Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".
Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?
I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.
Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.
Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.
It's my rant and mental dump space. My last JE asks why I have over 200 fans... that's just absurd. I don't ask anybody to read it, I just write because it's something I enjoy doing. Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it. If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies. You just don't pay attention much.
Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.
You sound like a little 5 year old kid who just got told Santa wasn't real. Get the fuck over it. You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.
Your life must be really fucking horrible if you get this irritated because someone finds a movie overly contrived and a television show more reminiscent of a soap opera than anything else.
I'm glad you know all of these rules. They've sure been well publicized. Especially the one about not calling the police station - who would have known!
Blame the phone listing service, not the police. Most of them have a non-emergency number. I know that Portland's non-emergency number is really easy to find.
Run that by me again: _Daredevil_ (haven't seen it) is great because it's made to be dumb, but _Buffy_ (ditto) or _Reloaded_ (how long 'til November?) is t3h sux0rz because it's made to be dumb.
Daredevil is a freaking comic book. I remember reading it when I was a kid... the dark lawyer, who has a thing for justice in his own way. They made the movie like the comic book.
Buffy is a soap opera.
Matrix is a pseudo-intellectual poorly construed philosophy debate.
I've watched 3. They all sucked. They were a freaking soap opera. If I wanted to watch a soap opera, I wouldn't watch a Scooby Do meets La Femme Nakita.
So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.
Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.
After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand.
What is there to understand in Buffy? Is there really something outside of a soap-opera to be had there? I'm dying to hear of something deep and philosophical that stems from Buffy.
As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.
Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.
When did I say I was confused? And I can be as insulting as I want to be, because I don't give a fuck. Why should I care one bit about what you think about me? I don't. You can think I'm a condescending asshole that insults without cause, and I'll agree. If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.
No one is forcing you to talk with me, so if you don't like what I say then don't talk. But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.
Here's another little bit of advice: Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them. Including Reloaded. Reloaded was so painfully simple so that your average suburbanite and trailer trash dwelling folks can understand it. Same thing with Buffy. It's made to be dumb, otherwise people wouldn't buy into it.
At least I'm not reading Ain't It Cool News or videotaping myself waving a shower rod in crazy motions.
Dude, that guy is getting hooked up for it. If it makes you feel better I didn't like Reloaded, nor most of the X-Files episodes I've seen. I think that most movies and shows fall short of good writing. The only case I've seen where the movie was better than the book is in the case of Forrest Gump...
Did you feel left out of the Buffy fan club? Were some Buffy fans unsupportive of your fanfic efforts? This is the second thread I've run into with you venting over Buffy so something must have happened.
Nah, just a slow day at work. Buffy is a dumb ass show. I just don't understand why people like it then try to dignify themselves by watching it by claiming it has some superb acting or writing or some such nonsense.
Unfortunately a couple of episodes won't do it for you.
If any story needs more than 2 episodes to not suck, it isn't worth it.
Everyone I know who had your opinion of Buffy has changed their opinion after watching it for a while.
Funny.. everyone I know that likes Buffy, nobody likes except for people who like Buffy. It's like their own little fan club that consists of people nobody gives a rats ass about.
An ignorant comment, pure and simple. If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's) they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel.
Or perhaps they've seen a few episodes and realize it's absolute shit that just gets rehashed a few times over? I've seen Buffy a few times. The writing is great, if you are A) a deprived geek, B) a "different, nobody understands my uniqueness" person, or C) 14 years old. Mind you these options can be added onto each other.
That wasn't an ignorant comment at all, it's writing was dumb. I've seen a few episodes of the show because a lot of people I know rave about it. The people who rave about it all have something in common too: they're all fucking dorks.
It's great you defend it, but trying to carry it around like it's some epic saga is just pointless. Her name is fucking Buffy for crying out loud. Maybe you forgot the movie, which was virtually a parody of what they made the television show...
