I have no empirical evidence to back this up, but I would guess OS X will be supported. Blizzard has been at the last few WWDC's and Carbonization has come up in some of the "bird-of-a-feather" sessions. They've had 2-3 years to work with OS X and Carbon, so I don't see why it wouldn't be actively supported.
If doing it the "right way" brings down your company, then it must not be the "right way", eh? Doing good design and documentation usually fails at a company that only does it because it sounds like the thing to do. Unless you have people that know how to design, document and develop on a feasible schedule, then you'll go down in flames everytime.
No, but it has the capability to hold more than 32MB of RAM, a faster video card when they come out, a RAID card, a faster DVD drive, a CD-RW, a DVD-RW, more HDD space, etc. The list goes on...
As every decent programmer should know, many (most) programs call API's that are part of the OS to do their work on virtually any GUI based OS. Windows is no different. That IE calls API's that other Windows code and other apps use is irrelevant to whether it is "integrated" into the OS. Sharing or using the OS's API's is not "integrated" otherwise almost every program installed on a computer could be called "integrated"
I guess it depends on your definition of "operating system". Almost any part of the operating system can be replaced, but at what cost? A new virtual memory manager could be swapped in, but what if that entailed kernel changes that would affect other parts of the OS? Would you then consider the VMM to be fully integrated or simply another replaceable part?
Now I'm not saying that IE goes down to that low of a level, but in a way they have integrated it into the higher level of the OS -- as a part of the various controls you can build into your app. IE itself is just another application running on your machine, but it uses the core controls that are built into the OS. As far as I'm aware, removing those controls would be like saying you no longer want radio buttons or tree-view controls. Can it be done? Yes, but at a potentially large cost to the user and development community.
Additionally, numerous companies and the DOJ have already proven IE can be de-"integrated" from the OS,. resulting in a speed increase, contrary to the falsified MS video to prove otherwise.
I really question this sentiment. How can you prove that something can be completely removed from the OS without modifying the source code? Are these people just proving that the IE app can be removed or that the actual browser control functionality can be completely stripped out? If they're acutally completely stripping core browser functionality, have these people proven that their actions don't effect that thousands of other Windows apps out there?
Nor is there a reason why MS couldnt write a decent file manager that doesnt need IE - or also as suggested here, at least while using IE as a file manager
See, now you're getting into territory that's wholly debateable. Is it right to ask MS to rewrite parts of the OS at a low level that may take advantage of the functionality they've built into their common controls? Maybe the file manger CAN be rewritten, but just because it can doesn't mean MS should be forced into such a task. Depending on how deep the tendrils go, redoing the file manager may be a much more dauting task than we might think. I dunno, I've never studied Inside Windows 2000 or other books to see how far this stuff goes.
Right or wrong, MS has managed to get the functionality integrated with other common controls. Just pop open Visual Studio and see how easy it is to get an MFC (blech) app up and running with full browser integration. And when you take a peek at IEXPLORE.EXE in the Dependency Walker, you'll see most of the same functions that you would be using in an app that brought in a browser control.
I think the issue that MS is trying to bring up is this : IE can't just be deinstalled because much of the functionality has been incorporated into the OS via other channels. IE itself is using that functionality and so can other apps. Removing the parts that other apps use could potentially affect a large number of users and developers. The real thing someone needs to prove is that IE and all of its functionality can be taken out and still have Windows and other apps function like nothing was missing. I personally don't know if that's the case or not.
So why can you not sign up for a free Hotmail or Yahoo, etc. account so your e-mail isn't actually coming from Hong Kong. Are those sites blocked off from your access point over there?
You're going to also need to make an HTML site for those who don't have (and/or don't want) Flash installed in their browser
According to the Macromedia site, 98.3% of all browsers have the Flash player installed. I have no clue how/where they get this statistic from, but if it's close to correct, you're not alienating a very large number of users. I think most companies would agree that leaving 1.7% of users with a prompt to download the plugin would be OK. Maybe not, and I just have no business acumen.
Be willing to alienate a large number of potential viewers
Same as above applies.
Remember, just because you're using Flash doesn't mean it has to be all blinky and shit. Macromedia's site is usually very tasteful. Abit's site uses Flash for the menu bar, which I think is nicely done and by no means intrudes on the usability of the site. Flash is like all other software packages designed for development : it's just a tool, and how that tool is used determines whether or not a site is easy to use.
You never know...Macromedia has some insanely talented Mac talent. I used to work for them (hence the nick) and I can say that they have, by far, some of the best programmers around. I've seen Apple tell Macromedia engineers that they have standing positions available should they wish to write Mac OS code rather than code for Mac OS. If there's a way to get the feature to work on another platform, especially Mac, Macromedia's engineers will probably find a way.
Is it just me, or does this smack of a company that really, really, wants to protect its future interests?
It is just me, or does this smack of a company that really, really wants to buy its future customers?
Is it just me, or does this smack of a company that wants to give all of the college students legitimate copies of the software that they already downloaded from a P2P network?
Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.
Well, a quick look on Newegg shows that Windows XP purchased with hardware runs $140 for a single copy. A jump to look at current prices for Office XP shows us $180 when purchased with software. OK, not the greatest price, but not the hundreds of dollars that you might think. After all, to compare OSes (not office apps, because StarOffice takes the cake there) RedHat 7.2 Professional is selling for $199.99 over at Outpost.com. Hmm. As far as a consumer goes, this is the equivalent purchase. Yes, there are cheaper distros out there. Yes, we here know that you can download ISOs of various distros for "free", but that's not a valid comparison. Consumers as a whole are not going to do that -- they want point and click, graphical installation programs like Windows has given them for years.
Given this info, Windows isn't all THAT expensive. If the cost is $140 for XP as a single purchase, I'm sure the big PC builders like Dell, Gateway, Compaq get them in lots of 10,000 for much, much cheaper. So the whole cost of your OS is probably a very small part of your overall system price, depending on how much your system really is.
As a gamer, I'd probably build a system around $2500, maybe more. This is without Office -- if you go to Dell's (or others') site, they'll charge you at least $200 to upgrade to Office XP. But let's say they get XP for $100 :
$100 / $2500 * 100% = 4% of the price of my system. I think most people would be willing to pay an extra 4% to get something they're already familiar with. At any rate, it's certainly not a major portion of the cost of the computer.
The bnetd folks haven't done anything wrong...they're about as much at fault for this as a crowbar manufacturer is for someone breaking into a house using that crowbar
This is really a false comparison. A crowbar was designed (most likely many, many years ago) as a device for making some form of work easier. Likewise, baseball bat was designed for playing a sport, but can be used for ill. bnetd has no other use. Its sole purpose in life is to provide alternative access to a proprietary (arguably) system that the implementing company wishes to keep that way. The crowbar analogy (like others that keep cropping up) is just plain misleading. TCP packets would be more comparable to the crowbar since they were originally designed for other uses.
Think of it this way : a lock manufacturer will make thousands of locks for many different doors. The keys associated with these locks often are similar in appearance; if you go to a locksmith to get an extra key made, they use a blank key similar to yours to make a new one. This is fine and dandy.
But then let's say someone comes along and designs a key that is a master key. They've figured out a way to crack the pattern of every lock made by this one company. All you have to do know is go buy this key at your local hardware store, and you can open up any lock in the world. The door on your neighbor's house? Open it when he's/she's not there. That lock on the cockpit of the airplane you're on? Same thing. Who's at fault now? Certainly the lock company would try and stop such a product, saying it damages the security of their product. Now just imagine if you didn't even need to buy the key, that it was just given out to anyone who asked...
bnetd seems to be the master key, and maybe Blizzard has the right to revoke usage of that master key. I don't necessarily agree with Blizzard's tactics per se, but I can at least see where they are coming from on this issue.
benefit to society of hobbiest development in continuing the US's leading role as a game content creator is more important than the small number of sales lost to pirates.
So why do companies like NOA not follow in the footsteps of SCEA? Hell, not even SCEA is following in its own footsteps. The Yaroze was a wonderful idea that gave serious hobbyists access to hardware for developing games. I never looked at any kind of figures, but I've always wondered how many real PSX games were spawned from developers that started on a Yaroze. Maybe the number was so small that Sony saw the whole program as a flop.
Still, companies that manufacture proprietary gaming hardware (and software) should look at the average developer (read : hobbyist) and provide some way for them to break in to the industry. The barrier is just way to high to go through "normal" channels, considering the expensive equipment and pre-approved publishing contracts you need to have just to start. The fact that these types of devices are popular should indicate that people want a way to develop for these systems.
Then again, maybe everyone is just copying carts and NOA is truly justified in pursuing legal action...
