"...the JUSTIN BAILEY password is a total fluke. If you play around with Metroid's password system (something you can do with the Metroid Password Generator program, found in Fan Apps), you can come up with other names and words that work as passwords. The "Justin Bailey" code is one which was found early on and happened to work pretty well, so it became widely reported."
I always remember Kid Icarus that used the same password system. It too had an interesting fluke password:
The general consensus on the street seemed to be that Microsoft was offering *too much* money... which is why Microsoft stock dropped when the offer was first announced...
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it really looked to me like they wanted Yahoo. It was Yahoo's executives who didn't want the deal to go through.
Health care can't be a Right. How are you going to decide what treatments are included in this mythical "Right," and which ones aren't? What if there isn't enough supply of medical care to meet the demand? Are you going to force people to become doctors? Are you going to force doctors to work more hours? If there is a limited supply, how are you going to decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't?
Suppose that a new treatment was invented that allowed people to live healthy lives indefinitely, but the treatment cost a million dollars a year. Are you going to exclude this treatment from the "Right"? Simple economics dictates that everyone cannot have access to it. So will you ban it outright? That ignores the possibility that if you allow wealthy people to fund the treatment right now for the expensive price, that funding could allow further developments that decrease the cost of the treatment, thus allowing more people to have access in the future. Are you willing to stunt the development of new healthcare technologies in order to have this supposed "Right"?
Keep in mind that I have already heard pundits on financial oriented tv shows warn against healthcare investments for fear that a democrat will be elected and harm the healthcare industry. Arguably, the rhetoric has already harmed healthcare in this country by discouraging investment.
The United States currently has the best healthcare system in the world. Why do you want to destroy something that at most needs a little tweak?
Remember that hospital in Cuba that Michael Moore visited in his film? Contrary to what Michael Moore would have us believe, that hospital is actually not available to the average cuban. That hospital is primarily involved in the business of health care tourism. Wealthy europeans escape the socialized medicine of Europe by seeking care in Cuba. If socialized medicine is so great, then why do europeans feel the need to leave the continent to seek medical care?
All of this without even getting into any of the problems that central control of any economic activity brings. Essentially, central control eventually leads to a single point of failure. Sooner or later, that point of failure fails, and bad things happen.
I find it telling that most of the people in favor of greater government interference have a great distrust of our current President. I have no doubts that Obama would do a great job running all the socialist programs he wishes to put into place. But it's not Obama I'm worried about. It's the moron who follows him. It will only be a matter of time before we have a terrible President. Do you really want to maximize the powers of the federal government that terrible President will have control of?
I'd rather trust the free market. Any governmental interference should be (1) minimal AND (2) targeted to fix a specific problem. Also, time limits on government exercises of power are generally a good thing. Otherwise government power tends to just grow and grow... ultimately the people pay the price...
This has been the case for a long time. It would certainly be strange for a court to suddenly rule otherwise just because the seized item was a laptop instead of a briefcase.
If we want to change this, we have to do it through the political branches. There's no chance any sane court is going to overrule this.
I've used both, the les paul is definitely easier to play with.
The nice thing about the strum bar on the rock band guitar is that you barely have to touch it for a strum. Once you realize this, it becomes much easier to play. Of course, if you're used to the click of the guitar hero guitar, it's not easy to adjust.
I don't think the buttons are that much more difficult personally. I always find my place using one of two ways: 1. feeling the marking on the 3rd button or 2. looking at what buttons are pressed on the screen. Both methods work with both guitars, which is probably why I haven't had much trouble switching back and forth.
I think it's a shame that the guitar hero guitar doesn't work with rock band on ps3 and wii. Many people prefer the guitar hero guitar, and I think it's obvious that harmonix intended from a design standpoint that the guitar hero guitar would be usable in rock band.
Here's the thing... the hardcore crowd doesn't need Blizzard to drop the non hardcore servers.
Hardcore people would be very happy if there was a hardcore server to play on. I doubt the demand for it would justify more than a few servers.
The debate seems to imply that WoW either has to be hardcore or not. This completely ignores that there could be hardcore servers, and most people could just avoid them, just as they avoid PVP servers today.
I definitely agree. The Internet was designed as a peer to peer network. That's what Comcast and Verizon hate about it. They would rather turn the Internet into "Cable TV II." Centrally controlled and managed for maximum telco profit, and screw everyone else.
The question presumes that if the content owners pay, the consumers won't have to pay.
This is wrong. If the content owners are forced to pay, then the consumers will have to pay for the bandwidth when they pay for the content.
Here is the correct question: Should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth? Or should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for content?
When phrased correctly, the answer becomes obvious. Consumers should pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth. Any other answer has negative consequences, both to the economy and to the current nature of the Internet.
I've seen some discussion on/. of creating open source patent pools to protect open source projects from patent infringement.
