Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | motdiem's comments login

That's an interesting point. I hadn't considered the impact of ondemand updates to future abandonware - looks like another case where pirated illegal versions might have better preservation than official ones.

-----


Some fans even made patches for bugs in Master of Orion, in the binary.

-----


Command&Conquer: Red Alert 2 and its expansion pack also received community patches (I contributed to them a lot) to its binary. When EA later released The First Decade bundle with all the old games in it, they removed the old copy-protection. Most games in the bundle were simply recompiled to remove it, but for the expansion pack they hex-edited the copy-protection to keep it community patch compatible.

-----


The register's title [1] is a bit more brutal - I wonder how this investment will spread among committers, tooling etc.... From an open source platform perspective, it raises interesting questions in terms of finding the right balance for management, as well as sustainability of the project.

[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/15/ibm_backs_apache_spa...

-----


There's also competition for databricks itself.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/14/ibm-spark/

The spark ecosystem itself has a lot of players now.

Horton/Cloudera/MapR in their hadoop distros Typesafe: https://www.typesafe.com/community/other-projects/apache-spa...

-----


Well done, this is actually well executed and quite useful to quickly check translations for menus, dialog boxes and so on

-----


I think it's great to see museum thinking more about long term storage of digital art - this is a topic that I believe will become more important in the 10 years to come, as more artist create digital or online works of art - there might even be interesting opportunities for services that preserve digital art for collectors

-----


That is largely correct. One way to look at the french state is that it is more worried about maintaining order than serving justice. And historically, the population has largely supported this stance. (unfortunately imo)

-----


I've been following the debate in France, and the political response to concerns about the new surveillance law has been extraordinarily tone-deaf - the parliament has been very much in a "you're either with us or you're a terrorist" mode from the start. Hopefully, now that ovh and other French vendors have started to be vocal about it, some aspects of the law might be improved. I'm not holding my breath though.

-----


> "you're either with us or you're a terrorist"

It looks like is a very common argumentation for politicians. Another one is: "You don't have to care if you don't have anything to hide".

I think both paths are extremely and deeply wrong. We can't put in prison the whole Afghanistan's population because just thousands of individuals embraced terrorism, in the same way we cannot track an entire nation just because 8-9 people are planning a terrorist attack.

There are way healthier to do it.

-----


> "You don't have to care if you don't have anything to hide"

I never quite understood this argument. We have something to hide, that's the whole point. I don't want somebody to look at my phone messages. I don't want to share with the government every sily joke that I may say at home.

Should I work on secret businesses, I certainly wouldn't want any random agent to read about what I'm working on. We all have something to hide, the whole argument is bogus ...

-----


Neither am I. On the other hand, what does difference will it make in practice? As far as I understand, the law is in a large part about making legal all the currently unlawful telecommunication interception done by the intelligence services, and making sure that nobody is accountable for anything. So in this regard, it does not change the statu quo - intelligence services will more bound by the law than they were before, and there is zero political will to introduce even something as ineffective as the FISA secret courts.

-----


There is a difference in practice: first France will become a digital police state by law, judges will be out of the loop, it may help to dodge the current prosecutions by the human rights league and international federation of human rights and lastly it will introduce a global and permanent surveillance with dpi of the like that France has sold to Myanman, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kazakhstan and other places. Additionally part of the IT industry will relocate itself outside of France to continue to exist.

As France is in the middle of a multi year process of replacing the copper network with optical fiber, it means that France is on the path for a 50 years additional delay before the digital world changes its society right when France was catching up.

Lastly the practical difference is that this law may push the country to the far right extremist nationalist and racist party Front National at the next elections, which would inherit of those tools and have everything to turn France in a totalitarian state.

On a side note, this law has spawned a reboot France movement which aims at leveraging the Internet and crowndfunding to get change the whole political system to an actual democracy based on the internet: http://rebootlafrance.fr

-----


And this is combined with a nasty habit of judges being highly politicized and justice being used against political oponents. Both sides (conservatives and socialists) are pretty much equally guilty there. In fact we have even seen numerous occasions of judges prosecuting a political party, then resign, and take a high position in the opposite party.

France has a very problematic justice system and giving them more authority is very unwise.

-----


> nasty habit of judges being highly politicized

I have quite a different perception, that judges do their job of not mixing law and politics pretty well, whereas politics try very hard and unashamedly to neutralize judges as counter-powers.

Could you expand on what makes you think that French judges are highly politicized?

-----


Still, I don't think bypassing any justice overwatch on this is a better solution.

-----


> There is a difference in practice: first France will become a digital police state by law, judges will be out of the loop, it may help to dodge the current prosecutions by the human rights league and international federation of human rights and lastly it will introduce a global and permanent surveillance with dpi of the like that France has sold to Myanman, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kazakhstan and other places. Additionally part of the IT industry will relocate itself outside of France to continue to exist.

I am under the impression that the law is about legalizing what the state is already doing. Did I miss something? As France is in the middle of a multi year process of replacing the copper network with optical fiber, it means that France is on the path for a 50 years additional delay before the digital world changes its society right when France was catching up.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

> Lastly the practical difference is that this law may push the country to the far right extremist nationalist and racist party Front National at the next elections, which would inherit of those tools and have everything to turn France in a totalitarian state.