A copying device does not circumvent protection unless there is some technological measure in place to prevent idle copying.
Not necessarily. You currently have no viable means of copying a GB/GBA cartridge; you can't go down to your local Gamestop and pick up a device like this. By using this device, you can now copy a cartridge that NOA otherwise does not allow the average end user to copy. The simple fact that Nintendo holds the key to the world of these cartridges would probably be used by a legal team to demonstrate some (vague) form or inherent copy protection.
I think you are confusing the issue of what exactly is being censored here. Freedom of speech/expression may possibly be considered a human right, but not freedom of information. The government controls the access to the Internet in China, so they have every right to control what they feel the people should see.
This is no different than a public library using Cisco equipment to filter out porn sites or sites objectionable to "famliy viewers"? Should me now file lawsuits against our companies, our schools, our public access sites for filtering our content on a whim? The answer is emphatically no, because the providers of said content have the right to determine what exactly the users are allowed to see.
Maybe the Chinese government is censoring chat content and other means of Internet communication. While I don't agree with it, I see nothing wrong with the government metering its bandwidth in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Corporations do it all the time, ISPs do it all the time, even the little kiosk in the mall that provides access for free does it. China just does it on a larger scale and the companies assisting them are just helping another client acheive their goals.
Plain old hydrogen seems to me what they plan to use, but on what level? Do I carry around liquid H-2? Will the fuel cell be something like a butane cigarette lighter (gaseous), able to be fueled with a cannister available at any supermarket? What about the dangers of such highly combustible substances in everyday objects? I'm not sure I'd like the idea of my laptop bursting into flames because the processor got too hot!:-)
As others pointed out, gasoline has too many by-products that would clog up the motor. Not to mention that any form of alternative fuels give off tremendous heat, something a dry cell style battery doesn't do (at least not to the extent of a combustion engine).
Maybe I should just sit back and marvel at the acheivement -- I'm sure the inventors will explain the details of the fuel cell sometime in the future.
Both articles say the engine is powered by fuel, but what fuel are we talking about? Regualar old gasoline/octane? Am I supposed to stop by the local gas station and top off my laptop battery each day on my drive to work? The Popular Science article mentions hydrogen being burned...maybe this means that they are looking for "alternative" fuels as opposed to fossil fuels. Then again, the Wired article hints at fossil fuels as the energy source. Someone shed some light on this please.
Insert "proving to the public that an expensive security system is flawed" for [this and that], and you'll see what I mean.
But it is mine or your or someone else's place to demonstate security flaws to the public without being asked to do so first? What makes you think that because your intention was allegedly innocent that you are suddenly absolved of all guilt associated with your actions?
To say that you were simply exposing a flaw when committing a computer crime is like shooting your neighbor in the head with a hollowpoint bullet claiming that you just wanted to show the world that they shouldn't be sold to the general public.
What kind of goddamn MCSE moron has a computer which controls landing lights connected, directly or otherwise, to the internet?
Why this assumption that the landing lights were wired to the 'Net? I see no where in the Yahoo! article that mentions this fact. Ever heard of a good old-fashioned dial-in attack?;-)
Well, the theory is that you won't do something because the penalty for getting caught is greater than the worth of committing the act. No law can ever stop someone from committing a crime. You just have to hope that your law deters people enough to not make it worth their time.
To say that this law will take away your freedoms and violate liberty, justice and any other word associated with the "Free World" is ludicrous. The Cybercrime Treaty is designed to keep people from doing very harmful things. Simply talking about hacking or trying to figure out how things work isn't going to land you in prison. Trying to see if you the new exploit in some OS can be used to steal money from a bank will, and now with this law maybe computer crimes can finally get the legal treatment that they deserve.
Murder laws are in place to keep you from taking someone's life. Does that mean if you step on an ant you'll go to jail? Or if you say "I'd could kill my boss for making me write VB code" you'll be accused of attempted murder? I think not. Neither will this treaty land you in a cell next to a child-eater for reading one of the hacker books you picked up on Amazon.com. Don't take a law that's designed to stop malicious people and extrapolate it into something that's going to take ones and zeros and make them illegal.
And the same price as a SNES. And $10 more than a NES! All according to Gamestop.
Granted the 2 Nintendo systems have WAY more games, but when they're selling current software backed by the power of a Dreamcast for the price of 10+ year old hardware/software, you can't help but want to jump at the deal.
