I enjoyed the Dragonriders of Pern trilogy - it's fantasy with some scifi. There's more scifi aspects in the prequel and some of the later books. The trilogy was better than the later books, IMO, but they're good too.
The Hobbit was an easy read, but the rest of the LoTR series is relatively harder. I haven't been able to read the first of the trilogy entirely, and I've tried several times.
I don't think I'm dumb either, but who knows if I'd know that.:)
Citing case law, which is public (otherwise it'd be sealed, eh?), == selling your friend up the river?
Anyways, it all just smells of FUD. Watch this.
I talked with a few lawyer buddies of mine who work for the firm SCO hired (but are not on the specific case). They say this is a slam dunk - the evidence they have is really quite significant and will stun the community. I will not share the details on the evidence, although you can find it in your newspaper. They said Linux users would definitely have to pay some sort of fee for use.
See, I can play that game too. Except I'm not posting anonymously, so I'm probably not going to come across as credible.
If only SCO had hired you before all this, they wouldn't have had to sue IBM. And they'd be making boatloads of money licensing their valuable source code.
Doesn't look like Apple will catch up this way. Maybe over a matter of months. Or years. Plus, more people have PCs than Macs already.
The following responses will contain one troll about how Apple will release iTunes for Windows "soon" and one about how Apples really aren't more expensive than PCs.
I dunno about that. I think they would have learned their lesson pretty quickly if they went to a dock at the ocean and started pushing people in (a more likely comparison than them shooting people...)
This is why I appreciate what other games are doing such as Earth and Beyond. My brother tipped me off to it. It's OK. No bugs that I have perceived yet (but it has been out for a while).
But the best part - 5 day free trial. While I'm OK with buying a box to play a game (even a pay-by-the-month), free trials are OK too!
Round robin DNS does work pretty well in practice, but we've seen that one host usually does get more traffic than the rest. So long as that's OK (and it should be, really - every host should be able to handle double or triple its bandwidth or else what's the point of the RR?) it's OK. OK.
The one file I downloaded was corrupt, did not work at all. It was some game executable. I haven't tried it since. I imagine it must have some sort of integrity checking? It may have just been a problem with the file itself, rather than BitTorrent, but I dunno.
Ya know, the guy doesn't HAVE to go to jail. They could reach a cash settlement. Guy pays, life isn't destroyed (which I'm sure you must agree with, as you're suggesting that UbiSoft's losses are not worth compensation?).
FWIW, kicking your kids out at 18 is about a lot more than your own money. It's about responsibility.
In fact, this whole thing is about responsibility. The hackers (crackers? maybe both!) involved here should own up to it.
I don't think they should go to jail for it. I don't know if that's what you mean by "ruin the future", but it sounds like it.
I played everquest for a long time. I've tried to play other MMOGs since. I can't help but compare the two. Many of them fall in to the "send the characters on boring tasks" rut for NPC quests (which have no impact on the world at all). Gets boring.
Basically I don't think I could commit that much time to that kind of game ever again.:)
They didn't pull it immediately. They took their sweet time and pulled it only after it was pointed out that they were still distributing the supposedly proprietary code.
Well, I dunno about that. The more sites that rely on this sort of filtering, the fewer people that will send referrer data. Eventually the majority will no longer send referrer data (same with User Agent, for other lame blocking methods).
A better way to do it is to ensure you don't have too many dynamically generated pages. Use caching extensively. Offer up mirrors and on high traffic, actively send 302 redirects to the mirrors (rather than relying on folks to clicky the links.)
Yeah, that's true. I should probably remove that note. I just think blocking based on referrer is lame - as a sysadmin I'm asked about it all the time by clients. They think that blocking referrers is all they ever have to do to prevent someone from clicking their link on another site. I wrote that in a fit of frustration.:-)
I hear you can put tiny ads in all sorts of newspapers and magazines, but I think you have to move in to a tiny one bedroom apartment for it to work, and you have to have big teeth.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mention a NIC - I assume that's for the standalone version?
It was closed when I got back to the computer. I dunno what happened.
I enjoyed the Dragonriders of Pern trilogy - it's fantasy with some scifi. There's more scifi aspects in the prequel and some of the later books. The trilogy was better than the later books, IMO, but they're good too.
The Hobbit was an easy read, but the rest of the LoTR series is relatively harder. I haven't been able to read the first of the trilogy entirely, and I've tried several times.
:)
I don't think I'm dumb either, but who knows if I'd know that.
Yes, Bugzilla is sacred. /. the other sites all you want. ;)
Hey Radon28, what's your password?
<radon28> *thinks about password for a split second, decides against sharing*
<dpk> N/m, thanks!
Citing case law, which is public (otherwise it'd be sealed, eh?), == selling your friend up the river?