I want to point out to everyone thinking about such a thing that you *do* *not* have to go to law school and become an attorney to file prepare/file/prosecute patent applications. All you have to do is pass the patent bar exam.
A law degree is not required to sit for the patent bar exam. All you need is a technical background (which most/.ers have). There are a list of degrees that will automatically qualify you to sit for the patent bar. Included are various engineering and science degrees. Computer Science is included, but to automatically qualify, the school had to have had a certain accreditation at the time you graduated. You can also qualify with *any* computer science degree under category b option iv, but that requires a transcript along with course descriptions for 40 credits worth of qualifying courses.
If open source projects want to start filing a lot of patent applications, then having a project member become a patent agent would be a good idea.
I'm a first year law student, and I'm planning on taking the patent bar this summer.
I don't want new laws, but we have to realize that cyber crime is a global problem.
If law enforcement can't cooperate internationally, then law enforcement isn't going to be very effective against cyber crime.
On a different note, didn't we move past the whole "cyber" thing a long time ago? We should call it "Internet crime" or computer crime instead. "Cyber crime" is lame.
Of course if the BluRay format weren't controlled through patents and the DMCA, then this would be a non-event. Then, anyone with the right resources could make and market a BluRay player. That would be a free market.
What we have is far from a free market. Even the value of our currency is controlled by the government...
Because they are carving something out that the rest of society then cannot use.
And as for the stealing bit... that's the same thing we do today if people don't pay their property taxes... so even if you disagree, there is societal support for the general idea.
The idea of property tax is that the owners of property owe something back to society. The idea goes back to feudalism when the land owners were feudal lords. Instead of(or in addition to) taxes, feudal lords could be called on to send knights into battle as a condition of their land ownership. If they couldn't fulfill the duty, the land would be taken away and given to someone who could...
The same idea could be applied to intellectual property. The owners of intellectual property should be required to give something back to society. As some other posters have pointed out, the problem becomes valuing the property. The easiest way to value intellectual property is by how much income it brings in to the owner.
By that measure, intellectual property is already taxed. The tax is simply paid through the corporate or individual income tax.
He obviously hasn't been paying attention to AI developments. The story of AI is largely a story of failure. There have been many dead ends and unfulfilled predictions. This will be another inaccurate prediction.
Computers can't even defeat humans at go, and go is a closed system. We are not twenty years away from a human level of machine intelligence. We may not even be *200 years* away from a human level of machine intelligence. The technology just isn't here yet. It's not even on the horizon. It's nonexistent.
We may break through the barrier someday, and I certainly believe the research is worthwhile, for what we have learned. Right now, however, computers are good in some areas and humans are good in others. We should spend more research dollars trying to find ways for humans and computers to efficiently work together.
I was taught how to handle pointers in QBASIC when I was in junior high.
The assignment was to implement a linked list. The instructor had us initialize an array which represented our memory block. The program then had to perform all the standard linked list operations, handling memory allocation and all that crap.
The choice of language may seem odd, but consider that QBASIC is what we had available. All our DOS computers already had QBASIC on them, and we could use it without having to shell out the big bucks for a C/C++ compiler (none of us was aware of DJGPP at the time, though I later used DJGPP to teach myself C++).
Now, if the problem is that students aren't being taught memory management, then that is obviously a problem, no matter what language is being used.
Not true. The total number of dollars in existence is going up. What do you think the Fed does when they "increase the money supply?" Why do you think we have constant inflation (though sometimes at a slow rate)?
You're right, it is an affirmative defense. But you misunderstand affirmative defenses. Both self defense and fair use are affirmative defenses, but you don't have to admit to the crime to use the defense. Lawyers are allowed to argue in the alternative. Claiming self defense (or fair use) does not surrender anything to the prosecution (or plaintiff). The prosecution must still prove their case to get a guilty verdict.
Let us also remember that the Government cannot grant us Rights. All of us have Rights naturally. The government can only protect them. They can infringe on our Rights, but they can never take them away.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't played it, but I think Madden '08 for the Wii has online and doesn't use friend codes.
Very humorous video.
Wikipedia of course has the real story:
"...the JUSTIN BAILEY password is a total fluke. If you play around with Metroid's password system (something you can do with the Metroid Password Generator program, found in Fan Apps), you can come up with other names and words that work as passwords. The "Justin Bailey" code is one which was found early on and happened to work pretty well, so it became widely reported."
I always remember Kid Icarus that used the same password system. It too had an interesting fluke password:
ICARUS FIGHTS
MEDUSA ANGELS
Hours of fun for the whole family.
Where did you get that idea?
The general consensus on the street seemed to be that Microsoft was offering *too much* money... which is why Microsoft stock dropped when the offer was first announced...
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but it really looked to me like they wanted Yahoo. It was Yahoo's executives who didn't want the deal to go through.
