"The graphics, which are much more advanced than you’d expect from Nintendo, left me pretty much in disbelief. They're on a level with Sony’s PSP, probably even a little better than that. But the eye-popping 3-D effect makes everything that much richer."
First of all, what did they expect? That it wouldn't improve? And what do they mean with in disbelief? The Gamecube was capable of better graphics than the PS2, sure the DS graphics is very poor but it's somewhat in line with the capabilities of the N64, the GBA is more equal to the SNES so it's not that weird and unreasonable that the 3DS would be in line with the Gamecube.
Sure neither of the DS or the Wii was a huge step forward in processing power, but Nintendo probably lacked the cash to both finance and risk a huge effort in hardware development. And they don't have the backing of a bigger company behind them, for Nintendo it's win or loss, not "ok this didn't do so well, oh well, maybe it gets better the next time."
Nintendo isn't incapable or uninterested in more capable consoles, they have always improved but their first focus must be to try and survive / make a profit.
Now regarding everything else:
The same Sony that ruthlessly killed Sega? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony didn't killed Sega, Sega killed Sega. They developed two different consoles as a similar time, of which one was worse than the other. The Saturn wasn't good enough (if I remember correctly, I may be wrong and it's not my opinion, just a read one.) and when the Dreamcast came out they had some other issues (financial I believe?)
The poor product failed, not that weird, just to bad it had to be Sega since it would had been great if they where still around. And I guess their situation was the same as Nintendos, they can't afford to fail with a product. Sony and Microsoft can.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't.
While I agree forcing developers to write 3D titles suck one do have to understand where Sony came from. Their console was capable of having such games and if they didn't delivered something new and better they would probably not have been able to catch as big piece of the market as they did.
As far as specs goes better specs are better, an I don't have a problem with it. I would had been happy if the PSP specs were in the DS, not frustrated.. And if the Wii where more capable that would had been a good thing to. However neither of the PS2 or the PS3 has been proven to be the most capable consoles of their time regardless of Sonys hype and marketing. So one could argue whatever they are specs only and game quality second or only focus on specs..
and really with the PS2 we saw the death of all 2d gaming
I agree that I like 2D graphics, maybe not for photo-realism but maybe even more for the cartoonistic and creative styles people use in creating them and make them look interesting. They don't have to be "true" 2D for that though. I think the Warcraft III graphics are excellent and it still looks rather flat and 2D even though it's rendered in 3D. I also like the look of paper mario and the new super mario bros Wii for instance where the later may have 3D elements? I don't know, haven't played it. And of course creative 3D styles such as World of Warcraft works just fine to.
I like "cute", failed attempts of rendering the world aren't necessary better.
Yeah, good only people from north Korea, China and Russia are bad and that everyone else in all occasions behave well. Most likely everyone from said countries are the same to.
Good your governments communism = bad, Islam = bad,.. = bad tactics work as intended. I guess there's more power to be had for them as long as you're all in fear and need them.
I don't know much about the history but from the little I read earlier I got more of an impression that it was convenient for everyone else to leave it broken up so China and Japan or whatever didn't had to fight over the area. The Koreans themselves where just Koreans? Wasn't they? Or where they very different when it came to political system / ideology already before that?
Bunch of good links? Though I assume Wikipedia may have enough.
We did not contact AT&T directly, but we made sure that someone else tipped them off and waited for them to patch until we gave anything to Gawker. This is as “nice guy” as it gets. We had no interest in direct dialogue with AT&T, but we waited nicely for them to get their house in order and get their hole plugged tight before exposing it.
So they didn't contact AT&T directly, probably to stay anonymous from any kind of investigations or such, but they still tipped of AT&T indirectly before the article and most likely did not spread the information further. Gawker got it for their article, AT&T got to close the leak and that's it.
I don't know what Ryan is, anyone of them? At AT&T? Someone who wrote an article? But in any case depending on who he is maybe they did not spread the data to plenty of others?
What do I know.
Still it was AT&T leaking the data, not the group. If you're frustrated blame and speak to AT&T.
They aren't arguing that the script may not be unauthorized access because it was automatic and that only the first attempt would be illegal because they did it in person.
