Not entirely true. You simply want to disable automatic execution of Java code. There are many apps out there that people don't even know use Java to run (although many of them use a private JVM to run in). The same goes for flash.... you wouldn't want your flash app to stop working since you disabled it in your web browser.
I know that Ubuntu requires jars to have the executable set on them before you can use them with java. What the mac did will still allow this, as it marks files as to their original location. If you download a program (including java jars) you will get a warning that you downloaded this [java, perl, unix, flash, windows, , ect...] program on the internet, It could harm your computer. Are you sure you want to continue? Additionally, since Java isn't installed on Macs by default anymore, it will ask you if you want to install it if you try and open a jar.
A webstart link is simply a jnlp file, which is an xml file, that if opened with javaws will start up the Java application (in a sandbox or warn the user it won't). This does not attach to the web browser and runs in its own frame. When you install Java it should associate jnlp files with javaws so that when you click with a browser it shouldn't launch the javaws program unless you choose to always open with it when you click it.
From the article this seems to be a bug with the way the Mac handled scripts in an unexpected way.
There are 2 issues here. 1. In most circumstances players will want on the official servers in order to get the widest audience to play against. In this case even allowing a local server version of the game makes it easier to create cheats for the official server (unless the game makers make a drastically different engine).as you know how the server identifies cheating. So, you sacrifice the needs of a few players who want mod capabilities with those that want a cheat-free environment. 2. Letting players see all the ins and outs of the game can spoil it for other players. The act of finding new things in the game in an intended way has a lot going for it (I speak mainly of RPGs here).
In my opinion, multimedia companies should have a lot of control of their content, but be greatly encouraged to release their product to the public once the content has run its prime life course. In the above case, private servers would be allowed once the company does this.
There seems to be multiple problems here: 1. Game can't handle intake of people at launch. Ok, the issue here is that the game company has to shell out a lot of resources to support all the people who want to play it at launch. These resources will need to be reallocated later since chances are that the usage will never peak that high again, or even that close. Solution: A single player "demo/tutorial" of the game at launch that players must progress though in order to access the online version. Since players play at different rates, this should reduce the load peak that games experience.
2. Gamers want a guarantee that they will be able to play the game indefinably, even if servers go offline. Solution: The game company puts in a reasonable minimum support timeline when you buy the game that they will support it for. E.g. If they guarantee to support the game for a year, you buy it 1 year after it is released and they cancel it 6 months later, then you get your money back, but everyone who bought it at launch doesn't.
3. Gamers don't want bandwidth to interfere with their gaming experience, and don't want maintenance down time. Solution: None really. This is simply one of those items a game is judged by. If latency on their end is bad, then gamers may have a case that they are receiving poor service, and perhaps a standard contract of compensation could be drawn up addressing this issue.
4. Gamers want to modify the game they are playing, or simply create their own cheats. Solution: None. It is too a lesser extent a good thing as it makes cheating in an online game harder.
5. Gamers want to pirate the game. Solution: Shoo... go away pirates.
I support gay rights. I support freedom of speech more. I support a soap box for everyone. If we don't let those who we disagree with talk, we will never recognize a time when they are right and we are wrong.
I'm for gay rights. I like Card's stories. I would be fine if he wrote a story that pushed an anti-gay moral... as long as the story is good. It's always good to look at a story from the other end of the spectrum.
The comparison of the cost and time spent to do the first human genome compared to current runs is hiding the very important fact that if you have an existing genome for a species then doing another one is really easy as you can simply map the reads to the genome instead of having to do de novo. Getting a genome as complete as human these days still takes millions of dollars. And you ain't going to just rely on Ion Torrent. Your going to need Illumina for those large number of small reads and PacBio for those few long reads (look at the allpaths assembler for a pipeline to get a good, but not perfect assembly).
