So the Xbox user only purchases the hardware? They don't purchase the libraries? What do I purchase if I purchase a copy of Windows or OSX? The physical disc? Some shrinkwraped box and some marketing material? If someone writes a piece of software using the libraries in one of those OSs and I run it that's stealing?
"They're saying they won't certify it and provide you with the digital signature you need to run it on commercial consoles."
That's two thoughts there. They won't certify it. As well they shouldn't... not if they want to be a family friendly console and that is certainly their right
They won't provide the digital signature... Translates as for all practical purposes no one can develop for the Xbox. Yes... you can build it for your own amusement but that just sucks, who wants to bother if you can't distribute. This isn't just an issue with this one game on this one console though.. It's an issue with consoles, cellphones.. just about anything which has come out after the PC has been this way... totally closed.
This is harmful to the consumer in the end. It limits innovation to a few established corporations. It's not really the developers rights that are being stepped on. It's the user. The user pays for the device in real cash. The user owns that device. The user should get to use that device in any way the user sees fit. But the users are not insisting on getting their rights and so the developers are hurting.
I don't think this is the best case to use to get people to that cause though... a sex game.
If your thinking were applied to Desktop computers than every software company would have to write their own bios and operating system. Imagine what desktops would be like today if things had played out that way. I wonder how much innovation consoles are missing out on because they do work that way.
I don't think anyone ever said they wanted to put the Microsoft logo on the sex game. I think most reasonable people would fully support Microsoft in being against this. It is a totally different concept to allow someone to make a product that works with your product than to put your name on their product.
But why is the model of "you buy it, you pay for it, company still controls it" even legal? It is not right that someone doesn't get complete control of something they paid for. It's not like the user gets control of the cash Microsoft received from them. Business models, law and basic right/wrong are three very different things. Unfortunately the first two are becoming one while right and wrong are being forgotten.
You mean machines like the computer you typed that on right? The CO2 generated by cars is almost nothing compared to that generated by coal burning electric plants you know...
I watched them all and you know... the Stargate franchise was pretty bad. "Deus ex Machina" pretty much sums it up. Everything gets all messed up and they are obviously all doomed and then some abandoned super weapon is found or a alien entity intervenes at the last moment... over and over again.
You know what... I miss it. That's how all the best Sci Fi is. That's why we like it. We secretly all want to find that abandoned alien super weapon or get the alien entity ally. Life sucks, none of us are really in control and fantasy like this appeals because we all wish we were. I think that's why so many Stargate fans hate Universe. Here are a bunch of people who are handed exactly what we all think we want and all they can do is wine about it and fight amongst one another like spoiled children. That's also why Atlantis was the perfect followup to SG1. It was the same thing but they freshened up the backstory and scenery. They should have just ran Atlantis a few more years and then done the same thing again.
Come on, any 'nerdy science type' that is offended just because Rodney has issues really needs to relax
OK, Sam was female. I'm not saying she was ugly or anything but I wouldn't say hot either. If her inclusion in the series was for sex appeal than someone really missed that message. I wouldn't say Ammanda Tapping is hot but she would be noticeable if she were the only girl in the room as she appeared in some of her out of character interviews. In SG1... no. She isn't uggly or anything but she is just more like one of the guys as far as that goes. Now, some of the rarer female characters... maybe but I can't even think of their names, that's how rare they were. If you watched SG1 for that kind of scenery you really need to get out and get laid, or at least turn off "SyFy" (blah new name) and switch to cinemax or something.
Um.... actually I thought Rodney grew quite a bit personally. You must have stopped watching early on.
How many centuries was it from the end of Grecko/Roman democracy to The French Revolution or any other Western nation democracy? I just don't see much encouragement in history right now. Granted, I would like my Great^10 Grandchildren to have good lives but I am much more interested in our own time and that of my children.
It should take more than a few attempts. The same admins who implement this feature tend to also require common password changes. This means if the user isn't logging in frequently it might take some tries to remember which one is current. Multiple miss-entries is also easy to do when using a cellphone or other small portable device. I've taken my business elsewhere before overzealous security schemes making it too frustrating to bother logging in.
Office-place server admins should remember, if passwords are required to be more complex than the user is likely to remember or require changes too often then users will write their passwords down. Often this is done on a sticky note placed on their monitor where just anyone can walk by and read it. Remember admins, be reasonable. Insisting on absolute security will result in no security at all because the users will work around it.
I want to agree with you. I still believe that this government governs with the consent of the governed though. If enough people cared then things would be different. That implies that people don't care. Outside of communities like Slashdot many people think these kinds of things are protecting them from some omnipresent terrorist who is out to get their family. They want the government to do whatever it says it needs to do and they don't even want to know about it. They want blissful ignorance. I find it hard to love sheep and this makes me not want to care. If I didn't have a kid who will need a country to live in herself I might not care at all.