And then what? Now you have a domain being held by NSI, they're not receiving payment from you for it and you're going to expect them to suddenly comply with your request? If anything, a tatic like that will get your domain stuffed in a hole even further from reach.
You may try GKG.net They've helped me get domains away from the clutches of NSI in the past. Like all of the other registrars mentioned here, they have good customer service, bla bla.
On harming children:
How is it harming children that would otherwise receive zero education in technology to give them an OS that an overwhelming majority of the world uses to perform daily tasks? You are providing them with a valuable skill that will quite probably land them a decent job someday.
On kids reading the source :
Who cares if they can't read the source code? Many of these kids either (i) can't read anyway because they're not old enough or (ii) can't read because their education system doesn't have the facilities to help them.
On OSS being free:
Don't forget that even though OSS is free as far as the cost of acquiring an executable goes, you still must incur the cost of installation, training and maintenance. I would argue that most IT people in poorer school districts aren't Linuxheads that can easily install hundreds of workstations running X. On top of that, where would you get the software? Most educational programs are written for Mac and Windows, not Linux or FreeBSD. I can picture my mom's first grade class now : "Kids, yesterday we learned how to count, today we're going to recompile the kernel."
greg
Re:Easy on the 'Hoax!' shouts...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But there are just too many things that don't seem to add up:
1. He and three other villagers had Commodores in hiding (presumably because that's all they could acquire) for 5 years, yet he's a "computer geek obsessed with Linux". Where was he able to get a Linux box and play with it enough to become obsessed?
2. He's trying to download movies he's missed despite the fact that one minute of a movie is probably larger than the amount of RAM on a Commodore. In addition, is there an OS for any Commodore computer that can play MOV, AVI, MPEG or other movie files? How about VCD images? That would be news to me and a lot of other people here.
3. American TV has been banned for the reign of the Taliban, as have computers and Internet connections. Yet he can already predict (in the few days he's been browsing the web, presumably) that "Survivor" and "Temptation Island" will be big hits over there. How the hell did he even find out about these shows, let alone learn enough about them to claim that Afghanis will fall in love with them?
4. iPod was just released, yet he knows he already wants one. Hell, I haven't had the chance to go to the Apple store 5 miles from my house to see if I want one. You would think that the oppression he's been under would drive him (and others) to want a stable food supply and guaranteed shelter before wanting an MP3 player that doesn't interface with a Commodore computer.
5. "I thought they were going to get Microsoft"? Huh? Would this even have been big news in Afghanistan 5 years ago, when the Taliban took over? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong.
All of this just seems a little...odd. If I had just gotten out from under the boot of an oppressive government, I'd be concerned more about my immediate future than downloading entertainment from a network that had morphed into something completely different over the last 5 years.
And I don't at all mean this as a troll -- if someone with knowledge of the situation over there could explain how someone with so little access to the rest of the world could know so much about a foreign country, I'm sure we'd all be much abliged. According to the article, he (and possibly other people) are addicted to Slashdot -- Afghanis, if you're out there tell us the truth!
For what it's worth, I was able to call Motorola earlier in the year and get a box of PPC documentation sent to my office, all free of charge. Specs on the 74XX series (7450's aren't covered in my docs), details on the instructions, Altivec highlights, you name it. I got the number off of their PPC site (somewhere from http://www.mot.com) -- it should be a toll-free number for those in the US.
Just a word of warning, though -- the docs AREN'T tutorial-style. If you can pick up PPC assembler based on your previous knowledge of another architecture, then these documents should benefit you nicely.
I understand that the actual number system isn't broken, but the code would be. You may be "working in base 10" with your high level code, but the compiler translates that into base 2. If you're currently working in base 2 that's not a problem because you're working with the processor's native number base. But on a ternary system, what happens, when you write code that expects base 2? Does the processor have the knowledge of base 2 AND base 3? Does it know that when it see AND, OR, XOR, ASL, ASR, LSL, LSR, etc. instructions that base 2 is to be used?
Let's take a small example in C:
long x = 42;
long y = 100;
long z = x | y;
In base 2, you can view this as:
0101010
|1100100
---------
1101110
But what is the same sequence in base 3?
01120
| 10201
-------
?????
To me, that doesn't translate. Are you advocating that a ternary system would be able to represent numbers in base 2 when Boolean operators are present, but represent numbers in base 3 when ternary operators are present?
