I was thinking along the same lines. Well, almost the same lines. I was thinking it'd be great fun to creep out the fundies. A bar code tattoo on the forehead or right hand would be better though - especially if it was a real UPC code that would show up as "666" if you scanned it at checkout.
Back when QuickTime for Windows was first introduced, Apple found that it was less effort to port the subset of the Mac Toolbox that QT depends on, than it would be to port QT to the Win32 API. That "subset" was so large that they had to actively discourage developers from using it as a porting tool to get their non-QT apps running on Windows.
Fast-forward some years. When Apple needed an updated and portable version of the classic Toolbox, they started with the portable Toolbox subset that they'd already ported to Windows to support QT.
More importantly, if they could carry over their non-UI logic with just a recompile via some sort of Carbon-style XCode project mechanism (that would import, say, VC and VC++ projects) and then redo the UI via the Interface Builder (but be able to access NIB data via Win32 widget calls) then the barrier to porting to OS X would pretty much go away.
You can do most of that right now, if your model classes (assuming MVC design) are in C++. Just use controllers written in Objective-C++ to talk to your C++ models and Objective-C views. The only thing missing from what you're describing is importing VC projects, but that's just an inconvenience, not a show-stopper - it's not exactly rocket surgery to create a new project and add your model files to it.
Besides, the customer tracking is completely unacceptable.
Start a card-swapping club at work or with a few friends. Every week, all of you throw your cards into a hat and draw them at random. You won't get targeted coupons that way, though, because "your" buying history is pretty much gibberish after a while.
For the father of the seven-year-old who wants experiments to do at home - try watching Zoom, on PBS. It's all about doing experiments and other activities at home, documenting the results, and sending them to the web site to compare with other kids' results. Basically, it's teaching the foundations of the scientific method. (Full Disclosure - I was lead developer for the Zoom web site for two years.)
When any number prefixed with a 0 (zero), without a decimal place, such as 0034, 04 or 02, the zero doesn't hold any meaning
It does if you're a programmer. It means the number is octal (base 8), just like a "0x" prefix means hexadecimal (base 16). Not that it matters for 2, which is the same in decimal, octal, or hex...
Example of multitasking in games. I have a Healer in the Midgard realm in Dark Age of Camelot. In a group, I might have to be monitoring the health and situation of up to 7 other people, prioritize their healing needs, pick what healing spells to use on them, and heal them. Meanwhile, if any extra monsters show up, I have to mesmerize them if the rest of the group is not ready to immediately deal with them. I've also got a spell that slows monster attack speed for 20 seconds. I need to be using that and renewing it on monsters that are taking a long time to kill. I've got a limited amount of power for all this, so I have to keep close watch on my power level.
That's not the same kind of multitasking. Everything you mentioned is one aspect of the larger task of "playing the game" - a thread, as it were, not a full task. Switching from one thread to another isn't a change in context, because they're all closely related to one another. Driving has many such threads as well - monitoring the gauges, the road ahead, the mirrors, etc.
The kind of multitasking that causes problems is when it's two or more entirely unrelated tasks.
I know a lot of gamers who multitask incredibly poorly when playing games. There's a "zone" they get into, where distractions just don't get through - telephone, household pets, noise outside, a bomb in the next room, etc., none of it gets noticed.
Some folks might point out that a lot of modern games have in-game voice chat, but there's a key difference there - the players are generally talking about the game. So it's not really multitasking, it's just another piece of the single task they're involved in and focusing on.
Obscure? It's on my short list of some of the best sci-fi ever written. The short story won the Hugo, the novel won the Nebula, and the movie Charly won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and received a fistful of other nominations. What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to mention it.
So in your universe, 1.0 means as flawless as possible (AFAP), whereas for most everyone else, it clearly means the first public version - the First Release. I suppose then, in your universe, most everythning is still in beta.
So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name.
Actually, "Risk" is a trademark, so he couldn't use that name. That's what got him in trouble - if he'd called it by any other name, and made sure to use his own description of the rules and mechanics, and his own artwork, he wouldn't be in trouble right now.