Don't they already have that?

> On a side note, this law has spawned a reboot France movement which aims at leveraging the Internet and crowndfunding to get change the whole political system to an actual democracy based on the internet: http://rebootlafrance.fr

They certainly have good intentions, but they sound like a small band of young geeks with little knowledge of politics and no funding. I am not convinced the issue will be solved by yet one more tiny political party. >

-----


This movement reminds me of the French Pirate Party. They have a lot of goodwill but 1/ they do not agree on what shape to take in order to attain the goals they have defined 2/ they have no understanding of how organizations function in real life in regards to hierarchy, decision making or political action and 3/ they do not seem to get that their propositions are only appealing to a niche, meaning there is still a lot of groundwork to be done before acting at a party level.

I don't see it gaining much traction and I think it will go the way the French Pirate Party with its very high turnover rate and its legendary infighting.

-----


Why do you say that the Front National is racist?

-----


I don't understand this argument. If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ?

Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.

-----


at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.

That's a distinctly US concept. In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. It is them up to the lawyers and judges to argue that the way this evidence was collected makes it inadmissible in this situation on a case by case basis.

So as long as an argument can be made that the illegality of the method used to collect the evidence didn't affect the reliability of the evidence then it can be used.

-----


> In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected.

That is not the case in Portugal and, since our laws are mostly inspired by French laws, I'd imagine that is not the case in France. Illegally obtained evidence, or evidence where there is a relevant probability that the chain of custody was compromised, is not admissible in court.

-----


> If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ?

Where do I say that? What I am saying is that French intelligence services do not care what the law say, and the government is not interested in having existing laws enforced. As long as there is no independent entity to control their activity, with real power, these laws may as well be printed on toilet paper.

> Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.

That is a fair point, but if law enforcement agencies like Tracfin are already using this data anyway, it means we are not protected with the current laws.

-----


> Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.

That is an argument to make surveillance legal. If the illegal surveillance is indeed useful in court proceedings to prosecute other illegal actions, then it makes sense to make the surveillance legal so that the true criminals can be brought to justice. The legal principles of appropriate measures should still apply - surveillance should not be used to prove jaywalking but rather be used to combat more serious crimes.

Appropriate use of surveillance should be legal. The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. Such as recording amoral behaviour of political dissidents or political opposition and later releasing it to the press to gain politically. Gathering evidence of homosexuality of a priest or union leader could be another example, and use this surveillance to stop the union leader from becoming a problem for the political power.

Also, surveillance used today can be used by a future power for nefarious purposes. Imagine that Hitler would have been able to access 10 years of video recordings of synagogues, which may have been originally recorded for the purpose of protecting the synagogues from attacks. The recordings can be used for something else entirely in the future.

Surveillance in general is a very powerful weapon and should be treated like all powerful weapons - with respect and very carefully.

-----


> The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent.

That is not the only problem. If illegal surveillance can be used as evidence, you have the tool of selective prosecution. Totalitarian states were known for using and abusing selective prosecution.

-----


How would you go about running steam on X.IO ? do you have to "Appetize" steam or the game itself ?

-----


Ahem - a bit late to this thread, but any pointer as to how to run a steam app with amazon appstream ? I've tried installing both games from humblebundle packages and steam + one game, but it seems to fail to properly package the app and launch it.

-----


Hmm. I don't know what's different, but I KNOW Steam games work on AppStream. I remember playing Arkham Asylum from my own Steam account.

As a developer I have tended to prefer the "standalone instance" route, and I almost certainly installed Steam that way: Follow the standalone instance instructions [1] and then log in to it as a remote desktop, installing whatever you need.

If the Steam install process needs GPU acceleration, then you'll also need to set up a VNC server on the instance and connect that way. Windows' "Remote Desktop Connection" can't use the GPU, where a VNC connection can.

BUT beware: Make sure your VNC password is as strong as possible; maybe even turn off VNC when you're not actively using it.

Good luck!

[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/appstream/latest/developerguide/a...

-----


Thanks for the insights - Digging into it, my first install was standalone and failed for no proper reason (trying to run guacamelee from the humblebundle - no meaningful error message was given).

Steam games seem to fail whenever something needs to be admin, most likely installing directX on first - run. I'm going to try running them once first before packaging the appstream and then see how it goes.

-----


Did this work? I'm looking into doing this as well.

-----


I had the same experience, anathem took me 4 tries, but eventually I got through the first 200 pages and then thoroughly enjoyed it.

-----


Yep - a review API is sorely missing - we've built a tool to enable reviewers to download their own reviews [1], and had to workaround many weirdness in the review system. I would say that besides obvious fraud detection, it is an under-managed part of amazon, with a lot of semi-rational behaviour from reviewers, because no one is sure what amazon actually does with those. Reviews routinely disappear, reappear on a whim - how you get to vine is not clearly understood. We've actually gathered a few interesting data on this topic, I should probably put a blog post about it sometime....

[1] https://reviewers.mediapps.com/

-----


Haha, are you and walterbell tag-teaming? (see above) That would be ironic.

-----


Where's that HN comment API :)

-----


ha didn't see this edit before I commented - we haven't released the code , but I'll have a look at the node package mentionned above, maybe I can contribute a bit :)

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: