That's something I've seen before on a reasonably high-profile website here in the UK (not a publicly-accessible one and this was a few years ago, but still - no details).
Users were required to use a password at least 8 characters long, with at least one letter, one numeric, and one non-alphanumeric, which had to be changed every thirty days.
You would be amazed how many passwords I saw of the form "Password-12", which would then be changed to "Password-13", then "Password-14"...
Make the password policy too complicated, and users will fall back on systems that undo all the security you took so much time to build. At least this particular site locked the account after three successive logon failures - although of course that also helps to ensure easily-remembered (and therefore generally likely easily-guessed) passwords.
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, there is a moral difference. Encryption software can be used by the bad guys, but it can also be used by the oppressed to get their message out. Content filtering/blocking software can only be used to restrict access to information - there's no way to use it to spread information.
So, it's perfectly possible to preach that information "wants" to be free* and be for software that can help that in difficult situations, while still being against software that can only be used to restrict information.
(* Although dropping the advocacy for a moment, I've always hated that phrase)
At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.
Again playing Devil's Advocate, we do that already with all sorts of objects and services; why should software be any different?
Also, where XP is nearing end of life, isn't it time to follow through with your promise to release a patch which will eliminate the need to activate Windows XP?
Don't worry, there's still plenty of time until XP is no longer available.
According to the patent it was filed in March 2004. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that my company developed a website that used this method back in 2002 or 2003. I joined in March 1999, was there for 18 months or so before we switched to Java, and the site I'm thinking of was one of the earlier Java sites we did. I'd be surprised if it was as late as 2003.
Ah - curiosity got the better of me and I went searching through the document archives. I've actually found a document describing what was done to implement the change, dated 17/02/03. I have absolutely no reason to believe that we didn't borrow the idea from elsewhere on the net. This patent certainly seems bogus to me.
This absolutely is an obvious use of mod_rewrite, and is something that we did about 5 years ago to make an e-commerce site we developed here in the UK more Google-friendly. So, instead of having URLs of the form/product.do?id=12345, we made them of the form/product/12345 and had a mod_rewrite rule in Apache rewrite that internally so Resin saw it as the first form. It wasn't exactly new back then, either.
I've not read the patent fully, but if the Slashdot summary is accurate then it's utterly ridiculous.
Ok, one counterexample doesn't disprove your general point, but I have to say that I think you're looking at the past through nostalgia-tinted glasses. I got my first computer in 1983, and have been playing games ever since (and boy are my hands tired...;) )
There were some incredible games back in the day, and some wonderfully inventive ones too. It seems like every few months some whole new genre was being created, envelopes were being pushed, creativity was at an all time high both technically and in design and gameplay.
But you know what? It wasn't like that at all. Yes, innovation was happening and some incredible games were being released. But there was also a huge amount of utter dross being released that merely jumped on the latest bandwagon. The good stuff is what's sticking in your mind is all. Also, I don't know how old you are, but for my part I was 8 when I got my first computer, so of course there's a temptation to think of that period as being the best. All the games were wonderful and new and amazing because to a certain degree *everything* is to a young child!
Indeed. If anything, as another poster has said I think the average game quality has been increasing, not decreasing. Yes, I remember some fantastic games. I also remember being 10 years old at the time.
Now I'm 33 and rather more demanding. Games cost £30 or so, not £5, and come on DVDs not cassette tapes; they feature 32bpp high resolution graphics running on expensive computer hardware I dare say with more power in one PC than the combined computing power of some towns or even cities back then, if it could have been clustered. (As an aside, I sometimes wonder at what point in history the sum total computing power of the world was equal to what I have sat under my desk now - but I digress) The point being that these days my standards are way higher than they were back then, and yet I'm still having just as much fun.
Besides which, my parents had an early console, so I actually played Pong. As one of the first games of its kind it's an outstanding achievement, but as a game? It sucks. Even at that age it really wasn't worth the time. (And yes, I appreciate that that's pretty much the effect he's going for)
Look at WoW. $15 a month, plus $50 a year for an expansion, plus no single player. And you don't hear anyone bitching about that.
