DjDarkman

I have seen that that's what I am talking about, it will be fun to play games on that phone because it has a nice controller, however not all Android 2.1+ Phones come with that, that is why I don't think this will be a hit until they manage to solve this problem on all phones.

Alright here's an idea, why don't you protect your content server side?

If user is logged in and user payed for music: stream, otherwise don't.

Simple isn't it? Few lines of code.

If you however want to cripple access to the music even after purchased, then simply pick your favorite already existing DRM technology, that is probably already cracked anyway, or invent your own that will be probably cracked anyway. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

And here is even more material on this matter: http://xkcd.com/488/

> Sony just dropped a bomb on the Japanese stage

"Someone set up us the bomb"

"We get signal... main screen turn on"

Hello gentlemen, all your games are belong to us.

I think smartphones are currently too limited for gaming. You can create some touchscreen/accelerometer based games, but still I think a resistant D-Pad and two buttons should be mandatory for phones, or maybe if Android would add support for attaching a real(preferably smaller) controller... that would be an improvement.

I don't think hardware speed is an issue for mobile gaming anymore though.

There is a problem with Macintosh-es too, you know, it's too damn expensive in Europe, for no apparent reason, that's why I'm still using Linux. The price difference is so huge that you might as well fly over to the US and buy one there.

I will buy one later on, though.

But back to the critism: - I doubt that OS X has better driver support than Linux, for your setup maybe(good for you), but generally most stuff simply just work with Linux, I plug in my mouse, and it loads even faster than on Windows 7

- You still(to my knowledge) can't tweak a Mac. Desktop the way you can tweak KDE, GNOME and many others.

In the end my advice is load up an Ubuntu CD and be amazed that Linux is not what you described.

Programing IS hard.

You define the problem, but how do you solve it? Especially if you already have some code you have to work with.

> Ed’s big claim is that if copyrighted code is unit tests and is not compiled as part of the program then it does not matter. That’s just plain wrong.

No, it's not plain wrong, a unit test is not an invention, if you create a unit test that doesn't stop me from using the same test. It can't be used as a basis of billion dollar lawsuits, it's simply not worth that much.

The author seems to see everything in black and white, which I feel is not the case.

> which offers a fragmented and vast range of screen sizes

Diversity is not a pure negative thing, yes it's harder to design for, but it also keeps us from being sucked in to the black hole of eternal standards.

Game designers already showed us that it's possible to handle diversity.

> Not to mention the bloatware.

I would rather tolerate some bloat ware than to have a communist App Store. See previous 'X app got rejected from App Store' articles for reference.

Yet another Microsoft attempt at mobile? If they screw Windows Phone up, I doubt they will get another chance from the public.

Microsoft is good at one thing: backward compatibility, if they throw this away, I don't know if they will have enough value remaining in their offerings.

I really think Microsoft should either man up, and create a descent mobile OS, or simply stop creating new crap every once in a while.

I think this is nitpicking, developers generally use all those technologies, so it's kind of logical to merge them under one umbrella.

Mixins seam the be the most useful feature to me, the other two seem more like syntactic sugar to me.

If you have a good lawyer, sue them for copyright infringement. Otherwise ignore it, the current crawlers can do pretty much an average visitor can, some even use real browser engines.

> By limit I mean limiting each IP to viewing a maximum of 50 to 100 unique documents per day.

That won't do you any good, It's ridiculously simple to obtain unique IP addresses and proxies, not to mention that your database may blow up with that much data. :)

Make sure to ask this guy: http://crockford.com/

I think he would have some great suggestions. :)

Sadly it's just a dream to create something in the DOM and make it private, if we ever get there, we will go to mashup heaven.

The ability to limit the scope of a script tag would be desired too. Something like:

<script> var notsoglobalobject = {}; </script> <script global-object="notsoglobalobject" src="yourevilscript.js"></script>

But stuff like these are both hard to design and hard to make real standards.

It's pass by value for primitives and pass by reference for objects. But it depends on what you call a reference. If all java objects would be immutable, you could say it's pure pass by value, but since you can alter the original object's state in the method, I call it pass by reference.

Before downvote: please explain, thank you.

I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other.

I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.

Google dropping a highly patented codec from Chrome is a step backwards for openness

Even the title doesn't make sense. They could say "step backwards for easy of use" or "step backwards for MPEG LA", but saying "step backwards for openness" is ridiculous.

If it's encumbered with patents, it's not open, no matter how many free software implementations it has. Open means, open to anyone, not only open to those who pay for it.

> The obvious answer is to rewrite WordPress with Django.

For some reason I don't find this obvious.

It's ironic to me, how self contradictory the title is. NativeClient is not a way to make the web more open, in fact it's a way to make the web more binary/obscured.

Low level memory access, pointers and the likes are the 'horrors' Java/C#/<name your high level language> programmers are running away from. The author fails to point out why would anyone want low level memory access.

> Preemptive response: But NativeClient is x86! Basing the open web on a peculiar, old instruction set is a terrible idea! That’s why I point to LLVM and Portable NativeClient (PNaCl). It’s not a burden to target PNaCl by default, and cross-compile to x86 and ARM if they matter to you.

This seems to imply that the browser should have a compiler that complies the low level bytecode into real machine code. The author should realize that this would be almost identical to running an SWF or a Java plugin, which makes the whole idea pointless.

> Tech is not a meritocracy, and it does not run on the right thing to do.

This is never backed up. I agree with the 'who cares' message though.

Which one will be easier to maintain?

This is disturbing, and I can't really imagine how they want the ISPs to pull this off.

What counts as a porn site? Who will evaluate it? If I have a photo sharing site and some douche uploads a picture of a naked lady, does that count?

I'm ok with the child protection and all that crap, that should be parent's responsibility to begin with, but I think this is not the answer. They should at least ask everyone about this.

I really feel this is heading towards internet censorship in the UK.

This is one of the best instruments for monopoly I have ever seen.

Don't really get it, but I wonder about the debugger part, I can't really imagine not being able to debug anything...

Let's say I have a Facebook account, I will use it to access all sites I use, Facebook deletes my account for a reason(which may be political) and I loose all my info on all these sites.

This sounds like an even greater risk to me.

I think this should be server side....

I don't think 'finally' is mandatory, I have never missed it, sure it may be syntactic sugar 1% of the time, but are we developing for the rare cases now?

There are some valid points but it exasperates that there is no way out. There is: simply not use Facebook, or if you use it, use it carefully.

There is a reason I do not link my Facebook account from my professional website and/or Linked-in account. And there is a reason I simply not use Facebook to share my private life with anybody.

The thing is that I have a private life which I don't want the whole internet to know about, sure I may want to share something with my real friends but I'm so old fashion that I prefer talking about it in a pub...

In the end I think people will learn not to be careless.

Well if the US makes it hard for people to go to the US then what should they expect?

The USA should loose the "they took our jobs" syndrome and make it easy for foreign people to work there, because then the they would receive tax, currently they receive nothing.

This is pretty general, but applies well to the IT issue.

I don't think this was wise of Oracle. They only seem to view Java as an asset they can make money of. But I don't think it's wise to turn the tide against them for a few cents.

The main thing is stop thinking mobile and desktop and only think about resolutions and capabilities.

My advice is: make a universal HTML that will work without JavaScript and without CSS, then lay some CSS on top, then enhance that with some JavaScript. You can have conditional rules in your CSS, and you can detect features in JavaScript without resorting to UA sniffing.