Yes but slander is a legal offense most places in the modern world, and in legal courts, something can be interpreted as libelous if you say something about somebody and can't prove that it's true. That's a vast oversimplification of libel issues, but the ramifications hold - if you accuse God of existing you better be able to prove it, or he might sue.
That thing's a monster of a gun with no real-world equivellent. You do realize that it does more damage than the assault rifle, right? It's not automatic, but it does more damage and the rate of fire is obscene.
It's pretty good. I feel a bit of a celebrity in a way. I think it gives me some street cred.
Ouch. The proper way to talk about 'street cred' is in the third person. 'I have street cred' is pretentious, and 'you have street cred' just sounds silly. 'he/she has street cred' is the only way to discuss the concept that doesn't make you look silly.
If I were ever to get back into watching TV, I would want one of the old school Tivos. The replay and recording facility is wonderful. I'm not interested in having them stream it down to me - I like the recording feature.
Anyone at Tivo listening? You just lost a potential customer.
This attitude realy sucked and definitely held back Australia's entry into the commercial domain on the internet, ultimately hurting the development of that type of business here.
What? They missed the dot.com boom? Missing the dot.com boom from late entry is like showing up late to a feast to find all of the festering stinking poisoned corpses.
Since the people who've posted in this thread obviously know very little about launchcast and are just rehashing the "evil MPAA suing everyone" song, I guess it's time for me to pop in, given that I've actually been *gasp* using launchcast for the past year or so.
Launchcast is an odd combination of interactivity and basic streaming. When you first get on, you select your genres of music and it plays in a perfectly legal stream. There are no repeats or requests - it just plays music out of it's massive database.
As a song plays, however, you can rate the song, the album, and the artist, from zero (never play again) anywhere to one hundred (this song/album/artist makes me happy). The stream adapts to your request. It plays stuff you've rated highly more, and it doesn't play stuff you've rated zero at all.
The important thing to notice is that it *still* obeys the rules binding to radio. You can't request a song directly, and it won't do repeats, and all of the other rules that must be obeyed. You get your own ultimate radio station, without commercials.
So where's the basis for a lawsuit? Well, if you were to take the customizable radio station and broadcast it to a hundred thousand people, there wouldn't *be* a lawsuit. The point is, however, each person gets thier own unique stream. RIAA is probably asserting that since each person gets thier own stream, it's not a radio station and isn't under a radio station's legal protection.
The interesting thing is the way I learned about launchcast. We here at rovion.com were going to release a product that would have been a competitor to launch.com. We summoned a pack of lawyers and they took a look at it, and said, "If you do this, then you will eventually be sued by the RIAA or someone else, and they will win, because it's quite demonstrable in court that you arn't a radio station and thus can't hide behind thier protections." So now we do something else.
I've been following this with half an eye for a while, and the RIAA sent a cease and desist order (or whatever those DMCA thingies are called) a while back, which launch ignored. Now it goes to court.
That you could use it to distribute fan missions for various FPS games, which tend to be huge. It was specifically for the Thief Fan Mission Archive, which was distraught at the time. Unfortunately, this never actually happened.
I've got to admit that it's companies like Monsanto that took my Radical Libertarianism (you know, "die government die! stabbity stabbity!", Libertarianism) and shattered it over it's kneecap. You would have to be a fool to give a company like this any more influence over the way the world is run.
This is a security issue that the games should be addressing. The game shouldn't be sending information on avatars that are out of line of sight. The cheating just shouldn't work, regardless of hardware or drivers.
This is similar to UO, where Spot Hidden used to work on the client side. However, cheats arose to see all people, hidden or not, because the client knew about the hidden people. The solution was to move the spot hidden back to the server, and a similar solution should be adapted for 3d games in the long term. Information shouldn't be sent to the client if the player shouldn't know about it, because people *will* exploit it.
Fixing this bug involves doing server side LOS checks, which will slow things down, but servers are just getting bigger and faster anyway. It'll be within reach soon, if not already.
Even if they signed an agreement with Opera, to distribute a fast closed-source ad ridden browser with Red Hat - I doubt their corporate customers would dig having to support it. Seeing as Red Hat can't provide security fixes or patches to it to repair or improve it, it doesn't align with their open source philosophy.
A little bird told me that Opera's primary customers are companies that won't use *any* free software. This includes a great many Fortune 500 companies. Thier rationale is that if something goes wrong with free software, they can't say "Fix this now or expect a phone call from legal" to a free software company.
