vegedor
The premises was that the future dev won't know. It was hard to write, it should be hard to read moderately applies, I guess.
;)
Edit: contrary to my assumption, the tut was released very recently, that is today. Still, a news site is not a very good place for announcing tutorial releases, even if the guidelines are broad enough to allow it.
It's Version 0.1. That may be noteworthy in the title.
Consider the intrinsic value to be much higher than the production cost of books, so much that free information can be guarantied by law, where books should be equal to internet access, a telephone and if you will a TV; or the socially direct communication through people. Books as medium are inseparable from the speech and should therefore remain free speech and not seizable, whether essential or merely sufficient. This is partly guaranteed through public libraries, but the capacity is limited, compared to a distributed model.
tl;dr: didn't read the link :/
Well of course they are, to a limited degree. They are not the sole carrier - I sometimes find it hard to express or notice the plural distinction - of moral, but neither is the justice system, although it likes to paint itself that way. As can be shown:
lt. moralis: proper behavior of a person in society
>nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands
Clearly not authorized, but morally, they might be required to regulate, therefore to investigate, if possible without violating privacy rights, which with automation can be ensured to a degree. Even if warranted by a judge, or done by the police, it meant massive overhead for the providers, too. So it would be nice if we can go on without all that hassle. Maybe it would require relaxing some laws, that require those investigations; Or moving on as society, as calling on moral draws in a bag of huge implications.
What if crack junkies buying crack on silkroad steal copper cables from the grid? The Telcos are indirectly affected by that, when the users get unsatisfied and directly they have to pay for replacement.
The users are directly affected and responsible, so in first degree it's their responsibility. (not as implied, the court's or w/e).
I'll download it for later(tm).
DRM is a format, if you will. DRM data is what's formated in the format, retreival of data in a format is information. Information, like they say about security, is a process.
void* foo(int bar);
This was in regards to Accolade (game company) reverse engineering, and reimplementing the software side of the security procedure of the sega genesis for third-party game cartridges. Following the source leads nowhere to an explanation of the quote. Must be a pretty trivial notion.
Still interesting case, though. First of all, it's puzzling that they just talk about "functional" requirements and concepts. "Well, what isn't functional?", said the Haskeller.
>The TMSS initialization code is a functional feature of a <24 USPQ2d 1577> Genesis-compatible game and Accolade may not be barred from using it.
>Functional features of a product are features ‘which constitute the actual benefit that the consumer wishes to purchase, as distinguished from an assurance that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product.’”
I don't, what? Are they basing copyright-eligability on consumers' ability to understand features that interact to form other features? How is the Trademark, that was shown as part of the security check (only on consoles newer than the games), precluded from that desire?
>Accolade did not seek to avoid paying a customarily charged fee for use of those procedures, nor did it simply copy Sega’s code; rather, it wrote its own procedures based on what it had learned through disassembly
Wait, did they pay a fee to use the procedures? What's the case about again? Then, reimplementation is based on the understanding derived from the translation of the object code. Translation is prohibited under copyright, except for fair use. The fair use here is interpretation of an idea and expression of the same idea in different semantics, translation for short. Never mind the irony, surely there wasn't any commercial gain involved, so it's still somewhat fair use. Apparently, a security check that can be broken isn't a commercial advantage, so, its defeat is no benefit. It's defeat is only lawful, because it isn't copyrightable in the first place.
This is so messed up, it just doesn't make sense.
How about, *because it creates incentive to try out the highlight effect and subsequently click, until the novelty wears of, at least.
In a third module, where else?
Post-men do it all the time.
>Maybe the problem is that iBeacons are a bit too passive/static. But even a full BLE device that can transmit a bit more complex information is still debatble in terms of value
You are missing the point, too. I guess, the value of iBeacon is in reception, not transmission, as is also said about RFID terminals, while it still may have some other use.
A bit defocus and diversion don't hurt either. It's not the kind of breaking news I come here for, agreed. Social issues are everyones responsibility, anyway, so it's a fruitful basis for comments.