Today I've been trying to get the Mac OS9 Symantec 1.1.8 JVM to talk to Sun One Web Server 6. Both seem to have a completely different idea of the spec when it comes to keep alive. Then I saw this story and I wanted to cry. Specs, schmecks. They're only good if programmers IMPLEMENT THE DAMN THINGS!!!
I think that Sun One Web handles HTTP 1.1, but I'm not sure. HTTP clients are easy to write though, you don't need to handle the full-set, only the features you are actually going to use and then verify the data is going into the headers.
What's the Symantec Java libs sending as the HTTP header? You may be missing something? I would write a quick program to listen on port 80 and have it connect out and then just dump the header. Since it's on Sun, that's a pretty quick perl/python/ruby program to write:)
Eh, last time my car was towed away (years ago) I hunted down a phone booth with a phonebook (they don't have them at all the booths) and called the local police station. They told me to call 911.
That's because you shouldn't call the local police station. You should find the Non-Emergency Police Dispatch number. It goes into 911 behind the queue, so that 911 calls will pre-empt it. Some of them have a dispatcher that will take those calls as well. If you call your local police station, it means you want to talk to the police station staff or the day seargant, who doesn't care about you car.
My understanding is that it stems from a 'bug' (or maybe intentional) in the example code from w3c when 1.1 came out.
"Connection: close" is part of the RFC...
Basicly the browsers dont respect the 'close' command, and do async requests on the socket anyways. It can be very annoying if you are writing a server-esk program, when the sockets wont support async.
Proper server implementation is that if a browser sends "Connection: close" after the request is processed the server will disconnect. If it doesn't disconnect, the server is not compliant.
Part of the problem with HTTP is the very fact that the RFC uses the word SHOULD. A standards document should never use the word SHOULD. It should always use the word 'MUST'. Optional features in the protocol are the source of many many incompatibilities between webservers and clients.
Not particularly... SHOULD is reserved for such things as "This SHOULD Be the default value." If your implementation doesn't give a rats ass about the value, why SHOULD you set the default? You MUST handle the value passed in, but that's about it. SHOULD is a great thing in RFCs, but they should be handled as such. When dealing with best-practices, it just tells you what you should do but not what you must do.
...not advice, best practices, informative examples, and so on. That is what books like this are for.
HTTP 1.1 does tell you the best practice. It says, "You SHOULD do XYZ in case ABC." If you need help coding something, you shouldn't be implementing HTTP 1.1. HTTP is not that complex, it doesn't need informative examples. What examples can you possibly need? "When using this header, the values are X, Y, or Z." Well.. it tells you that.
I wrote a complete HTTP 1.1 implementation according to the RFC without issue. They are remarkably easy to write, and validate HTTP headers. The problem comes in from non-compliant browsers (which are non-compliant to handle non-compliant servers)
Xerithane you knob:-) You're on my friends list! Of course I read your journal:-D
I knew that, I just wasn't sure if you actually read them or not:) A lot of people are on my fan list that don't read (or don't post... not sure which:))
HTTP 1.1 Specification does allow the difference between Keep-Alive and Close. By default it says it's peristent (Keep-Alive) but you can still turn it off (Connection: close\n)
Mozilla Sends:
GET / HTTP/1.1 ...
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they have to be backwards compatible in case they hit a poorly implemented HTTP 1.1 server. Gets annoying to code hybrid httpd systems.
HTTP isn't that complicated of a specification though, the RFC is easy enough to understand.
I haven't worked with OpenGL, but I'd be willing to give it a shot:-)
Cool:) I haven't worked with OpenGL since... 1997. My buddy wrote Chromium BSU, so I'm going to gracefully borrow his framework code for it. For a proof-of-concept/easier game I'm going to code up a quick little TankWars game with the framework. I need to abstract out a little bit of his code (It's already really clean/abstract, just want to touch up some points) so I'll setup a site (probably games.nerdfarm.org) for it as well... do you read journals?
Um, there is a HUGE amount of grunt coding in game programming. Coding the GUI, writing a script parser, or processing keyboard clicks ain't challenging.