Doing a new genome is very hard and still quite expensive, although technology and techniques have improved things. The rice genome (which is much harder to do than human) is still ongoing using human pattern matching skills to help assemble it. The reality is that for most genomes no one wants to pay millions of dollars to get a full complete genome. A draft genome that is in pieces is still 90% as useful as a complete one that you can get done for around 10K.
It is a big deal to those corporations. Although settling isn't that big of a deal, the money they pay the patent trolls only empower them to buy more patents and sue more companies. Also, there are some really gutsy patent trolls that don't settle and instead try to get the jury to pay the off big. "Members of the jury, the sale of the companies product is in use by their product. For this reason we want a mere 5% of the total sales of their devices" (They say this in an industry where the profit margin is 5%). And this is assuming that the patent trolls don't prove willful infringement.
These corporations have the big bucks, they have the lobying power to push this law though, and those patent trolls have finally become annoying enough to hurt them. What I fear is that the patent trolls will find the inventors and offer to back license the patent and represent them in court for a mere 90% of the payoff.
Wow, that is really a misleading title for those in the field. "Assemble" generally refers to solving the jigsaw puzzle of putting digitized DNA fragments generated from a sequencing machine together to form contigs which can eventually be assigned to a chromosome.
The reason for this is simple. If the told everyone what they were accused of, then someone gather these emails and determine what kind of piracy gets by, and what doesn't.
So, Monsanto, who spends lots of money on research of GMO, wants to benefit from its research. They can try too: 1. patent their product and take measures against anyone who uses it and doesn't pay. -- Accidental use is far too easy. Plants don't label themselves 2. Use BRM (bio rights management) like terminator gene, or one that requires a chemical activation. -- Like DRM you reduce the quality of the product to protect it. Also requires extra research time to do this.
So what would be an ideal solution to this problem, assuming that Monsanto can't afford to simply let farmers buy it once and propagate it as much as they like? 1. GMO is evil, and everything they do is bad. Their research should not be allowed to exist. 2. Create legislation where the government pays Monsanto for their work based on how much of their product is adopted. Then anyone can use the seeds. 3. Some other solution??
Blizzard never did implement the Equipment Potency EquivalencE Number (EPEEN) system (which they introduced on 4/1/2010). If they did it would block out you from seeing or hearing anyone who wasn't leet enough to be worth your time (based on gear level) along with other bonuses to allow you to troll those lesser players.
This depends on how the bill is written. You will probably need to ask the user where they live and assign appropriate sales tax in that area. If they lie to you, then they are responsible for the tax evasion.
If you buy a car in another state you still owe sales tax from the state you live in.
Your right, they are going to use Hollywood math. They will never recover the operating costs of running this operation, and instead just have local businesses operate at 100% of the gross.
Where I live internet options are Time Warner, or various companies that resell Time Warner. Not everyone lives in a big city where they have choices on what ISP they get.
My boss hates to be left out of the loop. He insists that people have reply to all as the default, and would rather more people are in the loop about what is happening than not. However, I work at an academic institution, so things might be a bit different here.
With that being said, perhaps some kind of "reply to individuals" would work out well, where only those individual people in the list are replied too instead of those in a mailing list or in a group.
If enough people use tools like Ad block, then websites will respond by having their server contact the Ad servers and check if the Ad was served to the user browsing the site. If it wasn't, then the site will refuse to let you view their content. Ad agencies don't mind Ad block too much, as they don't get charged if a website doesn't serve the ad, its the websites generating income from the ads in exchange for content that care the most.
Once this event happens, the Ad blockers will be reprogrammed to fetch the Ad and either not display it, or display it in an invisible window. This will result in Ad companies (now that they are being hurt by it), trying to devise tricks using "rich content" like Flash that tries to detect if it is being hidden away from the user. Since control on how Flash operates is currently limited (and probably will remain so as long as Adobe is making it), I foresee Adobe playing nice with the Ad agencies and giving them a way to detect if the Ad is being seen by the user. This will then lead to creating a virtualization sandbox for the browser that has all the ads intact, the real browser only taking the non-ad content and showing it to the user.
What I don't foresee the ad agencies doing is (in any large scale): hosting the ads on the content providers servers, as this puts trust into their hands that they are properly reporting what ads are being severed, and it also increases the communication between the Ad website and the content providers website (since you want relevant ads shown on the site based on the user visiting them). However, this might be worth dong for larger content sites (like say Hulu) where the level of trust is higher and the companies can work more closely together. Once this is done, it will be difficult for the ad blocking software to detect the difference between ads and content.
It would simply result in people slowly evolving to pass the test, in whatever way they can (including cheating). Also, I'd prefer not to catch a nasty virus from a telephone booth.
Blizzard did not sell out to Activision. Their parent company used a large chunk of their stock in the company to get Activision while retaining controlling stock. Yes, Activision's president runs the new "company," but in reality they aren't involved in Blizzard's games aside from physical distribution in Europe. Activision knows that Blizzard is a company that knows how to make good games, and they aren't going to kill the goose that lays that egg.
As to your second statement, yes, Blizzard is a company, they will keep doing what they can to get players to keep paying their monthly dues as long as it doesn't hurt their reputation, this hasn't changed since the merger. Sometimes they will decide to hold off on short term money making opportunities in order to help the long term health of the game. As an example, up until a few months ago you could pay $2.00 a month to be able to use the in game auction house from your web browse or smart phone and talk online to your guild mates from your smart phone. For some unknown reason Blizzard cut this service and gave these benefits to everyone.
Blizzard also (about a year ago) made a controversial move to make one of their pets you can buy with real money tradable to other players (although with the trading card mounts they already had). The reasoning to this was as much as they would like to keep real money separate from the game (in that everyone who pays their $15 a month fee is on equal footing), there was too much fraud in game with people making unofficial transactions. Placing some of these more common transactions in a in-game secure system would help reduce fraud even though it encourages players to use real money to get benefits. Diablo 3 developers decided to make virtually everything sellable on the real money auction house as an experiment to see how it affects pride in the game, "I earned all this cool stuff," vs being unhappy that "other people took the easy way out and just bought all their stuff".
Assassination is one of three possible specializations for the Rogue class. According to her wow profile: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/garrosh/Santiaga/simple She did not do any end game content and hasn't logged on in almost 2 months (and even then only a very small amount). She seems to have been a much more active player back in 2010, but probably went to a much more causal play schedule once politics started up.
The dangers of being pressured to vote in a certain way in public place over the internet is the same danger that absentee (vote my mail) is currently. Furthermore I can request to change my absentee status by simply entering my drivers license/State ID online. If I don't receive my ballot, or I don't want it mailed I can print one out from their website. The only real advantage this has in preventing voter fraud over a purely electronic system is the cost a hacker would have to make to falsify individual ballots vs electronic ballots.
It's simple, add a ToS to a http request that provides a link to the ToS. Let the browser send back an answer saying that the user accepts the ToS. Depending on the browser settings, it will either show the ToS to the user, or let them implicitly accept it, if the browser finds that it matches a standard ToS template (or the user has accepted it before). It's a win/win we can keep down the annoyances and make it more difficult for companies to include their own special clauses into ToSs that almost noone reads these days anyways.
Also note on the blog you don't actually need to force the user to read the ToS, a simple "I have read the terms and services [link]" when the user registers, or puts information into your web site is sufficient.
Let's hope it stays at that level. Ideally the default rules in place if you have no agreement simply need to be toned down, an implied "use the internet at your own risk" should be written into law.
If you want a really annoying example of clickthough. Try WoW, every time the game updates you are presented with a new EULA that you have to scroll to the bottom before you can click accept followed by a ToS you have to do the same for. They say the terms have changed every time, even though they haven't, they just force to you re-agree to use their new slightly modified binary.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely true. You simply want to disable automatic execution of Java code. There are many apps out there that people don't even know use Java to run (although many of them use a private JVM to run in). The same goes for flash.... you wouldn't want your flash app to stop working since you disabled it in your web browser.
