There's always the 0.00x% of people who have the perfect DNA to break out in hives or be allergic or some random thing to just about every substance imaginable. Doubly so if its a substance that they have literally never encountered before because its contraband and its the first time.
Basically, you're right - The wrong stat was being tracked.
Its unclear FTA and the stat in question what that ratio was, since they were tracking those "seeking emergency intervention" as opposed to those actually Requiring emergency intervention but its likely that the latter is smaller than the former but not zero.
Well, The way this ruins games is usually the addition of some sort of currency, followed by a hardcore locking down of the game, heavy DRM, heavy anti-tamper, removal/sanitization of mods, and removal of any kind of community control or modding.
This is because heavy DRM and anti-tamper and a real crackdown on community engagement and modding goes hand-in-hand with selling any kind of thing in-game that the community would have made for free... if you can mod things you could just mod coins in or whatever items / stories are the equivalent of the ones you get from coins. Gotta put a stop to that.
Same kind of thing happened when they had the bright idea of selling people cheat codes in the Assassins Creed games. They realized that hang on, people just have cheat codes on PC anyway, without paying, because its PC. So a large portion of the 'anti-cheat' measures in a mostly single-player game were there to stop you from accessing single player cheats/trainers purely so that they could then sell them to you as DLC.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset
Haha, are you making a subtle joke here? Because in the vast majority of this nation, this is literally in the small print of house sales and is actually how it works. If you're surprised at this, then take another look at your small print.:)
This is pretty much what turned me off on IP law in general.
Copyright law and Patent Law are part of a bargain, a deal made where in the general public gives up some fundamantal rights, such as the right to copy things, (which you had the right to do before copyright law limited your rights to do so).
The theory is that in exchange for giving up these rights, on a temporary basis, the good that comes from it is that the public gets access to a much larger library of public domain over time. That is literally the bargain. You give up your pre-existing rights to do what you want with your media and recordings and whatever, in the hope that in the longer term, more such works exist since creators have protection.
This bargain was always supposed to be two sided. You give up your right to copy and a fair bit of tax money that goes into enforcement, and in exchange, after a brief period, the works become public domain.
Look how that worked out. As soon as the public was locked into this deal, powerful IP mills started immediately eating away at their side of the deal, extending copyright duration into infinity, consolodating power, making it incredibly one-sided. At this point I'm willing to say that the old IP deals need complete cancellation, that replacing it with literally nothing would be better for the public.
I guess it depends on whether you're talking about theoretically, or in reality, based on current political climate, who's in power, and how they're likely to vote / legislate. (And this isn't an attack on any particular party - its been just as bad when either is in power, since large numbers of congress critters either directly or indirectly benefit from this system).
What I mean by this is, in the "ideal" patent system envisioned at the time of creation, sure, it has all these theoretical upsides, you are correct. But what it has become instead due to the way things are and the way politics and legislation and the courts work, is what we actually have. A more pragmatic approach to "what ought to be done" takes into account what actually is likely to happen and what actually can be done given the actors involved.
So ideally yes, congress folks, judges, lawyers, and other actors would act against their own financial interests as literal patent and IP lawyers or folks with holdings in large IP companies, to Do The Right Thing For The Good Of The People and fix this.
But in reality, not only is it actively working against the public it is supposed to protect, but the grand bargain of what you give up in order to get these protections isn't upholding its own side of the bargain (similar to copyright law's infinite extensions). And even though the obvious "correct" course of action is to "amend patent laws", the actual political likelyhood of this occurring, with the current (and prior) legislature is that they make it worse, not better.
Its similar to saying that obviously the current various branches of government should pass laws which limit their own means of corruption. Yes, obviously that's the "right" thing to do, but it won't happen because the very people who can make this kind of change benefit from not changing it.
I don't agree with that "bargain", I'm okay with encryption being everywhere and anywhere. More importantly, I'm not afraid of, and are willing to deal with the consequences thereof.
No deal.
I let them play ads... The reason for that is they revenue share with the content creators.