I should have clarified this I guess... Game Development is not the Application Development. I think games have two pieces: The Application and the Game. Application is just application development.. it's not like you really have to work the phsyics of a button being clicked;)
Having been a game programmer for five years, I have to say that Slashdotters seem to have some very strange ideas about game programming...:-p Yes... it's kind of like this holy grail of programming for a lot of people. You interested in working on a sprite-based (think Chromium BSU) SDL/GLUT OpenGL game? Could use the extra help... got an artist on board who is freaking awesome.
One of the many rights I have is the right to think any thoughts I want. The DMCA attempts to make DRM enforcable by making it a crime to descramble DRM content. The idiots who wrote the law thought it was OK because they only outlawed "tools", but their definition of "tool" covers knowledge and it covers the human brain. They made it illegal to think certain thoughts. It is impossible to fix this law. Any "circumvention" a computer can do, a human brain can do.
Ok, I figured out where you confusion is. It lies in not understanding the DMCA. I'm done debating this with you. The DMCA does not make it illegal to think anything, go back and read the law (completely not just one line and insist it's the entire law, ok) and then get back to me.
You are not educated nor informed enough to carry on a discussion about the legalities or privledges bestowed upon you by content copyright holders.
If you want to win the argument all you have to do is come up with a way to enforce DRM that doesn't infringe anyone's rights.
Come up with an argument against someone who thinks that the DMCA prohibits thoughts? Yeah, sure, right after I make an appearance on Jerry Springer.
The problem with Slashdot and many other news outlets is that they don't properly portray the facts. The fact is the DMCA does nothing to hinder clean-room development, but nobody around here seems to understand that. You can study, break, fuck, and poke any thing in your own home for the sake of understanding how it works. You just can't distribute it.
Not to be too cynical -- I love these sorts of pithy statements, and they'd sure rate a +5 insightful on slashdot -- but are we required to assume that because he was amazing in one field, his sentiments about life and happiness are necessarily grand Higher Truths? He sure was a good quote, but there's a sort of Mark Twain trying-this-statement-on-for-size quality to Einstein sometimes, isn't there?
I would really recommend reading some of his notes and books. He has some excellent tales about truly understanding a subject, how life and God interact (even if you are Athiest/Agnostic/Gnostic/Cheese) that is remarkably fascinating. The man is brilliant, and not just in one area, but you have to read what he writes to understand that...
Better than all the idiots trying to claim he was autistic and didn't know how to tie his shoes.
Really? Would you care to post that definition, because I don't see it.
I meant to say "steal" instead of "theft" -- my apologies. Stealing is also not equal to theft, but I think it goes into "Insane" vs. "Psychologically Ill" and that... The first definition of "steal" however is:
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
The discrepency comes forth with, define property. By following the dictionary definitions (since we're doing good with them) we have definition 1.c:
Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
And mind you, except for my previous blunder, I say that mp3 "sharing" is stealing, and theft is reserved for a legal sense (In which case legal proceedings would be hard pressed to define it as theft, I'm not arguing that).
Hmm. Taking and removing of personal property. Not intellectual property. Looks like the same definition as above, only more descriptive.
This is why I'm saying that, from a legal definition, it is not theft but it is stealing.
BTW, thanks for the polite debate.:) My pleasure, it's hard to find people on here that know the difference between Troll, Flame, Argument, and Debate. Debates are constructive, and I enjoy them... although I do love bringing the idiots out into the open.
It was intentionally missleading if you knew at the time that those examples had nothing to do with DRM. I can use a fully automatic assault rifle to "surgically" remove a cancer tumor from a child. Most people know enough about medicine to know that that is a totaly bogus argument. Unfortunately not many people know enough about cryptography to know that your argument was bogus.
They do have everything to do with DRM. My argument isn't bogus, either. You are trying to confuse a good solution with an excellent solution. DRM can enforce certain things that should never happen. For example: SCO vs. IBM. DRM can prevent such things.
No. The ends do not justify the means when the means requires eliminating/violating people's rights. It is impossible to create an enforcable DRM system without eliminating/violating people's rights. I guess I have no objection if you want to "ensure GPL compliancy" with a useless/unenforceable DRM system chuckle.