All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick.
Lawyers in general make me sick... but they didn't really have a choice in this instance. Trademark is a "defend it or lose it" proposition.
Just because the *AA's haven't gone after people time-shifting "their own stuff" doesn't mean they won't. When it is in their interest, they will.
Maybe so - if they do, I'll complain about it.
My point isn't that Sony is some kind of "people's champion". My point is that complaints that assume motivations we can only guess at, or about actions that Sony et al may take at some future point, or that are completely at odds with the how the law is currently written, are all counter-productive. They paint us, as a group, as people who are ill-informed and paranoid.
If we want to bring about real change in how the *AAs do business, in copyright law, or both, we need to keep our arguments fact-based and logical. That means basing them on actions that have in fact been taken. That means understanding what the law currently says, and how that's different than what we believe it should say. It means having a goal that's a lot more coherent than just "sticking it to the man." It means getting organized and staying on-message.
Frankly, I don't see any of this happening soon - particularly that last one. Organizing geeks is like herding cats.
Sony did defend the VCR, but at the time they were not a member of the MPAA or the RIAA.
They're a member now though, right? But I can go to Wal-mart right now (in theory... in practice I'm not going anywhere near Wal-Mart until at least Dec. 28th), and buy a 50-pack of Sony branded CDRs or DVD+/-Rs. No DRM, rootkit, or other such nonsense, just blank discs. If the high-level Sony management were trying to eliminate all copying, they wouldn't allow the blank media division to sell such products.
And, while I can't find a citation of the *AAs attacking someone for time shifting, they have taken action against users who shared content they owned.
Owning a CD is not the same as owning the right to make copies and distribute them to strangers.
There was just recently a case of the RIAA suing a grandfather whose granddaughter had used P2P networks to share music that she owned (ie, she downloaded CDs that she also owned).
That isn't what he got sued for. That's media-shifting, and is generally agreed upon as falling under "fair use".
Yes, the software also re-shared those CDs, but it isn't entirely black and white.
That is what he got sued for - distribution of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission. He didn't own or license the copyright to the CD, and he made copies of it available for J. Random Websurfer to download. What's not black and white about that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for changing the current copyright law; I believe the terms are far too long, for one thing. But let's be realistic. People keep going on about "fair use rights" when "fair use" is not a right - it's a defense you can cite if you're sued for infringement. Others keep mumbling some nonsense about "sharing with friends", when clearly the "shared" files weren't limited to a few friends, they were available for anonymous downloading by anyone with internet access. If you want real change, and I do, then arguments like that are counter-productive.
They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them.
Likewise, there are a lot of folks on the other side of the fence, who can't get over the idea that purchasing a CD does not give them the right to distribute copies of that CD to a million of their closest friends.
This is why they call people "pirates" when they do what they want with their own stuff.
Pop quiz: Who went to the Supreme Court to defend the idea that a manufacturer of a device that can be used for piracy is not liable for the actions of end users who abuse it for such activity, so long as the device has "substantial non-infringing uses"? Answer: Sony, a member of both the RIAA and MPAA. Who, in the same case, helped establish the precedent that time-shifting is legal under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law? Again, Sony did.
The *AA's have not, to the best of my knowledge, taken any sort of action against someone who was simply time- or media-shifting "their own stuff." In fact, as shown above, at least one member of these cartels has gone to a lot of trouble to defend your right to do just that.
They have, on the other hand, filed many lawsuits where the target of the lawsuit was allegedly distributing copies of "stuff" without having obtained a legal license to do so. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
I dislike the media monopoly as much as anyone - in fact, I'd read and been alarmed by Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly" book before most of the people here had even heard of the RIAA or MPAA. But let's be realistic - straw-man arguments and paranoid, ill-informed rantings are not helpful to the cause.
