Not only that, but they are a making a controller that is open in hardware spec, so if someone comes up with a better/different setup it will be trivial to make one that won't require "official blessing" from Valve to work.
They're not forcing it. Question 2 of the FAQ specifically states that they are not forcing it on you and you can keep the kb and mouse forever more.
What they're offering is an alternative, optional, additional, supplemental, controller for those who would prefer to use something other than a keyboard and mouse to game from the couch. If you want to use a keyboard and mouse, plug those into the Steam Machine (or your PC running steam hooked up to your TV) and carry on as normal.
That really depends how far they take the "openness" - they seem to be hammering that message, so I'm going to assume it's at the very least going to be really easy to muck about with for those who want to.
This is Valve's broadside attack on Windows 8, and they seem to have gone all out for it.
If they can pull it off, it's going to be for console gaming what Android is to smartphones.
They addressed that in question 2 of the FAQ - if you are happy with kb and mouse then you can continue to be so. The controller is supplemental, and their attempt to address the problem of PC gaming from the couch for those who don't want to sit at a desk or use a keyboard and mouse on their lap.
Why would a product name need to be copyright-able?
You're thinking of trade marking, which does not require a unique name, just that you be unique in your area of sales/use (eg, Microsoft Windows/actual windows, Apple Computer/Apple Records, Ford Focus/the verb 'to focus', Steam (the gaming platform)/steam (gaseous water).
Sounds like this is round one in the future direction of iOS for Apple.
Right now it doesn't matter for the 5S in terms of being able to address large amounts of RAM, but the switch to the new 64 bit architecture did bring in more registers (x2) and some other tweaks that will help performance.
This is likely a heads up for developers that other iOS devices with larger amounts of RAM and a more real use for 64 bit may be coming (say, bigger iPads etc), or that they're thinking about adding a 64 bit A7 chip to the Macbook Pro (alongside the x86 - I don't think for a minute they'll be dropping intel CPUs on the desktop soon) to allow for 'low power on the move for more battery life' options or something.
No idea, but you can be sure they've got some sort of a plan for it, otherwise why make a big deal of it at this point? This release event was as much about letting developers know what they have to work with and what to expect as it was about user features - they covered fluffy stuff about as much as they did spec stuff. They just gave out information to different demographics at the same event, and let the various media people sort out what to report on.
FWIW, Phil Schiller's direct quote mentions that it is stored *in* the A7 - after talking about how the new SoC is a custom design by Apple (and/or their chip designer company associates). All of Apple's A series ARM chips have been custom designs, to a greater or lesser extent. There are a couple of modules out there for ARM chips that include custom, secure key storage on the SoC itself.
How is it stupid? Where previously you only had a USB port, now you could have a USB port and an SD port, with the minor inconvenience of only being able to use it as an either/or.
The alternative is no SD slot (which is the choice they made before) in the case of smaller devices.
Also, this hasn't even been included in any product yet, so declaring it as "fail" because it's an either/or connector without actually seeing it in use is just being contrary for the sake of it because it's something Apple came up with. What is your alternative? That they just stick with a normal USB port? (Genuinely curious).
Ah, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Got it.
Remember that they save space on the board inside the device too, oh and they probably measure in SI units.
Given the description of the port, it's likely that it would simply replace the SD port slot on the side of a future Macbook, or replace one of the USB ports (there is more than one).
But, no, keep up with the hate. Far more productive.
If terrestrial alpha and beta are like being hit with a foam tennis ball, then cosmic rays out in space beyond the Earth's magnetosphere are like being hit with a golf ball fired out of a high powered cannon.
And adding to that, you have to slow it down again at the other end, or any amount of course correction will require you to expend energy to move that unnecessarily large mass along a new vector.
That's what this is. A USB port (that accepts normal USB cables) with the ability to also accept SD cards to save space on the device so you don't need two ports.
That's not what they are doing here. Those sort of "one port, many protocols" thing has been around for a while. What this is, is a design for a port that can accept a standard USB cable or a standard SD card (not both at the same time) into one port, depending which one you needed to use at the time.
The apple bashing "lolz need a special connector" snark in the summary is nonsense, as usual, but apple bashers typically have their reading comprehension obscured by the fog of hatred. It's funny, because they're often pretty decent with technology and basic reading ability otherwise.
Well, the Galaxy S3 couldn't be prior art, since it was released after the patent was filed, but I see your point.