Let me make this very clear, you have no rights to my software. The GPL extends rights to you, but you are still able to break them against my wishes. If DRM allows me, as a content producer, to ensure that my products are used in accordance with the license I release it as, than it is a success. You do not have any rights, and the whole concept that you have a right to my work outside of what copyright allows as fair use and what I allow you to have (under a license) is bullshit. You are using my software, you play by my rules.
Maybe you were trying to say that, but you didn't. You said "DRM can be PGP signatures or md5sums on source". That is completely untrue. PGP signatures and md5sums are not DRM. The statement was either due to ignorance, or an attempt to abuse other people's ignorance.
In a limited implementation, that is DRM. PGP signatures to allow only singed updates into trees satisfies the criteria of DRM. The reason why a lot of people on Slashdot oppose my opinion that DRM can be a good thing is because of the idiotic and false notion that they have an actual right to copyrighted works. You have a license, end of story. DRM enforces licenses, and it is up to the content creator/distributors to determine what that license allows.
You are not allowed any further rights or privledges outside of those permitted in a license that you accept before using the mentioned product. So stop the misleading bullshit about having rights, you don't have any.
If you had some, I may be more inclined to agree with you... but you don't, so get over it and accept the fact that some people want to control their software, or content, or don't use it.
I stated that you can get the benefits you listed without DRM. You were making false arguments in support of DRM. Either you made a mistake because you don't understand DRM and cryptographic tools well enough, or you were making intentionally misleading arguments.
You may say it's intentionally misleading, but I don't think it is. I'm saying that DRM can be used for good purposes. Whether or not you can use other tools to accomplish the same goals is irrelevant.
Just like without P2P services people can pirate MP3s, but P2P services make it easier and lower maintenance to do so. DRM is like a P2P service. It's ethical value of right and wrong are up to the individuals and companies using them; no more, no less.
Any non-enforcable DRM is worthless. Any enforcable DRM is wrong. You're right that a tool is not good or bad in itself, but it is evil to create thoughtcrime and revoke people's rights in order to get an otherwise useless tool to work. Wrong, any enforcable DRM is not wrong. If I have a DRM system that ensures GPL-compliancy. So that the source is "managed" in some way (Just a hypothetical example) than is that not a good thing? Ensuring that whatever code updates get done get released somewhere?
DRM seizes control away from the owner of the machine. You can get all the claimed benefits of Palladium and TCPA while giving the owner of the machine access to his encryption keys, but then the system would be useless for DRM. You get all of the benefits and none of the abuses, but Microsoft/RIAA/etc will never do it this way because they want the abuses.
DRM is a tool, and you only harm your camp (and mine) when you fail to understand that. DRM is Digital Rights Management. If a tool is wrong, than so is Kazaa. Isn't that what we all argue? Kazaa, et al, are just tools? DRM is just a tool, argue against unfair legalized uses of the tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, since it was meant to be a piece of shit, it was enjoyable... interesting. Campy, it wasn't. Tongue-in-cheek, it wasn't. Classic Batman, it wasn't. It was junk for the pre-adolescent crowd. Face it and stop criticizing others for enjoying Buffy -- something you deem for "14 year olds".
Uhm, aren't you the one who admitted that you never saw it? Contradicting yourself, are we?
I dunno. You're the one calling things "inconsistencies" and "plot holes" when anyone paying attention to the movie would see otherwise.
Sorry, sparky, but you are the one who said the Architect wasn't omniscient when he puts up on the monitors what's happening everywhere. And you say I'm the one who wasn't paying attention.
Ah, the irony of watching someone protesting in a public forum about how little they care about the opinions of others. Such an uncaring centered person would never be so insecure as to say have a well-stocked journal of their opinions to share with others. My apologies for making such a feeble accusation.