I know that Ubuntu requires jars to have the executable set on them before you can use them with java. What the mac did will still allow this, as it marks files as to their original location. If you download a program (including java jars) you will get a warning that you downloaded this [java, perl, unix, flash, windows, , ect...] program on the internet, It could harm your computer. Are you sure you want to continue? Additionally, since Java isn't installed on Macs by default anymore, it will ask you if you want to install it if you try and open a jar.
A webstart link is simply a jnlp file, which is an xml file, that if opened with javaws will start up the Java application (in a sandbox or warn the user it won't). This does not attach to the web browser and runs in its own frame. When you install Java it should associate jnlp files with javaws so that when you click with a browser it shouldn't launch the javaws program unless you choose to always open with it when you click it.
From the article this seems to be a bug with the way the Mac handled scripts in an unexpected way.
Yes. Most of us can withstand a little bit of unruly people from time to time. Don't let the vocal minority speak for the majority.
There are 2 issues here.
1. In most circumstances players will want on the official servers in order to get the widest audience to play against. In this case even allowing a local server version of the game makes it easier to create cheats for the official server (unless the game makers make a drastically different engine).as you know how the server identifies cheating. So, you sacrifice the needs of a few players who want mod capabilities with those that want a cheat-free environment.
2. Letting players see all the ins and outs of the game can spoil it for other players. The act of finding new things in the game in an intended way has a lot going for it (I speak mainly of RPGs here).
In my opinion, multimedia companies should have a lot of control of their content, but be greatly encouraged to release their product to the public once the content has run its prime life course. In the above case, private servers would be allowed once the company does this.
There seems to be multiple problems here:
1. Game can't handle intake of people at launch.
Ok, the issue here is that the game company has to shell out a lot of resources to support all the people who want to play it at launch. These resources will need to be reallocated later since chances are that the usage will never peak that high again, or even that close.
Solution:
A single player "demo/tutorial" of the game at launch that players must progress though in order to access the online version. Since players play at different rates, this should reduce the load peak that games experience.
2. Gamers want a guarantee that they will be able to play the game indefinably, even if servers go offline.
Solution:
The game company puts in a reasonable minimum support timeline when you buy the game that they will support it for. E.g. If they guarantee to support the game for a year, you buy it 1 year after it is released and they cancel it 6 months later, then you get your money back, but everyone who bought it at launch doesn't.
3. Gamers don't want bandwidth to interfere with their gaming experience, and don't want maintenance down time.
Solution:
None really. This is simply one of those items a game is judged by. If latency on their end is bad, then gamers may have a case that they are receiving poor service, and perhaps a standard contract of compensation could be drawn up addressing this issue.
4. Gamers want to modify the game they are playing, or simply create their own cheats.
Solution:
None. It is too a lesser extent a good thing as it makes cheating in an online game harder.
5. Gamers want to pirate the game.
Solution:
Shoo... go away pirates.
I support gay rights. I support freedom of speech more. I support a soap box for everyone. If we don't let those who we disagree with talk, we will never recognize a time when they are right and we are wrong.
I'm for gay rights. I like Card's stories. I would be fine if he wrote a story that pushed an anti-gay moral... as long as the story is good. It's always good to look at a story from the other end of the spectrum.
The comparison of the cost and time spent to do the first human genome compared to current runs is hiding the very important fact that if you have an existing genome for a species then doing another one is really easy as you can simply map the reads to the genome instead of having to do de novo. Getting a genome as complete as human these days still takes millions of dollars. And you ain't going to just rely on Ion Torrent. Your going to need Illumina for those large number of small reads and PacBio for those few long reads (look at the allpaths assembler for a pipeline to get a good, but not perfect assembly).
