Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:No brainer (Score 4, Insightful) 174

It should be even easier than that.

Archive.org should archive everything, including the robot.txt contents, at each scan.

The content being displayed from the archive.org website itself however could then still honor robots.txt at the time of the scan, purely for "display" purposes.

This way changing robots.txt to block search engines would not delete or hide any previous information.
Also the new information would still be in the archive, even if not displayed due to the current robots.txt directives.

Although it would require more work to do so properly, this would potentially allow for website owners to retroactively "unhide" content in the archive in the past as well.
Proper in this case would require some way to verify the domain owner, but this could likely be as simple as creating another specifically named text file in the websites root path, with content provided by the archive.
That can be as simple as the old school "cookie" data like so many other services use such as Google, or as complex as a standard that allows date ranges specified along with directives.

But in any case, this would preserve copies of the website for future use, such as for when copyright protection expires.
Despite everyone having a differing opinion on just how long "limited time" should be in "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", no one who wants to be taken seriously can argue that this time of expiration must happen at some point.
Since the vast majority of authors make no considerations to protect our property, that task clearly needs to fall on us to secure.

Comment Re:waste of money (Score 1) 117

I guess you're too young to ever had played with an Intellivision controller. Your list would be quite different.

While that may or may not be true for the parent poster, the Intellivision was my first game console, and despite the fact its controller was likely the worst designed ever, that still doesn't change the fact nearly every other Nintendo designed controller is also very bad.

Comment Re:You don't need it in a browser. (Score 1) 207

Having it in a browser only "means" something if the DRM code is freely available, unpatented, and can be implemented by anyone.

Which is exactly what we are talking about, unlike the rest of your post.

Just like I can install a freely available and implementable by anyone SSH client, which does not include the key files to access your data, this very discussion is on freely available and implementable by anyone DRM encryption that similarly does not include the key files to access just anyone's media.

So unless your complaint is that OpenSSH is not open software due to not including a private key to access my servers, I fail to see why you would object like you are to open DRM standards that work the same way.

Again I refuse to run Flash in my browser due to the choices and desires of people like you, and will continue to refuse to do so.

Comment Re:30? (Score 1) 78

It primarily comes down to: How many games does Nintendo themselves own the license and distribution rights to?

Certainly more than 30. I can see perhaps not 300, although would not at all be surprised if it was.
Those are basically "free" so far as Nintendo has to pay anyone for rights to.

Then looking at the selection of games included already on the thing, we can at least determine publishers that are willing to license out their games to Nintendo.
Yes these games will each have a per copy sold royalty Nintendo must pay, but on the same token this is Nintendo, and it should be clear to anyone the demand this thing has on the market.
At that point it's just a matter of arm wrestling between them to determine a price.

So sure, they can't put on it every game (there's only just over 10000 in existence, this isn't a storage capacity problem)
As you say, they can't even include all popular games.

But they certainly could have done better than they did for no extra cost to them, and much better than they did with said cost.

The former is the confusing "WTF nintendo?" question.
The latter is only a question of how much they would need to sell the unit for to pay for everything on it and still make a profit. And I've no doubt in my mind that they would still sell at least some.

I mean paint the thing zelda cart gold, only release 1000 numbered units, and sell it for a thousand dollars. They would still sell out just as fast as the current units on the market did, and that's a "worst case" situation (for the customers that is)

But they certainly have all the data needed to know what that would cost them, what they can sell it for on the market, and roughly how many would still easily sell.
All they had or have to do is build the things.

Comment Re:No, Aumented Reality is the next big thing. (Score 1) 114

AR is a massive privacy invasion waiting to happen.
VR isn't.

Oh yea, heaven forbid we gain AR and lose all of the privacy we currently have with the likes of Google and the NSA.

AR requires cameras in public places.
VR doesn't.

Nearly everywhere you go in public right now, you are on at least one camera if not ten. All of which are owned by other people than yourself.
One more camera of your own that isn't recording doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

AR pretends you can navigate in the real world while being distracted by a game.
VR doesn't.

That's about the only good point you've listed.

AR can be spoiled / interrupted by other people's pissing about in front of the idiot with the headset.
VR cannot.

Challenge accepted!

AR requires high-end computer vision, equipment and processing to operate properly.
VR doesn't.

Tell that to the VR headset makers that all want me to upgrade my video card or purchase a next gen console.

