I've had problems with OpenID Connect in practice. Describing these problems first requires defining some terms associated with OpenID Connect and the OAuth 2 framework it's built on. In case someone's not familiar with these:
Identity provider (IDP)
Website where the user has an account, such as Google or Facebook
Relying party (RP)
Website that displays a "Sign in with..." button and receives information about a logged-in user from the IDP
Client credentials
A token that identifies the RP to the IDP, consisting of a client ID and client secret
Dynamic client registration (dyn-reg)
Mechanism to let an RP obtain client credentials from an IDP for the first time without human interaction on the RP's part
It works quite well for the most part and is what makes all of the "Sign in with Google" and "Sign in with Facebook" (and used to also have Sign in with Yahoo) buttons work across the web.
The last time I looked at OpenID Connect, each RP had to sign up for a developer account with each IDP. For example, I have a Google account but no Facebook account. This means that if I were to create a website using OpenID Connect, it could show a "Sign in with Google" button but no "Sign in with Facebook" button. If there are 20 popular IDPs, each RP has to agree to a Terms of Service contract with all 20 IDPs in order to obtain the required client credentials because no popular IDP supports dyn-reg to my knowledge.
Thats what is so neat about capitalism and allowing free market competition. Another really great search service can grow.
Not until the PageRank patent expires at the very least. In addition, I've seen a lot of sites whitelist Googlebot in/robots.txt and in Flexible Sampling (inclusion of paywalled sites in Search), and these sites might not be so willing to do the work to extend the whitelist to cover a competitor.
I'm typing this onto a laptop that came with Windows 10. I used Transmission for Windows briefly to download Xubuntu install media using BitTorrent, and while I seeded it back, I read up on install issues for this model and prepared the USB stick.
Slashdot article is wrong. It's only against Musk, not Tesla
It appears to have since been edited to correct this error. When I first loaded this article, the HTML title element was
SEC Charges Elon Musk With Fraud Over His Statements To Take Tesla Private - Slashdot
but its headline was (with my emphasis of those words that differed)
SEC Charges Tesla, Elon Musk With Fraud Over His Statements To Take Company Private
I reloaded again and the new title also appeared as the headline. This calls to mind both of Phil Karlton's two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things.
All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.
If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.
I doubt it's entirely the parents' fault. I imagine parents are keeping their kids indoors in order to keep them away from Child Overprotective Services.
Google will not support reducing the cost of anything. [...] They should be the ones to pay for upgrading to the internet fiber and 5G mobile network updates.
Then what are Google Fiber and Project Fi?
A city or state should not have to pay for fiber upgrades, 5G, and expanding internet access to the rural areas.
Nor should it obstruct when Google wants to come in and pay for fiber and 5G.
Maybe Overwatch to Yankee Stadium is the wrong analogy. Maybe Overwatch is more like Major League Baseball (MLB)
MLB is the result of a merger between the National League (NL), formed in 1876, and the later American League (AL), formed in 1901. The NL lacked any right under law to shut down the AL, and the leagues played side by side for nearly a century until their formal merger in 2000 into MLB.
In this revised analogy, in which an esport's publisher corresponds to a ball sport's league, where do organizations such as MLG sit?
Games like Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, etc. have lots of competition from very very similar games and players can and do move between games with the touch of a button, literally.
In the analogy I've used in the past, Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, and the like occupy similar spaces to soccer, rugby (Union/League), gridiron (NFL/CFL), Australian rules, and Gaelic football. How often do you see players transitioning between soccer and gridiron?
You're being deliberately obtuse and cherry-picking legal technicalities on a simple analogy.
Then what would be a better analogy? What are the overarching rules of the sport that determine what is and isn't a valid stadium for the sport?
Overwatch is like baseball stadium that can house all baseball games everywhere simultaneously.
Activision Blizzard retains discretion, however, to authorize or forbid the playing and the broadcast of each match in that stadium. Say I wanted to put a ton of money into building my own stadium, with proverbial blackjack and hookers. In the case of a ball sport, nobody could shut that down. In the case of an esport, Activision Blizzard could legally shut that down if it is too similar. But how similar does it have to be without no longer serving its purpose as a stadium for that sport?