I would actually gladly go to a twitch-style x bucks a month model where some of the x is divided up by the content creators, but they aren't offering that.
I heard they're starting someting like that for other websites, but not youtube:(
That being said, they've shown me the same exact advert for a restaurant about 30-40 times in a row now and I'm starting to feel like its not worth it. I don't want your 'apps', Chilli's.
From their intro video it appears that you generate your key on their website and even have a backup code that lets you retrieve it.
How is this end to end? If they can retrieve the key for you and hold your private key for you, they can be compelled to release it (or knowing Yahoo's track record, accidentally leak it or get hacked).
Now all they have to do is slowly but surely decrease the normal cap or increase its price per megabyte and they will have achieved the tiered internet where they're paid for each different channel, just as they've always wanted.
Just to add some info here, when I checked that page, that option was already unchecked for me by default. I'm pretty sure I didn't uncheck it. So Google clearly knows enough about me to know that I don't want that option before they even ask.
Could there not be some tech or protocol that lets you host something the pirate bay directly on torrents somehow, via signing + distributed hashing or somehting? If anyone could get something like that started it would be TPB. Surely there's some way to create an app or site which leverages distributed nature of torrent to host an application or website "everywhere"?
There actually IS a penalty for knowingly making false claims, its a federal crime. But its one of those "must fight in court, full of loopholes" crimes that's not meant for Fox and friends, its meant for "ordinary people". You know, people. Not... The People.
From looking at the spec, all it appears to be doing is creating a protocol for the negotiation of third party platform specific DRM plugins. So basically, platform specific third party browser plugins, but now in the standard for some reason. Why is this necessary? It doesn't make it so that the plugins are platform agnostic or open, it just makes it so that the protocol to load and activate platform SPECIFIC, purpose SPECIFIC, binary plugins are part of the standard now... for some reason. This just makes it more complicated and doesn't actually have any upside!
These closed, binary DRM plugins will still need to be installed, just like flash or silverlight is, and they'll still only be on the platforms that the movie industry considers trustworthy, nothing will have changed except now we have a more complicated spec to follow in order to make a "compliant" browser.
Atari has filed for bankruptcy several times now. Each an every time, someone buys the name and some IP, then they go bankrupt soon after. It's a curse!
Re:How is Qt still relevant?
on
Qt 5.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
On the business software side, there's also well known applications like Autodesk Maya (2011 and above, they switched TO qt recently!), and also the Perforce client (P4V).
I'm seeing more and more of it in the internals of "big" apps like that, even if the user is unaware. I have a feeling its partly because of the LGPL side of things opening up more than anything. Although I'm pretty sure autodesk licensed it commercially.
QT is about the best "native SDK" I've seen out there. In the company I work at, we dev our internal tools in Qt, and at home my hobby projects are in Qt also. They run on mac, linux, and windows.
Other projects that run on Qt include Maya (Autodesk), they recently swapped over to using 4.7.1. Knowing autodesk, in only a couple decades they'll switch to Qt5!
Yeah, this is a way to 'legally' do it but the BSA is more of a racket than that. You see, they don't just apply legal pressure. Their contracts make others in the same alliance refuse to deal with those that won't work with the BSA. So for example, Microsoft / Sony / etc will stop validating your hardware or software and Apple will blacklist your keys and so on.
If the BSA was standing only on legal footing that would be one thing but right now these large corps are using it as leverage to get smaller ones who depend on them to play ball.
You're incorrect here. The EULA on all these games indicate that what you bought was a hunk of plastic, and you can do what you want with that (including melt it down), but the data that happens to be on it does not belong to you. You've merely been given a revocable license to copy it into ram in order to play it.
It sounds unbelievable, I know, but read the small print. This is where we're at in the legal side of games now.
Slashdot Mirror
The ATARI curse is a sequence that forever repeats
But eh, it was behind a paywall, and, you see, I'm going to have to flake on reading paywalled content tonight.
But they're REALLY effective against themselves and the American people, when they leak.
Unfortunately no. The site/app they went after actually restricts multiplayer modding and is single-player focused specifically.
