So long as the API is published, I don't see why games companies should have to publish source code - there can be some very nice stuff in that there source code that they don't want competitors to see (such as large realm balancing across physical nodes etc - don't want to give the competition a heads up on how you manage to maintain the loads that you do).
I take it you haven't actually travelled around sub-Saharan Africa much? There is plenty of infrastructure in place where it needs to be, and Africans will either move wholesale and create new villages around the work place, or walk for three hours a day for a wage. I've done my time traveling lower Africa, its quite astounding.
You are making the usual mistake of assuming that cost-charged-to-consumer must equate somehow to cost-incurred-by-provider. Just because there isn't a per-unit cost to the provider, doesn't mean that a per-unit cost to you isn't a valid way of billing.
Firstly, clicking in the comment box NINE FUCKING TIMES to add text, because each click causes another comment to load further up in the page, does not a good interface make - but is anyone at Slashdot going to sort their shit out? They haven't in the months since this issue was first noted...
Ok, on to the reply.
I'm afraid that the Governments guidance to businesses contradicts your interpretation:
Subject access provides a right to see the information contained in personal data, rather than a right to see the documents that include that information.
The above supports my refutation of your original point that communications were to be disclosed. I was not making any comment about other things required to be disclosed under the act - just that you do not get the email, you get the personal information within the email.
In your last example, the personal data would be part of the disclosure, but not the communications themselves - if there was a decision making process that needed to be explained, then that explanation would include the personal details, the decision and the reason for the decision, but again not the communications themselves.
Under the right of subject access, an individual is entitled only to their own personal data, and not to information relating to other people (unless they are acting on behalf of that person). Neither are they entitled to information simply because they may be interested in it.
This supports my original point about being interested not being reason enough for a valid SAR.
Actually they said the loans given 'did not constitute an illegal subsidy', and when dismissing the US claim regarding them noted 'loans and aid applicable to the claim as made have been found to be legal and proper, excepting the aforementioned requirement of adjustment on interest rates'. Their words. Asshole.
Just earlier this year, the WTO expressly noted that the government loans given to Airbus were legal and proper, and the only thing that was the interest rate, which was to be raised. The loans themselves are not at issue any more - which Boeing was trying to have stopped.
What is also funny is this bloke takes issue with a Chinese company having a government credit line, when the U.S. Export-Import Bank is just that - a US government credit line to any business that wishes to buy from the US.
Why don't you actually post something relevant to the discussion? MS actually have a point here, and the discussion about WebGL's security has been ongoing for months.
I'm afraid you are slightly off with regard to UK law - the Data Protection Act 1998 does indeed give individuals the right to request information from a company about themselves, this is called "subject access", but it does not extend to documents and communications, only the data itself and only if the request is valid (apparently, just being interested does not constitute a valid request).
You did hear this before - the iPhone was a similar situation, with Apple launching and Cisco already owning a product called the iPhone. They settled it amicably (in other words, Apple bought Cisco off).
When those involved in UN action actively took sides - the UK sending military advisors to the rebels and the US deliberating arming the rebels. The UN resolution was to protect civilians, not depose Gadaffi.
Riiight - because every scientist in the world instantly gets together and decides precisely which small group of them owns the problem, and the rest of them leave it alone? No.
It may end with a flash of inspiration at a BBQ, but it certainly doesn't wouldn't start there. The moment a major theory is invalidated, every scientist working on a research project is going to investigate as to how its going to affect them, and many will work on the problem themselves.
Science isn't done by committee, its done by people who are interested.
The data might be there, but you just sent thousands of scientists off on a theoretical goose hunt and cast doubt on every large scale experiment currently running.
Data already gathered might not cost anything, but the effort to come up with a new model which fits the current data plus the new results which invalidated the old data might cost billions of dollars in time and further experimentation. Or it might result in a small tweak over a couple of days.
Can the LHC team fake it? Certainly they can, but it would be a complex fabrication - if their results showed that the HB fell outside of the limit of anything other than the LHC then independent verification would be impossible until another collider in the LHCs class could be constructed to run the same tests. In the mean time, as support for their findings, the LHC team would be pressed to release the raw data from the collisions - terabytes of data that would need falsifying to support the findings.
Would a falsification stand up for long? It depends how well it was done - science has several times been caught out by well done fakes to support one theory or another, but ultimately they have all fallen to scrutiny - or have they? Well, if any haven't, then they are standing up to scrutiny - what does that mean?:)
There are easier ways to do that - defence contracts for example.