Doing a new genome is very hard and still quite expensive, although technology and techniques have improved things. The rice genome (which is much harder to do than human) is still ongoing using human pattern matching skills to help assemble it. The reality is that for most genomes no one wants to pay millions of dollars to get a full complete genome. A draft genome that is in pieces is still 90% as useful as a complete one that you can get done for around 10K.
It is a big deal to those corporations. Although settling isn't that big of a deal, the money they pay the patent trolls only empower them to buy more patents and sue more companies. Also, there are some really gutsy patent trolls that don't settle and instead try to get the jury to pay the off big. "Members of the jury, the sale of the companies product is in use by their product. For this reason we want a mere 5% of the total sales of their devices" (They say this in an industry where the profit margin is 5%). And this is assuming that the patent trolls don't prove willful infringement.
These corporations have the big bucks, they have the lobying power to push this law though, and those patent trolls have finally become annoying enough to hurt them. What I fear is that the patent trolls will find the inventors and offer to back license the patent and represent them in court for a mere 90% of the payoff.
Wow, that is really a misleading title for those in the field. "Assemble" generally refers to solving the jigsaw puzzle of putting digitized DNA fragments generated from a sequencing machine together to form contigs which can eventually be assigned to a chromosome.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_assembly
The reason for this is simple. If the told everyone what they were accused of, then someone gather these emails and determine what kind of piracy gets by, and what doesn't.
So, Monsanto, who spends lots of money on research of GMO, wants to benefit from its research.
They can try too:
1. patent their product and take measures against anyone who uses it and doesn't pay.
-- Accidental use is far too easy. Plants don't label themselves
2. Use BRM (bio rights management) like terminator gene, or one that requires a chemical activation.
-- Like DRM you reduce the quality of the product to protect it. Also requires extra research time to do this.
So what would be an ideal solution to this problem, assuming that Monsanto can't afford to simply let farmers buy it once and propagate it as much as they like?
1. GMO is evil, and everything they do is bad. Their research should not be allowed to exist.
2. Create legislation where the government pays Monsanto for their work based on how much of their product is adopted. Then anyone can use the seeds.
3. Some other solution??
Blizzard never did implement the Equipment Potency EquivalencE Number (EPEEN) system (which they introduced on 4/1/2010). If they did it would block out you from seeing or hearing anyone who wasn't leet enough to be worth your time (based on gear level) along with other bonuses to allow you to troll those lesser players.
This depends on how the bill is written. You will probably need to ask the user where they live and assign appropriate sales tax in that area. If they lie to you, then they are responsible for the tax evasion.
If you buy a car in another state you still owe sales tax from the state you live in.
Your right, they are going to use Hollywood math. They will never recover the operating costs of running this operation, and instead just have local businesses operate at 100% of the gross.
Where I live internet options are Time Warner, or various companies that resell Time Warner. Not everyone lives in a big city where they have choices on what ISP they get.
From the article:
Most drivers were forced to read their owner's manual to learn how to access their manual key, Camara said.
My boss hates to be left out of the loop. He insists that people have reply to all as the default, and would rather more people are in the loop about what is happening than not. However, I work at an academic institution, so things might be a bit different here.
With that being said, perhaps some kind of "reply to individuals" would work out well, where only those individual people in the list are replied too instead of those in a mailing list or in a group.
If enough people use tools like Ad block, then websites will respond by having their server contact the Ad servers and check if the Ad was served to the user browsing the site. If it wasn't, then the site will refuse to let you view their content. Ad agencies don't mind Ad block too much, as they don't get charged if a website doesn't serve the ad, its the websites generating income from the ads in exchange for content that care the most.
Once this event happens, the Ad blockers will be reprogrammed to fetch the Ad and either not display it, or display it in an invisible window. This will result in Ad companies (now that they are being hurt by it), trying to devise tricks using "rich content" like Flash that tries to detect if it is being hidden away from the user. Since control on how Flash operates is currently limited (and probably will remain so as long as Adobe is making it), I foresee Adobe playing nice with the Ad agencies and giving them a way to detect if the Ad is being seen by the user. This will then lead to creating a virtualization sandbox for the browser that has all the ads intact, the real browser only taking the non-ad content and showing it to the user.
