"The text of this line is a short phrase describing the organization to which the sender belongs, or to which the machine belongs."
Okay. They don't belong to RoadRunner, and neither does the machine. If I'm working from home, for example, it would be much, much more accurate to have my business name there, not RoadRunner.
"The bottom line is that from the Internet's point of view, your ISP and network provider is RoadRunner." I wasn't aware the Internet had a point of view. If it did, I'm pretty sure it would be perfectly happy with my IP.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. emusic is perfectly legal. They contract with the labels to sell their music. No one's suing anyone.
All I fail to understand is why the labels seem so protective with their top tracks, but are willing to let the other stuff go so cheaply. And also how emusic is making money off me sucking up bandwidth at an insane rate for ten bucks a month. I certainly don't object.:)
"A 17-year-old can find an 18-year-old to buy the game for him!"
Actually, what is much more likely is that starting at a very young age, kids will just start warezing the games. I doubt the authors of this bill had "encourage piracy" at the top of their to do list. Along with the terrible wording in many sections of the bill (it just refers to handheld video game systems, for example), it's another example of how little thought went into the bill.
I guess that's what committee's for. I didn't realize bills were in such sorry shape before they hit the floor. I wonder if there are only a couple people in the house who can actually write one.
"First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do."
Yes, let's. It would prohibit 17 year olds from buying or renting Zelda. Are you for that, or against it?
I am against it, not just because I think 17 year olds should be able to buy Zelda, but also because that means all 17 year olds will warez Zelda, destroying the market for it, meaning that eventually they'll only develop Sims expansion packs.
"I think that you do them a disservice making it sound like a place to download TMBG crap."
Huh? I said that was one of the biggest names they have (didn't know they had Rancid, Marley, etc.; they have more big name stuff than I thought. I don't go there for shit I could hear on the radio.). My biggest problem is the other thing I mentioned-- they don't have itty bitty unsigned bands. So you won't get the nifty community feeling of, say, somesongs.com. Not a big deal, somesongs is free. As for the big names, well, let someone else listen to Britney and save my ears the pain.
And did you read this bit? "I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days." Guess what-- that wasn't 20 TMBG CDs.
So I guess we're in agreement-- emusic kicks ass. But I'm not sure how I gave it a glowing recommendation, and you read it as me calling it a silly little site that offers some TMBG.
Thinner? Thinner my ass! "How is this type of cancerware distinguishable from a virus that spreads by exploiting security vunerabilities?" It's not! The state's AG should be prosecuting these guys as we speak. I certainly hope he does; maybe he's just gathering evidence or something.
This is definitely illegal. There is no thin line here-- it is unauthorized, malicious, and destructive modification of someone else's box. I hope these fuckers get nailed.
emusic.com has stayed out of the spotlight this whole time. This may be intentional-- if they actually got popular, their business wouldn't make any sense compared to other offerings out there (not sure how it does now).
They charge 10 bucks a month. With that, you get unlimited downloads in mp3 format. That's right-- you can download that Haujobb CD 8 times if you want. I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days.
How the hell does it work? How do they make any money (after they pay half to the labels)? I have no idea. On the label side, they don't get the big names. Their biggest are people like TMBG, but most bands are significantly smaller. And if you're looking for cool small, unsigned bands, you won't find 'em either. So it's not the only service you'll need. But at 10 bucks a month, it's a hell of a start on your collection. And it makes MusicNet look downright stupid (well, like that was hard).
P.S. On the antitrust note (how they could hardly be in the same room): well, duh. It's a big fat antitrust violation already, and they're just observing the technicalities to avoid a prosecution. Let's see-- they all collaborate to wipe the other online music services off the face of the planet. Then, they get together and start one of their own. They're a music mafia, but they aren't allowed to get all the families in one room together. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways to communicate.
I'd say that half of what you claim you disliked wasn't actually what you disliked.:) Here's a quick review of the shortcomings of Fallout 1:
1. The graphics were not that great. (Yup.)
2. When generating a character... you can just move any number of points from any column to any other. (BTW, you had the option of NOT moving the points all around. And race still played a factor with some bonuses, vision, etc..)
3. The gameplay sucked. Lots of clicking around, trying to select the correct group of people and make them do the correct thing. (Remember the characters that either didn't do shit or combat, or ran straight towards Mr. Machinegun? Or before they had the "move out of my way" button, and you got stuck inside? How many times did you reload to keep that stupid dog alive before you finally said screw it?)