Did you hear about the recent US air-to-air refueling tanker contract award? Ongoing since 2001, when the US government tried to throw Boeing a bone after 9/11 and buy overpriced tankers that weren't needed at the time - only they fell foul of their own laws and people got thrown in jail.
10 years later and the contract finally gets awarded, at a much reduced cost and only justifiable now because the DoD cancelled many (cheaper) KC-135 upgrade programmes in the meantime, leaving a significant proportion of the KC-135 fleet unfit for purpose.
Meanwhile, Haliburton has blossomed on the back of billions of dollars of contracts from two and a half wars.
Some aspects of current science always need to be re-visited, and science in general isn't touchy about doing so.
There may not be a need for Higgs Boson as you suggest, but the current theories suggest that there is - which is why its being looked for. No one has yet come up with a credible alternative that doesn't first throw out the entire current model, and quite honestly its currently cheaper to spend the money looking for the Higgs Boson than it is recreating the entire current model from scratch and coming up with evidence to support the change.
But the chance that the Higgs Boson might not exist is not a reason not to look for it - because looking for it will either prove it does exist, or that it doesn't exist where we thought it did. Both outcomes are beneficial, and just because we didn't find it doesnt mean the money was wasted - the fact that it wasn't where we thought it was is great science in itself, because it brings new data to the table.
Plus of course the chance that other discoveries may be made during the hunt for the Higgs Boson.
And of course you can provide evidence to back your assertion that the entire thing needs a rethink? Just from your comment, I'd rather give these scientists billions of dollars for the LHC than give you $10 for lunch.
If it exists where people are looking for it, it will confirm certain current theories. If it doesn't exist where people are looking, it damages certain current theories. If it doesn't exist at all, it calls for a complete rethink on many things.
Basically, if the Higgs Boson exists where people think it does, it means our ideas about how the universe is constructed are well founded and once again science has provided evidence to back up its theories. If it doesn't, then that opens up doors for radical rethinks on those ideas, meaning possible new directions in which to go and new theories to seek evidence for.
Held on a different server that has no relation with the server or server pool that was compromised (in other words, compartmentalised data storage)? No evidence of non-legitimate access to that server?
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
Google are approaching it correctly this time.
So long as the API is published, I don't see why games companies should have to publish source code - there can be some very nice stuff in that there source code that they don't want competitors to see (such as large realm balancing across physical nodes etc - don't want to give the competition a heads up on how you manage to maintain the loads that you do).
I take it you haven't actually travelled around sub-Saharan Africa much? There is plenty of infrastructure in place where it needs to be, and Africans will either move wholesale and create new villages around the work place, or walk for three hours a day for a wage. I've done my time traveling lower Africa, its quite astounding.
You are making the usual mistake of assuming that cost-charged-to-consumer must equate somehow to cost-incurred-by-provider. Just because there isn't a per-unit cost to the provider, doesn't mean that a per-unit cost to you isn't a valid way of billing.
Firstly, clicking in the comment box NINE FUCKING TIMES to add text, because each click causes another comment to load further up in the page, does not a good interface make - but is anyone at Slashdot going to sort their shit out? They haven't in the months since this issue was first noted...
Ok, on to the reply.
I'm afraid that the Governments guidance to businesses contradicts your interpretation:
The above supports my refutation of your original point that communications were to be disclosed. I was not making any comment about other things required to be disclosed under the act - just that you do not get the email, you get the personal information within the email.
In your last example, the personal data would be part of the disclosure, but not the communications themselves - if there was a decision making process that needed to be explained, then that explanation would include the personal details, the decision and the reason for the decision, but again not the communications themselves.
This supports my original point about being interested not being reason enough for a valid SAR.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/access_to_personal_data.aspx
Apple doesn't need to start a competing technology, they already have their own proprietary tech - FaceTime.
Actually they said the loans given 'did not constitute an illegal subsidy', and when dismissing the US claim regarding them noted 'loans and aid applicable to the claim as made have been found to be legal and proper, excepting the aforementioned requirement of adjustment on interest rates'. Their words. Asshole.
Funny how the WTO doesn't agree....
Just earlier this year, the WTO expressly noted that the government loans given to Airbus were legal and proper, and the only thing that was the interest rate, which was to be raised. The loans themselves are not at issue any more - which Boeing was trying to have stopped.
What is also funny is this bloke takes issue with a Chinese company having a government credit line, when the U.S. Export-Import Bank is just that - a US government credit line to any business that wishes to buy from the US.
Pot, meet kettle.
Why don't you actually post something relevant to the discussion? MS actually have a point here, and the discussion about WebGL's security has been ongoing for months.