Re:I wouldn't buy a car with this system
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
Like requiring a breathalyzer on board each car, or a GPS system, this assumes too much in the way of wrongdoing
I'm not familiar with instances where a GPS-equipped tracking device was required, but in the case of the "monthly activation" and breathalyzer, I don't see where any assumption at all is being made. The breathalyzer is sometimes a requirement imposed as part of a sentence for someone who has been repeatedly convicted of DUI. Likewise, this device is something that's required of someone who has repeatedly defaulted on previous loans.
Of course, with my good credit and automatic payments, I'm not likely to get behind on payments, such that the system might cost more than it's worth.
If you have good credit, you wouldn't be shopping for a car at the sort of dealer who'd be installing them in the first place - so it wouldn't cost anything at all. It wouldn't be there.
Re:I wouldn't buy a car with this system
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
But most people I know who are handy with a wrench fall below the poverty line.
Basically, as a matter of necessity. When your car breaks down, and you can't afford to pay a mechanic, you have two choices: Fix it yourself, or walk.
iTunes has a lot more attack surface than than just file sharing via Bonjour.
Referring to "file sharing via Bonjour" makes as much sense as saying "file sharing via DNS". Bonjour/Rendezvous/ZeroConf is not a file sharing technology. It's multicast DNS. It's used to advertise the availability of a service - any service - to other hosts. Apple includes an Apache module, for instance, that uses Bonjour to advertise the presence of an HTTP server, and Safari uses Bonjour to look for them. But Bonjour's role in the process ends there; when Safari connects to a web server, it's using bog-standard HTTP, regardless of whether it found that server via Bonjour, DNS, or is using the "raw" IP address.
How many times does this bit of misinformation need to be corrected, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking along the same lines. Well, almost the same lines. I was thinking it'd be great fun to creep out the fundies. A bar code tattoo on the forehead or right hand would be better though - especially if it was a real UPC code that would show up as "666" if you scanned it at checkout.
Back when QuickTime for Windows was first introduced, Apple found that it was less effort to port the subset of the Mac Toolbox that QT depends on, than it would be to port QT to the Win32 API. That "subset" was so large that they had to actively discourage developers from using it as a porting tool to get their non-QT apps running on Windows.
Fast-forward some years. When Apple needed an updated and portable version of the classic Toolbox, they started with the portable Toolbox subset that they'd already ported to Windows to support QT.
More importantly, if they could carry over their non-UI logic with just a recompile via some sort of Carbon-style XCode project mechanism (that would import, say, VC and VC++ projects) and then redo the UI via the Interface Builder (but be able to access NIB data via Win32 widget calls) then the barrier to porting to OS X would pretty much go away.
You can do most of that right now, if your model classes (assuming MVC design) are in C++. Just use controllers written in Objective-C++ to talk to your C++ models and Objective-C views. The only thing missing from what you're describing is importing VC projects, but that's just an inconvenience, not a show-stopper - it's not exactly rocket surgery to create a new project and add your model files to it.
You guys have inspired me to change my own .sig... ;-)
the most interesting thefts were those of people who would attempt to steal full trailers full of computers. They almost always failed.
;-)
Amost always??? Details, please...
Half the fun of driving a powerful performance car, is pushing it to the limits...
This system doesn't change that. The car still has limits, they're just further out.
Besides, the customer tracking is completely unacceptable.
Start a card-swapping club at work or with a few friends. Every week, all of you throw your cards into a hat and draw them at random. You won't get targeted coupons that way, though, because "your" buying history is pretty much gibberish after a while.
For the father of the seven-year-old who wants experiments to do at home - try watching Zoom, on PBS. It's all about doing experiments and other activities at home, documenting the results, and sending them to the web site to compare with other kids' results. Basically, it's teaching the foundations of the scientific method. (Full Disclosure - I was lead developer for the Zoom web site for two years.)
... they're just cast into void*
When any number prefixed with a 0 (zero), without a decimal place, such as 0034, 04 or 02, the zero doesn't hold any meaning
It does if you're a programmer. It means the number is octal (base 8), just like a "0x" prefix means hexadecimal (base 16). Not that it matters for 2, which is the same in decimal, octal, or hex...