Slashdot Mirror
I have no empirical evidence to back this up, but I would guess OS X will be supported. Blizzard has been at the last few WWDC's and Carbonization has come up in some of the "bird-of-a-feather" sessions. They've had 2-3 years to work with OS X and Carbon, so I don't see why it wouldn't be actively supported.
If doing it the "right way" brings down your company, then it must not be the "right way", eh? Doing good design and documentation usually fails at a company that only does it because it sounds like the thing to do. Unless you have people that know how to design, document and develop on a feasible schedule, then you'll go down in flames everytime.
greg
No, but it has the capability to hold more than 32MB of RAM, a faster video card when they come out, a RAID card, a faster DVD drive, a CD-RW, a DVD-RW, more HDD space, etc. The list goes on...
greg
As every decent programmer should know, many (most) programs call API's that are part of the OS to do their work on virtually any GUI based OS. Windows is no different. That IE calls API's that other Windows code and other apps use is irrelevant to whether it is "integrated" into the OS. Sharing or using the OS's API's is not "integrated" otherwise almost every program installed on a computer could be called "integrated"
I guess it depends on your definition of "operating system". Almost any part of the operating system can be replaced, but at what cost? A new virtual memory manager could be swapped in, but what if that entailed kernel changes that would affect other parts of the OS? Would you then consider the VMM to be fully integrated or simply another replaceable part?
Now I'm not saying that IE goes down to that low of a level, but in a way they have integrated it into the higher level of the OS -- as a part of the various controls you can build into your app. IE itself is just another application running on your machine, but it uses the core controls that are built into the OS. As far as I'm aware, removing those controls would be like saying you no longer want radio buttons or tree-view controls. Can it be done? Yes, but at a potentially large cost to the user and development community.
Additionally, numerous companies and the DOJ have already proven IE can be de-"integrated" from the OS,. resulting in a speed increase, contrary to the falsified MS video to prove otherwise.
I really question this sentiment. How can you prove that something can be completely removed from the OS without modifying the source code? Are these people just proving that the IE app can be removed or that the actual browser control functionality can be completely stripped out? If they're acutally completely stripping core browser functionality, have these people proven that their actions don't effect that thousands of other Windows apps out there?
Nor is there a reason why MS couldnt write a decent file manager that doesnt need IE - or also as suggested here, at least while using IE as a file manager
See, now you're getting into territory that's wholly debateable. Is it right to ask MS to rewrite parts of the OS at a low level that may take advantage of the functionality they've built into their common controls? Maybe the file manger CAN be rewritten, but just because it can doesn't mean MS should be forced into such a task. Depending on how deep the tendrils go, redoing the file manager may be a much more dauting task than we might think. I dunno, I've never studied Inside Windows 2000 or other books to see how far this stuff goes.
Right or wrong, MS has managed to get the functionality integrated with other common controls. Just pop open Visual Studio and see how easy it is to get an MFC (blech) app up and running with full browser integration. And when you take a peek at IEXPLORE.EXE in the Dependency Walker, you'll see most of the same functions that you would be using in an app that brought in a browser control.
I think the issue that MS is trying to bring up is this : IE can't just be deinstalled because much of the functionality has been incorporated into the OS via other channels. IE itself is using that functionality and so can other apps. Removing the parts that other apps use could potentially affect a large number of users and developers. The real thing someone needs to prove is that IE and all of its functionality can be taken out and still have Windows and other apps function like nothing was missing. I personally don't know if that's the case or not.
greg
So why can you not sign up for a free Hotmail or Yahoo, etc. account so your e-mail isn't actually coming from Hong Kong. Are those sites blocked off from your access point over there?
greg
You're going to also need to make an HTML site for those who don't have (and/or don't want) Flash installed in their browser
According to the Macromedia site, 98.3% of all browsers have the Flash player installed. I have no clue how/where they get this statistic from, but if it's close to correct, you're not alienating a very large number of users. I think most companies would agree that leaving 1.7% of users with a prompt to download the plugin would be OK. Maybe not, and I just have no business acumen.
Be willing to alienate a large number of potential viewers
Same as above applies.
