Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
You really think a "spark of inspiration" is all it takes to go from "the time is right for this invention" to "the invention is on the shelf and people are buying it"? You don't seem to understand how experimentation and R&D work, or how much resources they involve for a nontrivial idea.
There are at least 3 major terms from the show that are misspelled here, two of them character names. Aren't editors supposed to, you know, edit these articles? If you so much as type "battlestar galactica" into Google you could find the correct spellings for all of these in under ten seconds.
What you're describing is called the "money multiplier" and is a well-understood economic principle. It was created to keep track of the fact that money is spent repeatedly while it's in the system, but for brand-new goods and services each time. This happens with plain old cash as well as bank loans, since it gets spent over and over again before it's reclaimed and destroyed by the Federal Reserve.
You already have a far more powerful weapon that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to not break any laws, in the opinion of anyone anywhere: DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
(Of course, that means doing without the latest movies, music, and games, but your principles are more important than that, right?)
It would still be fairly easy to demonstrate *intent* to facilitate copyright infringement, skip over all the technical details of exactly how many mouse clicks it takes to get to the actual warez, and still get the site shut down. This is the line of reasoning used in the Grokster case.
Except that in Apple's case the cabinet is made of chicken wire- you can convert the songs to Redbook audio with a minimum of effort and the cost of a blank CD.
I was thinking more of the monster media server he mentioned, but now that you bring it up, modding an Xbox isn't exactly child's play, and pre-modded boxes don't line the shelves at Best Buy and such.
And the whole shebang cost how much and took how long to set up? The answers for most people are "too much" and "too long", and that's not even touching the technical knowledge it takes.
I'll grant that you may be able to beat the iPod head-to-head, but you can't beat the iPod AND iTunes AND the ITMS head-to-head all at once. Even Apple couldn't pull that off- the three products were introduced separately over the course of several years (iTunes in 2000, the iPod in 2001, and the store in . But in doing so, Apple claimed and locked down that entire sector of the market, so the opportunity for another company to duplicate that process is gone.
Well, imagine how good the game would look with the following changes:
Instead of being designed to run anywhere between 15 and 60 frames per second, put out a solid 60fps at all times.
Instead of having to trick around with "superlow" backgrounds and composited rendering, have a greater normal draw distance for fewer artifacts and a less complex engine. Not only can the graphics card keep up with this now, you can hold far more data in RAM and stream off a faster drive.
Instead of manually placing scene boxes and using a hacked bloom effect, do true HDR rendering.
Increase detail of shadow objects, fur shader hack, etc without noticeably performance cost.
This conflicts with the #1 rule of game networking: Keep the logic on the server wherever possible. If the client is given control over some part of the game state someone will figure out how to intercept and tweak it, quickly followed by a plague of cheaters and a bad reputation.
Channels are one-dimensional. You can deliver the same functionality (and much more) with a tree- like the iPod music browsing interface. You can already sort of do this on digital cable boxes with the sort by title or theme buttons, but when there's a real computer driving it there's no reason to stick with an organization that was first designed for a single mechanical dial.
If precision is more important than performance you shouldn't be using fixed length types in the first place. Use a bignum representation whose precision is limited only by RAM.
Of course it's approved- without approval it wouldn't have launched in the first place. But that doesn't mean the RIAA got everything they put on the table. The ITMS launched with the most lax DRM of any store that existed at the time (a built-in, officially approved analog hole? No restrictions on Finder or Explorer handling of the downloaded songs?) due to Apple's arguments- the RIAA was convinced to approve this altered plan as a compromise.
If the RIAA truly had the dictatorial power you ascribe to them, pay-to-play would have been here years ago.
At the time it was THE best Mac game, hands down, and even today it still has a strong claim to that position. It's the reason Mac users seemed distinctly unimpressed by Doom.
They said no one would notice the brown dots they add to movies to combat camming either, but I see them in theaters all the time without really trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this a disincentive to make Mac-native software? Why develop for a tiny fraction of the market when you can develop for the other 95% and wait for the remaining holdouts to install Windows on their Macs?