There's always the 0.00x% of people who have the perfect DNA to break out in hives or be allergic or some random thing to just about every substance imaginable. Doubly so if its a substance that they have literally never encountered before because its contraband and its the first time.
Basically, you're right - The wrong stat was being tracked.
Its unclear FTA and the stat in question what that ratio was, since they were tracking those "seeking emergency intervention" as opposed to those actually Requiring emergency intervention but its likely that the latter is smaller than the former but not zero.
We'll see VR again when the patents expire, I guess.
Well, The way this ruins games is usually the addition of some sort of currency, followed by a hardcore locking down of the game, heavy DRM, heavy anti-tamper, removal/sanitization of mods, and removal of any kind of community control or modding.
This is because heavy DRM and anti-tamper and a real crackdown on community engagement and modding goes hand-in-hand with selling any kind of thing in-game that the community would have made for free... if you can mod things you could just mod coins in or whatever items / stories are the equivalent of the ones you get from coins. Gotta put a stop to that.
Same kind of thing happened when they had the bright idea of selling people cheat codes in the Assassins Creed games. They realized that hang on, people just have cheat codes on PC anyway, without paying, because its PC. So a large portion of the 'anti-cheat' measures in a mostly single-player game were there to stop you from accessing single player cheats/trainers purely so that they could then sell them to you as DLC.
Look, if I offered to sell you a home, but after putting down a downpayment you read the contract and it turned out to be a hundred year lease, you would be damn upset
Haha, are you making a subtle joke here? Because in the vast majority of this nation, this is literally in the small print of house sales and is actually how it works. If you're surprised at this, then take another look at your small print. :)
This is pretty much what turned me off on IP law in general.
Copyright law and Patent Law are part of a bargain, a deal made where in the general public gives up some fundamantal rights, such as the right to copy things, (which you had the right to do before copyright law limited your rights to do so).
The theory is that in exchange for giving up these rights, on a temporary basis, the good that comes from it is that the public gets access to a much larger library of public domain over time. That is literally the bargain. You give up your pre-existing rights to do what you want with your media and recordings and whatever, in the hope that in the longer term, more such works exist since creators have protection.
This bargain was always supposed to be two sided. You give up your right to copy and a fair bit of tax money that goes into enforcement, and in exchange, after a brief period, the works become public domain.
Look how that worked out. As soon as the public was locked into this deal, powerful IP mills started immediately eating away at their side of the deal, extending copyright duration into infinity, consolodating power, making it incredibly one-sided. At this point I'm willing to say that the old IP deals need complete cancellation, that replacing it with literally nothing would be better for the public.
I guess it depends on whether you're talking about theoretically, or in reality, based on current political climate, who's in power, and how they're likely to vote / legislate. (And this isn't an attack on any particular party - its been just as bad when either is in power, since large numbers of congress critters either directly or indirectly benefit from this system).
What I mean by this is, in the "ideal" patent system envisioned at the time of creation, sure, it has all these theoretical upsides, you are correct. But what it has become instead due to the way things are and the way politics and legislation and the courts work, is what we actually have. A more pragmatic approach to "what ought to be done" takes into account what actually is likely to happen and what actually can be done given the actors involved.
So ideally yes, congress folks, judges, lawyers, and other actors would act against their own financial interests as literal patent and IP lawyers or folks with holdings in large IP companies, to Do The Right Thing For The Good Of The People and fix this.
But in reality, not only is it actively working against the public it is supposed to protect, but the grand bargain of what you give up in order to get these protections isn't upholding its own side of the bargain (similar to copyright law's infinite extensions). And even though the obvious "correct" course of action is to "amend patent laws", the actual political likelyhood of this occurring, with the current (and prior) legislature is that they make it worse, not better.
Its similar to saying that obviously the current various branches of government should pass laws which limit their own means of corruption. Yes, obviously that's the "right" thing to do, but it won't happen because the very people who can make this kind of change benefit from not changing it.
