Apple is quiet about everything. This is not a case of Apple trying to cover up security problems, it's merely that Apple talkes about nothing, ever, and that includes security policies.
Hereâ(TM)s a look at the models that Toyota will be testing out in the fall at the Central Japan International Airport (Centrair) near Nagoya, and Laguna Gamagori, a seaside resort complex in Aichi Prefecture. Toyota will test the Winglet in shopping crowds in 2009.
Your ride your bike at airports and in shopping crowds?
If science weren't dogmatic, there would be organizations and grants who would say "yeah we don't really think this Electric Universe idea is true, but let's devise ways to put it to the test anyway".
That is because there is nothing to test. It's up to the electric universe people to come up with actual, verifiable experiments. But they don't do that, they just make vague claims and complain about conspiracies against them.
1. Find some part of cosmology that is not yet fully explained (there are a lot of these, so this part is easy!) 2. Claim the explanation is ELECTRICITY! 3. Never provide any proof ever, only claim that the prevailing, incomplete theory is wrong.
The question you apparently feel isn't a question is whether or not products like these hurt society more than they benefit it.
I specifically did not because that was not the question. The question was, and I quote, "Is this truly a case of fighting piracy, or is it also an attempt to stop homebrew from stealing the market?"
All I said was it doesn't make sense to sue someone who makes something that can be abused and used for something it wasn't intended for (eg microSD cards). The R4 was not designed for piracy, it is a developer tool plain and simple. It is simple common sense.
Er.
1. It makes perfect sense to sue someone for making that, if you think you can win, and if you want to prevent piracy, both of which are true here. Intent doesn't matter to the party that is trying to prevent piracy, the damage (perceived or real) is done no matter what the original intent was. Like I said, business, not ethics.
2. Even so, the R4 is designed for piracy! If it weren't designed for piracy, why would the firmware updates specifically address problems with specific commercial games? See the release notes for the latest version for an example: "Solved 2203, 2219, 2240, 2250 problem" means they made those specific officially numbered games run on it. Really, it is delusional to think it is not specifically intended for piracy first and foremost, and homebrew as an extra and as an excuse.
That would be a great point, if the homebrew games were actually original in any way. The vast majority of them are re-implementations of well-known simple games.
Beyond that, is there some sort of document explaining how vast a majority must be to qualify something as "piracy paraphenelia" and make legitimate use unworthy of protecting?
Did I ever say anything of the sort? No, I did not.
I merely answered the question regarding Nintendo's motivations, and took no stand at all on the merits of their or anybody else's actions.
While I'll agree, it is very dangerous to concede to the "It can be used for bad things... who cares about the legitimate uses".
I was taking no moral stand at all on its uses for any purpose. I was merely answering the silly question posed by the article: Whether Nintendo was suing to stop piracy or because it was afraid of homebrewers. The answer to that is blindingly obvious, no matter what you think of the worth of products like the R4.
Then you did not understand it. I'm sure you're doing all kinds of wonderful things with your R4, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people use them for piracy, and neither does it change the fact that neither you nor anybody else in the homebrew scene is any kind of threat to the established developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you don't need encryption very badly if you don't care about man-in-the-middle attacks.
Apple is quiet about everything. This is not a case of Apple trying to cover up security problems, it's merely that Apple talkes about nothing, ever, and that includes security policies.
Hereâ(TM)s a look at the models that Toyota will be testing out in the fall at the Central Japan International Airport (Centrair) near Nagoya, and Laguna Gamagori, a seaside resort complex in Aichi Prefecture. Toyota will test the Winglet in shopping crowds in 2009.
Your ride your bike at airports and in shopping crowds?
If science weren't dogmatic, there would be organizations and grants who would say "yeah we don't really think this Electric Universe idea is true, but let's devise ways to put it to the test anyway".
That is because there is nothing to test. It's up to the electric universe people to come up with actual, verifiable experiments. But they don't do that, they just make vague claims and complain about conspiracies against them.
