"Programmer Evan Kirchhoff in a blog post explains that Ansca took the project on to prove its claims about how Corona makes iPhone development faster."
If you wanted to prove that it helped make development faster, re-writing a nearly two-decade old version of a program is not the way to go.
Any total fool could've done the same thing in assembler.
"Seriously? It's going to take you over three years to write the two hundred or so lines of x86 assembly required to let the BIOS see your product as a disk?"
Not every thing uses BIOS, you know. There's more than just BIOS and EFI.
Then to add to that - NOT ALL BIOS ARE THE SAME.
Something tells me you've never done hardware development before.
'FWIW, the FusionIO product is not a simple drive replacement the way a SSD is. It doesn't boot and requires drivers to operate, plus the "control logic" is not self-contained but rather part of the driver."
Everything you address is fixed at the end of this year with a firmware upgrade.
Perhaps the entire inference sailed past you - that game was sold once, the publisher has their money from the stores. The publishers want a SECOND DIP, and that's bullshit.
"You probably wouldn't recognize component cables either. They've only been around since 1997, and they aren't used for audio."
Huhwhat? They've been around since the late 70's for three-tube projection televisions. And they're just a coax cable, they can be used for audio, speaker wire, network transfer, etc.
It's as if everyone forgot even digital signals are just analog pulses.
Mod Coward down as they clearly have no clue what First Sale Doctrine involves.
And according to wikipedia:
"The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases."
The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made.
"In the US (YMMV) you have a right to do anything you want with your physical copy of the game (outside of making illicit copies). However, any rights for any subscription services are not "basic" - they depend on the contract/license for the service."
This is not true. We have the Doctrine of First Sale. If I pay for a game, that means all features. When I resell that game, the purchaser expects the exact same thing.
Forcing the second purchaser to pay extra money to access what should come with the game AS ADVERTISED is fraud in the purest sense.
By 2006, 86 million households should have already been wired with a fiber (and coax), wire, capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, and could handle 500+ channels.
I think you need to re-read that law again. That was VERY SPECIFICALLY STATED.
A "superior player" doesn't need cheats any more than top baseball players or Olympians need steroids.
As a matter of fact....it's an easy argument to make that INFERIOR players are the ones who need to leverage cheats."
Go say that to anyone in the Q3 community and watch the nearest railgun get rammed up your ass - we RELIED upon those engine glitches to gain the edge.
"My daughter's elementary wants to press criminal charges against us for taking her on a 4-day trip to see Grandma on Thanksgiving. We notified the teacher and the school beforehand, got her classwork and homework, and had her turn it in the day she got back. As it turns out, 3 days would have been ok. Because it was 1 day more, I'm harboring a future-gang member and deserve to go to jail!"
Turn that right around and file suit for defamation of your character and your daughter's character, and the character of your family.
There is only so far they can go with censorship before it turns around to bite them in the ass.
Unforeseen consequences are quite often the natural check and balance to the nonsense that governments pull - sure they'll try to do what they can to stifle speech but eventually it will turn around to hurt them.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3400/bringing-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98life%E2%80%99-to-closure
So easy to look up - how can cowards be so ignorant of the simple magic of Google?
Why, YES. http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3400/bringing-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98life%E2%80%99-to-closure
Maybe you should re-think what you think you learned in school.
That's right, we're proposing a NEW DEFINITION for life.
"Programmer Evan Kirchhoff in a blog post explains that Ansca took the project on to prove its claims about how Corona makes iPhone development faster."
If you wanted to prove that it helped make development faster, re-writing a nearly two-decade old version of a program is not the way to go.
Any total fool could've done the same thing in assembler.
"Seriously? It's going to take you over three years to write the two hundred or so lines of x86 assembly required to let the BIOS see your product as a disk?"
Not every thing uses BIOS, you know. There's more than just BIOS and EFI.
Then to add to that - NOT ALL BIOS ARE THE SAME.