This port looks to be a hybrid physical port, however, rather than simply one that speaks different protocols (they already have those), so you'd be able to plug a normal USB cable into it, or a normal HDMI cable.
Again, not sure that's a totally new idea (card readers than can take more than one type of card, perhaps?), but it's a little different to what the S3 does with its microUSB port.
So, the FSF's lawyers couldn't argue the opposite point with the GPLv2, you know, legally? Or is it only Tivo's lawyers that can "bend the rules to mean something else".
If the GPLv2 was written in such a way that what Tivo was doing was in breach of the licence, why the need to change it?
Ah, the "retarded judge" argument. Right, I've seen this one before. How does it go again? Oh, right, any judge who makes a decision you disagree with is "retarded", I remember!
Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.
But that's the point - it is not violating the licence. You may not like it, but it;s not in violation of the licence. This is the "Tivo problem" all over again. What Tivo were doing wasn't against the GPLv2, so something was done to shut all that down, and we've ended up with GPLv3.
I'm sure there will be more "but that's not what we meant! you're using it wrong!" wailing from the sidelines and we'll have a GPLv4 that will put a stop to it.
He is a single discredited scientist. If it makes me a "mean spirited shit" (please note, I have not been impolite to you at all), then so be it.
He claimed that volcanos were responsible for more CO2 than human sources, and claimed that submarine volcanos were not accounted for in the models. This has been proven inaccurate by several sources, including the USGS. (He was off by a factor of 130 ish in the wrong direction as I recall).
I'm not "attacking" him - I'm pointing out that his arguments have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
Where is my "spit and venom and vitriol"? Please quote the section where that applies. I seems you with your casual "mean spirited shits" and "show me big guy" comments are the one projecting. I have called him a discredited scientist in the field of climate change (note, I have not attacked his character or his other work), nor have I attacked the character of the radio talk show host (other than making a slight jab at his lack of scientific qualification, yet seeming-expert-level climate science credentials).
Then you claim that I'm "in on the conspiracy" by questioning the validity of my argument based on where my funding comes from. Not that it matters at all, but my funding is not in the area of climate science. I'm not crazy enough to put my foot into that pool for exactly this reason. I don't have the patience to defend my work from a legion of right wing radio talk show hosts who think I'm some sort of evil, lying scum because I say something they disagree wit. I *am* however, an actual professional scientist.
Also, "liberal attack dog tactics". Amusing. I think you're getting the two sides of that particular coin mixed up. If only the liberal media and high profile personalities would have a little bit more bite, it might shut some of that right wing bile up.
Again, I'd be very interested for you to quote any part of my comments where I could be perceived as a "liberal attack dog".
You cannot pull the "you won;t debate faithfully" argument when you're attempting to put a talk show host and a frequently-proven-wrong scientist up as the counter argument to the bulk of the science community and peer reviewed literature that has been more deeply scrutinised than almost any other research.
It simply will not hold.
There's a difference between talking about the issues in an open and honest forum (and that's what science is all about) and then there's what talk show radio hosts are doing. They are not interested in debating the science, they have made up their minds and will dig under any rock to find something to support them, but that does not mean we have to give them airtime and debate them on their opinions. This sort of thing has been done to death and it goes nowhere.
You posted a link to a talk show host with a biased and poorly conducted interview with a single discredited contrarian scientist and you called the talk show host "one of the wisest men on the planet" and you call *me* the one who's unwilling to talk about the issues.
The climate debate has been settled. It simply isn't controversial. It's only controversial because certain big money interests have paid to make it so because it's going to threaten cheap profits and easy living.
You throw a lot of casual "scientists are all just doing this for funding" allegations, you you seem to think any contrary view (via a scientist or a clearly highly-scientifically-expert talk radio host) is beyond reproach. What about their sources of funding?
If you think this is all a big con to keep grad student funding rolling in then you clearly haven't spent any time in the professional science field. Sorry to pull rank, but the allegation is simply laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Valve, who have been working on this for a year, haven't ever thought of that. Good catch.
My car has 5 seats and a big trunk, why would I want a pick up truck with only 2 seats and nowhere for my other passengers?
Why would I want to drive around in one of those?
Not only that, but they are a making a controller that is open in hardware spec, so if someone comes up with a better/different setup it will be trivial to make one that won't require "official blessing" from Valve to work.
"FA" wasn't "FR" by you it seems.
