If the firearms industry think that a 3d printed gun is good enough to compete with them, they are selling shitty products.
It is more plausible that they want to control the 3d printed guns because they are not able (or willing) to stop the people who want to commit some kind of crimes and cannot buy a gun from building one (since, as I understand, to buy the components it seems you have not to undergo a backgroubd check).
Because jailing a container is even harder than jailing an application. “But a container is already jailed” you’ll say - I don’t trust any jail that I can’t choose & configure myself.
Fair enough.
How about: document the requirements for the execution environment (in industry this is called an interface definition document), based on which the gaming community can then generate their own container configs if they like, but no one has to run stuff in a container.
Also a good solution but you will end up in a container anyway once the requirements will become too old to be satisfied on a current OS.
Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.
Refuelling could be slower, I agree, but I am not sure that is more risky, wireless recharging simply has a different set of problems.
Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.
True, but as far as you can advance contactless recharge, I am afraid physic and air are not on your side.
But as I said, I am curious about the development of this technology, leaving aside the fact that basically you cannot deploy it anyware if not your home county (or allied) and that in my opinion is a way bigger limit to it usefulness.
I firmly disagree that this would be a good use case.
Why ? Any technical reason beside your dislike for containers, in this specific scenario ?
Remember that we are talking about software that probably is built with older version of the OS as target, using older version of tools and libraries. The source code could not be compilable anymore without a porting, which can be not that easy.
Allowing this kind of container shenanigans would introduce more incompatibilities than it solves.
It depends on your objective.
If the goal is to be able to continue to play a game which require a server, having the publisher to release a container solve your problem, you just run it and you can continue to play the game, which if I am not wrong is the ultimate goal of all the Stop Killing Games initiative.
If the publisher only give you the server binary (and all the dependencies) there is way to be sure that the next OS update does not break something, assuming you are able to run it in the first place.
The source code you say ? Fine, when the copyright end, after 70 years, they will release it in the public domain, until then… good luck, laws are on their side.
Hmmm… no. The defense “the machine decided” and “but the drone does the killing” will not fly in any sane system (which exclude the US).
Someone decided to use the machine|drone, this someone is responsible.
Oh yes, You can.
Then your game server will stop to work at the next os update and you will not have any chance to fix it thanks to some incompatible change in some part of the OS or libraries.
Look, I don’t really like container, I would not suggest they are the solution for everything, but in some cases they have their use.
I see this as one of the cases where a container can have a use. You can also use a virtual machine if you want, the point is to have something that can be run even if the original OS or libraries needed are not available anymore because they are too old or have some incompatible changes, which in the case of old game server can happen, especially if you want to keep it running for many years after the release.
I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.
LOL, nothing but FUD.
As I said, it is my fear, I don’t speak for anyone else than me, if we are discussing about something it is not that every doubt or fear I can have is automatically FUD.
Game publishers made plenty of profit before they came up with this “live service” bullshit, and they’ll continue to make plenty of profit even after we stop allowing them to screw over everyone too.
I know game publishers made a lot of money back at the time, but I am afraid that this “live services” bullshit was added to solve a problem: back at the time to play with your friends means setting up a lan party, which means to move PC, monitors and everything else (aside to have the space to do it). It was funny but had its limits.
Initially live services solved this.
And in the end we gamers are partially responsible for this situation: if we buy games that only work with a live service game publishers will continue to make them because they will make money from them. Stop playing these games and they will not make them anymore.
Nobody think that a car manufacturer need to continue to have spare parts for cars it don’t sell anymore, even if they are still on the roads (Actually, here there are laws here that require manufacturers to ensure the availability of replacement parts for ten years after a car model is discontinued), why game publisher should do this ?
In case you weren’t aware of it, the only reason we grant copyright to creative works in the first place is to encourage more works to be created and eventually enrich the Public Domain. If the works never reach it (because the publisher is using technological means to destroy it before copyright expires) then they have broken that social contract and don’t deserve to be protected by it in the first place.
Which is an interesting point. Copyright lasts how many years ? 70 after the death of the author ? So as long as the copyright do not expires, they are within their rights.
Did this means that they are force to maintain it when no one pay for it anymore ? No.
These live service game publishers are trying to eat their cake and have it too, and they simply aren’t entitled to that. The fact that they’ve been getting away with this theft from the Public Domain is unjust and must stop.
No, they simply don’t want to maintain something that do not even pay for itself, and I undestand it.
Nah, if the publisher stop selling a game, just make him to release a docker image for the server and the game patched to use such docker image. No source code needed (even if it would be nice).
Yes.
If they don’t like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a “live service” business model now that they’d actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.
Nobody can be forced to keep supporting their older stuff forever, assuming it is even possible.
There are solutions to keep a server online or to give ways to run a local server (a docker image comes to mind), but you cannot think a company will keep a server active after years to just make few dozens happy with all the implications.
I agree on the spirit of the initiative, but I cannot really see how it can carried out: my fear is that some types of game will not be sold anymore in EU: no legally sold copies, no legal obligation to keep the server online forever. And in this case we all lose something.
(Also, by the way, “security by obscurity” is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they’re fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)
Disclosing server-side code can leads to exploits, true, but I would not call them incompetent: they are not foolproof or omniscent.
I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives.
I think they are equally vulnerable, only in different ways.
And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc).
My point earlier: while it is true that fuel explode and the damage propagate faster, it is easier to replace a tank (trucks) than a battery that can be made useless just damaging it, no need to destroy it.
If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries.
Up to a point yes, but it has physical limits (not unlike fuel refuelling, only diverse)
I still see many advantages to the concept.
It can. It need to be seen if it is scale well enough to be used on more than a test in a real life situation.
Copenhagen is big enough to have a good public transportation and obviously planned better.
Smaller cities cannot support or justify a public transportation system. True, in smaller cities you can walk or bike but you have not (for the same reasons) all the services you need near enough (schools, hospitals, malls, and others)
But in cities, you can get rid of 95% of cars.
In cities you can get rid of 95% of the time the cars are used, not of the cars themself. People do not live only in the city and not everything can be done using a public transport (or it is convenient)
Myself, I never had one in 40 years, having lived in many different places, not only cities.
Good for you, but I am afraid that you are more an edge case than a common case.
In a big city you’ll need more time, but then again, why would you ever want to live in a big city?
I know more than few people who would not leave the big city for any reason, saying there are more opportunities to have fun or more services.
And if you really need to live in a big city, why would you ever drive a car and not use public transport?
A simple answer is that using a car you maybe need less time to commute or go where you need. It is not that the public transport, if we consider the needed time, is always the fastest
I asume this technology when mature enough will not be surrounded by a single point failure.
Up to a point, probably yes.
Allowing electric recharge of flying devices, that already have some battery autonomy, without having to land and take off, is clearly more efficient and less vulnerable.
Maybe is more efficient, but not less vulnerable. To recharge a flying device this way you basically mark the charging station even if you try to hide it, an attack could be carried against the station. Additionally having the drone or plane flying near it give away your position even if you come up with a mobile charging station (you cannot recharge too much far away, physic still stand). Then there is the problem of how much time you need to recharge it to a decent level, I am afraid that it would be in the hours range, and the necessity to keep the alignement, they had this problem also during the test, I suppose in a combat situation it would be way harder and this specific problem will not go away as the tech mature.
On the other hand, to keep the J37 Viggen example, it can be rearmed and refueled in 10 minutes and just need about 500 meters to take off. In this case if you don’t see where the plane land, you also need the time to find it, it not give away its position during the operation with a microwave beacon.
Plus mobile electric rechargers, battery deposits and infrastructure will have the same weaknesses than fuel ones (except electric ones would may blow up a bit less under fire)
Once a battery is damaged, it make no difference that it blow up or not, it is useless. And generally a battery fire is harder to put out.
But it would be interesting to see how it eveolve and if it became mature enough to be used in a real combat situation.
Because I am sure that line changes are the more common situation.
Yes, instead of trying with laws that are getting sillier and sillier, try to make just one that make sense.
If you take into account the time table of the public transportation and that maybe you need to change two or more bus lines then yes, you can save that much time.
I partially agree with you though, in a city the public transportation is better but only if you use it during the rush hours (even if I need to be honest, here it is slowly getting better also during off hours) and if you can just hop on a bus|tram|metro and arrive to you destination. If you cannot, then it make no difference with a cars.
I think that the “recharging” will always be a vulnerable stage and that the objective is to do that puntually and not a continuous dependence on power supply,
For an electric recharge I think you need a decent size infrastucture that you cannot move that much or easily. I don’t think that you can do with a enourmous power bank mounted on a truck.
but still seems safer and easier to abort than the one done currently with non electric planes,
Except that you can refuel a normal plane with just a couple of trucks and a strip of road long enough (Sweden built the Viggen around this principle and even the US has the highway designed to work as temporary airfield by some old law).
While it is easy to hit an airport, it became a lot harder to take out all the roads (in part because you will later need them)
and for defense patrolling you will have more important infrastructures that would be targeted first, I still see only advantages if mature enough
Yes, the charging station. Once I take out it, you electric planes are out of order. No more patrolling.
Yes, but you can tied the printer to a specific slicer in a number of ways.
And you can make the electronic board in a way so that you cannot phisically update the firmware. (Putting it in a read only memory for example)
You can alter the firmware (that you save is in a read only memory) to refuse to load gcode directly from a USB stick, you can have the firmware ask the slicer for a specific handshake protocol. Basically once you can couple the firmware with the slicer and make it not upgradable you can do whatever you want except maybe heavy cryptography. If the only way to change the firmware is to replace the board, I bet a lot of people would do not it and who would do it can simply build their printer from scratch.
It would make the printer more exepnsive, sure, but that does not seems to be a problem to the law. Also, it would kill the opensource slicer (or at least try).
Nah, if you’re right, you should also ban the sale of any type of bench milling machine (manual or CNC): anything I can 3D print, I can probably mill just as easily