Yep. A bunch of kooks called "electrical engineers".
Actually, it's a well-known phenomenom that electrical engineers in particular tend to come up with the weirdest kinds of pseudoscience.
What I also see is two groups of extremists, one proposing they have the explanation for all phenomena and the other saying "rubbish!"
This is mostly because the electrical universe people tend to just say "NO, ELECTRICITY!" instead of actually providing any verifiable predictions.
It's not so much anti-science as it is pro-electric-universe, which is a theory favoured by a bunch of kooks.
Great, another electrical universe nut.
1. Find some part of cosmology that is not yet fully explained (there are a lot of these, so this part is easy!)
2. Claim the explanation is ELECTRICITY!
3. Never provide any proof ever, only claim that the prevailing, incomplete theory is wrong.
Fanboy of what exactly? Common sense?
"Everything I don't know how to do is easy!"
What I don't get is why game developers don't release freeware benchmark versions of their engines.
Because that would require a non-trivial amount of work for no substantive payoff?
The question you apparently feel isn't a question is whether or not products like these hurt society more than they benefit it.
I specifically did not because that was not the question. The question was, and I quote, "Is this truly a case of fighting piracy, or is it also an attempt to stop homebrew from stealing the market?"
All I said was it doesn't make sense to sue someone who makes something that can be abused and used for something it wasn't intended for (eg microSD cards). The R4 was not designed for piracy, it is a developer tool plain and simple. It is simple common sense.
Er.
1. It makes perfect sense to sue someone for making that, if you think you can win, and if you want to prevent piracy, both of which are true here. Intent doesn't matter to the party that is trying to prevent piracy, the damage (perceived or real) is done no matter what the original intent was. Like I said, business, not ethics.
2. Even so, the R4 is designed for piracy! If it weren't designed for piracy, why would the firmware updates specifically address problems with specific commercial games? See the release notes for the latest version for an example: "Solved 2203, 2219, 2240, 2250 problem" means they made those specific officially numbered games run on it. Really, it is delusional to think it is not specifically intended for piracy first and foremost, and homebrew as an extra and as an excuse.
I suppose they should also sue anyone who makes the microSD cards since they are the medium stores any copyright code the R4 may use.
The "should" not do that, because they'd lose in an instant. They are going after the R4 because they actually have a chance of winning that one.
You speak as if this was some kind of question of ethics. It is not, it is simple business.
That would be a great point, if the homebrew games were actually original in any way. The vast majority of them are re-implementations of well-known simple games.
That would be a shame, but I'm not sure I see how that is relevant.
Did you have a point that was actually relevant to the question at hand?
Not to anywhere near the same extent, and that is also completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Beyond that, is there some sort of document explaining how vast a majority must be to qualify something as "piracy paraphenelia" and make legitimate use unworthy of protecting?
Did I ever say anything of the sort? No, I did not.
I merely answered the question regarding Nintendo's motivations, and took no stand at all on the merits of their or anybody else's actions.
What makes you think I didn't know all of that already?
Of course they want to reduce competition from actual creative and innovative games.
Yes, but what does that have to do with the homebrew scene?
While I'll agree, it is very dangerous to concede to the "It can be used for bad things... who cares about the legitimate uses".
I was taking no moral stand at all on its uses for any purpose. I was merely answering the silly question posed by the article: Whether Nintendo was suing to stop piracy or because it was afraid of homebrewers. The answer to that is blindingly obvious, no matter what you think of the worth of products like the R4.
Wow, I feel personally offended by such comment.
Then you did not understand it. I'm sure you're doing all kinds of wonderful things with your R4, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people use them for piracy, and neither does it change the fact that neither you nor anybody else in the homebrew scene is any kind of threat to the established developers.
Is this truly a case of fighting piracy, or is it also an attempt to stop homebrew from stealing the market?"
It is truly a case of fighting piracy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is severely delusional.
No, not even close.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=629347&cid=24387571