You really think a "spark of inspiration" is all it takes to go from "the time is right for this invention" to "the invention is on the shelf and people are buying it"? You don't seem to understand how experimentation and R&D work, or how much resources they involve for a nontrivial idea.
There are at least 3 major terms from the show that are misspelled here, two of them character names. Aren't editors supposed to, you know, edit these articles? If you so much as type "battlestar galactica" into Google you could find the correct spellings for all of these in under ten seconds.
What you're describing is called the "money multiplier" and is a well-understood economic principle. It was created to keep track of the fact that money is spent repeatedly while it's in the system, but for brand-new goods and services each time. This happens with plain old cash as well as bank loans, since it gets spent over and over again before it's reclaimed and destroyed by the Federal Reserve.
You already have a far more powerful weapon that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to not break any laws, in the opinion of anyone anywhere: DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
(Of course, that means doing without the latest movies, music, and games, but your principles are more important than that, right?)
It would still be fairly easy to demonstrate *intent* to facilitate copyright infringement, skip over all the technical details of exactly how many mouse clicks it takes to get to the actual warez, and still get the site shut down. This is the line of reasoning used in the Grokster case.
So, what's the difference between this and the cable modem I'm using right now, other than the fact that it has a higher bandwidth cap?
Except that in Apple's case the cabinet is made of chicken wire- you can convert the songs to Redbook audio with a minimum of effort and the cost of a blank CD.
I was thinking more of the monster media server he mentioned, but now that you bring it up, modding an Xbox isn't exactly child's play, and pre-modded boxes don't line the shelves at Best Buy and such.
And the whole shebang cost how much and took how long to set up? The answers for most people are "too much" and "too long", and that's not even touching the technical knowledge it takes.
I'll grant that you may be able to beat the iPod head-to-head, but you can't beat the iPod AND iTunes AND the ITMS head-to-head all at once. Even Apple couldn't pull that off- the three products were introduced separately over the course of several years (iTunes in 2000, the iPod in 2001, and the store in . But in doing so, Apple claimed and locked down that entire sector of the market, so the opportunity for another company to duplicate that process is gone.
This conflicts with the #1 rule of game networking: Keep the logic on the server wherever possible. If the client is given control over some part of the game state someone will figure out how to intercept and tweak it, quickly followed by a plague of cheaters and a bad reputation.
PowerPlay wasn't so much "fake" as "yet another futile attempt to introduce Internet-wide QOS".
Channels are one-dimensional. You can deliver the same functionality (and much more) with a tree- like the iPod music browsing interface. You can already sort of do this on digital cable boxes with the sort by title or theme buttons, but when there's a real computer driving it there's no reason to stick with an organization that was first designed for a single mechanical dial.
* Do not taunt PS3.
If precision is more important than performance you shouldn't be using fixed length types in the first place. Use a bignum representation whose precision is limited only by RAM.
Of course it's approved- without approval it wouldn't have launched in the first place. But that doesn't mean the RIAA got everything they put on the table. The ITMS launched with the most lax DRM of any store that existed at the time (a built-in, officially approved analog hole? No restrictions on Finder or Explorer handling of the downloaded songs?) due to Apple's arguments- the RIAA was convinced to approve this altered plan as a compromise.
If the RIAA truly had the dictatorial power you ascribe to them, pay-to-play would have been here years ago.
Out of curiosity, would an AAC -> AIFF -> AAC conversion reduce quality? Or would the second AAC sound exactly like the first?
Actually, it will STILL be available on iTunes- just through the pay Audible section, not the free podcast section.
Orwell's point was the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which has been disproven.
Wake me up when I can lease an RX-78.
So I guess the kids are in the clear if they stick to newsgroups, filebots, and other asymmetric methods? :D
At the time it was THE best Mac game, hands down, and even today it still has a strong claim to that position. It's the reason Mac users seemed distinctly unimpressed by Doom.
They said no one would notice the brown dots they add to movies to combat camming either, but I see them in theaters all the time without really trying.