Example of multitasking in games. I have a Healer in the Midgard realm in Dark Age of Camelot. In a group, I might have to be monitoring the health and situation of up to 7 other people, prioritize their healing needs, pick what healing spells to use on them, and heal them. Meanwhile, if any extra monsters show up, I have to mesmerize them if the rest of the group is not ready to immediately deal with them. I've also got a spell that slows monster attack speed for 20 seconds. I need to be using that and renewing it on monsters that are taking a long time to kill. I've got a limited amount of power for all this, so I have to keep close watch on my power level.
That's not the same kind of multitasking. Everything you mentioned is one aspect of the larger task of "playing the game" - a thread, as it were, not a full task. Switching from one thread to another isn't a change in context, because they're all closely related to one another. Driving has many such threads as well - monitoring the gauges, the road ahead, the mirrors, etc.
The kind of multitasking that causes problems is when it's two or more entirely unrelated tasks.
I know a lot of gamers who multitask incredibly poorly when playing games. There's a "zone" they get into, where distractions just don't get through - telephone, household pets, noise outside, a bomb in the next room, etc., none of it gets noticed.
Some folks might point out that a lot of modern games have in-game voice chat, but there's a key difference there - the players are generally talking about the game. So it's not really multitasking, it's just another piece of the single task they're involved in and focusing on.
That's Mister Algernon to you, bub.
Wow. Does this mean the thread is over before it's even started???
Obscure? It's on my short list of some of the best sci-fi ever written. The short story won the Hugo, the novel won the Nebula, and the movie Charly won an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and received a fistful of other nominations. What surprises me is that it took so long for someone to mention it.
So in your universe, 1.0 means as flawless as possible (AFAP), whereas for most everyone else, it clearly means the first public version - the First Release. I suppose then, in your universe, most everythning is still in beta.
Obviously then, he must work at Google.
how has Lux escaped the wrath of hasbro?
Easy: They named their game "Lux", instead of using the trademarked name "Risk".
So make your Risk game, your Camen Sandiego game, yur Sim City game - you can even use the same name.
Actually, "Risk" is a trademark, so he couldn't use that name. That's what got him in trouble - if he'd called it by any other name, and made sure to use his own description of the rules and mechanics, and his own artwork, he wouldn't be in trouble right now.
All these attempted smack-downs by lawyers who should know better make me sick.
Lawyers in general make me sick... but they didn't really have a choice in this instance. Trademark is a "defend it or lose it" proposition.
Just because the *AA's haven't gone after people time-shifting "their own stuff" doesn't mean they won't. When it is in their interest, they will.
Maybe so - if they do, I'll complain about it.
My point isn't that Sony is some kind of "people's champion". My point is that complaints that assume motivations we can only guess at, or about actions that Sony et al may take at some future point, or that are completely at odds with the how the law is currently written, are all counter-productive. They paint us, as a group, as people who are ill-informed and paranoid.
If we want to bring about real change in how the *AAs do business, in copyright law, or both, we need to keep our arguments fact-based and logical. That means basing them on actions that have in fact been taken. That means understanding what the law currently says, and how that's different than what we believe it should say. It means having a goal that's a lot more coherent than just "sticking it to the man." It means getting organized and staying on-message.
Frankly, I don't see any of this happening soon - particularly that last one. Organizing geeks is like herding cats.
Sony did defend the VCR, but at the time they were not a member of the MPAA or the RIAA.
They're a member now though, right? But I can go to Wal-mart right now (in theory... in practice I'm not going anywhere near Wal-Mart until at least Dec. 28th), and buy a 50-pack of Sony branded CDRs or DVD+/-Rs. No DRM, rootkit, or other such nonsense, just blank discs. If the high-level Sony management were trying to eliminate all copying, they wouldn't allow the blank media division to sell such products.