Remember, just because you're using Flash doesn't mean it has to be all blinky and shit. Macromedia's site is usually very tasteful. Abit's site uses Flash for the menu bar, which I think is nicely done and by no means intrudes on the usability of the site. Flash is like all other software packages designed for development : it's just a tool, and how that tool is used determines whether or not a site is easy to use.
greg
You never know...Macromedia has some insanely talented Mac talent. I used to work for them (hence the nick) and I can say that they have, by far, some of the best programmers around. I've seen Apple tell Macromedia engineers that they have standing positions available should they wish to write Mac OS code rather than code for Mac OS. If there's a way to get the feature to work on another platform, especially Mac, Macromedia's engineers will probably find a way.
greg
Is it just me, or does this smack of a company that really, really, wants to protect its future interests?
It is just me, or does this smack of a company that really, really wants to buy its future customers?
Is it just me, or does this smack of a company that wants to give all of the college students legitimate copies of the software that they already downloaded from a P2P network?
greg
Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.
Well, a quick look on Newegg shows that Windows XP purchased with hardware runs $140 for a single copy. A jump to look at current prices for Office XP shows us $180 when purchased with software. OK, not the greatest price, but not the hundreds of dollars that you might think. After all, to compare OSes (not office apps, because StarOffice takes the cake there) RedHat 7.2 Professional is selling for $199.99 over at Outpost.com. Hmm. As far as a consumer goes, this is the equivalent purchase. Yes, there are cheaper distros out there. Yes, we here know that you can download ISOs of various distros for "free", but that's not a valid comparison. Consumers as a whole are not going to do that -- they want point and click, graphical installation programs like Windows has given them for years.
Given this info, Windows isn't all THAT expensive. If the cost is $140 for XP as a single purchase, I'm sure the big PC builders like Dell, Gateway, Compaq get them in lots of 10,000 for much, much cheaper. So the whole cost of your OS is probably a very small part of your overall system price, depending on how much your system really is.
As a gamer, I'd probably build a system around $2500, maybe more. This is without Office -- if you go to Dell's (or others') site, they'll charge you at least $200 to upgrade to Office XP. But let's say they get XP for $100 :
$100 / $2500 * 100% = 4% of the price of my system. I think most people would be willing to pay an extra 4% to get something they're already familiar with. At any rate, it's certainly not a major portion of the cost of the computer.
greg
Some themes that keep recurring :
The bnetd folks haven't done anything wrong...they're about as much at fault for this as a crowbar manufacturer is for someone breaking into a house using that crowbar
This is really a false comparison. A crowbar was designed (most likely many, many years ago) as a device for making some form of work easier. Likewise, baseball bat was designed for playing a sport, but can be used for ill. bnetd has no other use. Its sole purpose in life is to provide alternative access to a proprietary (arguably) system that the implementing company wishes to keep that way. The crowbar analogy (like others that keep cropping up) is just plain misleading. TCP packets would be more comparable to the crowbar since they were originally designed for other uses.
Think of it this way : a lock manufacturer will make thousands of locks for many different doors. The keys associated with these locks often are similar in appearance; if you go to a locksmith to get an extra key made, they use a blank key similar to yours to make a new one. This is fine and dandy.
But then let's say someone comes along and designs a key that is a master key. They've figured out a way to crack the pattern of every lock made by this one company. All you have to do know is go buy this key at your local hardware store, and you can open up any lock in the world. The door on your neighbor's house? Open it when he's/she's not there. That lock on the cockpit of the airplane you're on? Same thing. Who's at fault now? Certainly the lock company would try and stop such a product, saying it damages the security of their product. Now just imagine if you didn't even need to buy the key, that it was just given out to anyone who asked...
bnetd seems to be the master key, and maybe Blizzard has the right to revoke usage of that master key. I don't necessarily agree with Blizzard's tactics per se, but I can at least see where they are coming from on this issue.
greg
benefit to society of hobbiest development in continuing the US's leading role as a game content creator is more important than the small number of sales lost to pirates.
So why do companies like NOA not follow in the footsteps of SCEA? Hell, not even SCEA is following in its own footsteps. The Yaroze was a wonderful idea that gave serious hobbyists access to hardware for developing games. I never looked at any kind of figures, but I've always wondered how many real PSX games were spawned from developers that started on a Yaroze. Maybe the number was so small that Sony saw the whole program as a flop.
Still, companies that manufacture proprietary gaming hardware (and software) should look at the average developer (read : hobbyist) and provide some way for them to break in to the industry. The barrier is just way to high to go through "normal" channels, considering the expensive equipment and pre-approved publishing contracts you need to have just to start. The fact that these types of devices are popular should indicate that people want a way to develop for these systems.