The beta units have 4 buttons where the touchscreen is, and are wired with a USB cable.
This information is clearly and obviously stated in the article text. It in no way contradicts itself.
You already can.
PS3/Xbox 360 etc controllers already work with Steam.
They're not forcing it. Question 2 of the FAQ specifically states that they are not forcing it on you and you can keep the kb and mouse forever more.
What they're offering is an alternative, optional, additional, supplemental, controller for those who would prefer to use something other than a keyboard and mouse to game from the couch. If you want to use a keyboard and mouse, plug those into the Steam Machine (or your PC running steam hooked up to your TV) and carry on as normal.
That really depends how far they take the "openness" - they seem to be hammering that message, so I'm going to assume it's at the very least going to be really easy to muck about with for those who want to.
This is Valve's broadside attack on Windows 8, and they seem to have gone all out for it.
If they can pull it off, it's going to be for console gaming what Android is to smartphones.
They addressed that in question 2 of the FAQ - if you are happy with kb and mouse then you can continue to be so. The controller is supplemental, and their attempt to address the problem of PC gaming from the couch for those who don't want to sit at a desk or use a keyboard and mouse on their lap.
Why would a product name need to be copyright-able?
You're thinking of trade marking, which does not require a unique name, just that you be unique in your area of sales/use (eg, Microsoft Windows/actual windows, Apple Computer/Apple Records, Ford Focus/the verb 'to focus', Steam (the gaming platform)/steam (gaseous water).
Sounds like this is round one in the future direction of iOS for Apple.
Right now it doesn't matter for the 5S in terms of being able to address large amounts of RAM, but the switch to the new 64 bit architecture did bring in more registers (x2) and some other tweaks that will help performance.
This is likely a heads up for developers that other iOS devices with larger amounts of RAM and a more real use for 64 bit may be coming (say, bigger iPads etc), or that they're thinking about adding a 64 bit A7 chip to the Macbook Pro (alongside the x86 - I don't think for a minute they'll be dropping intel CPUs on the desktop soon) to allow for 'low power on the move for more battery life' options or something.
No idea, but you can be sure they've got some sort of a plan for it, otherwise why make a big deal of it at this point? This release event was as much about letting developers know what they have to work with and what to expect as it was about user features - they covered fluffy stuff about as much as they did spec stuff. They just gave out information to different demographics at the same event, and let the various media people sort out what to report on.
Probably not, but they might make you anyway (and then it's up to you to argue about your legal rights if it ever comes up at a trial).
You could also pair it with a PIN code or password if you're concerned about such things.
FWIW, Phil Schiller's direct quote mentions that it is stored *in* the A7 - after talking about how the new SoC is a custom design by Apple (and/or their chip designer company associates). All of Apple's A series ARM chips have been custom designs, to a greater or lesser extent. There are a couple of modules out there for ARM chips that include custom, secure key storage on the SoC itself.
How is it stupid? Where previously you only had a USB port, now you could have a USB port and an SD port, with the minor inconvenience of only being able to use it as an either/or.
The alternative is no SD slot (which is the choice they made before) in the case of smaller devices.
Also, this hasn't even been included in any product yet, so declaring it as "fail" because it's an either/or connector without actually seeing it in use is just being contrary for the sake of it because it's something Apple came up with. What is your alternative? That they just stick with a normal USB port? (Genuinely curious).
Ah, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Got it.
Remember that they save space on the board inside the device too, oh and they probably measure in SI units.
Given the description of the port, it's likely that it would simply replace the SD port slot on the side of a future Macbook, or replace one of the USB ports (there is more than one).
But, no, keep up with the hate. Far more productive.
If terrestrial alpha and beta are like being hit with a foam tennis ball, then cosmic rays out in space beyond the Earth's magnetosphere are like being hit with a golf ball fired out of a high powered cannon.
And adding to that, you have to slow it down again at the other end, or any amount of course correction will require you to expend energy to move that unnecessarily large mass along a new vector.
That's what this is. A USB port (that accepts normal USB cables) with the ability to also accept SD cards to save space on the device so you don't need two ports.
That's not what they are doing here. Those sort of "one port, many protocols" thing has been around for a while. What this is, is a design for a port that can accept a standard USB cable or a standard SD card (not both at the same time) into one port, depending which one you needed to use at the time.