It's my rant and mental dump space. My last JE asks why I have over 200 fans... that's just absurd. I don't ask anybody to read it, I just write because it's something I enjoy doing. Just because I write, doesn't mean I care if people read it. If I cared what the fuck people said I wouldn't bash feminists, movies, or hippies. You just don't pay attention much.
Of course they are, however, the very skilled movie-maker builds a certain mainstream accessibility into their movies while also having depths to be plumbed for those paying attention. If you don't see it in some works like Buffy and Reloaded because you're too busy being condescending and imagining plot holes, that's too bad. Being such a pompous ass about it is really cool, though. It works for you.
You sound like a little 5 year old kid who just got told Santa wasn't real. Get the fuck over it. You are all pissed off because I find the Matrix to be contrived, with weak story lines because I can find and demonstrate plot holes and weaknesses that you just ignore.
Your life must be really fucking horrible if you get this irritated because someone finds a movie overly contrived and a television show more reminiscent of a soap opera than anything else.
I'm glad you know all of these rules. They've sure been well publicized. Especially the one about not calling the police station - who would have known!
Blame the phone listing service, not the police. Most of them have a non-emergency number. I know that Portland's non-emergency number is really easy to find.
Run that by me again: _Daredevil_ (haven't seen it) is great because it's made to be dumb, but _Buffy_ (ditto) or _Reloaded_ (how long 'til November?) is t3h sux0rz because it's made to be dumb.
Daredevil is a freaking comic book. I remember reading it when I was a kid... the dark lawyer, who has a thing for justice in his own way. They made the movie like the comic book.
Buffy is a soap opera.
Matrix is a pseudo-intellectual poorly construed philosophy debate.
You only need to watch one episode.
I've watched 3. They all sucked. They were a freaking soap opera. If I wanted to watch a soap opera, I wouldn't watch a Scooby Do meets La Femme Nakita.
So, in your journal, you deride the Matrix:Reloaded as being a bad movie while claiming that Daredevil (which I found to be a poorly written, poorly acted, contrived, piece of utter shit) was an enjoyable movie.
Daredevil is supposed to be contrived. The acting was comic book "POW" "ZAM" style, overly dramatic and Adam West would have been proud. That was why it was enjoyable.
After reading those entries and your condescending comments here, I'm fairly convinced that you're a pseudo-intellectual who criticizes things that he can't really understand.
What is there to understand in Buffy? Is there really something outside of a soap-opera to be had there? I'm dying to hear of something deep and philosophical that stems from Buffy.
As for Reloaded, the reason why I didn't like that is because it tried to be philosophical with very contrived and simplistic concepts that have more holes than Baghdad.
Enjoy them, but get off your high horse if you think you have any basis for being so insulting in your criticism of things that may confuse you a bit.
When did I say I was confused? And I can be as insulting as I want to be, because I don't give a fuck. Why should I care one bit about what you think about me? I don't. You can think I'm a condescending asshole that insults without cause, and I'll agree. If you think I care what you think, sorry bud.
No one is forcing you to talk with me, so if you don't like what I say then don't talk. But don't make up shit about me being confused about overly simplistic movies.
Here's another little bit of advice: Most movies are made to be simple so people can understand them. Including Reloaded. Reloaded was so painfully simple so that your average suburbanite and trailer trash dwelling folks can understand it. Same thing with Buffy. It's made to be dumb, otherwise people wouldn't buy into it.
At least I'm not reading Ain't It Cool News or videotaping myself waving a shower rod in crazy motions.
Dude, that guy is getting hooked up for it. If it makes you feel better I didn't like Reloaded, nor most of the X-Files episodes I've seen. I think that most movies and shows fall short of good writing. The only case I've seen where the movie was better than the book is in the case of Forrest Gump...
Did you feel left out of the Buffy fan club? Were some Buffy fans unsupportive of your fanfic efforts? This is the second thread I've run into with you venting over Buffy so something must have happened.
Nah, just a slow day at work. Buffy is a dumb ass show. I just don't understand why people like it then try to dignify themselves by watching it by claiming it has some superb acting or writing or some such nonsense.
Unfortunately a couple of episodes won't do it for you.
