I also meant to post this quote from the Adobe article, just to drive home how much your research skills fail to impress (remember, this is straight from adobe.com, so spend some time sucking dick quietly in a dark corner before finding it "hard to believe"):
Adobe Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser. However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a 64-bit operating system.
This has been well known and thoroughly documented for years. If ignorance were fuel, you would be Kuwait.
That's a very unique definition of portability, one which suggests that that Active X components, for example, are portable because they work on every platform where Active X is available.
Well, if that were correct, then indeed they would be. However, ActiveX is plagued with portability problems through various versions of ActiveX as the various early faulty loading mechanisms were shut off, one by one, as they were discovered to be irreconcilably insecure.
It's not actually a unique definition; it's taken from Knuth. I'd suggest reading a book, if I thought you knew how.
Adobe Flash doesn't run on my PPC/Linux box because Adobe doesn't support my browser of choice? If I ran a 32-bit browser on my PPC/Linux box and changed "literally nothing else" (including the processor), Adobe Flash would run just fine?// I find that somewhat difficult to believe.
I wish it was a surprise to find out how fundamentally ignorant you are of the thing you're complaining about. Maybe you didn't realize this, but Flash doesn't run in any 64-bit browser on any operating system. This includes IE, Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Konqueror, running on Windows, Macs or Linux. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with your computer or your operating system.
Here's a technote from Adobe that even a chimpanzee could read. Next time you get up on a soapbox and find yourself saying things like "I find that somewhat difficult to believe", please know what the fuck you're talking about. Ignorance may be bliss for you, but it sure as hell isn't for the people you talk down to cluelessly.
By the way, ten seconds of google turned up half a dozen ways of getting it running on Linux in a 64-bit browser without problems. Try doing some research next time.
Know that if you respond, it's only to soothe your own ego; I'm not going to read it. You've disgusted me too thoroughly to give a shit what you say in the future. I've been on Slashdot for over a decade, and despite that I post in several hundred conversations a month, I only foe people at an rate of 1.4 foes per year. Consider yourself added to the shortbus shortlist. Your failure is complete.
A better person than you would be ashamed to see what company they've just fallen into. I suspect you're stupid and arrogant enough to be proud of hitting that list.
I regret to remind you that as this is a question of in-governmental operation, even counterfeit Microsoft products cannot create unusually fast processes that get lots of work done. Otherwise, that would be a brilliant diagnostic.
Eep. Ok, well,... psions? I dunno, I hate java. I'm sure there's an example that fits. Nintendo Game and Watch: Donkey Kong, maybe. Or Windows Vista, that doesn't run much, maybe that'll do.
I needed no repair to the original text, and the other people who replied got it just fine. Believe it or not, sometimes the fault actually is yours. The "well learn to write" gag is boring; go back to Digg where you belong.
I reiterate: please don't respond to me again. I find you tiresome.
From your prior reply, it's actually quite obvious that you don't know what portable means, since you confused it with prevalence. Portability is not a question of being available on your platform of choice. Portability is a question of things working wherever it is available. If mono was 100%, then.NET would be rigorously portable, even though there were only two implementations out there for two platforms. Portability is not impeded by that people have not chosen to move to your target of choice. Indeed, if you'd bother to read Adobe's tech notes, the entire reason that Flash isn't currently available on Linux64 is because there are unresolved portability bugs.
Check Adobe Flash Player system requirements yourself; all you need for Linux is a "modern processor" of 800 MHz or faster. Somehow that doesn't include my 1 GHz PPC processor and my 2.16 GHz 64-bit Core 2 Duo.
The problem isn't your hardware. The problem is that they don't yet support your browser of choice. If you ran a 32 bit browser and changed literally nothing else, it would run just fine. This is a straw man, and frankly a pathetic one at that.
He claims he didn't download the game and didn't have it on his computer.
Well, if that's true, he's in luck; the offending barristers will have to pay his legal costs and time off work, and he'll be able to dick around at home at his full cost of work. He'll barely even have to show up. (I maintain skepticism: lawyers know how expensive a misfire on these lines is.)
