I think I caught most of your meaning, but it doesn't matter why they removed it or how useful it was or whatever. The said they weren't going to remove it, they advertised it as a desirable feature, and then they removed it. They can use the "but hackers" justification for anything they want to change about the PS4 also. In the end it's all about protecting their business interests, and they have been shown to protect their interests even if it means removing or changing features that they previously said they would not change or remove. Maybe Sony learned from the backlash from that and will only do something like that as a last resort, but then again people have also learned from Sony's behavior and don't trust them. Shit, I'm still angry about the rootkit thing, I haven't trusted them since they decided that was a good idea. A PlayStation has never been an option for me, for me the choice in consoles is between Microsoft and Nintendo, if I even want a console at all. I'm happy enough with my PC as it is.
There's nothing stopping them from putting DRM in a year from now
To be fair, there's also nothing stopping Sony from changing anything and everything about their PS4 software at any point. And Sony does have a track record to create suspicion that they might.
Meh - I smell a trial balloon that fell with a thud.
That's what it seems like. It's pretty rare to see such a major change in such a short time from a company like Microsoft. On one hand, it's good that they're listening to customers, but on the other hand they seem to listen to some pretty stupid ideas before they get to the part where they ask the customer.
If it takes 900 images to make a 1 000 000 000 pixel image, that means it's a, wait for it, a 1.1 mega pixel camera!! While these numbers aren't exact they're in the ball park
Might as well go for the actual numbers, right? The original image is 1.3 billion pixels, not exactly 1 billion. The MastCam (2 cameras) can take true-color still pictures at 1600x1200, just below 2 million pixels. It can also take video at 10fps at 1280x720 (720p). There's another camera, the Mars Hand Lens Imager, which also takes 1600x1200 pictures but is meant for closeups, it has a focal length between 18 - 21 mm and can zoom up to 14.5 micrometers per pixel. The descent imager is also 1600x1200, but its job is done. There are 13 other cameras at lower resolution. The rover has far and away the best camera suite we've dropped on to Mars.
So please don't go thinking it's one picture taken by a camera that has a 1 giga pixel sensor on it.
Don't worry, anyone who got to the second sentence in the summary knows that.
The plan is to ascend Mt. Sharp. I'm not sure how far up they're planning on going, but they want to study the geological layers in the mountain. It's going to take a while to get there, though.
nobody sets up their own blog anymore, that is so early 21st century.
Shit, is it mid-century already? Where the hell does the time go?
From where does one get a degree in
...morons who don't know HTML or CSS even though I could teach both to a moderately intelligent monkey...
Yes, your mastery of HTML and websites is truly something to behold.
The solution is easy: hosting providers should be required
The solution is authoritarian.
I'm sure they notified the plugin authors, just keep your plugins updated. Their PDF report has a description of the plugins (including lines of code and downloads), but blacks out the title.
Oh, and you are wrong again about what got them in trouble. It was failing to answer questions related to ammo casings found at the scene.
No, it really wasn't. His mistake (you know, other than the actual murder) was agreeing to give the police his shotgun and answer questions when they showed up at his house. He shouldn't have started answering questions in the first place, he should have told them to get a warrant for them, and a lawyer for him. When he decided to answer questions he was already hosed, it was only a matter of time until the police moved their pieces into checkmate and then he's going to be screwed, and that's exactly what happened. He wouldn't have been in that position if he didn't answer questions to start with. The job of the detectives is to gather evidence for a conviction, they aren't there to help the suspect. They aren't asking questions to try and clear his name, they're asking questions to try and get evidence for a conviction. His mistake was answering those questions, not failing to answer one particular question. He obviously didn't have a good answer to the question about whether or not ballistics would link his shotgun to the scene, so he was an idiot for allowing the police to get to the point where they were going to ask that question. It took an hour for them to get to that question, but that was their plan, to catch him in a lie. He wouldn't have been caught in a lie if he wasn't answering questions without a lawyer.
1 word rebuttal?
That's right, starting your rebuttal with a 1-word sentence like "Wrong." is intellectually about on par with "Nope.". Just get to the substance.
How many times does it take?
For people who buy Sony products, it does make you wonder. I wasn't affected by OtherOS, for example, because I didn't trust them after the damn rootkit thing so I never considered a PS3. Some people obviously don't care though, or they don't learn, or they hear about features they like and forget.
Thanks for the 1-word rebuttal. Always appreciate that one.
Of the criminal used Remmington shells, and you have the same shells: you are now a liar and defending yourself. If you gave shells to a neighbor, had hunting stolen, etc.. You could be labelled a liar or guilty by weak circumstances.
OK, then maybe "I don't know" is a better answer than "I don't remember". Some of your reply ignores the fact that, based on the scratches and markings on a given shell casing, they can determine with a high degree of confidence if a specific weapon fired that casing. If he owned that particular weapon, and he already told them that he hadn't loaned it out or let anyone borrow it and that it wasn't stolen, then he's screwed.
There are countless scenarios in which you would not want to answer a question on these lines.
Right. So don't answer questions. Don't say you don't know or you don't remember, just don't answer questions at all. He got into trouble when he started answering questions, not when he failed to answer this one.
Do not forget that a fundamental component of our justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Well, they're presumed innocent until found to be guilty (bit of a difference there), but thanks for the reminder.
You can always answer "I do not remember".
I don't really think that would help.
"Will the shotgun shells found at the scene of the murder match the shotgun found at your house?"
"I don't remember."
You'd think that if he didn't shoot someone with his shotgun, he would probably be aware of that fact.
So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question, even if it leads to self incrimination?
No, you're not obliged to do shit. But if you choose not to answer a particular question, they can use that against you. If you get arrested then you have additional rights, but if you're not arrested and just spilling your guts to the police and then clam up on one particular question, they can bring that fact up in court. The moral of the story, obviously, is to not answer any questions.