Getting to the point, Unreal was released, and it kicked Quake 2's ass. Hard. The engine was far superior to the Q2 engine (sorry John) and the game was just a hell of a lot more fun to play.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a lot more fun to play" (gawd, I sound like Clinton). Singleplayer Unreal did have a more compelling story line, so if that's what you care about, I agree.
At release, multiplayer Unreal was Unplayable, except on a T1 or better. The game required far more bandwidth than a modem could supply. Q2 kicked Unreal's ass for months w.r.t. multplayer.
Epic has finally fix the multiplayer problems. I'd say that Unreal and Q2 are now even when it comes to deathmatch play.
IDcide's patent-pending technology allows cookies to be blocked according to the site you're visiting, not according to where the cookies came from!
(From the FAQ.) but why isn't offsite cookie rejection built into all browsers?
Alternative answer: because IDcide have patented it?
No -- patent pending means that they have filed an application, but the patent has not yet been allowed or issued. So, there is no legal reason (for now) for someone else to do this.
When the patent issues, things become a bit murkier...
He knows it's a bad patent but is just too scared to do an about face and admit that he was wrong.
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N. As others have pointed out, this means the judge thinks Amazon will prevail at trial. Even with their vast resources, B&N couldn't find any prior art which called the 1-click patent into question.
So, while you may disagree with the current patent system, Amazon's legal position with respect to their 1-click patent is very strong.
Reminds me of most weapons makers who dissolve themselves from blame as the creators by saying that theirs is a tool that is misused.
And for his/her next trick, Yaruar will blame car makers for drunk driving.
Come on, people -- tools and weapons are inanimate. They have no intent. The wielder of the tool is completely responsible for the outcome. Mixter's tool was designed to increase the security of a network, by pointing out its vulnerabilities. You can't blame him for the misuse of the tool by some idiot(s).
MattJ is correct that the 5th amendment applies to criminal cases only. In a civil case, you can be compelled to testify and produce evidence -- look at what happened to OJ Simpson. You can be ordered to disclose your passphrase, and you will be found in contempt and may rot in jail if you don't produce it.
A way around this might be Rivest, et. al.'s "winnoning and chaffing" encryption method. In this case, I'm thinking of two passphrases -- one decrypts some innocuous message (e.g. "Bill Clinton was on the grassy knoll with a sniper rifle") and the other produces the real message ("walk out on Northwest today at 2pm").
This advice is probably worth what you paid for it.
Slashdot readers are (relitivly speaking) experts in software, networking, databases, hardware and e-business. Therefore, we are qualified to make the 'obvious' determination.
Wrong. There is a legal definition of "obviousness", and it doesn't involve/.'ers. I refer you to Steven Young's excellent/. article, "Basic Patent Law for Programmers" (http://slashdot.org/features/99/10/19/1032254.sht ml):
When a new patent is announced, one of the most common criticisms is that the patent is invalid because the patented invention is merely an obvious extension of something that is already done. Theoretically, this is a valid criticism. Two requirements for a valid patent are that it is novel (the inventor was the first (sort of) to invent that particular thing or method), and non-obviousness (that the invention is not an obvious extension of something that is already known).
In practice, the level of inventiveness required for patentability is vanishingly small. It is relatively easy to show that a patent claim is invalid for a lack of novelty: you simply find something in the prior art (prior art is typically something that was published more than a year before the patent was applied for, although there are many exceptions) that includes all of the elements of the claim. Showing that a patent claim is invalid because of obviousness is considerably more difficult. First, you have to find examples in the prior art that, when taken together, add up to the patented invention. That is not enough, however. You also have to find something in the prior art that suggests putting these prior art pieces together. That is often difficult to find, even where a modification does seem obvious.
Further, no one except a patent attorney can determine what "obviousness" is:
To compound the silliness of all this, the courts have held that no one but a patent attorney can really know what the scope of coverage of a patent claim is. Therefore, even the theoretical justification for absolute liability in patent law is not applicable to individuals who cannot afford to keep a small army of patent attorneys on retainer.
The complaints about the windowing patent, or the one-click patent aren't about the intricasies of patent law. The complaint is that the "advances" were obvious in their field, or that much prior art existed. That's a technological question, not a legal one.
Wrong, grasshopper.
"Obviousness" has a legal definition. The definition does not include/.'ers screaming, in hindsight, "that's obvious!". I refer you to Steven Young's excellent/. article, "Basic Patent Law for Programmers" (http://slashdot.org/features/99/10/19/1032254.sht ml):
When a new patent is announced, one of the most common criticisms is that the patent is invalid because the patented invention is merely an obvious extension of something that is already done. Theoretically, this is a valid criticism. Two requirements for a valid patent are that it is novel (the inventor was the first (sort of) to invent that particular thing or method), and non-obviousness (that the invention is not an obvious extension of something that is already known).
In practice, the level of inventiveness required for patentability is vanishingly small. It is relatively easy to show that a patent claim is invalid for a lack of novelty: you simply find something in the prior art (prior art is typically something that was published more than a year before the patent was applied for, although there are many exceptions) that includes all of the elements of the claim. Showing that a patent claim is invalid because of obviousness is considerably more difficult. First, you have to find examples in the prior art that, when taken together, add up to the patented invention. That is not enough, however. You also have to find something in the prior art that suggests putting these prior art pieces together. That is often difficult to find, even where a modification does seem obvious.