But I think they're bluffing. If he actually downloaded a game, you'd expect them to actually deal with significant damages like the RIAA, not so small that it's easier to pay.
I dunno. Here's the thing. If you were the lawyers here, you could fire off a request for 600lb, knowing the offending party would be likely to pay up, learn their lesson and move on, or you could set yourself in court for weeks over a pissant sum. The RIAA is doing it the way they're doing it for the specific purpose of making headlines, in a sort of draconian and evil advertising mindset. This lawfirm seems to be more focussed on quick results, a reasonable penalty and moving on with life.
To be frank, I think the RIAA's doing it all wrong; if they were asking for smaller sums like this, most people would be paying up, and people wouldn't think of the RIAA as comb mustached goose steppers.
That's extortion, and probably blackmail.
It's neither, actually. This is the leveraging of the law of the land to recoup damages. Even if it turns out the case is bullshit, neither of those terms are appropriate (what you would be looking for is "barratry"); however, nothing in this case smells like that kind of thing to me.
but you seem quite convinced the guy did what they claim
That's in your imagination. Don't put words into my mouth.
This is why we argue about such things, because if we didn't, people like you would have most of the planet in jail based on the possibility they may have done something without any proof.
Horseshit, for several reasons.
You arguing about this will have no impact on the case
At no point did I suggest jail time, nor do I think it is appropriate
At no point did I make any commentary on the case; I was making commentary on the way the article discussed the case
It's too early for the evidence to be provided to the public. I'd say read a book on how court works, but no doubt you believe you already know, and thus won't bother
Please refrain from replying to my posts in the future until you learn to read. It's tiresome dealing with people like you, who become aggrieved over things I didn't say.
Oh is it now? So why am I here with my 64-bit browser and no flash?
Oh, I'm sorry, have you confused target portability with platform prevalence? Java doesn't run on Palm Pilots; does that mean Java applications aren't portable?
Just because the platform doesn't appear on every platform doesn't mean that the platforms it does appear on are in any way bifurcated.
No. That's why I can play the same Flash games on my Windows and Linux boxes, the Mac test box at work, my Wii, one of my cell phones and soon the iPhone. For rich media, Flash is significantly more reliably portable than basically anything other than Java, and Java's lead is steadily waning.
Satire?
And what would you suggest I'm lampooning? Or didn't you know that satire was the imitation of an extant work with changes injected for the purpose of exposition and mockery? (Mad Magazine, for the mouth breathers in the audience.)
Sardonicism?
Are you just picking big words that start with S and whose dictionary definitions use the word "mock"? No, I am not making a joke for the purpose of pointing out that I am skeptical of someone else's claim. Obviously.
Please use words you know. This kind of thing is just embarrassing.
To add insult to injury? Have we forgotten the way this person got into the lawfirm's crosshairs in the first place?
It is quite common in law to increase the damages to some flat linear multiple of the actual crime, in order to deter crime. If all you had to do was to pay the money you didn't pay the first time, there would be no compelling reason to obey the law. By increasing to a flat linear multiple, the impetus to steal is removed on grounds that it is no longer cost effective.
You warezers need to grow up. This story reeks of bias. Mod me into the ground for sticking up for the law if you want; it happens most times that I have an opinion with which warezers disagree. They don't follow the rules of society, so I'm sure this'll get modded troll, flamebait and offtopic, even though it's none of the three.
But really, insult to injury? All that guy had to do was not steal, and none of this would have happened to him. I notice nobody's particularly worried about the developers who put in all the hard work to make the game in the first place.
For once Google is doing something right. It isn't corporations' place to override the laws of nations; if it were, what would be in the food you eat and the medicines you take?
If Google is disturbed by human rights violations in China, it has more than enough money to change things by contacting the people at large. Giving countries the middle finger and ignoring their laws would be appalling, no matter what we think of those laws.
The primary strength of Flash is its single vendor, rigorously portable, rigorously backwards compatible runtime. Javascript is far too fragmented to be a competitor to flash.
You seem to have forgotten Super Core 2 Duo World Fighter Turbo.
And let's not even start with five cores. The "Pentium" brand does not need a revisitation as Pentio, even if it gives me an excuse to say Super Core 2 Twin Turbo EX plus Alpha Midnight Remix Advance, Ryu's Legacy Final Form.
The president whose election tallies were never counted, in the closest election we've had in more than a century, doesn't want verifiable voting. I wonder why.
Try to pay attention. They're saying the SCSI port is dead, not SCSI. Why? Because no SCSI connection has used anything but an SATA port for years.
ATAPI is SCSI over ATA
No, it isn't. It's EIDE/2.
SATA is SCSI over a special serial cable
... which should help you understand why the SCSI port is obsolete.
USB Storage (pendrives, external drives etc) are all SCSI.
Number one, no they aren't. Number two, that has nothing to do with the SCSI port.
Essentially mostly every mass storage device you connect to the computer is SCSI nowadays.
Not only do you live in a fantasy world, but you don't seem to understand that the phrases "The SCSI port is dead" and "SCSI is dead" aren't even close to exchangeable. Every example you gave, all of which were wrong, were SCSI over a not-SCSI port.
You know, in some parts of the world, "connector" is a phrase for public bus, which makes that advice... curious. Then again, in other parts of the world, public bus is a phrase for connector. So whatever.
I object to your description of game devs as "lazy".
So do I. The fault lies at the game designers' feet. If you look at the top ten selling games of all time, you'll find that none of them are graphics quality powerhouses - the sims, diablo, roller coaster tycoon, grand theft auto. Yes, making a game visually crispy will get a lot of dollars, but it doesn't win the top of the tree, and the last time it did (quake 1) was largely coincidental. What makes epic dollars is gameplay. Always has been, always will be. Is the industry drowned out by stupid companies that focus solely on visuals? Yes, and some of them are breathtakingly profitable. But the real winners are games like Civilization, whose graphics for their complexity are so rudimentary and choppy slow that it's kind of embarrassing to play.
The problem is that most designers don't know how to make a new game, and instead of stepping down, they throw themselves into the eye candy columbine.
Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical.
It's things like this that account for all the virgin jokes on SlashDot, not that we're geeks, y'know. How many men do you know that believe in professional wrestling? There are stupid people in ample supply on both sides of the gender gap. Don't confuse that your social circle excludes stupid men with whether or not there are stupid women.
Copyright does not cover game mechanics, only presentation. The only part of a game you can "steal" are its art and music resources. No part of intellectual property law covers the way a game plays, and both the copyright and patent doctrines are very, very clear on this point. If you want to catch the Chinese stealing games, go to a game portal. Cloning games isn't theft, even if it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
I also meant to post this quote from the Adobe article, just to drive home how much your research skills fail to impress (remember, this is straight from adobe.com, so spend some time sucking dick quietly in a dark corner before finding it "hard to believe")
This has been well known and thoroughly documented for years. If ignorance were fuel, you would be Kuwait.
It's not actually a unique definition; it's taken from Knuth. I'd suggest reading a book, if I thought you knew how.I wish it was a surprise to find out how fundamentally ignorant you are of the thing you're complaining about. Maybe you didn't realize this, but Flash doesn't run in any 64-bit browser on any operating system. This includes IE, Mozilla, Opera, Safari and Konqueror, running on Windows, Macs or Linux. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with your computer or your operating system.
Here's a technote from Adobe that even a chimpanzee could read. Next time you get up on a soapbox and find yourself saying things like "I find that somewhat difficult to believe", please know what the fuck you're talking about. Ignorance may be bliss for you, but it sure as hell isn't for the people you talk down to cluelessly.
By the way, ten seconds of google turned up half a dozen ways of getting it running on Linux in a 64-bit browser without problems. Try doing some research next time.
Know that if you respond, it's only to soothe your own ego; I'm not going to read it. You've disgusted me too thoroughly to give a shit what you say in the future. I've been on Slashdot for over a decade, and despite that I post in several hundred conversations a month, I only foe people at an rate of 1.4 foes per year. Consider yourself added to the shortbus shortlist. Your failure is complete.
A better person than you would be ashamed to see what company they've just fallen into. I suspect you're stupid and arrogant enough to be proud of hitting that list.
