Because contrary to its ostensible function, it's a loosely assembled list of people they have a vague notion that they might be worth paying attention to, not cutting-edge intelligence.
There's no need to even postulate that they want to create a police state; it's simply the cheapest, easiest way to appear to be responding decisively to a threat. When it's cheaper and easier to ignore freedoms than protect them on the path to security, and security is the topic of the moment, what vote-hunting politician of any stripe is going to give a damn?
Backbone is cheap when you've got the money to stage even a token legal defense, or your hosting provider is a known safe haven from spurious copyright requests. For most of us, it's a luxury we can't afford.
So it turns out that the "module" is just an EEPROM which contains the module's own product SKU. Which is information that Tektronix provides in their own catalogue. Genius. Nobody will never crack that code.
Via the archived page, I can see that the keyphrase is just the product SKU, which as factual information is probably not protected by copyright in and of itself.
I'm not sure that the letter published qualifies as a DMCA takedown request, as it doesn't actually mention any part of the DMCA or any other copyright act that has been broken. I'm not sure that a short keyphrase constitutes copyright-protected matter, for one thing. And it's not like publishing the information violates the noncircumvention part of the Act, because they aren't circumventing an anticopying mechanism. They're circumventing a different mechanism entirely I suspect they're just trying their luck.
That was great! I didn't realise that there was an AFM on the probe to actually image sample particles. And the 3D printed model was a fantastic visual aid. Do you think that the 3D printer instructions for the comet will be shared?
"String theory is untestable" is one of those easy to remember phrases that keeps you away from a great amount of interesting information:
1) "String theory" is actually a family of related theories that make different predictions, where they're advanced enough to do so 2) They're neither as a class, nor individually, a priori untestable 3) They're theories of high energy physics, so what predictions they do make will be difficult to test on currently existing hardware 4) The mathematical tools to make sense of the theories and make predictions are novel themselves
String theory is at a stage kind of like parachuting early-20th-century physics into the 15th century. It's not relevant at length scales where we can easily make observations, but we don't have the necessary cognative or physical tools to write it off either. Have we been handed relativity, or the aether? We can't say because we're not smart enough yet.
Now, as a matter of expediency I'd argue that any self-respective physicist should dedicate himself to advanced models that are a little closer to home and might act as stepping stones to string theory's energy scales, but since when has any self-respecting scientist been led away from a beautiful hypothesis by pragmatism? Much less a physicist?
I use one of the big Kindles for viewing PDFs, which gets around the formatting issue, but that's about it as far as serious usage goes. To be honest, Amazon's big innovation wasn't improving the experience, but realising that people would put up with it if it cost as much as a Game Boy.
If the publishers really wanted to "stand up to Amazon" they would've banded together and stopped selling Amazon books rather than banding together to continue selling books through Amazon, but make more money doing so.
They've improved enormously lately. Every year during the manufacturers' crazy sales I stock up on five year old games for a few quid apiece. I'm still playing through the £50 I spent in 2013.
Unfortunately in this instance they measured the anomalous thrust on a version of the instrument designed and built by its own inventors in such a fashion as to not produce thrust at all. I'm inclined to believe that the anomalous thrust is some sort of weird ideomotor effect related to the fact that they had to manually control the frequency of the RF excitation as the test ran.
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those developers, huddled around a makeshift campfire, dreaming of the days when they were masters of their own software universe, and wondering what might have been.
2014 is the year of Linux on the desktop at the bankruptcy auction.
*a black and white photo of some hot grits while a melancholy piano plays*
Unfortunately as long as ICANN is under US jurisdiction, you're going to see disputes like this heading to US courts. (That said, I'm growing more and more wary of moves to internationalise the infrastructure; leaving it with the US's stewardship the least-bad option right now, even after the NSA revelations.)
TimeSplitters actually came up in said profile; I forget exactly what they said but it came down to "no, we're not doing it as a major release, and no, we don't think it'll make enough money to work as an F2P or niche title either". Given that was in an interview that was otherwise warily optimistic, I dare say its chances are even poorer now.
I see, just get rid of the edge for people who get curated. I wasn't sure if you also saw some way that it would benefit people stuck in lower end of the charts. (I wonder if maybe it would encourage people to dig deeper into them.)
I'm all for dropping the lists simply because they've got exactly the same godawful discovery issues as the charts, in that they tend to recommend the same few popular apps over dozens of different lists scattered around like advertising flyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because contrary to its ostensible function, it's a loosely assembled list of people they have a vague notion that they might be worth paying attention to, not cutting-edge intelligence.
There's no need to even postulate that they want to create a police state; it's simply the cheapest, easiest way to appear to be responding decisively to a threat. When it's cheaper and easier to ignore freedoms than protect them on the path to security, and security is the topic of the moment, what vote-hunting politician of any stripe is going to give a damn?