The apple bashing "lolz need a special connector" snark in the summary is nonsense, as usual, but apple bashers typically have their reading comprehension obscured by the fog of hatred. It's funny, because they're often pretty decent with technology and basic reading ability otherwise.
I see you didn't read the article.
As to why you don't buy garbage, that's between you and the product descriptions that you also must fail to read.
Well, the Galaxy S3 couldn't be prior art, since it was released after the patent was filed, but I see your point.
This port looks to be a hybrid physical port, however, rather than simply one that speaks different protocols (they already have those), so you'd be able to plug a normal USB cable into it, or a normal HDMI cable.
Again, not sure that's a totally new idea (card readers than can take more than one type of card, perhaps?), but it's a little different to what the S3 does with its microUSB port.
So, the FSF's lawyers couldn't argue the opposite point with the GPLv2, you know, legally? Or is it only Tivo's lawyers that can "bend the rules to mean something else".
If the GPLv2 was written in such a way that what Tivo was doing was in breach of the licence, why the need to change it?
Ah, the "retarded judge" argument. Right, I've seen this one before. How does it go again? Oh, right, any judge who makes a decision you disagree with is "retarded", I remember!
Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.
But that's the point - it is not violating the licence. You may not like it, but it;s not in violation of the licence. This is the "Tivo problem" all over again. What Tivo were doing wasn't against the GPLv2, so something was done to shut all that down, and we've ended up with GPLv3.
I'm sure there will be more "but that's not what we meant! you're using it wrong!" wailing from the sidelines and we'll have a GPLv4 that will put a stop to it.
He is a single discredited scientist. If it makes me a "mean spirited shit" (please note, I have not been impolite to you at all), then so be it.
He claimed that volcanos were responsible for more CO2 than human sources, and claimed that submarine volcanos were not accounted for in the models. This has been proven inaccurate by several sources, including the USGS. (He was off by a factor of 130 ish in the wrong direction as I recall).
I'm not "attacking" him - I'm pointing out that his arguments have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
Where is my "spit and venom and vitriol"? Please quote the section where that applies. I seems you with your casual "mean spirited shits" and "show me big guy" comments are the one projecting. I have called him a discredited scientist in the field of climate change (note, I have not attacked his character or his other work), nor have I attacked the character of the radio talk show host (other than making a slight jab at his lack of scientific qualification, yet seeming-expert-level climate science credentials).
Then you claim that I'm "in on the conspiracy" by questioning the validity of my argument based on where my funding comes from. Not that it matters at all, but my funding is not in the area of climate science. I'm not crazy enough to put my foot into that pool for exactly this reason. I don't have the patience to defend my work from a legion of right wing radio talk show hosts who think I'm some sort of evil, lying scum because I say something they disagree wit. I *am* however, an actual professional scientist.
Also, "liberal attack dog tactics". Amusing. I think you're getting the two sides of that particular coin mixed up. If only the liberal media and high profile personalities would have a little bit more bite, it might shut some of that right wing bile up.
Again, I'd be very interested for you to quote any part of my comments where I could be perceived as a "liberal attack dog".
predictions by the media 20 years ago
I think I found the source of your problem.
No, you can't pull that one.
You cannot pull the "you won;t debate faithfully" argument when you're attempting to put a talk show host and a frequently-proven-wrong scientist up as the counter argument to the bulk of the science community and peer reviewed literature that has been more deeply scrutinised than almost any other research.
It simply will not hold.
There's a difference between talking about the issues in an open and honest forum (and that's what science is all about) and then there's what talk show radio hosts are doing. They are not interested in debating the science, they have made up their minds and will dig under any rock to find something to support them, but that does not mean we have to give them airtime and debate them on their opinions. This sort of thing has been done to death and it goes nowhere.
You posted a link to a talk show host with a biased and poorly conducted interview with a single discredited contrarian scientist and you called the talk show host "one of the wisest men on the planet" and you call *me* the one who's unwilling to talk about the issues.
The climate debate has been settled. It simply isn't controversial. It's only controversial because certain big money interests have paid to make it so because it's going to threaten cheap profits and easy living.
You throw a lot of casual "scientists are all just doing this for funding" allegations, you you seem to think any contrary view (via a scientist or a clearly highly-scientifically-expert talk radio host) is beyond reproach. What about their sources of funding?
If you think this is all a big con to keep grad student funding rolling in then you clearly haven't spent any time in the professional science field. Sorry to pull rank, but the allegation is simply laughable.