Not on Android. On Android tablets. Go Google yourself. Or better use a different search engine
My brief DuckDuckGo session didn't turn up any difference between codec support on Android phones and codec support on Android tablets. In particular, the media formats page doesn't list any such differences: all devices must decode HE-AAC and AVC (H.264) main profile, and all devices must encode AAC-LC and AVC baseline profile. What query did you use that turned up relevant results?
The Apple Music app's page on Google Play doesn't list any permissions specifically related to cellular voice capability. So my speculation is that Apple Music for Android is locked by screen size. Another company (Microsoft) has also admitted to locking its own app by screen size, requiring an Office 365 subscription to use Microsoft Office on tablets with screens larger than a certain size.
The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
It sounds like the analogy you're trying to make is the following:
Team-based first-person shooters in general are to baseball asOverwatchis to Yankee Stadium.
Under this model, each team would specialize in one game and provide game licenses to the visiting team. That would provide a severe home court advantage to, say, a league's team that specializes in TF2. What league operates on a basis anything like this, with as many different games as teams?
Blackouts in ball sports are the league's doing. They do not represent a restriction imposed on a league by some other entity. With an esport, by contrast, a game publisher can deny privileges to broadcast the publisher's game or to admit paying live spectators even if the league wants to grant them.
NFL is a trademark. You are free to start a gridiron football league and name it anything so long as it doesn't step on someone else's trademark. That's why one such league called itself USFL and another XFL.
Not being able to expand is a far sight from your comparison to "shutting down a league"
Nintendo can and has shut down public matches even in person, as even a live performance is still performing the game publicly if a substantial number of people are gathered to see it. From the second link about a denial of rights to hold a tournament: "It is widely speculated that the problem lies entirely in Nintendo’s hands and that MLG actively wanted Brawl to be present at Anaheim, even offering to run the tournament entirely off-stream to avoid any licensing issues."
and to be honest your issue with streaming rights is absolutely par for the course for ALL sports.
For ball sports, the league controls the streaming rights. USFL and XFL could broadcast their clubs' matches through their partner networks without permission of NFL or anyone else. For esports, the league has to answer to the game's publisher.
a big company has a strong monetary incentive : they can use it as a marketing tool to make the game more popular and make more potential buyers aware of it existence
Until said big company decides to withdraw the game from the marketplace. Then the league has to quickly disband or risk a copyright infringement suit.
The Windows 8/10 network GUI shows "Metered" only for Wi-Fi, not for wired Ethernet. Instead, the user has to edit the registry to change the default media cost of all Ethernet connections. If a less-technical user's desktop PC has an Ethernet connection to the satellite or fixed-cellular modem, the user is unlikely to know that it's even possible to mark Ethernet as metered.
[Copyright] actually hasn't negatively impacted any e-sport to date
From "No streaming Brawl for MLG?" (2010): "However, I'm sorry to say that we will not be able to have a live stream for Smash in Orlando this weekend. In order to stream something like this, we have to secure live streaming rights from the game's publisher. And despite our best efforts, we have not been able to get permission from Nintendo thus far. We kept the conversation going all the way down to the wire, in hopes that we'd get an 11th hour approval and could still stream the event, but unfortunately it didn’t happen."
From "Brawl Prevented from the MLG Floor" (2014): "Despite Brawl’s appearance at almost all of the qualifier events, its presence on the 2010 MLG Pro Circuit, and MLG organizing equipment and funding for a Brawl tournament at Anaheim, it was not approved by Nintendo."
I'm interested in reading how these don't count as having "negatively impacted any e-sport".
Only league's clubs actually get attention and money poured into them.
Agreed. But in the case of ball sports, there's no law that prevents a league from forming around a variant. This led, for example, to Arena Football League and other indoor gridiron leagues. USFL and XFL also tweaked the rules of gridiron football a bit compared to the existing NCAA and NFL.
Slashdot Mirror
Users are already paying for web servers with their ad eyeballs.
This already exists and is called OpenID Connect.
I've had problems with OpenID Connect in practice. Describing these problems first requires defining some terms associated with OpenID Connect and the OAuth 2 framework it's built on. In case someone's not familiar with these:
Identity provider (IDP) Website where the user has an account, such as Google or Facebook Relying party (RP) Website that displays a "Sign in with..." button and receives information about a logged-in user from the IDP Client credentials A token that identifies the RP to the IDP, consisting of a client ID and client secret Dynamic client registration (dyn-reg) Mechanism to let an RP obtain client credentials from an IDP for the first time without human interaction on the RP's partIt works quite well for the most part and is what makes all of the "Sign in with Google" and "Sign in with Facebook" (and used to also have Sign in with Yahoo) buttons work across the web.