A poor analogy. You would have to actually download the DLC files first, in almost all cases.
And he's not cracking encrypted data files, he's putting in a cheat code, which happens to be the name of the DLC, because the company are morons.
Backbone is cheap when you've got the money to stage even a token legal defense, or your hosting provider is a known safe haven from spurious copyright requests. For most of us, it's a luxury we can't afford.
So it turns out that the "module" is just an EEPROM which contains the module's own product SKU. Which is information that Tektronix provides in their own catalogue. Genius. Nobody will never crack that code.
Via the archived page, I can see that the keyphrase is just the product SKU, which as factual information is probably not protected by copyright in and of itself.
I'm not sure that the letter published qualifies as a DMCA takedown request, as it doesn't actually mention any part of the DMCA or any other copyright act that has been broken. I'm not sure that a short keyphrase constitutes copyright-protected matter, for one thing. And it's not like publishing the information violates the noncircumvention part of the Act, because they aren't circumventing an anticopying mechanism. They're circumventing a different mechanism entirely I suspect they're just trying their luck.
That was great! I didn't realise that there was an AFM on the probe to actually image sample particles. And the 3D printed model was a fantastic visual aid. Do you think that the 3D printer instructions for the comet will be shared?
Also at http://rosetta.esa.int/
"String theory is untestable" is one of those easy to remember phrases that keeps you away from a great amount of interesting information:
1) "String theory" is actually a family of related theories that make different predictions, where they're advanced enough to do so
2) They're neither as a class, nor individually, a priori untestable
3) They're theories of high energy physics, so what predictions they do make will be difficult to test on currently existing hardware
4) The mathematical tools to make sense of the theories and make predictions are novel themselves
String theory is at a stage kind of like parachuting early-20th-century physics into the 15th century. It's not relevant at length scales where we can easily make observations, but we don't have the necessary cognative or physical tools to write it off either. Have we been handed relativity, or the aether? We can't say because we're not smart enough yet.
Now, as a matter of expediency I'd argue that any self-respective physicist should dedicate himself to advanced models that are a little closer to home and might act as stepping stones to string theory's energy scales, but since when has any self-respecting scientist been led away from a beautiful hypothesis by pragmatism? Much less a physicist?
I use one of the big Kindles for viewing PDFs, which gets around the formatting issue, but that's about it as far as serious usage goes. To be honest, Amazon's big innovation wasn't improving the experience, but realising that people would put up with it if it cost as much as a Game Boy.
If the publishers really wanted to "stand up to Amazon" they would've banded together and stopped selling Amazon books rather than banding together to continue selling books through Amazon, but make more money doing so.
You know, publishers did have negotiation options other than "form a price-fixing cabal".
I would like to think that a company like Apple could "introduce competition" without having to conspire with every ebook publisher to do so.
I don't see how installing oneself as the head of a cabal of basically the entire US ebooks market is breaking up a monopoly.
They've improved enormously lately. Every year during the manufacturers' crazy sales I stock up on five year old games for a few quid apiece. I'm still playing through the £50 I spent in 2013.
Unfortunately in this instance they measured the anomalous thrust on a version of the instrument designed and built by its own inventors in such a fashion as to not produce thrust at all. I'm inclined to believe that the anomalous thrust is some sort of weird ideomotor effect related to the fact that they had to manually control the frequency of the RF excitation as the test ran.
The relevant quote:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the “null” test article)
Unfortunately the people you don't like aren't the ones getting laid off.
I wonder if this is a side-effect of the American pronunciation "No-kia" versus the European "Knock-ia"
Cryengine belongs to Crytek, the German parent company. These are its subsidiary studios.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those developers, huddled around a makeshift campfire, dreaming of the days when they were masters of their own software universe, and wondering what might have been.
2014 is the year of Linux on the desktop at the bankruptcy auction.
*a black and white photo of some hot grits while a melancholy piano plays*
Unfortunately as long as ICANN is under US jurisdiction, you're going to see disputes like this heading to US courts. (That said, I'm growing more and more wary of moves to internationalise the infrastructure; leaving it with the US's stewardship the least-bad option right now, even after the NSA revelations.)
TimeSplitters actually came up in said profile; I forget exactly what they said but it came down to "no, we're not doing it as a major release, and no, we don't think it'll make enough money to work as an F2P or niche title either". Given that was in an interview that was otherwise warily optimistic, I dare say its chances are even poorer now.
I see, just get rid of the edge for people who get curated. I wasn't sure if you also saw some way that it would benefit people stuck in lower end of the charts. (I wonder if maybe it would encourage people to dig deeper into them.)
I'm all for dropping the lists simply because they've got exactly the same godawful discovery issues as the charts, in that they tend to recommend the same few popular apps over dozens of different lists scattered around like advertising flyers.