4. Fighting monsters is way too hard and gives way, way too few experience points. (Personally, I found the early Fallout 2 game to be harder than IWD-- which was quite easy if you remembered to pause to issue commands.)
5. Stupid quests. All of the tasks that I was asked to complete by the townspeople in the first town were just uninteresting and dumb. They were all of the form "go get this thing and take it to that person." Lame. (Sounds pretty much like the first couple hours of Fallout 1 and 2. I killed the rat in the cave, and got a free healing powder! Sweet!)
6. Bugs. The game would slow to a crawl and then crash every so often. (If you didn't experience this in Fallout, you waited for a later patch than I did.)
Does that list sound familiar?:) I loved Fallout 1 and 2, but your litany of complaints sounded exactly like the ones I read on Fallout boards back in the day. I could care less whether or not you liked Icewind Dale, of course, but your list certainly doesn't help me understand why you liked Fallout and not Icewind Dale. Part of it could be IWD's barrier to entry-- it's a lot easier if you already played Baldur's Gate.
It also doesn't really seem like your list is aimed at helping you figure out whether or not you'll like NWN. Got questions about the graphics? Look at the screenshots. Worried about how many people you'll have to click on and make run around? Look at the FAQ (single PC, but you can issue commands to henchmen). Bugs? Well, we don't know yet, obviously. etc. etc.
It doesn't seem like you wanted to know about NWN; rather, you wanted to rant about IWD. That's fine, if offtopic.:)
My advice? Wait for a demo, or for a friend to get it. It's still D&D, still has slow leveling, etc., and will still have some of the steep learning curve that seems to have turned you off of IWD. OTOH, it's simplified in terms of party control, and sure looks better, so you might like it.
I'm not going to write anything to the judge, because he's already made his decision. And I also don't know any details of the case, so I don't know who supplied him with those four games, or what the criteria were (did they have to be from that particular arcade?).
I will, however, list a few games here. Perhaps I'll send something on the appeal, but I really think I'd get summarily ignored since I have no idea what one does to write to the court (friend of the court brief? How do I actually get it read by the judge? What are the requirements, what's the scope?).
Planescape: Torment Jet Set Radio/Future Ultima (simplistic, yet still speech) WWF Smackdown! (just kidding)
"Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found 'no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech.'"
Well, then, that's settled. I agree with the "four items, one judge" standard. Next up: books! Find four books, and a judge who thinks those four are devoid of substance, and I think we can all agree we can rightfully declare that at that point, books would become "non-speech".
After books, of course, the next thing to lose its speech status should be speeches!
Damn, I need to spend a bit more time working, and bit less time in/. threads.:) Okay, one more reply. Reply if you want; I'll read it but won't reply.
You've just argued against the usefulness of supporting evidence, called me a moron and a naieve weeny (harsh, I know; don't worry, I can handle it), and said that I should give your ideas time to simmer after posting rapid replies to all of mine. Possible conclusions include you being smarter than everyone else, or just really condescending.
Lest you think I didn't pay any attention to your ideas, I did. I went and checked up my facts on past movements of large groups of people against large corporations in the political arena (btw, Cesar Chavez's timeline is really fucking depressing: "1970: Chavez makes advances. 1972: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1973: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1974: Chavez gets fucked by the man.").
Still, my argument is more or less what it was when we started this, which is: political activity wouldn't be entirely ineffective. Given the absence of anything we think would be more effective, it makes sense to spend some time fighting an intelligent political battle, or coming up with a method that would be more effective. Both choices are, at worst, much more effective that sitting on your ass watching TV.
I was going to quote the evidence you cited to backup your statements, but I couldn't find it.
I find "yes it is", "no it isn't" arguments to be a waste of time in the absence of any hard facts. Do you have any? I provided a single example that seemed to contradict your position entirely.
"You accused me of not even trying. You're too foolish to not waste your efforts on unwinnable battles, and futile tactics."
So it's futile for a group of people to band together and fight a rich, well-connected group of large corporations? That's the defeatist attitude I've seen you espousing in post after post, but I've yet to see you back it up with any evidence. The Human Farming Association's in my corner. Who's in yours?
"This means, not that they are against DRM in principle."
Who said I was talking about principles? Anything but-- I'm talking about politics. This article is about being practical, and you seem staunchly against that. Just gonna wait around until the perfect approach comes up and kicks you in the head? You'll be waiting for a while. And how is sitting on your ass more effective than working the politicians?