I suggest that everyone re-read this article before complaining about the patents of Amazon and others.
Looking at the current crop of worthless, bought-and-paid-for professional politicians, I find no one that doesn't cause immediate nausea.
The least objectionable member of the DemoPublicans is McCain. He does seem to have a backbone and character; unfortunately, he's for censoring the internet and mandatory filtering.
Find me someone who has honor. Find me someone who believes that the Constitution is a limit on government power, not carte blanche for goverment to meddle with whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Find me someone with the guts to say that Social Security is an unworkable Ponzi Scheme. Find me someone who won't turn a blind eye to the corporations imposing externalities on others. Find me someone who won't be busy paying off the people who bought his last election.
OK, so I'm probably dreaming.
For this election, I'll vote for gridlock -- which means that the professional policians will have the least power to screw me. If it looks like the House will revert to the democrats, I'll vote for GW Bush to counterbalance. If the House stays republican, it would be extremely dangerous to let one party control Congress and the Executive (remember all the Crap Clinton got passed in his first two years), so I'll vote for whichever democrat has the best chance of winning.
In the End, I just want to be left alone. The government is not your Mother.
Once again, a company gets a patent, and hordes of Slashdotters jump up and down and scream "obvious" and "prior art". Aside from a few sane voices in the wilderness, most people do not understand the legal definition of these terms, so the discussion degenerates into name-calling and temper tantrums.
Maybe the 1-click patent is bullshit; if it is, the court will rule that way (hint: the injunction against BN means that the judge thinks Amazon will prevail.) If not, don't whine about Amazon playing by the rules (indeed, the officers of Amazon are required, by fiduciary responsibility, to play by those rules and maximize shareholder value.) If you think the rules are flawed, the proper action is to write your congresscritter, not boycott the company.
Who gives a rodent's posterior _how_ the insurance is created and paid out, as long as it actually does pay out on a legitimate loss?
The answer to "who", of course, is the insurance "regulation" industry inside of the various state goverments. Without something to regulate, these people are out of a job. And the lawyers lose a lucrative income stream.
substrate (substrate@engineer.com): I think there is a need for legally binding digital signatures, but its something I wouldn't want to see rushed through the legislature to make some withered old republicans look digitally saavy. This could have disastorous effects.
Not to be confused by some worthless, bought-and-paid-for Democrats, eh?
But seriously, folks, legally binding digital signatures may need to be more than encrypting, with the user's private key, the hash of the document. In no particular order:
1. third party escrow, that verifies the signature soon after the document is signed. That way, even if the crypto method is cracked later on, or the private key is compromised, there still exists a known good copy of the document. 2. signing key expiration (already exists in pgp) 3. some watermarking technology, similar to some corporate checks today (which show "void" when a check is copied)
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a lot more fun to play" (gawd, I sound like Clinton). Singleplayer Unreal did have a more compelling story line, so if that's what you care about, I agree.
At release, multiplayer Unreal was Unplayable, except on a T1 or better. The game required far more bandwidth than a modem could supply. Q2 kicked Unreal's ass for months w.r.t. multplayer.
Epic has finally fix the multiplayer problems. I'd say that Unreal and Q2 are now even when it comes to deathmatch play.
(From the FAQ.) but why isn't offsite cookie rejection built into all browsers?
Alternative answer: because IDcide have patented it?
No -- patent pending means that they have filed an application, but the patent has not yet been allowed or issued. So, there is no legal reason (for now) for someone else to do this.
When the patent issues, things become a bit murkier ...
Wrong, grasshopper. Amazon has a preliminary injunction against B&N. As others have pointed out, this means the judge thinks Amazon will prevail at trial. Even with their vast resources, B&N couldn't find any prior art which called the 1-click patent into question.
So, while you may disagree with the current patent system, Amazon's legal position with respect to their 1-click patent is very strong.
Disclaimer: No, I am not a Microsoftie.
Disclaimer2: I was stupid enough to date a few of them.
And for his/her next trick, Yaruar will blame car makers for drunk driving.
Come on, people -- tools and weapons are inanimate. They have no intent. The wielder of the tool is completely responsible for the outcome. Mixter's tool was designed to increase the security of a network, by pointing out its vulnerabilities. You can't blame him for the misuse of the tool by some idiot(s).
Please get the casuality straight.
A way around this might be Rivest, et. al.'s "winnoning and chaffing" encryption method. In this case, I'm thinking of two passphrases -- one decrypts some innocuous message (e.g. "Bill Clinton was on the grassy knoll with a sniper rifle") and the other produces the real message ("walk out on Northwest today at 2pm").
This advice is probably worth what you paid for it.
Just another fine Clintoon policy ...