Anyways, it all just smells of FUD. Watch this.
I talked with a few lawyer buddies of mine who work for the firm SCO hired (but are not on the specific case). They say this is a slam dunk - the evidence they have is really quite significant and will stun the community. I will not share the details on the evidence, although you can find it in your newspaper. They said Linux users would definitely have to pay some sort of fee for use.
See, I can play that game too. Except I'm not posting anonymously, so I'm probably not going to come across as credible.
you should never reveal your sources.
If only SCO had hired you before all this, they wouldn't have had to sue IBM. And they'd be making boatloads of money licensing their valuable source code.
You guys better pay up or I'll shoot this puppy!
Let's do more math.
10 tracks @ RealR - $7.90 + $9.95 = $17.85 + $400 (for a PC) = $417.85
10 tracks @ Apple - $9.90 + $0.0 = $9.90 + $800 (bottom of the line Mac) = $809.90
25 tracks @ RealR - $19.75 + $9.95 = $29.70 + $400 = $429.70
25 tracks @ Apple - $24.75 + $0.0 = $24.75 + $800 = $824.75
1000 tracks @ RealR - $790 + $9.95 = $799.95 + $400 = $1199.95
1000 tracks @ Apple - $950 + $0.0 = $950 + $800 = $1750
Doesn't look like Apple will catch up this way. Maybe over a matter of months. Or years. Plus, more people have PCs than Macs already.
The following responses will contain one troll about how Apple will release iTunes for Windows "soon" and one about how Apples really aren't more expensive than PCs.
I dunno about that. I think they would have learned their lesson pretty quickly if they went to a dock at the ocean and started pushing people in (a more likely comparison than them shooting people...)
This is why I appreciate what other games are doing such as Earth and Beyond. My brother tipped me off to it. It's OK. No bugs that I have perceived yet (but it has been out for a while).
But the best part - 5 day free trial. While I'm OK with buying a box to play a game (even a pay-by-the-month), free trials are OK too!
OK. Thanks for the tip. I should have re-run the .torrent. FWIW I didn't cancel, but maybe it aborted early or something (I left it running overnight.)
Round robin DNS does work pretty well in practice, but we've seen that one host usually does get more traffic than the rest. So long as that's OK (and it should be, really - every host should be able to handle double or triple its bandwidth or else what's the point of the RR?) it's OK. OK.
The one file I downloaded was corrupt, did not work at all. It was some game executable. I haven't tried it since. I imagine it must have some sort of integrity checking? It may have just been a problem with the file itself, rather than BitTorrent, but I dunno.
IMO, Bram Cohen shouldn't be worried about the RIAA going after bit torrent sites. It's not like he's distributing the files himself.
Spare the toolmaker. Those were the cries during the Napster days.
Ya know, the guy doesn't HAVE to go to jail. They could reach a cash settlement. Guy pays, life isn't destroyed (which I'm sure you must agree with, as you're suggesting that UbiSoft's losses are not worth compensation?).
FWIW, kicking your kids out at 18 is about a lot more than your own money. It's about responsibility.
In fact, this whole thing is about responsibility. The hackers (crackers? maybe both!) involved here should own up to it.
I don't think they should go to jail for it. I don't know if that's what you mean by "ruin the future", but it sounds like it.
"Why do THEY get to act as a non-AI NPC and I can't?"
Unfortunately, that's what they'd hear in response.
I played everquest for a long time. I've tried to play other MMOGs since. I can't help but compare the two. Many of them fall in to the "send the characters on boring tasks" rut for NPC quests (which have no impact on the world at all). Gets boring.
:)
Basically I don't think I could commit that much time to that kind of game ever again.
They didn't pull it immediately. They took their sweet time and pulled it only after it was pointed out that they were still distributing the supposedly proprietary code.
Well, I dunno about that. The more sites that rely on this sort of filtering, the fewer people that will send referrer data. Eventually the majority will no longer send referrer data (same with User Agent, for other lame blocking methods).
A better way to do it is to ensure you don't have too many dynamically generated pages. Use caching extensively. Offer up mirrors and on high traffic, actively send 302 redirects to the mirrors (rather than relying on folks to clicky the links.)
Then who would have won?
:)
The security audit firm that the employer then hires and places on retainer for future audits/work?
Of course, then the proper action would be for you to go to a lawyer and get them on unlawful imprisonment. :)
Yeah, that's true. I should probably remove that note. I just think blocking based on referrer is lame - as a sysadmin I'm asked about it all the time by clients. They think that blocking referrers is all they ever have to do to prevent someone from clicking their link on another site. I wrote that in a fit of frustration. :-)
I hear you can put tiny ads in all sorts of newspapers and magazines, but I think you have to move in to a tiny one bedroom apartment for it to work, and you have to have big teeth.