Maybe I just watch too much CNBC.
Health care can't be a Right. How are you going to decide what treatments are included in this mythical "Right," and which ones aren't? What if there isn't enough supply of medical care to meet the demand? Are you going to force people to become doctors? Are you going to force doctors to work more hours? If there is a limited supply, how are you going to decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't?
Suppose that a new treatment was invented that allowed people to live healthy lives indefinitely, but the treatment cost a million dollars a year. Are you going to exclude this treatment from the "Right"? Simple economics dictates that everyone cannot have access to it. So will you ban it outright? That ignores the possibility that if you allow wealthy people to fund the treatment right now for the expensive price, that funding could allow further developments that decrease the cost of the treatment, thus allowing more people to have access in the future. Are you willing to stunt the development of new healthcare technologies in order to have this supposed "Right"?
Keep in mind that I have already heard pundits on financial oriented tv shows warn against healthcare investments for fear that a democrat will be elected and harm the healthcare industry. Arguably, the rhetoric has already harmed healthcare in this country by discouraging investment.
The United States currently has the best healthcare system in the world. Why do you want to destroy something that at most needs a little tweak?
Remember that hospital in Cuba that Michael Moore visited in his film? Contrary to what Michael Moore would have us believe, that hospital is actually not available to the average cuban. That hospital is primarily involved in the business of health care tourism. Wealthy europeans escape the socialized medicine of Europe by seeking care in Cuba. If socialized medicine is so great, then why do europeans feel the need to leave the continent to seek medical care?
All of this without even getting into any of the problems that central control of any economic activity brings. Essentially, central control eventually leads to a single point of failure. Sooner or later, that point of failure fails, and bad things happen.
I find it telling that most of the people in favor of greater government interference have a great distrust of our current President. I have no doubts that Obama would do a great job running all the socialist programs he wishes to put into place. But it's not Obama I'm worried about. It's the moron who follows him. It will only be a matter of time before we have a terrible President. Do you really want to maximize the powers of the federal government that terrible President will have control of?
I'd rather trust the free market. Any governmental interference should be (1) minimal AND (2) targeted to fix a specific problem. Also, time limits on government exercises of power are generally a good thing. Otherwise government power tends to just grow and grow... ultimately the people pay the price...
The 4th Amendment does not apply at the border.
This has been the case for a long time. It would certainly be strange for a court to suddenly rule otherwise just because the seized item was a laptop instead of a briefcase.
If we want to change this, we have to do it through the political branches. There's no chance any sane court is going to overrule this.
I've used both, the les paul is definitely easier to play with.
The nice thing about the strum bar on the rock band guitar is that you barely have to touch it for a strum. Once you realize this, it becomes much easier to play. Of course, if you're used to the click of the guitar hero guitar, it's not easy to adjust.
I don't think the buttons are that much more difficult personally. I always find my place using one of two ways: 1. feeling the marking on the 3rd button or 2. looking at what buttons are pressed on the screen. Both methods work with both guitars, which is probably why I haven't had much trouble switching back and forth.
I think it's a shame that the guitar hero guitar doesn't work with rock band on ps3 and wii. Many people prefer the guitar hero guitar, and I think it's obvious that harmonix intended from a design standpoint that the guitar hero guitar would be usable in rock band.
The Rockband controller is intentionally different from the ghIII controller.
It's true that many people prefer the ghIII controller, but that doesn't make the ghIII controller superior.
For instance, the rockband guitar has solo fret buttons. Which are very cool.
It's not vigilantism when the crime is reported to the police and the police make the arrest. That's what happened in this case.
Vigilantism would be if upon finding out where the car is, an angry mob descended, beat the crap out of the guy, and then took the car back.
There's quite a difference between vigilantism and what happened in this case.
Here's the thing... the hardcore crowd doesn't need Blizzard to drop the non hardcore servers.
Hardcore people would be very happy if there was a hardcore server to play on. I doubt the demand for it would justify more than a few servers.
The debate seems to imply that WoW either has to be hardcore or not. This completely ignores that there could be hardcore servers, and most people could just avoid them, just as they avoid PVP servers today.
I definitely agree. The Internet was designed as a peer to peer network. That's what Comcast and Verizon hate about it. They would rather turn the Internet into "Cable TV II." Centrally controlled and managed for maximum telco profit, and screw everyone else.
The question presumes that if the content owners pay, the consumers won't have to pay.
This is wrong. If the content owners are forced to pay, then the consumers will have to pay for the bandwidth when they pay for the content.
Here is the correct question: Should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth? Or should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for content?
When phrased correctly, the answer becomes obvious. Consumers should pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth. Any other answer has negative consequences, both to the economy and to the current nature of the Internet.
I've seen some discussion on /. of creating open source patent pools to protect open source projects from patent infringement.