They where rather arguing that visiting that page once and get an e-mail address may be something you just happen to do, but writing a script which fetches lots of e-mail address would be abusing the system / doing something you shouldn't do.
Personally I think "they should know they are not entitled to" is very weak juridical term/claim/charge/whatever. I can't see how visiting a web page which return data it's supposed to return (as in not trick it with malign data) could be a crime. If you don't want people to access the web page don't put it up for them to watch.
And yeah, if anything I think AT&T would become the ones in the hot seat for making it possible and leak the information in first place.
As of now I have no fucking clue. I'm betting a few thousand bath in Thailand would do it but maybe not them I'm old and desperate and don't care enough to actually do it.
I'm 30 and got three phone numbers of 17-18 year olds last friday when they went out of school though:D, buuut the one I decided to ask out even though I knew she said she had a bf thought it wouldn't be a good idea for the same reason.
Should had kept her while she was drunk instead:/
And no, she don't know I'm 13 years older, so even if the "boyfriend" wouldn't had been a problem we would eventually have had one long-term when she found out:D
(That step was easy though, new short synth-style haircut, shaved, moisturized, slightly drunk and then just walk to the park where all high-school graduates end up when the bars has closed (though there wasn't many of them and hence the one year younger ones.))
Yeah, I to wouldn't want to run my whole desktop on a smartphone... and not on an iPad either. Probably better to design an UI which work well on the smaller screen..
Oh well, Apple can look out any features, vendors and developers they want...... I still haven't or will ever get an iPhone so it will never affect me.
Now if only Android where open as a platform, phones and firmware and not only as an operating-system base for the phone manufacturers to claim theirs/restrict/fuck up:/
One can always hope Google will fix that once they got enough momentum and size.
Which if you're not allowed to see the web server should say so (or whatever the fuck it wants..) or if it shows you the content then obviously(!) you was allowed to see that content.
Can't understand how one can be prosecuted for that. Scanning for security flaws would be somewhat more obvious that you try to gain unauthorized access but I can't understand how that would be illegal either. I guess this is what happens then the judge/jury don't know anything about the things they are supposed to judge in.
No, stealing isn't ok. The sign didn't said "feel free to take any goods" did it?
The sign said OPEN!
You're free to go into a store which is open. If no-one is around you go around look, and if you find something you want to pick it up and head to the counter and wait for the cashier to return so you can pay. If you don't want to or don't have time to wait you go back with the item and leave the store.
It's not that hard really.
And I don't know whatever it's trespassing to go into an open area around here, somewhat weird if it was but peoples morals tell them they shouldn't. You do however have to leave private property if the owner tell you to. And if it's locked I'm quite confident you're not free to break in. I don't know how "obvious" the lock / restriction of access have to be, I assume a very low level of security is enough because really it's not that hard to get into a house if you want to regardless of whatever the door is locked or not. It's more of a way of saying "don't go in here."
Slashdot Mirror
First of all:
"The graphics, which are much more advanced than you’d expect from Nintendo, left me pretty much in disbelief. They're on a level with Sony’s PSP, probably even a little better than that. But the eye-popping 3-D effect makes everything that much richer."
First of all, what did they expect? That it wouldn't improve? And what do they mean with in disbelief? The Gamecube was capable of better graphics than the PS2, sure the DS graphics is very poor but it's somewhat in line with the capabilities of the N64, the GBA is more equal to the SNES so it's not that weird and unreasonable that the 3DS would be in line with the Gamecube.
Sure neither of the DS or the Wii was a huge step forward in processing power, but Nintendo probably lacked the cash to both finance and risk a huge effort in hardware development. And they don't have the backing of a bigger company behind them, for Nintendo it's win or loss, not "ok this didn't do so well, oh well, maybe it gets better the next time."
Nintendo isn't incapable or uninterested in more capable consoles, they have always improved but their first focus must be to try and survive / make a profit.
Now regarding everything else:
The same Sony that ruthlessly killed Sega? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony didn't killed Sega, Sega killed Sega. They developed two different consoles as a similar time, of which one was worse than the other. The Saturn wasn't good enough (if I remember correctly, I may be wrong and it's not my opinion, just a read one.) and when the Dreamcast came out they had some other issues (financial I believe?)