Was that a cool thing to do? Really? At least he was coming clean. There are even phone numbers at the bottom of that thing, how many calls has he received I wonder? I can understand being angry but that kind of response isn't going to help encourage others to be whistle blowers now is it?
That's true. A much better strategy would be to single out Amazon's customers and target them one at a time as they probably don't have as much server resources allocated to them.
I think you are on to something here... The combination of TV and Internet services is not a positive one for the consumer. Maybe a better solution is to get rid of cable tv altogether? No, I'm not seriously proposing outlawing cable TV. I do believe however that broadcast/cable/satellite TV/Radio and Telephone as we know them do eventually need to go. I'm not saying we aren't going to watch shows anymore or that we aren't going to call people. I am saying that these services make more sense migrated over to the internet. Why do I need to pay someone to get a telephone number when I already have access to a giant network that is perfectly capable of carrying my voice and goes everywhere? Why shouldn't I be able to just log in from anywhere, on anything from my cellphone to a smarter version of a big screen tv and see all the content I have paid for. Why is a separate, location limited network necessary to distribute this to me? Why does a studio need networks, cable providers, satellite providers, etc... all acting as middlemen when they could pay one ISP bill and sell their product directly to EVERYBODY.
Ok, I realize that a lot of infrastructure needs to be upgraded before the internet could handle that kind of bandwidth. It's not just a matter of speed either, we need smarter routers that will handle many many destinations for the same packets. I don't really see this happening quickly but it is what IMHO we should be evolving towards. This is not in a cable companies interest. If they are split off then the cable companies will still be huge corporations with tons of lobbyists and money to slow or stop progress for decades. Perhaps if the cable companies saw things this way they would start a shift from being primarily TV providers to being primarily ISPs but they are not. I know from an inside perspective how Comcast sees it's focus. They still see cable TV as being #1. They see their biggest competitors as being phone companies trying to take the TV market from them. Their main strategy against the phone companies is to try to hit the phone companies main market by pushing their own phone service really hard. Internet is just a red headed step child they offer because they have to. A red headed step child with a 60-70% profit margin but still a red headed step child.
Slashdot Mirror
The one linked to at the end of the article http://www.startribune.com/local/north/112080854.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUoD3aPc:_2yc:a_ncyD_MDCiU Is much better then the one linked to here.
Pretty much true.... But it should be changed.
So the Xbox user only purchases the hardware? They don't purchase the libraries? What do I purchase if I purchase a copy of Windows or OSX? The physical disc? Some shrinkwraped box and some marketing material? If someone writes a piece of software using the libraries in one of those OSs and I run it that's stealing?
Did I miss the part where they wanted to market it as a Genuine Microsoft Sex Game?
"They're saying they won't certify it and provide you with the digital signature you need to run it on commercial consoles."
That's two thoughts there. They won't certify it. As well they shouldn't... not if they want to be a family friendly console and that is certainly their right
They won't provide the digital signature... Translates as for all practical purposes no one can develop for the Xbox. Yes... you can build it for your own amusement but that just sucks, who wants to bother if you can't distribute. This isn't just an issue with this one game on this one console though.. It's an issue with consoles, cellphones.. just about anything which has come out after the PC has been this way... totally closed.
This is harmful to the consumer in the end. It limits innovation to a few established corporations. It's not really the developers rights that are being stepped on. It's the user. The user pays for the device in real cash. The user owns that device. The user should get to use that device in any way the user sees fit. But the users are not insisting on getting their rights and so the developers are hurting.
I don't think this is the best case to use to get people to that cause though... a sex game.
If your thinking were applied to Desktop computers than every software company would have to write their own bios and operating system. Imagine what desktops would be like today if things had played out that way. I wonder how much innovation consoles are missing out on because they do work that way.
I don't think anyone ever said they wanted to put the Microsoft logo on the sex game. I think most reasonable people would fully support Microsoft in being against this. It is a totally different concept to allow someone to make a product that works with your product than to put your name on their product.
But why is the model of "you buy it, you pay for it, company still controls it" even legal? It is not right that someone doesn't get complete control of something they paid for. It's not like the user gets control of the cash Microsoft received from them. Business models, law and basic right/wrong are three very different things. Unfortunately the first two are becoming one while right and wrong are being forgotten.
You mean machines like the computer you typed that on right? The CO2 generated by cars is almost nothing compared to that generated by coal burning electric plants you know...
I watched them all and you know... the Stargate franchise was pretty bad. "Deus ex Machina" pretty much sums it up. Everything gets all messed up and they are obviously all doomed and then some abandoned super weapon is found or a alien entity intervenes at the last moment... over and over again.
You know what... I miss it. That's how all the best Sci Fi is. That's why we like it. We secretly all want to find that abandoned alien super weapon or get the alien entity ally. Life sucks, none of us are really in control and fantasy like this appeals because we all wish we were. I think that's why so many Stargate fans hate Universe. Here are a bunch of people who are handed exactly what we all think we want and all they can do is wine about it and fight amongst one another like spoiled children. That's also why Atlantis was the perfect followup to SG1. It was the same thing but they freshened up the backstory and scenery. They should have just ran Atlantis a few more years and then done the same thing again.