Then again, maybe everyone is just copying carts and NOA is truly justified in pursuing legal action...
greg
A copying device does not circumvent protection unless there is some technological measure in place to prevent idle copying.
Not necessarily. You currently have no viable means of copying a GB/GBA cartridge; you can't go down to your local Gamestop and pick up a device like this. By using this device, you can now copy a cartridge that NOA otherwise does not allow the average end user to copy. The simple fact that Nintendo holds the key to the world of these cartridges would probably be used by a legal team to demonstrate some (vague) form or inherent copy protection.
greg
I think you are confusing the issue of what exactly is being censored here. Freedom of speech/expression may possibly be considered a human right, but not freedom of information. The government controls the access to the Internet in China, so they have every right to control what they feel the people should see.
This is no different than a public library using Cisco equipment to filter out porn sites or sites objectionable to "famliy viewers"? Should me now file lawsuits against our companies, our schools, our public access sites for filtering our content on a whim? The answer is emphatically no, because the providers of said content have the right to determine what exactly the users are allowed to see.
Maybe the Chinese government is censoring chat content and other means of Internet communication. While I don't agree with it, I see nothing wrong with the government metering its bandwidth in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Corporations do it all the time, ISPs do it all the time, even the little kiosk in the mall that provides access for free does it. China just does it on a larger scale and the companies assisting them are just helping another client acheive their goals.
greg
Plain old hydrogen seems to me what they plan to use, but on what level? Do I carry around liquid H-2? Will the fuel cell be something like a butane cigarette lighter (gaseous), able to be fueled with a cannister available at any supermarket? What about the dangers of such highly combustible substances in everyday objects? I'm not sure I'd like the idea of my laptop bursting into flames because the processor got too hot! :-)
As others pointed out, gasoline has too many by-products that would clog up the motor. Not to mention that any form of alternative fuels give off tremendous heat, something a dry cell style battery doesn't do (at least not to the extent of a combustion engine).
Maybe I should just sit back and marvel at the acheivement -- I'm sure the inventors will explain the details of the fuel cell sometime in the future.
greg
Both articles say the engine is powered by fuel, but what fuel are we talking about? Regualar old gasoline/octane? Am I supposed to stop by the local gas station and top off my laptop battery each day on my drive to work? The Popular Science article mentions hydrogen being burned...maybe this means that they are looking for "alternative" fuels as opposed to fossil fuels. Then again, the Wired article hints at fossil fuels as the energy source. Someone shed some light on this please.
greg
Insert "proving to the public that an expensive security system is flawed" for [this and that], and you'll see what I mean.
But it is mine or your or someone else's place to demonstate security flaws to the public without being asked to do so first? What makes you think that because your intention was allegedly innocent that you are suddenly absolved of all guilt associated with your actions?
To say that you were simply exposing a flaw when committing a computer crime is like shooting your neighbor in the head with a hollowpoint bullet claiming that you just wanted to show the world that they shouldn't be sold to the general public.
greg
What kind of goddamn MCSE moron has a computer which controls landing lights connected, directly or otherwise, to the internet?
;-)
Why this assumption that the landing lights were wired to the 'Net? I see no where in the Yahoo! article that mentions this fact. Ever heard of a good old-fashioned dial-in attack?
greg
Well, the theory is that you won't do something because the penalty for getting caught is greater than the worth of committing the act. No law can ever stop someone from committing a crime. You just have to hope that your law deters people enough to not make it worth their time.
greg
To say that this law will take away your freedoms and violate liberty, justice and any other word associated with the "Free World" is ludicrous. The Cybercrime Treaty is designed to keep people from doing very harmful things. Simply talking about hacking or trying to figure out how things work isn't going to land you in prison. Trying to see if you the new exploit in some OS can be used to steal money from a bank will, and now with this law maybe computer crimes can finally get the legal treatment that they deserve.
Murder laws are in place to keep you from taking someone's life. Does that mean if you step on an ant you'll go to jail? Or if you say "I'd could kill my boss for making me write VB code" you'll be accused of attempted murder? I think not. Neither will this treaty land you in a cell next to a child-eater for reading one of the hacker books you picked up on Amazon.com. Don't take a law that's designed to stop malicious people and extrapolate it into something that's going to take ones and zeros and make them illegal.
greg
And the same price as a SNES. And $10 more than a NES! All according to Gamestop.