Is it the same guy who always pops up with the "preformance media will replace recorded media any day now" rant whenever the topic comes up? Or do they trade off somehow?
Since Vietnam, it seems that the primary political barrier blocking the military from entering the war of it's choice is the threat of loss of lives.
It's my (unproven) theory that with each military invention that allows the military to strike without reduced risk of loss of life, there is a proportional increase in the willingness to go to war. "Go to war? Why not? All we have to do is hit this button here and an army of robot tanks and planes will raze country foo to the ground. Unless someone trips on carpet and bangs thier head on the sharp metal corner of the control panel, thus dying from a serious head injury, the risk of loss of life is zero." Doesn't that sound like something Congress would be more willing to do than, "We can have a hundred thousand men on thier shores in less than 24 hours. Our analysists guess that the foo counter-strike will cause about a 10% level of casulties for our side, somewhere around ten thousand casulties. Shall we attack?"
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2
*gapes*
Ok, this isn't it. I've been watching for about a month or so to see a modded up post that so lacks value that it's time to leave slashdot forever.
Corporations aren't interested in advancing political agendas? RIAA? DCMA?
The typical Libertarian answer to this is that the government has too much power. The government has constantly expanded it's power base, and thus it has more and more to offer through lobbies. If you are an industry *cough* textiles *cough* and you can lobby the government to outlaw your competitors *cough* hemp *cough*, then at some point somebody's going to do it.
You have to break the cycle somewhere. Either you need to stop the lobbying (questionable, ethically, because there are valid reasons to lobby), or you have to lower the power of the government by restricting it to it's constuitional foundations, which doesn't really allow for making formerly legal products illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but slander is a legal offense most places in the modern world, and in legal courts, something can be interpreted as libelous if you say something about somebody and can't prove that it's true. That's a vast oversimplification of libel issues, but the ramifications hold - if you accuse God of existing you better be able to prove it, or he might sue.
That's a brilliant idea! I'm writing my patent application now.
Did not God create the trees and the animals?
Nope. Unless you care to prove it?
"stealth pistol" *snort*
That thing's a monster of a gun with no real-world equivellent. You do realize that it does more damage than the assault rifle, right? It's not automatic, but it does more damage and the rate of fire is obscene.
Not to be critical, but almost every Deus Ex character I see has a hefty rifles skill. The rest of it is pretty wildly variable.
Warwick about Warwick Watch:
It's pretty good. I feel a bit of a celebrity in a way. I think it gives me some street cred.
Ouch. The proper way to talk about 'street cred' is in the third person. 'I have street cred' is pretentious, and 'you have street cred' just sounds silly. 'he/she has street cred' is the only way to discuss the concept that doesn't make you look silly.
If I were ever to get back into watching TV, I would want one of the old school Tivos. The replay and recording facility is wonderful. I'm not interested in having them stream it down to me - I like the recording feature.
Anyone at Tivo listening? You just lost a potential customer.
I think there's nothing wrong with a man not wanting to give you a domain name in a domain he controls.
This attitude realy sucked and definitely held back Australia's entry into the commercial domain on the internet, ultimately hurting the development of that type of business here.
What? They missed the dot.com boom? Missing the dot.com boom from late entry is like showing up late to a feast to find all of the festering stinking poisoned corpses.
Man did they miss out.
they cling to fossil fuels like a whore to a man's cock. gasoline? bah!
Since the people who've posted in this thread obviously know very little about launchcast and are just rehashing the "evil MPAA suing everyone" song, I guess it's time for me to pop in, given that I've actually been *gasp* using launchcast for the past year or so.
Launchcast is an odd combination of interactivity and basic streaming. When you first get on, you select your genres of music and it plays in a perfectly legal stream. There are no repeats or requests - it just plays music out of it's massive database.
As a song plays, however, you can rate the song, the album, and the artist, from zero (never play again) anywhere to one hundred (this song/album/artist makes me happy). The stream adapts to your request. It plays stuff you've rated highly more, and it doesn't play stuff you've rated zero at all.
The important thing to notice is that it *still* obeys the rules binding to radio. You can't request a song directly, and it won't do repeats, and all of the other rules that must be obeyed. You get your own ultimate radio station, without commercials.