Comment Re:My Apologies (Score 2) 174

I still see no functional difference what so ever. Both options in your example are identical.

Publisher takes the servers offline?
Then no you can't download the software from them anymore.
If you have a copy of the downloaded software, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.
If you have a copy of the software on disc, you can't activate it because the servers are down, and it is useless.

They look functionally the same to me so far.

In order to get either copy to work, you have to modify the software in a way deemed illegal to do.
But legality aside let's say we go down that path.

I can go to the pirate bay and download the patch to modify the software to run without activation.
That patch will apply to the software you have on disk.
That same patch will apply to the software from the download servers, which will be on the pirate bay included with the patch.

In both cases the software would then work. Again they look functionally the same to me so far.

The only real difference is if you refuse to download anything, including the modification to patch the software to work.
In THAT case, my downloaded software can be fixed with the downloaded patch and will work.
Your software on disk will still require that patch to work, which you refuse to download.

Downloaded version works, disk version does not.

In any realistic situation both versions of the same bits are identical.
Only in an idealistic world where you never download anything is your method of having the software on disk worse off in the end and leave you with non-functional software.

Comment Re:They respond to warrants?! (Score 1) 106

Apple has already publicly stated exactly this during the FBI lawsuit that clearly no one paid any attention to.

They stated they have and will continue to honor legally issued warrants for data on a specified customer.

What they will not do is hand over data for all customers at once without a warrant, and they would not remove their customers encryption leaving them vulnerable to attack by basically everyone.

Those last two are what the FBI demanded, and failed to sue Apple over.
In fact during the lawsuit Apple stated they already handed over the data they had on Syed after getting a warrant. It was the crippling of every customers phone by disabling everyone's encryption the FBI didn't (and couldn't) produce a warrant for which Apple refused to do.

You don't need a wikileak to show what Apple said in their own announcement to the public and what is in public court records.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

I actually thought Apple would have had the better success with a smart watch than most other vendors, as in if any technology company could get the jewelry status symbol angle right, it would be them.
And I suppose looked at relatively that could be argued is the case, as their watch sales are a bit higher than the others lacking that angle.

But the problems with the current crop of smart watches run much deeper than just Apple, and spans pretty much every vendor making general purpose smart watches.

The only real successes are the devices primarily targeted at primary purpose. Think along the lines of the FitBit.
But at least from the point of view of companies like Apple or Google, those target markets are way too small for their tastes, and even without that the expectations of such companies are significantly higher.

As far as the iPhone went, I could see the potential of such a device made well even as far back as the first gen.
My first iPhone however was still the second (or maybe third?) gen, with the 3gs model, and after the application model was in existence for a time. The concept of nothing but webapps just wasn't the right way to go before that point.

Even so there was a window of time when it was clear the iPhone was going in the right directions that Windows CE and Blackberry just wasn't willing to go yet desperately needed to somehow.

A handheld general purpose computer with a phone built in to it was a great concept to start with, but what was desperately needed was a user interface designed around the limitations such hardware inevitably had to have.
I may not have agreed with all their choices, such as an on-screen keyboard which have all traditionally sucked so bad as to be useless (which even now is only a partially overcome problem), and choices such as locking the system down so much as to no longer be fairly called a general purpose computer (which I still very much disagree with.)

A jailbroken iPhone 3 or 4 however was practically my dream come true for such a device.
But sadly when Apple chose to fight against all of the advantages brought about by jailbreaking instead of embarrassing the concept and providing a better way to give us the same features, the writing was already on the wall, and things have only gotten much worse ever since.
Between Apples lockdown of their platform and fighting back against the user doing with their property as they wish, and Googles UI being so ugly clunky and bad to work with, I've no idea what I will be doing for a phone in the future once my iPhone 4s dies completely. If anything :/

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 330

To be fair I wasn't (or didn't intend to imply) the problem lies with developers, but specifically with the problems brought upon by the vendors themselves.

I would certainly agree the entry fee and sometimes inconsistent approval rules are a problem though, and at least in Apple and Googles cases, brought upon fully by themselves.

Be it cost to publish apps, or the input data an app can have available to it, the devs can only work within the limits of the hardware and the stupidity of the app stores provided for them to use.

Only the vendors could change that, and they don't seem to be wanting to do all that much to fix such things.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley

Working...