And, while I can't find a citation of the *AAs attacking someone for time shifting, they have taken action against users who shared content they owned.
Owning a CD is not the same as owning the right to make copies and distribute them to strangers.
There was just recently a case of the RIAA suing a grandfather whose granddaughter had used P2P networks to share music that she owned (ie, she downloaded CDs that she also owned).
That isn't what he got sued for. That's media-shifting, and is generally agreed upon as falling under "fair use".
Yes, the software also re-shared those CDs, but it isn't entirely black and white.
That is what he got sued for - distribution of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission. He didn't own or license the copyright to the CD, and he made copies of it available for J. Random Websurfer to download. What's not black and white about that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for changing the current copyright law; I believe the terms are far too long, for one thing. But let's be realistic. People keep going on about "fair use rights" when "fair use" is not a right - it's a defense you can cite if you're sued for infringement. Others keep mumbling some nonsense about "sharing with friends", when clearly the "shared" files weren't limited to a few friends, they were available for anonymous downloading by anyone with internet access. If you want real change, and I do, then arguments like that are counter-productive.
They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them.
Likewise, there are a lot of folks on the other side of the fence, who can't get over the idea that purchasing a CD does not give them the right to distribute copies of that CD to a million of their closest friends.
This is why they call people "pirates" when they do what they want with their own stuff.
Pop quiz: Who went to the Supreme Court to defend the idea that a manufacturer of a device that can be used for piracy is not liable for the actions of end users who abuse it for such activity, so long as the device has "substantial non-infringing uses"? Answer: Sony, a member of both the RIAA and MPAA. Who, in the same case, helped establish the precedent that time-shifting is legal under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law? Again, Sony did.
The *AA's have not, to the best of my knowledge, taken any sort of action against someone who was simply time- or media-shifting "their own stuff." In fact, as shown above, at least one member of these cartels has gone to a lot of trouble to defend your right to do just that.
They have, on the other hand, filed many lawsuits where the target of the lawsuit was allegedly distributing copies of "stuff" without having obtained a legal license to do so. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
I dislike the media monopoly as much as anyone - in fact, I'd read and been alarmed by Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly" book before most of the people here had even heard of the RIAA or MPAA. But let's be realistic - straw-man arguments and paranoid, ill-informed rantings are not helpful to the cause.
Like requiring a breathalyzer on board each car, or a GPS system, this assumes too much in the way of wrongdoing
I'm not familiar with instances where a GPS-equipped tracking device was required, but in the case of the "monthly activation" and breathalyzer, I don't see where any assumption at all is being made. The breathalyzer is sometimes a requirement imposed as part of a sentence for someone who has been repeatedly convicted of DUI. Likewise, this device is something that's required of someone who has repeatedly defaulted on previous loans.
Of course, with my good credit and automatic payments, I'm not likely to get behind on payments, such that the system might cost more than it's worth.
If you have good credit, you wouldn't be shopping for a car at the sort of dealer who'd be installing them in the first place - so it wouldn't cost anything at all. It wouldn't be there.
But most people I know who are handy with a wrench fall below the poverty line.
Basically, as a matter of necessity. When your car breaks down, and you can't afford to pay a mechanic, you have two choices: Fix it yourself, or walk.
sitting on the porch yelling and shaking a cane?
In Korea, only old people...
iTunes has a lot more attack surface than than just file sharing via Bonjour.
Referring to "file sharing via Bonjour" makes as much sense as saying "file sharing via DNS". Bonjour/Rendezvous/ZeroConf is not a file sharing technology. It's multicast DNS. It's used to advertise the availability of a service - any service - to other hosts. Apple includes an Apache module, for instance, that uses Bonjour to advertise the presence of an HTTP server, and Safari uses Bonjour to look for them. But Bonjour's role in the process ends there; when Safari connects to a web server, it's using bog-standard HTTP, regardless of whether it found that server via Bonjour, DNS, or is using the "raw" IP address.
How many times does this bit of misinformation need to be corrected, anyway?