If any story needs more than 2 episodes to not suck, it isn't worth it.
Everyone I know who had your opinion of Buffy has changed their opinion after watching it for a while.
Funny.. everyone I know that likes Buffy, nobody likes except for people who like Buffy. It's like their own little fan club that consists of people nobody gives a rats ass about.
An ignorant comment, pure and simple. If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's) they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel.
Or perhaps they've seen a few episodes and realize it's absolute shit that just gets rehashed a few times over? I've seen Buffy a few times. The writing is great, if you are A) a deprived geek, B) a "different, nobody understands my uniqueness" person, or C) 14 years old. Mind you these options can be added onto each other.
That wasn't an ignorant comment at all, it's writing was dumb. I've seen a few episodes of the show because a lot of people I know rave about it. The people who rave about it all have something in common too: they're all fucking dorks.
It's great you defend it, but trying to carry it around like it's some epic saga is just pointless. Her name is fucking Buffy for crying out loud. Maybe you forgot the movie, which was virtually a parody of what they made the television show...
Today I've been trying to get the Mac OS9 Symantec 1.1.8 JVM to talk to Sun One Web Server 6. Both seem to have a completely different idea of the spec when it comes to keep alive. Then I saw this story and I wanted to cry. Specs, schmecks. They're only good if programmers IMPLEMENT THE DAMN THINGS!!!
:)
I think that Sun One Web handles HTTP 1.1, but I'm not sure. HTTP clients are easy to write though, you don't need to handle the full-set, only the features you are actually going to use and then verify the data is going into the headers.
What's the Symantec Java libs sending as the HTTP header? You may be missing something? I would write a quick program to listen on port 80 and have it connect out and then just dump the header. Since it's on Sun, that's a pretty quick perl/python/ruby program to write
Eh, last time my car was towed away (years ago) I hunted down a phone booth with a phonebook (they don't have them at all the booths) and called the local police station.
They told me to call 911.
That's because you shouldn't call the local police station. You should find the Non-Emergency Police Dispatch number. It goes into 911 behind the queue, so that 911 calls will pre-empt it. Some of them have a dispatcher that will take those calls as well. If you call your local police station, it means you want to talk to the police station staff or the day seargant, who doesn't care about you car.
My understanding is that it stems from a 'bug' (or maybe intentional) in the example code from w3c when 1.1 came out.
"Connection: close" is part of the RFC...
Basicly the browsers dont respect the 'close' command, and do async requests on the socket anyways. It can be very annoying if you are writing a server-esk program, when the sockets wont support async.
Proper server implementation is that if a browser sends "Connection: close" after the request is processed the server will disconnect. If it doesn't disconnect, the server is not compliant.
Part of the problem with HTTP is the very fact that the RFC uses the word SHOULD. A standards document should never use the word SHOULD. It should always use the word 'MUST'. Optional features in the protocol are the source of many many incompatibilities between webservers and clients.
Not particularly... SHOULD is reserved for such things as "This SHOULD Be the default value." If your implementation doesn't give a rats ass about the value, why SHOULD you set the default? You MUST handle the value passed in, but that's about it. SHOULD is a great thing in RFCs, but they should be handled as such. When dealing with best-practices, it just tells you what you should do but not what you must do.
...not advice, best practices, informative examples, and so on. That is what books like this are for.
HTTP 1.1 does tell you the best practice. It says, "You SHOULD do XYZ in case ABC." If you need help coding something, you shouldn't be implementing HTTP 1.1. HTTP is not that complex, it doesn't need informative examples. What examples can you possibly need? "When using this header, the values are X, Y, or Z." Well.. it tells you that.
I wrote a complete HTTP 1.1 implementation according to the RFC without issue. They are remarkably easy to write, and validate HTTP headers. The problem comes in from non-compliant browsers (which are non-compliant to handle non-compliant servers)
Xerithane you knob :-) You're on my friends list! Of course I read your journal :-D
:) A lot of people are on my fan list that don't read (or don't post... not sure which :))
I knew that, I just wasn't sure if you actually read them or not
Mozilla Sends:Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they have to be backwards compatible in case they hit a poorly implemented HTTP 1.1 server. Gets annoying to code hybrid httpd systems.