I regret to remind you that as this is a question of in-governmental operation, even counterfeit Microsoft products cannot create unusually fast processes that get lots of work done. Otherwise, that would be a brilliant diagnostic.
The intuitive interface bit might still work.
Eep. Ok, well, ... psions? I dunno, I hate java. I'm sure there's an example that fits. Nintendo Game and Watch: Donkey Kong, maybe. Or Windows Vista, that doesn't run much, maybe that'll do.
I needed no repair to the original text, and the other people who replied got it just fine. Believe it or not, sometimes the fault actually is yours. The "well learn to write" gag is boring; go back to Digg where you belong.
I reiterate: please don't respond to me again. I find you tiresome.
To be frank, I think the RIAA's doing it all wrong; if they were asking for smaller sums like this, most people would be paying up, and people wouldn't think of the RIAA as comb mustached goose steppers.It's neither, actually. This is the leveraging of the law of the land to recoup damages. Even if it turns out the case is bullshit, neither of those terms are appropriate (what you would be looking for is "barratry"); however, nothing in this case smells like that kind of thing to me.
Two cents, anyway; it's a matter of opinion.
Please refrain from replying to my posts in the future until you learn to read. It's tiresome dealing with people like you, who become aggrieved over things I didn't say.
Just because the platform doesn't appear on every platform doesn't mean that the platforms it does appear on are in any way bifurcated.
Please use words you know. This kind of thing is just embarrassing.
If we really want our government networks to be secure, we have to assume that they are not, and take appropriate measures.
To add insult to injury? Have we forgotten the way this person got into the lawfirm's crosshairs in the first place?
It is quite common in law to increase the damages to some flat linear multiple of the actual crime, in order to deter crime. If all you had to do was to pay the money you didn't pay the first time, there would be no compelling reason to obey the law. By increasing to a flat linear multiple, the impetus to steal is removed on grounds that it is no longer cost effective.
You warezers need to grow up. This story reeks of bias. Mod me into the ground for sticking up for the law if you want; it happens most times that I have an opinion with which warezers disagree. They don't follow the rules of society, so I'm sure this'll get modded troll, flamebait and offtopic, even though it's none of the three.
But really, insult to injury? All that guy had to do was not steal, and none of this would have happened to him. I notice nobody's particularly worried about the developers who put in all the hard work to make the game in the first place.
What a thought: paying for what you use.
For once Google is doing something right. It isn't corporations' place to override the laws of nations; if it were, what would be in the food you eat and the medicines you take?
If Google is disturbed by human rights violations in China, it has more than enough money to change things by contacting the people at large. Giving countries the middle finger and ignoring their laws would be appalling, no matter what we think of those laws.
The primary strength of Flash is its single vendor, rigorously portable, rigorously backwards compatible runtime. Javascript is far too fragmented to be a competitor to flash.
And let's not even start with five cores. The "Pentium" brand does not need a revisitation as Pentio, even if it gives me an excuse to say Super Core 2 Twin Turbo EX plus Alpha Midnight Remix Advance, Ryu's Legacy Final Form.
The president whose election tallies were never counted, in the closest election we've had in more than a century, doesn't want verifiable voting. I wonder why.
:(
Tin foil hats won't cover this one.
Your logic is fail.
You know, in some parts of the world, "connector" is a phrase for public bus, which makes that advice ... curious. Then again, in other parts of the world, public bus is a phrase for connector. So whatever.
Wow, and if they were talking about the SCSI wire protocol, instead of the SCSI-1 port, that might be germane.
Way to miss the point.
Nothing worse than noticing the fail in your joke right after you hit submit. Nothing to see here. Move along.
The problem is that most designers don't know how to make a new game, and instead of stepping down, they throw themselves into the eye candy columbine.
Copyright does not cover game mechanics, only presentation. The only part of a game you can "steal" are its art and music resources. No part of intellectual property law covers the way a game plays, and both the copyright and patent doctrines are very, very clear on this point. If you want to catch the Chinese stealing games, go to a game portal. Cloning games isn't theft, even if it should be.