Something tells me you've never done hardware development before.
360 uses a microsoft-rebadged form of bluetooth
Yes, it does, and more.
And we just beat the hypervisor - we've got powerhouses at our fingertips, now.
'FWIW, the FusionIO product is not a simple drive replacement the way a SSD is. It doesn't boot and requires drivers to operate, plus the "control logic" is not self-contained but rather part of the driver."
Everything you address is fixed at the end of this year with a firmware upgrade.
"Fusion-IO - good luck using that for your OS (not bootable)."
Not until Q4, when we release the firmware upgrade to get it working.
Then, your point will be moot.
Perhaps the entire inference sailed past you - that game was sold once, the publisher has their money from the stores. The publishers want a SECOND DIP, and that's bullshit.
"They're selling a bundle and they're under no obligation to unbundle it for anybody.'
Actually, we've got laws regarding that, as well.
"You probably wouldn't recognize component cables either. They've only been around since 1997, and they aren't used for audio."
Huhwhat? They've been around since the late 70's for three-tube projection televisions. And they're just a coax cable, they can be used for audio, speaker wire, network transfer, etc.
It's as if everyone forgot even digital signals are just analog pulses.
Duh, you install a PS3-specific linux distro.
Oh, yea, you latecomers don't get that option.
Look up SED televisions - each pixel is a micro-CRT.
You must be too young to remember the original Quake 3, then.
Learn how to adjust your FPS in the console to make yourself move faster than other players!
"This is just wrong in so many ways."
WOOOOOOOOOOSH!
"The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher. "
Uh, FUCKING DUH, because the store ALREADY PAID THE PUBLISHER TO HAVE THE GAMES ON THE SHELVES.
What, don't you know how business works? Pay for a product, mark it up, make profit.
"All Sony's doing, after all, is competing more effectively."
After trying to strip you of your legal right to resell that which you purchased.
Yes, sure, support a company that is actively trying to strip your legal privileges away.
Traitor.
Mod Coward down as they clearly have no clue what First Sale Doctrine involves.
And according to wikipedia:
"The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases."
WRONG.
The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made.
"The IP is still licensed to you for offline use.'
Good fucking luck making that work for ONLINE-ONLY GAMES.
"In the US (YMMV) you have a right to do anything you want with your physical copy of the game (outside of making illicit copies). However, any rights for any subscription services are not "basic" - they depend on the contract/license for the service."
This is not true. We have the Doctrine of First Sale. If I pay for a game, that means all features. When I resell that game, the purchaser expects the exact same thing.
Forcing the second purchaser to pay extra money to access what should come with the game AS ADVERTISED is fraud in the purest sense.
So you missed the stipulation of:
By 2006, 86 million households should have already been wired with a fiber (and coax), wire, capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, and could handle 500+ channels.
I think you need to re-read that law again. That was VERY SPECIFICALLY STATED.
"What a load of crap.
A "superior player" doesn't need cheats any more than top baseball players or Olympians need steroids.
As a matter of fact....it's an easy argument to make that INFERIOR players are the ones who need to leverage cheats."
Go say that to anyone in the Q3 community and watch the nearest railgun get rammed up your ass - we RELIED upon those engine glitches to gain the edge.
"My daughter's elementary wants to press criminal charges against us for taking her on a 4-day trip to see Grandma on Thanksgiving. We notified the teacher and the school beforehand, got her classwork and homework, and had her turn it in the day she got back. As it turns out, 3 days would have been ok. Because it was 1 day more, I'm harboring a future-gang member and deserve to go to jail!"
Turn that right around and file suit for defamation of your character and your daughter's character, and the character of your family.
There is only so far they can go with censorship before it turns around to bite them in the ass.
Unforeseen consequences are quite often the natural check and balance to the nonsense that governments pull - sure they'll try to do what they can to stifle speech but eventually it will turn around to hurt them.