HTTP isn't that complicated of a specification though, the RFC is easy enough to understand.
I haven't worked with OpenGL, but I'd be willing to give it a shot :-)
:) I haven't worked with OpenGL since... 1997. My buddy wrote Chromium BSU, so I'm going to gracefully borrow his framework code for it. For a proof-of-concept/easier game I'm going to code up a quick little TankWars game with the framework. I need to abstract out a little bit of his code (It's already really clean/abstract, just want to touch up some points) so I'll setup a site (probably games.nerdfarm.org) for it as well... do you read journals?
Cool
Um, there is a HUGE amount of grunt coding in game programming. Coding the GUI, writing a script parser, or processing keyboard clicks ain't challenging.
;)
:-p
I should have clarified this I guess... Game Development is not the Application Development. I think games have two pieces: The Application and the Game. Application is just application development.. it's not like you really have to work the phsyics of a button being clicked
Having been a game programmer for five years, I have to say that Slashdotters seem to have some very strange ideas about game programming...
Yes... it's kind of like this holy grail of programming for a lot of people. You interested in working on a sprite-based (think Chromium BSU) SDL/GLUT OpenGL game? Could use the extra help... got an artist on board who is freaking awesome.
One of the many rights I have is the right to think any thoughts I want. The DMCA attempts to make DRM enforcable by making it a crime to descramble DRM content. The idiots who wrote the law thought it was OK because they only outlawed "tools", but their definition of "tool" covers knowledge and it covers the human brain. They made it illegal to think certain thoughts. It is impossible to fix this law. Any "circumvention" a computer can do, a human brain can do.
Ok, I figured out where you confusion is. It lies in not understanding the DMCA. I'm done debating this with you. The DMCA does not make it illegal to think anything, go back and read the law (completely not just one line and insist it's the entire law, ok) and then get back to me.
You are not educated nor informed enough to carry on a discussion about the legalities or privledges bestowed upon you by content copyright holders.
If you want to win the argument all you have to do is come up with a way to enforce DRM that doesn't infringe anyone's rights.
Come up with an argument against someone who thinks that the DMCA prohibits thoughts? Yeah, sure, right after I make an appearance on Jerry Springer.
The problem with Slashdot and many other news outlets is that they don't properly portray the facts. The fact is the DMCA does nothing to hinder clean-room development, but nobody around here seems to understand that. You can study, break, fuck, and poke any thing in your own home for the sake of understanding how it works. You just can't distribute it.
The man is brilliant,
Er, was. And wrote. 48 years dead, and I still can't get the proper tenses down.
Not to be too cynical -- I love these sorts of pithy statements, and they'd sure rate a +5 insightful on slashdot -- but are we required to assume that because he was amazing in one field, his sentiments about life and happiness are necessarily grand Higher Truths? He sure was a good quote, but there's a sort of Mark Twain trying-this-statement-on-for-size quality to Einstein sometimes, isn't there?
I would really recommend reading some of his notes and books. He has some excellent tales about truly understanding a subject, how life and God interact (even if you are Athiest/Agnostic/Gnostic/Cheese) that is remarkably fascinating. The man is brilliant, and not just in one area, but you have to read what he writes to understand that...
Better than all the idiots trying to claim he was autistic and didn't know how to tie his shoes.
I meant to say "steal" instead of "theft" -- my apologies. Stealing is also not equal to theft, but I think it goes into "Insane" vs. "Psychologically Ill" and that...
The first definition of "steal" however is:
The discrepency comes forth with, define property. By following the dictionary definitions (since we're doing good with them) we have definition 1.c:
And mind you, except for my previous blunder, I say that mp3 "sharing" is stealing, and theft is reserved for a legal sense (In which case legal proceedings would be hard pressed to define it as theft, I'm not arguing that).