Wrong. There is a legal definition of "obviousness", and it doesn't involve /.'ers. I refer you to Steven Young's excellent /. article, "Basic Patent Law for Programmers" (http://slashdot.org/features/99/10/19/1032254.sht ml):
When a new patent is announced, one of the most common criticisms is that the patent is invalid because the patented invention is merely an obvious extension of something that is already done. Theoretically, this is a valid criticism. Two requirements for a valid patent are that it is novel (the inventor was the first (sort of) to invent that particular thing or method), and non-obviousness (that the invention is not an obvious extension of something that is already known).
In practice, the level of inventiveness required for patentability is vanishingly small. It is relatively easy to show that a patent claim is invalid for a lack of novelty: you simply find something in the prior art (prior art is typically something that was published more than a year before the patent was applied for, although there are many exceptions) that includes all of the elements of the claim. Showing that a patent claim is invalid because of obviousness is considerably more difficult. First, you have to find examples in the prior art that, when taken together, add up to the patented invention. That is not enough, however. You also have to find something in the prior art that suggests putting these prior art pieces together. That is often difficult to find, even where a modification does seem obvious.
Further, no one except a patent attorney can determine what "obviousness" is:
To compound the silliness of all this, the courts have held that no one but a patent attorney can really know what the scope of coverage of a patent claim is. Therefore, even the theoretical justification for absolute liability in patent law is not applicable to individuals who cannot afford to keep a small army of patent attorneys on retainer.
It is an odd state of affairs, but it is the law.
The complaints about the windowing patent, or the one-click patent aren't about the intricasies of patent law. The complaint is that the "advances" were obvious in their field, or that much prior art existed. That's a technological question, not a legal one.
Wrong, grasshopper.
"Obviousness" has a legal definition. The definition does not include /.'ers screaming, in hindsight, "that's obvious!". I refer you to Steven Young's excellent /. article, "Basic Patent Law for Programmers" (http://slashdot.org/features/99/10/19/1032254.sht ml):
When a new patent is announced, one of the most common criticisms is that the patent is invalid because the patented invention is merely an obvious extension of something that is already done. Theoretically, this is a valid criticism. Two requirements for a valid patent are that it is novel (the inventor was the first (sort of) to invent that particular thing or method), and non-obviousness (that the invention is not an obvious extension of something that is already known).
In practice, the level of inventiveness required for patentability is vanishingly small. It is relatively easy to show that a patent claim is invalid for a lack of novelty: you simply find something in the prior art (prior art is typically something that was published more than a year before the patent was applied for, although there are many exceptions) that includes all of the elements of the claim. Showing that a patent claim is invalid because of obviousness is considerably more difficult. First, you have to find examples in the prior art that, when taken together, add up to the patented invention. That is not enough, however. You also have to find something in the prior art that suggests putting these prior art pieces together. That is often difficult to find, even where a modification does seem obvious.
I suggest that everyone re-read this article before complaining about the patents of Amazon and others.
The least objectionable member of the DemoPublicans is McCain. He does seem to have a backbone and character; unfortunately, he's for censoring the internet and mandatory filtering.
Find me someone who has honor. Find me someone who believes that the Constitution is a limit on government power, not carte blanche for goverment to meddle with whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Find me someone with the guts to say that Social Security is an unworkable Ponzi Scheme. Find me someone who won't turn a blind eye to the corporations imposing externalities on others. Find me someone who won't be busy paying off the people who bought his last election.
OK, so I'm probably dreaming.
For this election, I'll vote for gridlock -- which means that the professional policians will have the least power to screw me. If it looks like the House will revert to the democrats, I'll vote for GW Bush to counterbalance. If the House stays republican, it would be extremely dangerous to let one party control Congress and the Executive (remember all the Crap Clinton got passed in his first two years), so I'll vote for whichever democrat has the best chance of winning.
In the End, I just want to be left alone. The government is not your Mother.
Maybe the 1-click patent is bullshit; if it is, the court will rule that way (hint: the injunction against BN means that the judge thinks Amazon will prevail.) If not, don't whine about Amazon playing by the rules (indeed, the officers of Amazon are required, by fiduciary responsibility, to play by those rules and maximize shareholder value.) If you think the rules are flawed, the proper action is to write your congresscritter, not boycott the company.
Who gives a rodent's posterior _how_ the insurance is created and paid out, as long as it actually does pay out on a legitimate loss?
...
The answer to "who", of course, is the insurance "regulation" industry inside of the various state goverments. Without something to regulate, these people are out of a job. And the lawyers lose a lucrative income stream.
A most irritating situation
substrate (substrate@engineer.com):
...
I think there is a need for legally binding digital signatures, but its something I wouldn't want to see rushed through the legislature to make some withered old republicans look digitally saavy. This could have disastorous effects.
Not to be confused by some worthless, bought-and-paid-for Democrats, eh?
But seriously, folks, legally binding digital signatures may need to be more than encrypting, with the user's private key, the hash of the document. In no particular order:
1. third party escrow, that verifies the signature soon after the document is signed. That way, even if the crypto method is cracked later on, or the private key is compromised, there still exists a known good copy of the document.
2. signing key expiration (already exists in pgp)
3. some watermarking technology, similar to some corporate checks today (which show "void" when a check is copied)
These methods aren't foolproof, of course