The last time I looked at OpenID Connect, each RP had to sign up for a developer account with each IDP. For example, I have a Google account but no Facebook account. This means that if I were to create a website using OpenID Connect, it could show a "Sign in with Google" button but no "Sign in with Facebook" button. If there are 20 popular IDPs, each RP has to agree to a Terms of Service contract with all 20 IDPs in order to obtain the required client credentials because no popular IDP supports dyn-reg to my knowledge.
Or has the situation changed in the two years since the last time I looked at OpenID Connect?
Thats what is so neat about capitalism and allowing free market competition. Another really great search service can grow.
Not until the PageRank patent expires at the very least. In addition, I've seen a lot of sites whitelist Googlebot in /robots.txt and in Flexible Sampling (inclusion of paywalled sites in Search), and these sites might not be so willing to do the work to extend the whitelist to cover a competitor.
Microsoft announced acquisition of GitHub over three months ago. See the press release and coverage on Microsoft's official blog.
I'm typing this onto a laptop that came with Windows 10. I used Transmission for Windows briefly to download Xubuntu install media using BitTorrent, and while I seeded it back, I read up on install issues for this model and prepared the USB stick.
How about the requested feature of not using as much RAM as a full-on Google Chrome process?
(Last I checked, Skype used Microsoft Electron, a GUI toolkit that is literally a copy of Chromium hardcoded to one website.)
Slashdot article is wrong. It's only against Musk, not Tesla
It appears to have since been edited to correct this error. When I first loaded this article, the HTML title element was
but its headline was (with my emphasis of those words that differed)
I reloaded again and the new title also appeared as the headline. This calls to mind both of Phil Karlton's two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things.
All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.
If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.
I doubt it's entirely the parents' fault. I imagine parents are keeping their kids indoors in order to keep them away from Child Overprotective Services.
Google will not support reducing the cost of anything. [...] They should be the ones to pay for upgrading to the internet fiber and 5G mobile network updates.
Then what are Google Fiber and Project Fi?
A city or state should not have to pay for fiber upgrades, 5G, and expanding internet access to the rural areas.
Nor should it obstruct when Google wants to come in and pay for fiber and 5G.
Maybe Overwatch to Yankee Stadium is the wrong analogy. Maybe Overwatch is more like Major League Baseball (MLB)
MLB is the result of a merger between the National League (NL), formed in 1876, and the later American League (AL), formed in 1901. The NL lacked any right under law to shut down the AL, and the leagues played side by side for nearly a century until their formal merger in 2000 into MLB.
In this revised analogy, in which an esport's publisher corresponds to a ball sport's league, where do organizations such as MLG sit?
Games like Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, etc. have lots of competition from very very similar games and players can and do move between games with the touch of a button, literally.
In the analogy I've used in the past, Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, and the like occupy similar spaces to soccer, rugby (Union/League), gridiron (NFL/CFL), Australian rules, and Gaelic football. How often do you see players transitioning between soccer and gridiron?
You're being deliberately obtuse and cherry-picking legal technicalities on a simple analogy.
Then what would be a better analogy? What are the overarching rules of the sport that determine what is and isn't a valid stadium for the sport?
Overwatch is like baseball stadium that can house all baseball games everywhere simultaneously.
Activision Blizzard retains discretion, however, to authorize or forbid the playing and the broadcast of each match in that stadium. Say I wanted to put a ton of money into building my own stadium, with proverbial blackjack and hookers. In the case of a ball sport, nobody could shut that down. In the case of an esport, Activision Blizzard could legally shut that down if it is too similar. But how similar does it have to be without no longer serving its purpose as a stadium for that sport?
Not on Android. On Android tablets. Go Google yourself. Or better use a different search engine
My brief DuckDuckGo session didn't turn up any difference between codec support on Android phones and codec support on Android tablets. In particular, the media formats page doesn't list any such differences: all devices must decode HE-AAC and AVC (H.264) main profile, and all devices must encode AAC-LC and AVC baseline profile. What query did you use that turned up relevant results?
The Apple Music app's page on Google Play doesn't list any permissions specifically related to cellular voice capability. So my speculation is that Apple Music for Android is locked by screen size. Another company (Microsoft) has also admitted to locking its own app by screen size, requiring an Office 365 subscription to use Microsoft Office on tablets with screens larger than a certain size.
The play fields/courts of eSports are the copyrighted games owned by publishers, are not open source.
It sounds like the analogy you're trying to make is the following:
Team-based first-person shooters in general are to baseball as Overwatch is to Yankee Stadium.
Under this model, each team would specialize in one game and provide game licenses to the visiting team. That would provide a severe home court advantage to, say, a league's team that specializes in TF2. What league operates on a basis anything like this, with as many different games as teams?
Which song are you talking about?
Last I checked, MP4 files using AVC+AAC worked on Android. Which codecs are used in the MP4 files that fail to play on Android?
Blackouts in ball sports are the league's doing. They do not represent a restriction imposed on a league by some other entity. With an esport, by contrast, a game publisher can deny privileges to broadcast the publisher's game or to admit paying live spectators even if the league wants to grant them.
Is that red herring I smell?
NFL is a trademark. You are free to start a gridiron football league and name it anything so long as it doesn't step on someone else's trademark. That's why one such league called itself USFL and another XFL.
Not being able to expand is a far sight from your comparison to "shutting down a league"
Nintendo can and has shut down public matches even in person, as even a live performance is still performing the game publicly if a substantial number of people are gathered to see it. From the second link about a denial of rights to hold a tournament: "It is widely speculated that the problem lies entirely in Nintendo’s hands and that MLG actively wanted Brawl to be present at Anaheim, even offering to run the tournament entirely off-stream to avoid any licensing issues."
and to be honest your issue with streaming rights is absolutely par for the course for ALL sports.
For ball sports, the league controls the streaming rights. USFL and XFL could broadcast their clubs' matches through their partner networks without permission of NFL or anyone else. For esports, the league has to answer to the game's publisher.
a big company has a strong monetary incentive : they can use it as a marketing tool to make the game more popular and make more potential buyers aware of it existence
Until said big company decides to withdraw the game from the marketplace. Then the league has to quickly disband or risk a copyright infringement suit.
The Windows 8/10 network GUI shows "Metered" only for Wi-Fi, not for wired Ethernet. Instead, the user has to edit the registry to change the default media cost of all Ethernet connections. If a less-technical user's desktop PC has an Ethernet connection to the satellite or fixed-cellular modem, the user is unlikely to know that it's even possible to mark Ethernet as metered.
[Copyright] actually hasn't negatively impacted any e-sport to date
From "No streaming Brawl for MLG?" (2010): "However, I'm sorry to say that we will not be able to have a live stream for Smash in Orlando this weekend. In order to stream something like this, we have to secure live streaming rights from the game's publisher. And despite our best efforts, we have not been able to get permission from Nintendo thus far. We kept the conversation going all the way down to the wire, in hopes that we'd get an 11th hour approval and could still stream the event, but unfortunately it didn’t happen."
From "Brawl Prevented from the MLG Floor" (2014): "Despite Brawl’s appearance at almost all of the qualifier events, its presence on the 2010 MLG Pro Circuit, and MLG organizing equipment and funding for a Brawl tournament at Anaheim, it was not approved by Nintendo."
I'm interested in reading how these don't count as having "negatively impacted any e-sport".
And there's no legal limitation preventing you from starting your own tournament of any opensource GPL'ed game of your choice neither.
Then why do esport leagues choose to play proprietary games over GPL games despite the greater uncertainty in keeping a license?
if it isn't in your back yard, it is probably all about money.
It's practical for a league to make money by playing a free* ball sport. How is it impractical for a league to make money by playing a free esport?
* In the sense that players and equipment manufacturers enjoy the four freedoms listed by FSF with respect to the sport's rules.
You can set up your own private server
Try this with esports, and you will be sued and lose. Try this with ball sports, and there are no grounds for such a suit.
Only league's clubs actually get attention and money poured into them.
Agreed. But in the case of ball sports, there's no law that prevents a league from forming around a variant. This led, for example, to Arena Football League and other indoor gridiron leagues. USFL and XFL also tweaked the rules of gridiron football a bit compared to the existing NCAA and NFL.