I don't agree with that "bargain", I'm okay with encryption being everywhere and anywhere. More importantly, I'm not afraid of, and are willing to deal with the consequences thereof. No deal.
I let them play ads... The reason for that is they revenue share with the content creators. I would actually gladly go to a twitch-style x bucks a month model where some of the x is divided up by the content creators, but they aren't offering that. I heard they're starting someting like that for other websites, but not youtube :(
That being said, they've shown me the same exact advert for a restaurant about 30-40 times in a row now and I'm starting to feel like its not worth it. I don't want your 'apps', Chilli's.
From their intro video it appears that you generate your key on their website and even have a backup code that lets you retrieve it. How is this end to end? If they can retrieve the key for you and hold your private key for you, they can be compelled to release it (or knowing Yahoo's track record, accidentally leak it or get hacked).
I'm pretty sure I could underclock my nvidia card to be as slow and shitty as the AMD card and the performance per watt would be comparable too.
Now all they have to do is slowly but surely decrease the normal cap or increase its price per megabyte and they will have achieved the tiered internet where they're paid for each different channel, just as they've always wanted.
Just to add some info here, when I checked that page, that option was already unchecked for me by default. I'm pretty sure I didn't uncheck it. So Google clearly knows enough about me to know that I don't want that option before they even ask.
Could there not be some tech or protocol that lets you host something the pirate bay directly on torrents somehow, via signing + distributed hashing or somehting? If anyone could get something like that started it would be TPB. Surely there's some way to create an app or site which leverages distributed nature of torrent to host an application or website "everywhere"?
There actually IS a penalty for knowingly making false claims, its a federal crime. But its one of those "must fight in court, full of loopholes" crimes that's not meant for Fox and friends, its meant for "ordinary people". You know, people. Not... The People.
From looking at the spec, all it appears to be doing is creating a protocol for the negotiation of third party platform specific DRM plugins. So basically, platform specific third party browser plugins, but now in the standard for some reason. Why is this necessary? It doesn't make it so that the plugins are platform agnostic or open, it just makes it so that the protocol to load and activate platform SPECIFIC, purpose SPECIFIC, binary plugins are part of the standard now... for some reason. This just makes it more complicated and doesn't actually have any upside! These closed, binary DRM plugins will still need to be installed, just like flash or silverlight is, and they'll still only be on the platforms that the movie industry considers trustworthy, nothing will have changed except now we have a more complicated spec to follow in order to make a "compliant" browser.
Atari has filed for bankruptcy several times now. Each an every time, someone buys the name and some IP, then they go bankrupt soon after. It's a curse!
On the business software side, there's also well known applications like Autodesk Maya (2011 and above, they switched TO qt recently!), and also the Perforce client (P4V). I'm seeing more and more of it in the internals of "big" apps like that, even if the user is unaware. I have a feeling its partly because of the LGPL side of things opening up more than anything. Although I'm pretty sure autodesk licensed it commercially.
QT is about the best "native SDK" I've seen out there. In the company I work at, we dev our internal tools in Qt, and at home my hobby projects are in Qt also. They run on mac, linux, and windows. Other projects that run on Qt include Maya (Autodesk), they recently swapped over to using 4.7.1. Knowing autodesk, in only a couple decades they'll switch to Qt5!
Because every time I see someone abbreviate "Function" as "Fn" I read it as "effing"
Yeah, this is a way to 'legally' do it but the BSA is more of a racket than that. You see, they don't just apply legal pressure. Their contracts make others in the same alliance refuse to deal with those that won't work with the BSA. So for example, Microsoft / Sony / etc will stop validating your hardware or software and Apple will blacklist your keys and so on. If the BSA was standing only on legal footing that would be one thing but right now these large corps are using it as leverage to get smaller ones who depend on them to play ball.
You're incorrect here. The EULA on all these games indicate that what you bought was a hunk of plastic, and you can do what you want with that (including melt it down), but the data that happens to be on it does not belong to you. You've merely been given a revocable license to copy it into ram in order to play it. It sounds unbelievable, I know, but read the small print. This is where we're at in the legal side of games now.