What I don't foresee the ad agencies doing is (in any large scale): hosting the ads on the content providers servers, as this puts trust into their hands that they are properly reporting what ads are being severed, and it also increases the communication between the Ad website and the content providers website (since you want relevant ads shown on the site based on the user visiting them). However, this might be worth dong for larger content sites (like say Hulu) where the level of trust is higher and the companies can work more closely together. Once this is done, it will be difficult for the ad blocking software to detect the difference between ads and content.
It would simply result in people slowly evolving to pass the test, in whatever way they can (including cheating). Also, I'd prefer not to catch a nasty virus from a telephone booth.
Blizzard did not sell out to Activision. Their parent company used a large chunk of their stock in the company to get Activision while retaining controlling stock. Yes, Activision's president runs the new "company," but in reality they aren't involved in Blizzard's games aside from physical distribution in Europe. Activision knows that Blizzard is a company that knows how to make good games, and they aren't going to kill the goose that lays that egg.
As to your second statement, yes, Blizzard is a company, they will keep doing what they can to get players to keep paying their monthly dues as long as it doesn't hurt their reputation, this hasn't changed since the merger. Sometimes they will decide to hold off on short term money making opportunities in order to help the long term health of the game. As an example, up until a few months ago you could pay $2.00 a month to be able to use the in game auction house from your web browse or smart phone and talk online to your guild mates from your smart phone. For some unknown reason Blizzard cut this service and gave these benefits to everyone.
Blizzard also (about a year ago) made a controversial move to make one of their pets you can buy with real money tradable to other players (although with the trading card mounts they already had). The reasoning to this was as much as they would like to keep real money separate from the game (in that everyone who pays their $15 a month fee is on equal footing), there was too much fraud in game with people making unofficial transactions. Placing some of these more common transactions in a in-game secure system would help reduce fraud even though it encourages players to use real money to get benefits. Diablo 3 developers decided to make virtually everything sellable on the real money auction house as an experiment to see how it affects pride in the game, "I earned all this cool stuff," vs being unhappy that "other people took the easy way out and just bought all their stuff".
Assassination is one of three possible specializations for the Rogue class. According to her wow profile:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/garrosh/Santiaga/simple
She did not do any end game content and hasn't logged on in almost 2 months (and even then only a very small amount). She seems to have been a much more active player back in 2010, but probably went to a much more causal play schedule once politics started up.
The dangers of being pressured to vote in a certain way in public place over the internet is the same danger that absentee (vote my mail) is currently. Furthermore I can request to change my absentee status by simply entering my drivers license/State ID online. If I don't receive my ballot, or I don't want it mailed I can print one out from their website. The only real advantage this has in preventing voter fraud over a purely electronic system is the cost a hacker would have to make to falsify individual ballots vs electronic ballots.
It's simple, add a ToS to a http request that provides a link to the ToS. Let the browser send back an answer saying that the user accepts the ToS. Depending on the browser settings, it will either show the ToS to the user, or let them implicitly accept it, if the browser finds that it matches a standard ToS template (or the user has accepted it before). It's a win/win we can keep down the annoyances and make it more difficult for companies to include their own special clauses into ToSs that almost noone reads these days anyways.
Also note on the blog you don't actually need to force the user to read the ToS, a simple "I have read the terms and services [link]" when the user registers, or puts information into your web site is sufficient.
Let's hope it stays at that level. Ideally the default rules in place if you have no agreement simply need to be toned down, an implied "use the internet at your own risk" should be written into law.
If you want a really annoying example of clickthough. Try WoW, every time the game updates you are presented with a new EULA that you have to scroll to the bottom before you can click accept followed by a ToS you have to do the same for. They say the terms have changed every time, even though they haven't, they just force to you re-agree to use their new slightly modified binary.