 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 22/05/16 00:39, clipka wrote:
> >
> > They never sold out to Google.
> > They sold out to that other bastard.
> >
>
> You are, of course, right.
>
> However, in Anthony's defence it is easy to get confused by the
> similarities between the companies. Farcebok, Giggle, Twatter; they're
> all the same.
>
> John
> --
> Protect the Earth
> It was not given to you by your parents
> You hold it in trust for your children
I only remembered about it because Notch pulled the plug on the Occulus port of
Minecraft when it happened.
Then he turned around and sold MC to M$... -I- didn't miss the irony.
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> I only remembered about it because Notch pulled the plug on the Occulus port of
> Minecraft when it happened.
yeah, that's how I always pictured VR: blocky and retro
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/05/16 10:47, Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/20/oculus_backtracks_on_open_software_promise/
>
> Lying bastards!
>
> That is all
>
> John
>
... and this was to be expected.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/24/coders_crack_oculus_drm_in_24_hours/
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.05.2016 um 13:25 schrieb Doctor John:
> On 21/05/16 10:47, Doctor John wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/20/oculus_backtracks_on_open_software_promise/
>>
>> Lying bastards!
>>
>> That is all
>>
>> John
>>
>
> ... and this was to be expected.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/24/coders_crack_oculus_drm_in_24_hours/
Don't you love it how reporters tend to get their stuff entirely wrong?
"On Friday Oculus broke its word and instituted DRM (digital rights
management) controls on its virtual reality headset, blocking
non-approved games from its kit."
Erm... no, that's not what they did. What they did was blocking
non-approved kits from their games. Which is quite an important difference.
If they blocked independent games from running on the Oculus Rift, their
kit would probably have to be pronounced DOA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/24/2016 4:33 PM, clipka wrote:
> Don't you love it how reporters tend to get their stuff entirely wrong?
Even Tech journalists have to earn a living. What makes better copy?
Evil Media Corporation spoils things for Game-y Independent Developers.
Or, They only allow approved headsets to run their games.
BTW Did anyone say how the kit gets approved and how much does it cost?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/24/2016 10:05 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 4:33 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Don't you love it how reporters tend to get their stuff entirely wrong?
>
>
> Even Tech journalists have to earn a living. What makes better copy?
> Evil Media Corporation spoils things for Game-y Independent Developers.
> Or, They only allow approved headsets to run their games.
>
> BTW Did anyone say how the kit gets approved and how much does it cost?
>
>
Yeah... Well, they need to stop doing that. This is why like 90% of the
US trusts altie med people as much/more than actual experts, and at
least half show low trust in what seems to come out of the mouths of
scientists - an endless stream of freaking "journalists" putting out
"better copy", by exaggerating claims, claiming things they imagined
might be true, if they sort of squint a bit at what was described to
them, or just flat out making shit up, based on some mish mash of what
they are supposed to be reporting, and the last sci-fi TV show or movie
they saw, which might have been vaguely related to the topic of the
research.
This is, in fact, how you a) destroy the credibility of journalism, and
b) embolden the liars and con artists who, after all, are not really
making any less well founded, absurd, or unreasonable, claims than what
was in the professional journalists, "good copy".
And, oh yeah, I am definitely using the "" this time in entirely the
right way...
Oh, and to be clear.. I do not at all think that its any less dangerous
to do this when its politics, or game development, or whose cat got
caught in a tree last week. It all goes towards creating a world in
which its impossible to tell the difference between the facts (even for
the skeptical and well informed), all of the time, and a world of
complete fictions.
Sometimes this is merely annoying as heck - when you can, and know how
to, find the real facts. Other times... damned dangerous, and one
occasionally wishes it was also criminal, and the crime enforceable
(which is, sadly, the real problem in most cases, even when the
statement "is" criminal in some manner).
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.05.2016 um 19:05 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/24/2016 4:33 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Don't you love it how reporters tend to get their stuff entirely wrong?
>
>
> Even Tech journalists have to earn a living. What makes better copy?
> Evil Media Corporation spoils things for Game-y Independent Developers.
> Or, They only allow approved headsets to run their games.
>
> BTW Did anyone say how the kit gets approved and how much does it cost?
What do you mean by "how the kit gets approved"?
The exclusive titles simply check for whether there is a genuine Oculus
Rift connected to the computer; you don't have to go through any
additional registration procedure, let alone pay any extra fee. (And if
you're a VR headset manufacturer, no money in the world will get
official support for your hardware into any of the games; that's what
"exclusive" means.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/05/2016 07:30 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah... Well, they need to stop doing that. This is why like 90% of the
> US trusts altie med people as much/more than actual experts, and at
> least half show low trust in what seems to come out of the mouths of
> scientists - an endless stream of freaking "journalists" putting out
> "better copy", by exaggerating claims, claiming things they imagined
> might be true, if they sort of squint a bit at what was described to
> them, or just flat out making shit up, based on some mish mash of what
> they are supposed to be reporting, and the last sci-fi TV show or movie
> they saw, which might have been vaguely related to the topic of the
> research.
Part of me wants to say "woah, sloooow down there, guy!"
And part of me keeps thinking about all the stuff I've seen on Facebook,
where 10 seconds of Google immediately tells you that *actually* this
thing is a known hoax. And yet everybody on my friends list is copying
this stuff around. And if you point out that it's fake, you become "that
guy". You know the one.
"Well I was only *trying* to warn people. You don't have to be so *mean*
about it!"
As if I'm a Bad Person for pointing out that the misinformation you're
uncritically spreading around is objectively wrong and possibly even
harmful.
Lately, I keep seeing a lot of those image campaigns where it's a
picture of some politician you've never heard of, and some text that
says something like
"This is Labour MP John Smith. He earns £500,000 a year, but claimed
£300,000 in tax payers' money to finance his second home, where his
daughter lives. But he also voted to take away disability benefits from
poor helpless handicapped people. WHAT SCUM!"
Of course, the question remains... did Labour MP John Smith actually do
any of these things? Is that actually his picture? Does he even *exist*?
WILL ANYBODY READING THIS BOTHER TO CHECK?!
Do you see what I'm saying here?
So on the one hand, part of me wants to tell Patrick to calm down dude.
On the other hand... slightly scary times.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/24/2016 12:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> So on the one hand, part of me wants to tell Patrick to calm down dude.
> On the other hand... slightly scary times.
lol Well, even if I got wordy.. This is the general sentiment of at
least a half dozen bloggers I know, who are research scientists, at
least one cartoonist, who did a cartoon in which the guy stated, "X may
be true in Y rare case.", and an hour later his grandmother was saying,
"Did you here that X cures Z, because Y!!!" So.. Yeah.. there is no
sense, in journalism, or any place else, of any real desire or interest
in getting facts right. Its almost worse than the days when, "Getting
the facts right.", meant, "Not contradicting the government.", since, at
least in the US, at the time, the government actually thought that being
right, instead of just pretending to be right, like those damn reds, was
a sign of American superiority.
Now.. its a race to see which part of the press will propagate your
propaganda, no matter how bloody disconnected from reality that
propaganda actually is (see the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, or the Trump
campaign, on one side, or the claims by the Democrats that they are
"liberal progressives" on the other).
:p
Its not hopeless, by a long shot, but.. since the hope is in
"alternative media", and that is on the internet, and the internet has
even less control, or interest in getting facts right, as a whole.. its
sort of becoming a case of, "Which alternate parallel universe do you
prefer to live in, and how upset will you be when reality turns out to
be in, 'one of the other ones'?" lol
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