Come on, any 'nerdy science type' that is offended just because Rodney has issues really needs to relax OK, Sam was female. I'm not saying she was ugly or anything but I wouldn't say hot either. If her inclusion in the series was for sex appeal than someone really missed that message. I wouldn't say Ammanda Tapping is hot but she would be noticeable if she were the only girl in the room as she appeared in some of her out of character interviews. In SG1... no. She isn't uggly or anything but she is just more like one of the guys as far as that goes. Now, some of the rarer female characters... maybe but I can't even think of their names, that's how rare they were. If you watched SG1 for that kind of scenery you really need to get out and get laid, or at least turn off "SyFy" (blah new name) and switch to cinemax or something. Um.... actually I thought Rodney grew quite a bit personally. You must have stopped watching early on.
No, they said in the begining that there would be some crossover, it just wouldn't be all the time or easy.
Yeah, I think I started with commonly require frequent and deleted the wrong word when I decided to shorten it.
This sounds great for the consumer for now but what happens once Walmart and maybe KMart are all that remain?
How many centuries was it from the end of Grecko/Roman democracy to The French Revolution or any other Western nation democracy? I just don't see much encouragement in history right now. Granted, I would like my Great^10 Grandchildren to have good lives but I am much more interested in our own time and that of my children.
It should take more than a few attempts. The same admins who implement this feature tend to also require common password changes. This means if the user isn't logging in frequently it might take some tries to remember which one is current. Multiple miss-entries is also easy to do when using a cellphone or other small portable device. I've taken my business elsewhere before overzealous security schemes making it too frustrating to bother logging in.
Office-place server admins should remember, if passwords are required to be more complex than the user is likely to remember or require changes too often then users will write their passwords down. Often this is done on a sticky note placed on their monitor where just anyone can walk by and read it. Remember admins, be reasonable. Insisting on absolute security will result in no security at all because the users will work around it.
Or is this just because we all keep getting older, the oldest are dying and the youngest are learning to use a computer?
I want to agree with you. I still believe that this government governs with the consent of the governed though. If enough people cared then things would be different. That implies that people don't care. Outside of communities like Slashdot many people think these kinds of things are protecting them from some omnipresent terrorist who is out to get their family. They want the government to do whatever it says it needs to do and they don't even want to know about it. They want blissful ignorance. I find it hard to love sheep and this makes me not want to care. If I didn't have a kid who will need a country to live in herself I might not care at all.
Was that a cool thing to do? Really? At least he was coming clean. There are even phone numbers at the bottom of that thing, how many calls has he received I wonder? I can understand being angry but that kind of response isn't going to help encourage others to be whistle blowers now is it?
Hmmm.. That's a pretty wide audience though isn't it?
Doesn't Jeff Bezos have the right to protect his family secrets just like the rest of us?!?! Shame on you!
That's true. A much better strategy would be to single out Amazon's customers and target them one at a time as they probably don't have as much server resources allocated to them.
Yes, you are only 45 minutes from a very very large city. What's your point?
I think you are on to something here... The combination of TV and Internet services is not a positive one for the consumer. Maybe a better solution is to get rid of cable tv altogether? No, I'm not seriously proposing outlawing cable TV. I do believe however that broadcast/cable/satellite TV/Radio and Telephone as we know them do eventually need to go. I'm not saying we aren't going to watch shows anymore or that we aren't going to call people. I am saying that these services make more sense migrated over to the internet. Why do I need to pay someone to get a telephone number when I already have access to a giant network that is perfectly capable of carrying my voice and goes everywhere? Why shouldn't I be able to just log in from anywhere, on anything from my cellphone to a smarter version of a big screen tv and see all the content I have paid for. Why is a separate, location limited network necessary to distribute this to me? Why does a studio need networks, cable providers, satellite providers, etc... all acting as middlemen when they could pay one ISP bill and sell their product directly to EVERYBODY.
Ok, I realize that a lot of infrastructure needs to be upgraded before the internet could handle that kind of bandwidth. It's not just a matter of speed either, we need smarter routers that will handle many many destinations for the same packets. I don't really see this happening quickly but it is what IMHO we should be evolving towards. This is not in a cable companies interest. If they are split off then the cable companies will still be huge corporations with tons of lobbyists and money to slow or stop progress for decades. Perhaps if the cable companies saw things this way they would start a shift from being primarily TV providers to being primarily ISPs but they are not. I know from an inside perspective how Comcast sees it's focus. They still see cable TV as being #1. They see their biggest competitors as being phone companies trying to take the TV market from them. Their main strategy against the phone companies is to try to hit the phone companies main market by pushing their own phone service really hard. Internet is just a red headed step child they offer because they have to. A red headed step child with a 60-70% profit margin but still a red headed step child.