You can go back and forth about how effective such a lobby would be. "You'd get money now, but not later, because the RIAA while pay them off." "Convince them they'd make more money without the law in the first place." "But the RIAA would convince them better-- they have more money." "No they don't, use some of the money your backers already donated to convince them." And so on and so forth.
But it's obvious you're not interested in debating the possibilities of such a lobby, you'd given up from the very first post. Some people will choose not to play politics, and that's fine-- it's a hard game, and dirty. But don't try the excuse that you wouldn't be able to make a difference. That's a bunch of crap.
"The balance will change, and when it does, they'll be allied against us." Sure, there's a good chance of that if we all just sit around and bitch in/. comments all day. Judging from what the two of us are doing, that seems pretty likely.
You're right-- it's naive to think that raising money from individuals would be enough to mount an offensive against a Hollywood polititian.
However, companies like Philips are very pissed off about laws that are aimed at wrecking their hardware market. Once a lobby is in place and has proven it is well-run and potentially effective, you'll get plenty of corporate sponsorship. As it said in the article:
"They also wonder out loud why the $600 billion-a-year information-technology sector is letting itself get pushed around by the $20 billion-a-year entertainment industry."
Is it a good thing that in many efforts, the lobby will have to cater toward the corporation that is giving the most money? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than DMCA+.
You misread his statement. The default (i.e. not accepting the GPL) has absolutely nothing to do with the text of the GPL, it is based on copyright law.
Yeah, except for the people who are just starting to watch it, and the people in Alaska, and Hawaii, and everywhere else in the world that doesn't run on east coast time.
And for me, who Tivo'd it, and was about to go watch it when I figured "wtf, I'll check/. first". Doh.
Slashdot Mirror
"The text of this line is a short phrase describing the organization to which the sender belongs, or to which the machine belongs."
Okay. They don't belong to RoadRunner, and neither does the machine. If I'm working from home, for example, it would be much, much more accurate to have my business name there, not RoadRunner.
"The bottom line is that from the Internet's point of view, your ISP and network provider is RoadRunner." I wasn't aware the Internet had a point of view. If it did, I'm pretty sure it would be perfectly happy with my IP.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. emusic is perfectly legal. They contract with the labels to sell their music. No one's suing anyone.
:)
All I fail to understand is why the labels seem so protective with their top tracks, but are willing to let the other stuff go so cheaply. And also how emusic is making money off me sucking up bandwidth at an insane rate for ten bucks a month. I certainly don't object.
"A 17-year-old can find an 18-year-old to buy the game for him!"
Actually, what is much more likely is that starting at a very young age, kids will just start warezing the games. I doubt the authors of this bill had "encourage piracy" at the top of their to do list. Along with the terrible wording in many sections of the bill (it just refers to handheld video game systems, for example), it's another example of how little thought went into the bill.
I guess that's what committee's for. I didn't realize bills were in such sorry shape before they hit the floor. I wonder if there are only a couple people in the house who can actually write one.
"First, we have to recognize exactly what this bill would do."
Yes, let's. It would prohibit 17 year olds from buying or renting Zelda. Are you for that, or against it?
I am against it, not just because I think 17 year olds should be able to buy Zelda, but also because that means all 17 year olds will warez Zelda, destroying the market for it, meaning that eventually they'll only develop Sims expansion packs.
"I think that you do them a disservice making it sound like a place to download TMBG crap."
Huh? I said that was one of the biggest names they have (didn't know they had Rancid, Marley, etc.; they have more big name stuff than I thought. I don't go there for shit I could hear on the radio.). My biggest problem is the other thing I mentioned-- they don't have itty bitty unsigned bands. So you won't get the nifty community feeling of, say, somesongs.com. Not a big deal, somesongs is free. As for the big names, well, let someone else listen to Britney and save my ears the pain.
And did you read this bit? "I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days." Guess what-- that wasn't 20 TMBG CDs.
So I guess we're in agreement-- emusic kicks ass. But I'm not sure how I gave it a glowing recommendation, and you read it as me calling it a silly little site that offers some TMBG.
Thinner? Thinner my ass! "How is this type of cancerware distinguishable from a virus that spreads by exploiting security vunerabilities?" It's not! The state's AG should be prosecuting these guys as we speak. I certainly hope he does; maybe he's just gathering evidence or something.