The poor product failed, not that weird, just to bad it had to be Sega since it would had been great if they where still around. And I guess their situation was the same as Nintendos, they can't afford to fail with a product. Sony and Microsoft can.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't.
While I agree forcing developers to write 3D titles suck one do have to understand where Sony came from. Their console was capable of having such games and if they didn't delivered something new and better they would probably not have been able to catch as big piece of the market as they did.
As far as specs goes better specs are better, an I don't have a problem with it. I would had been happy if the PSP specs were in the DS, not frustrated .. And if the Wii where more capable that would had been a good thing to. However neither of the PS2 or the PS3 has been proven to be the most capable consoles of their time regardless of Sonys hype and marketing. So one could argue whatever they are specs only and game quality second or only focus on specs ..
and really with the PS2 we saw the death of all 2d gaming
I agree that I like 2D graphics, maybe not for photo-realism but maybe even more for the cartoonistic and creative styles people use in creating them and make them look interesting. They don't have to be "true" 2D for that though. I think the Warcraft III graphics are excellent and it still looks rather flat and 2D even though it's rendered in 3D. I also like the look of paper mario and the new super mario bros Wii for instance where the later may have 3D elements? I don't know, haven't played it. And of course creative 3D styles such as World of Warcraft works just fine to.
I like "cute", failed attempts of rendering the world aren't necessary better.
It's rocket science.
Yeah, good only people from north Korea, China and Russia are bad and that everyone else in all occasions behave well. Most likely everyone from said countries are the same to.
Good your governments communism = bad, Islam = bad, .. = bad tactics work as intended. I guess there's more power to be had for them as long as you're all in fear and need them.
Are they really enemies then?
I don't know much about the history but from the little I read earlier I got more of an impression that it was convenient for everyone else to leave it broken up so China and Japan or whatever didn't had to fight over the area. The Koreans themselves where just Koreans? Wasn't they? Or where they very different when it came to political system / ideology already before that?
Bunch of good links? Though I assume Wikipedia may have enough.
But now they got noticed for it, can still remain anonymous (if they are) and still no-one was hurt, unless Gawker spread them further.
Nothing wrong with a little ego.
Because it's got goatse in it.
Everything anal is hot stuff nowadays.
Basically - they couldn't find a way to charge for each downloaded e-mail address.
Atleast it looks like Gawker got their bill:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/06/500x_ileak_inside1.jpg
So, if you were one of the people who had their personal email leaked, would you be thanking the good guys right now for doing it?
From http://security.goatse.fr/blog/:
We did not contact AT&T directly, but we made sure that someone else tipped them off and waited for them to patch until we gave anything to Gawker. This is as “nice guy” as it gets. We had no interest in direct dialogue with AT&T, but we waited nicely for them to get their house in order and get their hole plugged tight before exposing it.
So they didn't contact AT&T directly, probably to stay anonymous from any kind of investigations or such, but they still tipped of AT&T indirectly before the article and most likely did not spread the information further. Gawker got it for their article, AT&T got to close the leak and that's it.
So yeah, definitely good guy approach to me.
IDNRTFA, BIRTP: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1682430&cid=32531390
I don't know what Ryan is, anyone of them? At AT&T? Someone who wrote an article? But in any case depending on who he is maybe they did not spread the data to plenty of others?
What do I know.
Still it was AT&T leaking the data, not the group. If you're frustrated blame and speak to AT&T.
.. and sexual persecution came to think about it.
Just as long as they don't take it too far and go after GNAA, that would be racism!
I like how they seem to think it's amazing to get some of those e-mail addresses, I mean, come on, just look at it:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/06/500x_ileakinside3.jpg
Do you think Les Hintons e-mail address may be les.hinton@dowjones.com ?!
Top secret!
Uhm..
They aren't arguing that the script may not be unauthorized access because it was automatic and that only the first attempt would be illegal because they did it in person.
They where rather arguing that visiting that page once and get an e-mail address may be something you just happen to do, but writing a script which fetches lots of e-mail address would be abusing the system / doing something you shouldn't do.