/.ers have). There are a list of degrees that will automatically qualify you to sit for the patent bar. Included are various engineering and science degrees. Computer Science is included, but to automatically qualify, the school had to have had a certain accreditation at the time you graduated. You can also qualify with *any* computer science degree under category b option iv, but that requires a transcript along with course descriptions for 40 credits worth of qualifying courses.
I want to point out to everyone thinking about such a thing that you *do* *not* have to go to law school and become an attorney to file prepare/file/prosecute patent applications. All you have to do is pass the patent bar exam.
A law degree is not required to sit for the patent bar exam. All you need is a technical background (which most
If open source projects want to start filing a lot of patent applications, then having a project member become a patent agent would be a good idea.
I'm a first year law student, and I'm planning on taking the patent bar this summer.
I don't want new laws, but we have to realize that cyber crime is a global problem.
If law enforcement can't cooperate internationally, then law enforcement isn't going to be very effective against cyber crime.
On a different note, didn't we move past the whole "cyber" thing a long time ago? We should call it "Internet crime" or computer crime instead. "Cyber crime" is lame.
Of course if the BluRay format weren't controlled through patents and the DMCA, then this would be a non-event. Then, anyone with the right resources could make and market a BluRay player. That would be a free market.
What we have is far from a free market. Even the value of our currency is controlled by the government...
Because they are carving something out that the rest of society then cannot use.
And as for the stealing bit... that's the same thing we do today if people don't pay their property taxes... so even if you disagree, there is societal support for the general idea.
The idea of property tax is that the owners of property owe something back to society. The idea goes back to feudalism when the land owners were feudal lords. Instead of(or in addition to) taxes, feudal lords could be called on to send knights into battle as a condition of their land ownership. If they couldn't fulfill the duty, the land would be taken away and given to someone who could...
The same idea could be applied to intellectual property. The owners of intellectual property should be required to give something back to society. As some other posters have pointed out, the problem becomes valuing the property. The easiest way to value intellectual property is by how much income it brings in to the owner.
By that measure, intellectual property is already taxed. The tax is simply paid through the corporate or individual income tax.
He obviously hasn't been paying attention to AI developments. The story of AI is largely a story of failure. There have been many dead ends and unfulfilled predictions. This will be another inaccurate prediction.
Computers can't even defeat humans at go, and go is a closed system. We are not twenty years away from a human level of machine intelligence. We may not even be *200 years* away from a human level of machine intelligence. The technology just isn't here yet. It's not even on the horizon. It's nonexistent.
We may break through the barrier someday, and I certainly believe the research is worthwhile, for what we have learned. Right now, however, computers are good in some areas and humans are good in others. We should spend more research dollars trying to find ways for humans and computers to efficiently work together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
Umm, no. That was 2002. Not even close to ten years ago.
But I agree, kind of a ridiculous criticism. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.
I love the suits. Classy.
I was taught how to handle pointers in QBASIC when I was in junior high.
The assignment was to implement a linked list. The instructor had us initialize an array which represented our memory block. The program then had to perform all the standard linked list operations, handling memory allocation and all that crap.
The choice of language may seem odd, but consider that QBASIC is what we had available. All our DOS computers already had QBASIC on them, and we could use it without having to shell out the big bucks for a C/C++ compiler (none of us was aware of DJGPP at the time, though I later used DJGPP to teach myself C++).
Now, if the problem is that students aren't being taught memory management, then that is obviously a problem, no matter what language is being used.
Not true. The total number of dollars in existence is going up. What do you think the Fed does when they "increase the money supply?" Why do you think we have constant inflation (though sometimes at a slow rate)?
You are correct about the gospels, but you are not correct about the many letters that occupy most of the new testament.
There are many things that are debatable about Jesus. His existence is not one of them. You might as well claim that the Roman Empire did not exist.
Most states have computer crime laws that pretty much say this: It is illegal to access a computer that you are not authorized to access.
This basically means that if you don't have written permission to access a computer, you can't access it legally.
So everyone who uses computers breaks the law, and the law is only truly defined by who prosecutors decide to prosecute.
This state of affairs is completely ridiculous, but unless you find a tech savvy Judge, the situation is unlikely to be changed through the courts.
Self-defense is arguably similar. The state has a monopoly on the use of force
It's clear that you and I have very different opinions on the proper role of government.
You're right, it is an affirmative defense. But you misunderstand affirmative defenses. Both self defense and fair use are affirmative defenses, but you don't have to admit to the crime to use the defense. Lawyers are allowed to argue in the alternative. Claiming self defense (or fair use) does not surrender anything to the prosecution (or plaintiff). The prosecution must still prove their case to get a guilty verdict.
Let us also remember that the Government cannot grant us Rights. All of us have Rights naturally. The government can only protect them. They can infringe on our Rights, but they can never take them away.