This is definitely illegal. There is no thin line here-- it is unauthorized, malicious, and destructive modification of someone else's box. I hope these fuckers get nailed.
emusic.com has stayed out of the spotlight this whole time. This may be intentional-- if they actually got popular, their business wouldn't make any sense compared to other offerings out there (not sure how it does now).
They charge 10 bucks a month. With that, you get unlimited downloads in mp3 format. That's right-- you can download that Haujobb CD 8 times if you want. I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days.
How the hell does it work? How do they make any money (after they pay half to the labels)? I have no idea. On the label side, they don't get the big names. Their biggest are people like TMBG, but most bands are significantly smaller. And if you're looking for cool small, unsigned bands, you won't find 'em either. So it's not the only service you'll need. But at 10 bucks a month, it's a hell of a start on your collection. And it makes MusicNet look downright stupid (well, like that was hard).
P.S. On the antitrust note (how they could hardly be in the same room): well, duh. It's a big fat antitrust violation already, and they're just observing the technicalities to avoid a prosecution. Let's see-- they all collaborate to wipe the other online music services off the face of the planet. Then, they get together and start one of their own. They're a music mafia, but they aren't allowed to get all the families in one room together. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways to communicate.
"we're merely assuming a mass of 0 for M2 in this equation: F = (G * M1 * M2) / R^2"
Um, maybe I'm not so good with multiplication, but wouldn't that make F = 0?
Again, name the laws Microsoft has ever broken.
Okay. They violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Next question?
I'd say that half of what you claim you disliked wasn't actually what you disliked. :) Here's a quick review of the shortcomings of Fallout 1:
:)
:)
1. The graphics were not that great. (Yup.)
2. When generating a character... you can just move any number of points from any column to any other. (BTW, you had the option of NOT moving the points all around. And race still played a factor with some bonuses, vision, etc..)
3. The gameplay sucked. Lots of clicking around, trying to select the correct group of people and make them do the correct thing. (Remember the characters that either didn't do shit or combat, or ran straight towards Mr. Machinegun? Or before they had the "move out of my way" button, and you got stuck inside? How many times did you reload to keep that stupid dog alive before you finally said screw it?)
4. Fighting monsters is way too hard and gives way, way too few experience points. (Personally, I found the early Fallout 2 game to be harder than IWD-- which was quite easy if you remembered to pause to issue commands.)
5. Stupid quests. All of the tasks that I was asked to complete by the townspeople in the first town were just uninteresting and dumb. They were all of the form "go get this thing and take it to that person." Lame. (Sounds pretty much like the first couple hours of Fallout 1 and 2. I killed the rat in the cave, and got a free healing powder! Sweet!)
6. Bugs. The game would slow to a crawl and then crash every so often. (If you didn't experience this in Fallout, you waited for a later patch than I did.)
Does that list sound familiar?
I loved Fallout 1 and 2, but your litany of complaints sounded exactly like the ones I read on Fallout boards back in the day. I could care less whether or not you liked Icewind Dale, of course, but your list certainly doesn't help me understand why you liked Fallout and not Icewind Dale. Part of it could be IWD's barrier to entry-- it's a lot easier if you already played Baldur's Gate.
It also doesn't really seem like your list is aimed at helping you figure out whether or not you'll like NWN. Got questions about the graphics? Look at the screenshots. Worried about how many people you'll have to click on and make run around? Look at the FAQ (single PC, but you can issue commands to henchmen). Bugs? Well, we don't know yet, obviously. etc. etc.
It doesn't seem like you wanted to know about NWN; rather, you wanted to rant about IWD. That's fine, if offtopic.
My advice? Wait for a demo, or for a friend to get it. It's still D&D, still has slow leveling, etc., and will still have some of the steep learning curve that seems to have turned you off of IWD. OTOH, it's simplified in terms of party control, and sure looks better, so you might like it.
I think the hidden cost of Linux is that you have to spend time lobbying your congressman so he doesn't make it illegal.
I'm not going to write anything to the judge, because he's already made his decision. And I also don't know any details of the case, so I don't know who supplied him with those four games, or what the criteria were (did they have to be from that particular arcade?).
I will, however, list a few games here. Perhaps I'll send something on the appeal, but I really think I'd get summarily ignored since I have no idea what one does to write to the court (friend of the court brief? How do I actually get it read by the judge? What are the requirements, what's the scope?).
Planescape: Torment
Jet Set Radio/Future
Ultima (simplistic, yet still speech)
WWF Smackdown! (just kidding)
So Infocom's Zork is not speech, but a printed transcript of someone playing it is? Wonderful.
"Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found 'no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech.'"
Well, then, that's settled. I agree with the "four items, one judge" standard. Next up: books! Find four books, and a judge who thinks those four are devoid of substance, and I think we can all agree we can rightfully declare that at that point, books would become "non-speech".
After books, of course, the next thing to lose its speech status should be speeches!
Don't forget taxing the homeless to pay for shelters and soup kitchens.
Damn, I need to spend a bit more time working, and bit less time in /. threads. :) Okay, one more reply. Reply if you want; I'll read it but won't reply.
You've just argued against the usefulness of supporting evidence, called me a moron and a naieve weeny (harsh, I know; don't worry, I can handle it), and said that I should give your ideas time to simmer after posting rapid replies to all of mine. Possible conclusions include you being smarter than everyone else, or just really condescending.
Lest you think I didn't pay any attention to your ideas, I did. I went and checked up my facts on past movements of large groups of people against large corporations in the political arena (btw, Cesar Chavez's timeline is really fucking depressing: "1970: Chavez makes advances. 1972: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1973: Chavez gets fucked by the man. 1974: Chavez gets fucked by the man.").
Still, my argument is more or less what it was when we started this, which is: political activity wouldn't be entirely ineffective. Given the absence of anything we think would be more effective, it makes sense to spend some time fighting an intelligent political battle, or coming up with a method that would be more effective. Both choices are, at worst, much more effective that sitting on your ass watching TV.
I was going to quote the evidence you cited to backup your statements, but I couldn't find it.
I find "yes it is", "no it isn't" arguments to be a waste of time in the absence of any hard facts. Do you have any? I provided a single example that seemed to contradict your position entirely.
"You accused me of not even trying. You're too foolish to not waste your efforts on unwinnable battles, and futile tactics."
So it's futile for a group of people to band together and fight a rich, well-connected group of large corporations? That's the defeatist attitude I've seen you espousing in post after post, but I've yet to see you back it up with any evidence. The Human Farming Association's in my corner. Who's in yours?
Agreed. Same realization hit me a while back. Some movie about a wonky sci-fi universe with some unendearing young punk and a shitty love story.
If the reviews are strongly favorable, I'll see it, like I do with many films. Otherwise, screw it. I'll wait for The Two Towers.
You've stopped making sense. Had you been drinking when you made that post?
Ah, well. The thread was getting too long anyway.
"This means, not that they are against DRM in principle."
/. comments all day. Judging from what the two of us are doing, that seems pretty likely.
Who said I was talking about principles? Anything but-- I'm talking about politics. This article is about being practical, and you seem staunchly against that. Just gonna wait around until the perfect approach comes up and kicks you in the head? You'll be waiting for a while. And how is sitting on your ass more effective than working the politicians?
You can go back and forth about how effective such a lobby would be. "You'd get money now, but not later, because the RIAA while pay them off." "Convince them they'd make more money without the law in the first place." "But the RIAA would convince them better-- they have more money." "No they don't, use some of the money your backers already donated to convince them." And so on and so forth.
But it's obvious you're not interested in debating the possibilities of such a lobby, you'd given up from the very first post. Some people will choose not to play politics, and that's fine-- it's a hard game, and dirty. But don't try the excuse that you wouldn't be able to make a difference. That's a bunch of crap.
"The balance will change, and when it does, they'll be allied against us." Sure, there's a good chance of that if we all just sit around and bitch in
You're right-- it's naive to think that raising money from individuals would be enough to mount an offensive against a Hollywood polititian.
However, companies like Philips are very pissed off about laws that are aimed at wrecking their hardware market. Once a lobby is in place and has proven it is well-run and potentially effective, you'll get plenty of corporate sponsorship. As it said in the article:
"They also wonder out loud why the $600 billion-a-year information-technology sector is letting itself get pushed around by the $20 billion-a-year entertainment industry."
Is it a good thing that in many efforts, the lobby will have to cater toward the corporation that is giving the most money? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than DMCA+.
"You've never read the GPL then."
You misread his statement. The default (i.e. not accepting the GPL) has absolutely nothing to do with the text of the GPL, it is based on copyright law.
Yeah, except for the people who are just starting to watch it, and the people in Alaska, and Hawaii, and everywhere else in the world that doesn't run on east coast time.
/. first". Doh.
And for me, who Tivo'd it, and was about to go watch it when I figured "wtf, I'll check
*sigh*
Oops. True dat.