Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads. Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?
Good choice. Iron is a very questionable project, and the developer has admitted that he's just spreading FUD about Google to drive traffic to his site to make money off ads.
The "insane reason" is to make it efficient as a copy protection system, of course. And you very definitely don't/em have any relevant translations at all, unless the differences are trivial - and if there are difference, they wonb't be trivial, because that would defeat the entire point.
Implementing functionality on a remote server is not in any way equivalent to that kind of code. You can't crack it by bypassing a simple conditional, since the code that needs to run is just not there.
I give the programming community about a three days and then we will see all sorts of "hacks" for the internet requirement. I expect we will see a lawsuit about a week or two from release to force Ubisoft to patch the internet requirement out of the game.
And if none of this ever happens, what will you do? Pretend you never said it?
And what code are you going to run wherever you've routed your connections to? That is what the problem is. If they did it right, the server contains non-trivial functionality.
Most scientists didn't take part in the madness back then the way they're doing this time, but some did.
And that certainly doesn't mean the last one was a dumb fad and this one is real, no, it clearly means it's this one that is completely untrue! Clearly the more scientists who agree on something, the less true it is!
Chrome relies on V8, which needs to have a whole new code generator written for each processor architecture. Nobody has written one for PPC. It is nowhere near as simple as building a universal binary.
But all of them conflict with the Mozilla Foundation's mission, to provide a 100% free web browsing stack, and to encourage a Web that can be fully experienced using that.
Slashdot Mirror
Iron was created by a person who's admitted that he's spreading FUD about Google just to drive traffic to his site so he can make money off his ads. Is that the kind of project you want to cheer for?
They never, ever did anything remotely like fighting it. They explicitly listed ad blocking as a use case while developing their extension system.
Good choice. Iron is a very questionable project, and the developer has admitted that he's just spreading FUD about Google to drive traffic to his site to make money off ads.
Also, http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
Iron is basically a scam by some guy who bashes Google to drive more traffic to his Google Ads. Don't encourage an asshole by using his browser.
(And why on earth would you trust some random guy on the internet in the first place?)
The "insane reason" is to make it efficient as a copy protection system, of course. And you very definitely don't/em have any relevant translations at all, unless the differences are trivial - and if there are difference, they wonb't be trivial, because that would defeat the entire point.
Of course you can. That doesn't tell you how to convert one to the other, though.
Implementing functionality on a remote server is not in any way equivalent to that kind of code. You can't crack it by bypassing a simple conditional, since the code that needs to run is just not there.
I give the programming community about a three days and then we will see all sorts of "hacks" for the internet requirement. I expect we will see a lawsuit about a week or two from release to force Ubisoft to patch the internet requirement out of the game.
And if none of this ever happens, what will you do? Pretend you never said it?
Any DRM scheme will boild down to "if (some_condition_is_met()) run_game(); else complain();"
Except, you know, this one. Which does not boil down to just that. Which you would have known if you had actually tried reading the article.
And why do you assume that the saved format is the same as the loaded format?
Perhaps you should actually take the time to read about what this system DOES. The whole point is that it is not just an authorization system.
And what code are you going to run wherever you've routed your connections to? That is what the problem is. If they did it right, the server contains non-trivial functionality.
This simile will work once people start getting addicted to guns.
As far as I know, though, this is not actually the case.
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Most scientists didn't take part in the madness back then the way they're doing this time, but some did.
And that certainly doesn't mean the last one was a dumb fad and this one is real, no, it clearly means it's this one that is completely untrue! Clearly the more scientists who agree on something, the less true it is!
you can bet that half the people you hear saying how great it was, were paid by Apple
Yes this is definitely a rational and sane worldview!
Chrome relies on V8, which needs to have a whole new code generator written for each processor architecture. Nobody has written one for PPC. It is nowhere near as simple as building a universal binary.
Also Yttrium and Ytterbium.
Well, then, I guess that means Chrome is ready for the internet, huh.
It does not affect that in any way whatosever.
just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior
Imagining...
Done. Zero developers were baffled.
Imagining complete.
Yes, this will totally DOOM IT TO FAILURE just like the "WEE"!!!
The fact is that they have options that do not require them to include h.264 code themselves. They are rejecting those outright too.
It is ideological, and they would be the first to tell you so.
But all of them conflict with the Mozilla Foundation's mission, to provide a 100% free web browsing stack, and to encourage a Web that can be fully experienced using that.
That is a shame, since they need to do it anyway.