Hmm. Taking and removing of personal property. Not intellectual property. Looks like the same definition as above, only more descriptive.
This is why I'm saying that, from a legal definition, it is not theft but it is stealing.
BTW, thanks for the polite debate.
My pleasure, it's hard to find people on here that know the difference between Troll, Flame, Argument, and Debate. Debates are constructive, and I enjoy them... although I do love bringing the idiots out into the open.
It was intentionally missleading if you knew at the time that those examples had nothing to do with DRM. I can use a fully automatic assault rifle to "surgically" remove a cancer tumor from a child. Most people know enough about medicine to know that that is a totaly bogus argument. Unfortunately not many people know enough about cryptography to know that your argument was bogus.
They do have everything to do with DRM. My argument isn't bogus, either. You are trying to confuse a good solution with an excellent solution. DRM can enforce certain things that should never happen. For example: SCO vs. IBM. DRM can prevent such things.
No. The ends do not justify the means when the means requires eliminating/violating people's rights. It is impossible to create an enforcable DRM system without eliminating/violating people's rights. I guess I have no objection if you want to "ensure GPL compliancy" with a useless/unenforceable DRM system chuckle.
Let me make this very clear, you have no rights to my software. The GPL extends rights to you, but you are still able to break them against my wishes. If DRM allows me, as a content producer, to ensure that my products are used in accordance with the license I release it as, than it is a success. You do not have any rights, and the whole concept that you have a right to my work outside of what copyright allows as fair use and what I allow you to have (under a license) is bullshit. You are using my software, you play by my rules.
Maybe you were trying to say that, but you didn't. You said "DRM can be PGP signatures or md5sums on source". That is completely untrue. PGP signatures and md5sums are not DRM. The statement was either due to ignorance, or an attempt to abuse other people's ignorance.
In a limited implementation, that is DRM. PGP signatures to allow only singed updates into trees satisfies the criteria of DRM. The reason why a lot of people on Slashdot oppose my opinion that DRM can be a good thing is because of the idiotic and false notion that they have an actual right to copyrighted works. You have a license, end of story. DRM enforces licenses, and it is up to the content creator/distributors to determine what that license allows.
You are not allowed any further rights or privledges outside of those permitted in a license that you accept before using the mentioned product. So stop the misleading bullshit about having rights, you don't have any.
If you had some, I may be more inclined to agree with you... but you don't, so get over it and accept the fact that some people want to control their software, or content, or don't use it.
I stated that you can get the benefits you listed without DRM. You were making false arguments in support of DRM. Either you made a mistake because you don't understand DRM and cryptographic tools well enough, or you were making intentionally misleading arguments.
You may say it's intentionally misleading, but I don't think it is. I'm saying that DRM can be used for good purposes. Whether or not you can use other tools to accomplish the same goals is irrelevant.
Just like without P2P services people can pirate MP3s, but P2P services make it easier and lower maintenance to do so. DRM is like a P2P service. It's ethical value of right and wrong are up to the individuals and companies using them; no more, no less.
Any non-enforcable DRM is worthless. Any enforcable DRM is wrong. You're right that a tool is not good or bad in itself, but it is evil to create thoughtcrime and revoke people's rights in order to get an otherwise useless tool to work.
Wrong, any enforcable DRM is not wrong. If I have a DRM system that ensures GPL-compliancy. So that the source is "managed" in some way (Just a hypothetical example) than is that not a good thing? Ensuring that whatever code updates get done get released somewhere?
DRM seizes control away from the owner of the machine. You can get all the claimed benefits of Palladium and TCPA while giving the owner of the machine access to his encryption keys, but then the system would be useless for DRM. You get all of the benefits and none of the abuses, but Microsoft/RIAA/etc will never do it this way because they want the abuses.
DRM is a tool, and you only harm your camp (and mine) when you fail to understand that. DRM is Digital Rights Management. If a tool is wrong, than so is Kazaa. Isn't that what we all argue? Kazaa, et al, are just tools? DRM is just a tool, argue against unfair legalized uses of the tool.