from the summary: "illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet" from the article: "ARCEP says protocol specifications could allow ham-radio operator to connect their station to Internet and are against the law"
is the Internet illegal in France? What is the problem here? Can someone please provide an explanation which doesn't require foreknowledge of Ham-radio operation/protocols/conventions or French law?
Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.
The "we need DRM, otherwise we can't provide all the content we want to!" argument is horrible, stupid, and insulting. DRM does not allow businesses to provide content in new markets. DRM allows businesses to provide old markets in places where they make no sense. Every company which complains they can't do X without DRM really means they don't want to do X without magic fairy dust. Meanwhile, everyone and their grandmother is busy providing X without DRM, and the only difference is the companies which want magic fairy dust aren't getting paid.
Monopolies do not exist. People will always acquire the product they want, and if you aren't willing to sell it, all that means is that people will always acquire the product they want without paying you.
I think that copyright should exist to promote the creation of content. Once the money involved in creating that content has been paid, copyright should automatically expire.
This isn't just about money. It's gotten to the point where I can't go a month without hearing someone mention something they'd like to do, or would like to track down, or would like to show others, but can't because of short-sighted copyright laws. How many books, movies, TV-shows, radio plays, and other content, is irretrievably lost for all time, not because of a lack of technology or willingness required to preserve it, but because of some insane and nonsensical copyright laws which prevent archival of content whose monetary incentive was long-since paid? This must end. Culture is dying.
No, Google would have to send a message to the phone, which is quite another thing. If they were too short-sighted to have this feature installed already, then yes, they'd need to update the O.S., with the user's permission, as per usual. I don't see any problem with this.
When the app is clicked on, it should open a page that says: "Note: Google has determined this app to be malicious / in violation of terms of use. Tap here for a complete explanation. The app has been removed from the store, and running it is not safe. Tap here to safely and permanently remove this app"
It is not my responsibility to use a product only within the defined parameters of a broken business-model. If they are concerned about people using their hardware, maybe they shouldn't sell it in the first place.
The only reason they aren't a software company is that nobody would stomach buying £100+ of peripherals required for a single software title. Release the peripherals as part of a generic gaming system, and people somehow don't notice that they still only use it for a single game.
Nintendo is a software company. They make games that people really like, and tack on some third-rate hardware to allow them to get something vaguely resembling the input they want. I really wish they'd just give up and release Mario for the 360.
organized into separate modules, but called as "google subcommand" so that you can still have a command called "picassa" and "blogger" and "search"... sounds good to me.
"do one thing, do it well" doesn't mean "make a thousand poorly-named tools and clutter/usr/bin"
"google foo" does one thing, does it well. "google bar" does one thing, does it well. "google" does one thing, does it well (passes commands to a dispatcher)
you're basically complaining about seeing a space where you pointlessly want a hyphen.
I expect to be holding the controller and have Kinect as an augmented set of gestures for that. I expect a power-glove like accessory which sticks buttons on your hand. I expect Kinect 2 to be released in 2012 with more-precise finger-motion capture, and Kinect 360 in 2015 with a second or third set of cameras placed somewhere else in the room.
I expect none of this to be related to wiggling a stick.
Natal was a name used during development to refer to a project which was not formed enough that a marketing meeting could be held to come up with a name which both sounded good to the marketers and described the product. Choosing a neutral name, such as the name of a city, during development is a good thing which keeps marketing-types out of developers' hair for as long as possible.
Personally, I wouldn't be showing off images like this one, which clearly show either input delay or a lack of accurate mapping between human motion and character motion.
If I'm going to buy three iToys taped together, I at least expect that when I raise my arms over my head, the character on-screen will do something resembling the same.
Hoping for a so-so verdict here. The court should allow anyone to modify software they've purchased in any way they wish. However, the court should allow Blizzard to block connections from any modified software they detect (just like Apache disconnects clients which violate the HTTP protocol). However, their should be recourse for false-positives to get their money back.
If I named functions and variables the way scientists and mathematicians seem to be so keen on, I'd be fired. every last one of them is a single character name. Why is this allowed to go on!?
Why? They stole some DRM technology. As far as I know, they didn't do it because the company which sells the technology has region restrictions on where the technology can be used, or because they were just trying to get something they already paid for to work, or because they were using the technology for a purpose to which the copyrights paying-for-the-technology is meant to protect do not apply, or even because they feel that the company which sells the technology has an archaic business model which it is not the duty of governments to inappropriately extend the lifespan of, stifling innovation.
This was either blatant theft or an accounting error. That the thing being stolen or misfiled had the word "DRM" in its description is pretty much unrelated.
there's no harm in teaching people to be scientific about things, but the "Scientific Method" you learned in school is just an excuse to get kids to write things in a way that can be easily graded. It doesn't exist in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
somebody beat you to the punch
press X repeatedly to get to the next cutscene? Not much of a mini-game.
Somebody give them $23 to write a 1-page paper on the difference between ethics and morality!
from the summary: "illegal because it could allow operators to connect to the Internet"
from the article: "ARCEP says protocol specifications could allow ham-radio operator to connect their station to Internet and are against the law"
is the Internet illegal in France? What is the problem here? Can someone please provide an explanation which doesn't require foreknowledge of Ham-radio operation/protocols/conventions or French law?
