peoples' APIs?
Not that that can't be challenging, but IMO smart people do things their own way, not someone else's, because their way is better.
And here comes the cavalcade of leeches spouting "smart people don't reinvent the wheel.."
It's hard to really fathom the utter destruction that WWII caused, but it laid waste to entire nations in europe. It's amazing that Germany recovered at all after all we did to them. WWII was a true all-out war, make no bones about it.
Slashdot Mirror
be that as it may, your servers are still gone and you still have to go through the bureaucracy to get them.
You're correct, of course, that's what I get for posting half asleep :)
IANAL
This kind of thing is a manipulation of the common-law system that results in, basically, legislation being written by the Sony corporate legal department.
The USA uses common law, which works almost entirely by precedent. If a new issue (such as a new license, like the PSP's) comes up, the first court ruling a judge enters to address it is considered to be the law until it's legislated by the government or overruled by a higher court.
Sony (and other companies that have done this such as MS) write a license agreement that they would like to see as a law, find the most business-friendly jurisdiction in which to sue someone, and wait for someone from that jurisdiction that can't afford to appeal to violate it. They sue them, the judge gives them their precedent, and voila, instant legal credibility for this sort of corporate fascism.
I didn't upgrade a single component of my PC for 3 years. I didn't need to, because I invested in good shit in the first place, and I didn't fall into the overclocking and insane tweaking trap.
It still can't run Far Cry at 1600 but who gives a shit? 1600 is not better than 1024 for gaming.
Did he work in offices back in the 60s and 70s when the computer resided in a temple in the basement or something?
It's not zealotry. It's choice. Most people who use computers professionally have zero interest in spending their leisure time sitting in front of them. They'd rather go camping with their kids or what have you.
I dunno where you live but around here it's just the opposite. I work all day as a developer and depending on what important stuff I have to do at home, I may spend anywhere from 0 to another 8 hours on my PC. This is what I enjoy. I don't begrudge you your camping, even though I fucking hate camping myself.
What I find far more interesting is the opposite effect: All the people --I won't call them "zealots," but I don't think I'd be too far off the mark if I did --who think that what makes or breaks a computer's value story is whether or not there are any games available. That's a hugely myopic world-view, I think.
If your tent can't hold all of your kids, then it's not the right tent for you, is it?
I bought my PC for both. It's called economy.
I've always gamed on all the computers I've used and I've always ran into the "COMPUTERS ARE FOR WORK" zealots. Why do people think this way? Computers can be used for whatever you want. That's the beauty of them.
Now I know how proud grandparents feel.
Bumper Sticker: "Ask me about my initial post"
"They're tiny, they're toony,
they're all a little loony"
The only thing you are wrong about is the idea that Reagan had empathy for anyone at all. He was a McCarthyist red-baiter and a career opportunist that said all the right things, just like Bush does.
This is a democratic republic. We are the government.
oh, bullshit. We haven't been the government since before the first Civil War.
There's good reason for developing something from scratch, but calling anyone who uses a pre-existing component a leech is just self-righteous stupidity.
What's self-righteous about it? All I'm saying is that if you're not doing anything new, you're probably not doing anything special. Working on some utility codebase that has 1000 different people's names in it already doesn't lead to greatness.
Although there is still a place for down-and-dirty development, the proliferation of easy-to-use, easy-to-implement technologies and growing masses of existing code-base
Isn't this the place where the people say that coding is art? Well, what's artistic about pasting together a bunch of premade stuff?
I guess you can make sort of a pop/dada argument out of it, but I thought that the joy of creation for us geeks was in figuring out a way to do it, not in finding out what others have figured out.
hadslkf asdhlks 3kjl32hkf dhflksadf
oh shit, i used an existing alphabet...
nice troll.
Thanks. I was half-serious, but it's nice to let loose on a friday.
Let me ask you, though: How is technology supposed to move forward if all the smart people spend their time redoing the same things?
Here's how I rank level of accomplishment.
1) Visionaries that come up with entirely new ideas that change humanity forever. Examples: Einstein, Galileo, Da Vinci, Tim Berners-Lee. Depending on your perspective you might even put Vint Cerf and other inventors of the internet in this group, also.
2) People who invent something completely new to solve an existing problem that couldn't be solved before. Examples: Kernighan & Richie, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell.
3) People who take an existing idea and improve it. Examples: Linus Torvalds, Henry Ford, Wozniak and Jobs.
4) People who take others' ideas and realize them from scratch. Examples: Experienced software developers get to do this.
5) People who do nothing new or special.
It takes more intelligence to create than to copy. That's a plain fact. It takes a high degree of skill to copy -well-, but not intelligence. The idea men are the ones whose names get in the history books, their copiers get planted and rot.
To me, you are saying that the people who made C++, Java, PHP, or might be considered smart, but the people who use those languages are just not. After all, all they really did was learn other peoples' APIs.
It's all relative. Some people consider me to be amazingly intelligent because I CAN learn other peoples' APIs. I personally don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything in doing so. I consider my abilities to be very insignificant in comparison to giants like Knuth or Larry Wall or hell, even the guy that sits across the aisle from me at work, who is one of the best programmers I've ever worked with. But, my company seems to think that adapting other peoples' code is as much an accomplishment as writing it myself, so as long as the paychecks cash...
I didn't mean it's worth less, I meant that it is smaller than my employer. Trust me - Google is definitely smaller than my employer, and has fewer shareholders.
What's good for my employer is good for them. If it's good for me, that's a nice side effect that gives them a little internal P.R.
I give my employer a little less than one third of my life, and they give me a paycheck. I owe them no more than what's in my contract and vice versa.
I work for a huge multi-national, though, and own no stock in the company. Shares in a relatively small corp like google are worth contributing to. Here, I'd just be one of the hundred million or so meaningless shareholders.
The flip side to their encouragement of extensive code-sharing is, how does a young programmer make a name for himself at Google? In my opinion, a system that merely strings prefab parts together is not nearly the accomplishment that a from-scratch system is. If everything you are assigned to do is already written, then what have YOU done, other than figure out other peoples' APIs?
Not that that can't be challenging, but IMO smart people do things their own way, not someone else's, because their way is better.
And here comes the cavalcade of leeches spouting "smart people don't reinvent the wheel.."
It's hard to really fathom the utter destruction that WWII caused, but it laid waste to entire nations in europe. It's amazing that Germany recovered at all after all we did to them. WWII was a true all-out war, make no bones about it.
oh, so now bad puns are Trolls?
is that what Terry Savalas smoked?
For some reason, blonde systems produce more bangs than other systems when ethyl alcohol is introduced. I believe this warrants further study.
no, terrorism. multiple cable companies fragment the American mind and make us more susceptible to attack.
I heard an urban legend once that Nikola Tesla invented a way to distribute AC wirelessly, but Thomas Edison had it suppressed.
not that you have a vested interest in people not writing their own stuff or anything....