My point is this, that the trend seems to be heading directly toward a closed system, but like boiling a frog, they are slowing turning the heat up. By the time people notice that they can only install software pre-approved on the AppStore, it will be too late.
Right. So, what proof is there that Apple is turning Mac OS X into this direction? Because I don't see any restrictions in the software users can install on their system.
And off course, if Apple would ever decide only software from their App Store can be installed on Mac OS X, it would not be "too late" for people to switch to something else. It would be just as easy or hard to switch platforms then as it is now.
Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device.
Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this up with regard to Mac OS X? Sure, iOS is closed off tightly. But Mac OS X isn't and the next version doesn't change this one bit.
Isn't that the case already then? Here in the Netherlands, it's a criminal offense to call the emergency line without proper cause. This is what the government says about it:
Misbruik 112 is strafbaar
Het bellen van 112 als het niet om een noodgeval gaat, is strafbaar. Er kunnen dan slachtoffers vallen omdat personen met een echte noodmelding geen verbinding kunnen krijgen met de alarmcentrale. De politie doet er in het geval van een nepbeller alles aan om zijn identiteit op te sporen en hem aansprakelijk te stellen voor de gemaakte kosten. Daarnaast kan hij een boete of zelfs een gevangenisstraf krijgen. Ook wanneer er anoniem wordt gebeld, is het nummer te zien. Belt iemand met een mobiele telefoon, dan is het nummer ook te achterhalen. Dit kan zelfs als er geen simkaart in de mobiele telefoon zit.
Roughly translated, this says abuse of the emergency number is an offense and the police will do anything in its power to track the abuser. When caught, the abuser is liable for the expenses made by his fake emergency call. On top of that, fines and imprisonment are possibilities. Calling the emergency line is never anonymous, even when caller ID is disabled or no SIM is installed.
If I were to define art, it's some sort of process or skill that there are some people who are willing to do it regardless of whether or not they get paid. They will still take the money if offered, but if not paid would continue to do it regardless. It's more like obsessive-compulsive, rather than idealistic high-mindedness. (Example: Van Gogh)
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying artists cannot be paid an still create art. But it has to be the intent of the artist to create exactly this piece of art. If he has an ulterior motive, and is changing the way the art is created to suit this motive, then it cannot be art. So if you design a movie to make people come to the cinema, it's not art. But if you create a movie to create that movie, then it can be art.
In my opinion, intent defines whether something is art or not. The way I see it, if the intent of creating something is to sell it to people, it can never be considered art. And if the intent of creating something so that it will be useful for other people, it can never be considered art. Only when the intent of creating something simply for the sake of creating that thing, it can be considered art in my view.
I agree the web-version is better readable than the print-version, but in my view this mainly has to do with the line height being too small in the print version. There's almost more horizontal spacing than vertical spacing, which makes the article very tiring too read.
If you think the lines are too long for comfort, you're simply setting your browser window too wide.
They are sorted by humans. I know people that do that kind of work in Sweden.
Sure some letters are considered unreadable and still sorted by hand, but the vast majority of all written addresses on envelopes is scanned & sorted automatically.
Except of course unless you actually care for gaming. So you can run Excel on your TV, that's nice. How will you play Gears of War 2 though? Or Gran Turismo? Or Zelda?
Two people choose either rock, paper or scissors. Paper beats rock. Rock defeats scissors. Scissors defeat paper. The player who defeats the other player wins.
That only works when the opponent does the same. If the opponent displays certain patterns in play however, it is better to analyze these patterns and use a strategy to counter the other player.
Nobody is saying gaming will be exclusive to the browser. But I do think it's fair to say gaming in the browser will become *a lot* bigger than it is today.
Speaking of WoW, why isn't that on more platforms already? Why isn't it out on the Xbox, Playstation or Wii? Where is the iOS version? Or Android for that matter?
I'm really surprised Blizzard is sticking to the PC so rigidly.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is this, that the trend seems to be heading directly toward a closed system, but like boiling a frog, they are slowing turning the heat up. By the time people notice that they can only install software pre-approved on the AppStore, it will be too late.
Right. So, what proof is there that Apple is turning Mac OS X into this direction? Because I don't see any restrictions in the software users can install on their system.
And off course, if Apple would ever decide only software from their App Store can be installed on Mac OS X, it would not be "too late" for people to switch to something else. It would be just as easy or hard to switch platforms then as it is now.
Personally, I think Apple is trying to totally close their software and hardware ecosystems so only they can provide software, or are the gatekeeper of all software, that will run on any Apple device.
Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this up with regard to Mac OS X? Sure, iOS is closed off tightly. But Mac OS X isn't and the next version doesn't change this one bit.
Then what is World of Warcraft?
Completely off-topic.
...when you're biggest problem is having to wait three days to play a game.
Misbruik 112 is strafbaar
Het bellen van 112 als het niet om een noodgeval gaat, is strafbaar. Er kunnen dan slachtoffers vallen omdat personen met een echte noodmelding geen verbinding kunnen krijgen met de alarmcentrale. De politie doet er in het geval van een nepbeller alles aan om zijn identiteit op te sporen en hem aansprakelijk te stellen voor de gemaakte kosten. Daarnaast kan hij een boete of zelfs een gevangenisstraf krijgen. Ook wanneer er anoniem wordt gebeld, is het nummer te zien. Belt iemand met een mobiele telefoon, dan is het nummer ook te achterhalen. Dit kan zelfs als er geen simkaart in de mobiele telefoon zit.
Roughly translated, this says abuse of the emergency number is an offense and the police will do anything in its power to track the abuser. When caught, the abuser is liable for the expenses made by his fake emergency call. On top of that, fines and imprisonment are possibilities. Calling the emergency line is never anonymous, even when caller ID is disabled or no SIM is installed.
Stepping down is always a big deal.
And the correct shorthand (albeit quite meaningless) is "the proof of the pudding", not "the proof is in the pudding".
I think you're thinking of this story of a college that placed Portal on the required Booklist.
If I were to define art, it's some sort of process or skill that there are some people who are willing to do it regardless of whether or not they get paid. They will still take the money if offered, but if not paid would continue to do it regardless. It's more like obsessive-compulsive, rather than idealistic high-mindedness. (Example: Van Gogh)
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying artists cannot be paid an still create art. But it has to be the intent of the artist to create exactly this piece of art. If he has an ulterior motive, and is changing the way the art is created to suit this motive, then it cannot be art. So if you design a movie to make people come to the cinema, it's not art. But if you create a movie to create that movie, then it can be art.
In my opinion, intent defines whether something is art or not. The way I see it, if the intent of creating something is to sell it to people, it can never be considered art. And if the intent of creating something so that it will be useful for other people, it can never be considered art. Only when the intent of creating something simply for the sake of creating that thing, it can be considered art in my view.
Here I was hoping they had made Empire (old strategy game from DOS days) for the iPad/iPhone
Come on, this is Slashdot, you don't need to explain what Empire is. Speaking of which, there is at least a remake for Windows XP.
Oh wait what? What kind of obscure editor are you using that a HTML5 syntax highlighting plugin hasn't been developed yet?
I agree the web-version is better readable than the print-version, but in my view this mainly has to do with the line height being too small in the print version. There's almost more horizontal spacing than vertical spacing, which makes the article very tiring too read.
If you think the lines are too long for comfort, you're simply setting your browser window too wide.
Of course they have postal codes. Almost every single country in the world has postal codes. The reason? Easier / better automatic sorting.
The exploited system wasn't running Windows 7, it was running Snow Leopard. See the official blog for more info: http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2011/02/02/pwn2own-2011
No they are not.
Yes they are.
They are sorted by humans. I know people that do that kind of work in Sweden.
Sure some letters are considered unreadable and still sorted by hand, but the vast majority of all written addresses on envelopes is scanned & sorted automatically.
Addresses are written as well and they're also scanned by machines. Why would these codes be more difficult?
If you have a PC you don't need a console.
Except of course unless you actually care for gaming. So you can run Excel on your TV, that's nice. How will you play Gears of War 2 though? Or Gran Turismo? Or Zelda?
Nevermind, I get it now.
I'm from Europe as well and used to play this game as a child.
And actually I still don't know how it is played.
Two people choose either rock, paper or scissors. Paper beats rock. Rock defeats scissors. Scissors defeat paper. The player who defeats the other player wins.
That only works when the opponent does the same. If the opponent displays certain patterns in play however, it is better to analyze these patterns and use a strategy to counter the other player.
I can't get GCC to compile his code :'(
Nobody is saying gaming will be exclusive to the browser. But I do think it's fair to say gaming in the browser will become *a lot* bigger than it is today.
Speaking of WoW, why isn't that on more platforms already? Why isn't it out on the Xbox, Playstation or Wii? Where is the iOS version? Or Android for that matter?
I'm really surprised Blizzard is sticking to the PC so rigidly.