So where's the basis for a lawsuit? Well, if you were to take the customizable radio station and broadcast it to a hundred thousand people, there wouldn't *be* a lawsuit. The point is, however, each person gets thier own unique stream. RIAA is probably asserting that since each person gets thier own stream, it's not a radio station and isn't under a radio station's legal protection.
The interesting thing is the way I learned about launchcast. We here at rovion.com were going to release a product that would have been a competitor to launch.com. We summoned a pack of lawyers and they took a look at it, and said, "If you do this, then you will eventually be sued by the RIAA or someone else, and they will win, because it's quite demonstrable in court that you arn't a radio station and thus can't hide behind thier protections." So now we do something else.
I've been following this with half an eye for a while, and the RIAA sent a cease and desist order (or whatever those DMCA thingies are called) a while back, which launch ignored. Now it goes to court.
That you could use it to distribute fan missions for various FPS games, which tend to be huge. It was specifically for the Thief Fan Mission Archive, which was distraught at the time. Unfortunately, this never actually happened.
I've got to admit that it's companies like Monsanto that took my Radical Libertarianism (you know, "die government die! stabbity stabbity!", Libertarianism) and shattered it over it's kneecap. You would have to be a fool to give a company like this any more influence over the way the world is run.
Why don't you do this?
Or are you just an idea rat?
This is a security issue that the games should be addressing. The game shouldn't be sending information on avatars that are out of line of sight. The cheating just shouldn't work, regardless of hardware or drivers.
This is similar to UO, where Spot Hidden used to work on the client side. However, cheats arose to see all people, hidden or not, because the client knew about the hidden people. The solution was to move the spot hidden back to the server, and a similar solution should be adapted for 3d games in the long term. Information shouldn't be sent to the client if the player shouldn't know about it, because people *will* exploit it.
Fixing this bug involves doing server side LOS checks, which will slow things down, but servers are just getting bigger and faster anyway. It'll be within reach soon, if not already.
Well, just yank the textbook to a digital medium and put it in the list of papers being tested.
You'll spot who is liberally quoting the text quite quickly that way.
Even if they signed an agreement with Opera, to distribute a fast closed-source ad ridden browser with Red Hat - I doubt their corporate customers would dig having to support it. Seeing as Red Hat can't provide security fixes or patches to it to repair or improve it, it doesn't align with their open source philosophy.
A little bird told me that Opera's primary customers are companies that won't use *any* free software. This includes a great many Fortune 500 companies. Thier rationale is that if something goes wrong with free software, they can't say "Fix this now or expect a phone call from legal" to a free software company.
Kyoto was not a good treaty.
Is it the same guy who always pops up with the "preformance media will replace recorded media any day now" rant whenever the topic comes up? Or do they trade off somehow?
Since Vietnam, it seems that the primary political barrier blocking the military from entering the war of it's choice is the threat of loss of lives.
It's my (unproven) theory that with each military invention that allows the military to strike without reduced risk of loss of life, there is a proportional increase in the willingness to go to war. "Go to war? Why not? All we have to do is hit this button here and an army of robot tanks and planes will raze country foo to the ground. Unless someone trips on carpet and bangs thier head on the sharp metal corner of the control panel, thus dying from a serious head injury, the risk of loss of life is zero." Doesn't that sound like something Congress would be more willing to do than, "We can have a hundred thousand men on thier shores in less than 24 hours. Our analysists guess that the foo counter-strike will cause about a 10% level of casulties for our side, somewhere around ten thousand casulties. Shall we attack?"
*gapes*
Ok, this isn't it. I've been watching for about a month or so to see a modded up post that so lacks value that it's time to leave slashdot forever.
This isn't it.
It's damn close.
mmmm....
cheese...
Corporations aren't interested in advancing political agendas? RIAA? DCMA?
The typical Libertarian answer to this is that the government has too much power. The government has constantly expanded it's power base, and thus it has more and more to offer through lobbies. If you are an industry *cough* textiles *cough* and you can lobby the government to outlaw your competitors *cough* hemp *cough*, then at some point somebody's going to do it.
You have to break the cycle somewhere. Either you need to stop the lobbying (questionable, ethically, because there are valid reasons to lobby), or you have to lower the power of the government by restricting it to it's constuitional foundations, which doesn't really allow for making formerly legal products illegal.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
Why?
My god, man. Have you ever heard of the paragraph tag?