Personally I think "they should know they are not entitled to" is very weak juridical term/claim/charge/whatever. I can't see how visiting a web page which return data it's supposed to return (as in not trick it with malign data) could be a crime. If you don't want people to access the web page don't put it up for them to watch.
And yeah, if anything I think AT&T would become the ones in the hot seat for making it possible and leak the information in first place.
lol, wrong person to ask :D
As of now I have no fucking clue. I'm betting a few thousand bath in Thailand would do it but maybe not them I'm old and desperate and don't care enough to actually do it.
I'm 30 and got three phone numbers of 17-18 year olds last friday when they went out of school though :D, buuut the one I decided to ask out even though I knew she said she had a bf thought it wouldn't be a good idea for the same reason.
Should had kept her while she was drunk instead :/
And no, she don't know I'm 13 years older, so even if the "boyfriend" wouldn't had been a problem we would eventually have had one long-term when she found out :D
(That step was easy though, new short synth-style haircut, shaved, moisturized, slightly drunk and then just walk to the park where all high-school graduates end up when the bars has closed (though there wasn't many of them and hence the one year younger ones.))
IANAL.
http://wetab.mobi/en
http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/
http://www.slashgear.com/dell-streak-5-inch-3g-android-mid-leaks-2161220/
http://mashable.com/2009/11/12/vega-android-tablet/
http://www.slashgear.com/icd-vega-and-ultra-android-tablets-hands-on-video-0869180/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4OCItW6ecc
http://www.viddler.com/simple_on_site/4d5337e2
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/quanta-tegra-2-prototype-hands-on/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/28/msis-10-inch-tablet-launching-this-year-at-500-patently-ignor/
Yeah, I to wouldn't want to run my whole desktop on a smartphone... and not on an iPad either. Probably better to design an UI which work well on the smaller screen ..
Depending on what it is.
I don't know why they said "droid" and not "android phone" since I don't see what would be so special with exactly those models.
But anyhow: There exist Android tablets.
... ok, and then the next step is Google blocking Apple users from YouTube.
Too bad they don't own Facebook to, then it would had the possibility of getting really fun :D
NP, I have no life you see ;)
The regulatory authority may decide on security measures.
== Your master may decide that it's time to plug that gaping hole of yours.
Oh well, Apple can look out any features, vendors and developers they want ... ... I still haven't or will ever get an iPhone so it will never affect me.
Now if only Android where open as a platform, phones and firmware and not only as an operating-system base for the phone manufacturers to claim theirs/restrict/fuck up :/
One can always hope Google will fix that once they got enough momentum and size.
The mac fanatics will just say the usual:
"but Apple isn't in a monopoly on the phone market!"
And hence they can't do anything wrong and you will be moderated troll.
I to would had liked to get in contact with them, hiring them to probe and try to exploit my system.
It's requesting an URL.
Which if you're not allowed to see the web server should say so (or whatever the fuck it wants..) or if it shows you the content then obviously(!) you was allowed to see that content.
Can't understand how one can be prosecuted for that. Scanning for security flaws would be somewhat more obvious that you try to gain unauthorized access but I can't understand how that would be illegal either. I guess this is what happens then the judge/jury don't know anything about the things they are supposed to judge in.
No, stealing isn't ok. The sign didn't said "feel free to take any goods" did it?
The sign said OPEN!
You're free to go into a store which is open. If no-one is around you go around look, and if you find something you want to pick it up and head to the counter and wait for the cashier to return so you can pay. If you don't want to or don't have time to wait you go back with the item and leave the store.
It's not that hard really.
And I don't know whatever it's trespassing to go into an open area around here, somewhat weird if it was but peoples morals tell them they shouldn't. You do however have to leave private property if the owner tell you to. And if it's locked I'm quite confident you're not free to break in. I don't know how "obvious" the lock / restriction of access have to be, I assume a very low level of security is enough because really it's not that hard to get into a house if you want to regardless of whatever the door is locked or not. It's more of a way of saying "don't go in here."
obviously non-public information
Yeah... obviously! Because e-mail addresses has never been seen on the web before!
Now leave Slashdot since my post header contain my e-mail address. You may not be supposed to see that.