Granted the 2 Nintendo systems have WAY more games, but when they're selling current software backed by the power of a Dreamcast for the price of 10+ year old hardware/software, you can't help but want to jump at the deal.
greg
And then what? Now you have a domain being held by NSI, they're not receiving payment from you for it and you're going to expect them to suddenly comply with your request? If anything, a tatic like that will get your domain stuffed in a hole even further from reach.
You may try GKG.net They've helped me get domains away from the clutches of NSI in the past. Like all of the other registrars mentioned here, they have good customer service, bla bla.
greg
On harming children :
:
How is it harming children that would otherwise receive zero education in technology to give them an OS that an overwhelming majority of the world uses to perform daily tasks? You are providing them with a valuable skill that will quite probably land them a decent job someday.
On kids reading the source :
Who cares if they can't read the source code? Many of these kids either (i) can't read anyway because they're not old enough or (ii) can't read because their education system doesn't have the facilities to help them.
On OSS being free
Don't forget that even though OSS is free as far as the cost of acquiring an executable goes, you still must incur the cost of installation, training and maintenance. I would argue that most IT people in poorer school districts aren't Linuxheads that can easily install hundreds of workstations running X. On top of that, where would you get the software? Most educational programs are written for Mac and Windows, not Linux or FreeBSD. I can picture my mom's first grade class now : "Kids, yesterday we learned how to count, today we're going to recompile the kernel."
greg
But there are just too many things that don't seem to add up :
1. He and three other villagers had Commodores in hiding (presumably because that's all they could acquire) for 5 years, yet he's a "computer geek obsessed with Linux". Where was he able to get a Linux box and play with it enough to become obsessed?
2. He's trying to download movies he's missed despite the fact that one minute of a movie is probably larger than the amount of RAM on a Commodore. In addition, is there an OS for any Commodore computer that can play MOV, AVI, MPEG or other movie files? How about VCD images? That would be news to me and a lot of other people here.
3. American TV has been banned for the reign of the Taliban, as have computers and Internet connections. Yet he can already predict (in the few days he's been browsing the web, presumably) that "Survivor" and "Temptation Island" will be big hits over there. How the hell did he even find out about these shows, let alone learn enough about them to claim that Afghanis will fall in love with them?
4. iPod was just released, yet he knows he already wants one. Hell, I haven't had the chance to go to the Apple store 5 miles from my house to see if I want one. You would think that the oppression he's been under would drive him (and others) to want a stable food supply and guaranteed shelter before wanting an MP3 player that doesn't interface with a Commodore computer.
5. "I thought they were going to get Microsoft"? Huh? Would this even have been big news in Afghanistan 5 years ago, when the Taliban took over? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong.
All of this just seems a little...odd. If I had just gotten out from under the boot of an oppressive government, I'd be concerned more about my immediate future than downloading entertainment from a network that had morphed into something completely different over the last 5 years.
And I don't at all mean this as a troll -- if someone with knowledge of the situation over there could explain how someone with so little access to the rest of the world could know so much about a foreign country, I'm sure we'd all be much abliged. According to the article, he (and possibly other people) are addicted to Slashdot -- Afghanis, if you're out there tell us the truth!
greg
For what it's worth, I was able to call Motorola earlier in the year and get a box of PPC documentation sent to my office, all free of charge. Specs on the 74XX series (7450's aren't covered in my docs), details on the instructions, Altivec highlights, you name it. I got the number off of their PPC site (somewhere from http://www.mot.com) -- it should be a toll-free number for those in the US.
Just a word of warning, though -- the docs AREN'T tutorial-style. If you can pick up PPC assembler based on your previous knowledge of another architecture, then these documents should benefit you nicely.
greg
I understand that the actual number system isn't broken, but the code would be. You may be "working in base 10" with your high level code, but the compiler translates that into base 2. If you're currently working in base 2 that's not a problem because you're working with the processor's native number base. But on a ternary system, what happens, when you write code that expects base 2? Does the processor have the knowledge of base 2 AND base 3? Does it know that when it see AND, OR, XOR, ASL, ASR, LSL, LSR, etc. instructions that base 2 is to be used?
:
Let's take a small example in C:
long x = 42;
long y = 100;
long z = x | y;
In base 2, you can view this as
0101010
|1100100
---------
1101110
But what is the same sequence in base 3?
01120
| 10201
-------
?????
To me, that doesn't translate. Are you advocating that a ternary system would be able to represent numbers in base 2 when Boolean operators are present, but represent numbers in base 3 when ternary operators are present?
greg