I'm afraid you are slightly off with regard to UK law - the Data Protection Act 1998 does indeed give individuals the right to request information from a company about themselves, this is called "subject access", but it does not extend to documents and communications, only the data itself and only if the request is valid (apparently, just being interested does not constitute a valid request).
So thats it, its embedded in the core of the system so it is to never change again for the rest of mankinds existence?
Uhm, no - you eat the cost of changing over from poor prior decisions and design a system that is resilient to change this time.
Trademarks don't have to be registered, it just helps in some circumstances.
You did hear this before - the iPhone was a similar situation, with Apple launching and Cisco already owning a product called the iPhone. They settled it amicably (in other words, Apple bought Cisco off).
When those involved in UN action actively took sides - the UK sending military advisors to the rebels and the US deliberating arming the rebels. The UN resolution was to protect civilians, not depose Gadaffi.
Thats hardly Steam, is it?
The fact that they haven't, while smaller targets have fallen already, might be telling...
Riiight - because every scientist in the world instantly gets together and decides precisely which small group of them owns the problem, and the rest of them leave it alone? No.
It may end with a flash of inspiration at a BBQ, but it certainly doesn't wouldn't start there. The moment a major theory is invalidated, every scientist working on a research project is going to investigate as to how its going to affect them, and many will work on the problem themselves.
Science isn't done by committee, its done by people who are interested.
The data might be there, but you just sent thousands of scientists off on a theoretical goose hunt and cast doubt on every large scale experiment currently running.
Data already gathered might not cost anything, but the effort to come up with a new model which fits the current data plus the new results which invalidated the old data might cost billions of dollars in time and further experimentation. Or it might result in a small tweak over a couple of days.
Depends on what you mean by "falsified".
Can the LHC team fake it? Certainly they can, but it would be a complex fabrication - if their results showed that the HB fell outside of the limit of anything other than the LHC then independent verification would be impossible until another collider in the LHCs class could be constructed to run the same tests. In the mean time, as support for their findings, the LHC team would be pressed to release the raw data from the collisions - terabytes of data that would need falsifying to support the findings.
Would a falsification stand up for long? It depends how well it was done - science has several times been caught out by well done fakes to support one theory or another, but ultimately they have all fallen to scrutiny - or have they? Well, if any haven't, then they are standing up to scrutiny - what does that mean? :)
There are easier ways to do that - defence contracts for example.
Did you hear about the recent US air-to-air refueling tanker contract award? Ongoing since 2001, when the US government tried to throw Boeing a bone after 9/11 and buy overpriced tankers that weren't needed at the time - only they fell foul of their own laws and people got thrown in jail.
10 years later and the contract finally gets awarded, at a much reduced cost and only justifiable now because the DoD cancelled many (cheaper) KC-135 upgrade programmes in the meantime, leaving a significant proportion of the KC-135 fleet unfit for purpose.
Meanwhile, Haliburton has blossomed on the back of billions of dollars of contracts from two and a half wars.
Some aspects of current science always need to be re-visited, and science in general isn't touchy about doing so.
There may not be a need for Higgs Boson as you suggest, but the current theories suggest that there is - which is why its being looked for. No one has yet come up with a credible alternative that doesn't first throw out the entire current model, and quite honestly its currently cheaper to spend the money looking for the Higgs Boson than it is recreating the entire current model from scratch and coming up with evidence to support the change.
But the chance that the Higgs Boson might not exist is not a reason not to look for it - because looking for it will either prove it does exist, or that it doesn't exist where we thought it did. Both outcomes are beneficial, and just because we didn't find it doesnt mean the money was wasted - the fact that it wasn't where we thought it was is great science in itself, because it brings new data to the table.
Plus of course the chance that other discoveries may be made during the hunt for the Higgs Boson.
And of course you can provide evidence to back your assertion that the entire thing needs a rethink? Just from your comment, I'd rather give these scientists billions of dollars for the LHC than give you $10 for lunch.
My exact first thought on reading the summary was "well, its not a setback, its just one place less to look!"
If it exists where people are looking for it, it will confirm certain current theories. If it doesn't exist where people are looking, it damages certain current theories. If it doesn't exist at all, it calls for a complete rethink on many things.
Basically, if the Higgs Boson exists where people think it does, it means our ideas about how the universe is constructed are well founded and once again science has provided evidence to back up its theories. If it doesn't, then that opens up doors for radical rethinks on those ideas, meaning possible new directions in which to go and new theories to seek evidence for.
Held on a different server that has no relation with the server or server pool that was compromised (in other words, compartmentalised data storage)? No evidence of non-legitimate access to that server?