Without any content protection whatsoever, they wouldn't be able to offer videos which say only "This rental is currently unavailable in your country", they'd have to actually provide the video to everyone.
The "we need DRM, otherwise we can't provide all the content we want to!" argument is horrible, stupid, and insulting.
DRM does not allow businesses to provide content in new markets. DRM allows businesses to provide old markets in places where they make no sense. Every company which complains they can't do X without DRM really means they don't want to do X without magic fairy dust. Meanwhile, everyone and their grandmother is busy providing X without DRM, and the only difference is the companies which want magic fairy dust aren't getting paid.
Monopolies do not exist. People will always acquire the product they want, and if you aren't willing to sell it, all that means is that people will always acquire the product they want without paying you.
I think that copyright should exist to promote the creation of content. Once the money involved in creating that content has been paid, copyright should automatically expire.
This isn't just about money. It's gotten to the point where I can't go a month without hearing someone mention something they'd like to do, or would like to track down, or would like to show others, but can't because of short-sighted copyright laws. How many books, movies, TV-shows, radio plays, and other content, is irretrievably lost for all time, not because of a lack of technology or willingness required to preserve it, but because of some insane and nonsensical copyright laws which prevent archival of content whose monetary incentive was long-since paid? This must end. Culture is dying.
No, Google would have to send a message to the phone, which is quite another thing. If they were too short-sighted to have this feature installed already, then yes, they'd need to update the O.S., with the user's permission, as per usual. I don't see any problem with this.
When the app is clicked on, it should open a page that says: "Note: Google has determined this app to be malicious / in violation of terms of use. Tap here for a complete explanation. The app has been removed from the store, and running it is not safe. Tap here to safely and permanently remove this app"
nope
June 24th? But, that's today!
The "walled garden" won't be the death of Apple. The alternative of a similar garden without walls will.
It is not my responsibility to use a product only within the defined parameters of a broken business-model. If they are concerned about people using their hardware, maybe they shouldn't sell it in the first place.
The only reason they aren't a software company is that nobody would stomach buying £100+ of peripherals required for a single software title. Release the peripherals as part of a generic gaming system, and people somehow don't notice that they still only use it for a single game.
Nintendo is a software company. They make games that people really like, and tack on some third-rate hardware to allow them to get something vaguely resembling the input they want. I really wish they'd just give up and release Mario for the 360.
organized into separate modules, but called as "google subcommand" so that you can still have a command called "picassa" and "blogger" and "search"... sounds good to me.
"do one thing, do it well" doesn't mean "make a thousand poorly-named tools and clutter /usr/bin"
"google foo" does one thing, does it well.
"google bar" does one thing, does it well.
"google" does one thing, does it well (passes commands to a dispatcher)
you're basically complaining about seeing a space where you pointlessly want a hyphen.
I expect to be holding the controller and have Kinect as an augmented set of gestures for that. I expect a power-glove like accessory which sticks buttons on your hand. I expect Kinect 2 to be released in 2012 with more-precise finger-motion capture, and Kinect 360 in 2015 with a second or third set of cameras placed somewhere else in the room.
I expect none of this to be related to wiggling a stick.
I expect that "aiming" will eventually be obsolete, and "do what I mean" will be based instead on where you are looking.
Natal was a name used during development to refer to a project which was not formed enough that a marketing meeting could be held to come up with a name which both sounded good to the marketers and described the product. Choosing a neutral name, such as the name of a city, during development is a good thing which keeps marketing-types out of developers' hair for as long as possible.
Personally, I wouldn't be showing off images like this one, which clearly show either input delay or a lack of accurate mapping between human motion and character motion.
If I'm going to buy three iToys taped together, I at least expect that when I raise my arms over my head, the character on-screen will do something resembling the same.
Hoping for a so-so verdict here. The court should allow anyone to modify software they've purchased in any way they wish.
However, the court should allow Blizzard to block connections from any modified software they detect (just like Apache disconnects clients which violate the HTTP protocol).
However, their should be recourse for false-positives to get their money back.
wasn't there an article last week with firefox devs bragging about supporting exactly that?
If I named functions and variables the way scientists and mathematicians seem to be so keen on, I'd be fired. every last one of them is a single character name. Why is this allowed to go on!?
Why? They stole some DRM technology. As far as I know, they didn't do it because the company which sells the technology has region restrictions on where the technology can be used, or because they were just trying to get something they already paid for to work, or because they were using the technology for a purpose to which the copyrights paying-for-the-technology is meant to protect do not apply, or even because they feel that the company which sells the technology has an archaic business model which it is not the duty of governments to inappropriately extend the lifespan of, stifling innovation.
This was either blatant theft or an accounting error. That the thing being stolen or misfiled had the word "DRM" in its description is pretty much unrelated.
"chess is always the latest version" just means they haven't released a patch in hundreds of years.
If it costs $149 in the U.S., it's going to cost £140-£160 in the U.K.
Open Source is the exact opposite of "low-IP industries", as those tend to value trade secrets very highly.
there's no harm in teaching people to be scientific about things, but the "Scientific Method" you learned in school is just an excuse to get kids to write things in a way that can be easily graded. It doesn't exist in the real world.