Of course not. Those of us who don't like the idea simply aren't playing the game; I really don't see any point to moaning about it, they're not going to change it if I start.
but when I play a game, I'm usually playing because it's *not* like real life. If I wanted a game that was just like real life, I'd go out side and experience actual real life.
Fighting the demonic hordes is cool. Fighting the demonic hordes in a futuristic setting is cooler. Fighting the demonic hordes in a futuristic setting in my home town is about as cool as it can get. (Although note that I've not played the game yet, it could well suck)
when your game is about demons from hell invading London thirty years in the future, being realistic goes straight out the window
Just because the premise is unrealistic, doesn't mean that the setting has to be. Believe me, the Tube is *covered* with adverts - some stations now even have LCD screens with moving ads playing (thankfully no sound as yet...). Not having adverts in the game would be jarring for those of us who actually use the Tube (or I guess any similar train system) on a daily basis. Kind of like when it rains in Oblivion and the rain goes straight through archways, etc. It's a little thing, but it spoils the realism a bit.
Their crimes? I wasn't aware that the RIAA was around in the 18th century.
Like it or not, "piracy" refers to copyright infringement as well as attacking and stealing from ships at sea. It's in common use, it's in the dictionary, and the first recorded use dates from 1701. You've lost that battle I'm afraid.
Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701
Languages evolve, words change their meaning and gain additional ones. Why should this one be any different? Why does everything have to be part of some great conspiracy?
In an age when real piracy was rife, is it so hard to imagine some writer or musician calling someone a pirate for "stealing" their work? Hell, there's a thread here on this site with comments in which people use the word "murder" when referring to animals rather than humans.
"British Intelligence" isn't inserting anything anywhere; a government department has purchased advertising space in a game just like anyone else could.
The headline makes it sound like something nefarious is going on, as though someone in MI5 is hacking the game (or servers or whatever) and surreptitiously planting the adverts without permission...
Yes I know the summary is better, I'm just talking about the headline - something like "British Intelligence buys in-game advertising space" would be rather more accurate is all.
OK, so shooting games, where you traditionally need to move as erratically and unpredictably as possible to stay alive and kill effectively, are well predicted by dead reckoning; MMOs, where you generally move directly from one beast to the next waiting for your skills to kick in, are not?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Nice, predictable, straight-line movement is a sure-fire way to get yourself killed in an FPS, if you'll pardon the pun. If the guy you're after doesn't get you, one of his team mates probably will - especially in a game that includes a sniper weapon and open areas of some sort.
But they'll have to... meet dates... and all the things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do.
Given the absolute roasting we've given them for how long it took them to get Vista out the door, do you really believe that MS only "thinks" they have to meet dates?
Slashdot Mirror
That's something I've seen before on a reasonably high-profile website here in the UK (not a publicly-accessible one and this was a few years ago, but still - no details).
Users were required to use a password at least 8 characters long, with at least one letter, one numeric, and one non-alphanumeric, which had to be changed every thirty days.
You would be amazed how many passwords I saw of the form "Password-12", which would then be changed to "Password-13", then "Password-14"...
Make the password policy too complicated, and users will fall back on systems that undo all the security you took so much time to build. At least this particular site locked the account after three successive logon failures - although of course that also helps to ensure easily-remembered (and therefore generally likely easily-guessed) passwords.
I think this is the word you're looking for.
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, there is a moral difference. Encryption software can be used by the bad guys, but it can also be used by the oppressed to get their message out. Content filtering/blocking software can only be used to restrict access to information - there's no way to use it to spread information.
So, it's perfectly possible to preach that information "wants" to be free* and be for software that can help that in difficult situations, while still being against software that can only be used to restrict information.
(* Although dropping the advocacy for a moment, I've always hated that phrase)
At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.
Again playing Devil's Advocate, we do that already with all sorts of objects and services; why should software be any different?
Yes. Me. Now do my bidding - I'll have a coffee to start with, white and two sugars. Chop chop.
According to the patent it was filed in March 2004. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that my company developed a website that used this method back in 2002 or 2003. I joined in March 1999, was there for 18 months or so before we switched to Java, and the site I'm thinking of was one of the earlier Java sites we did. I'd be surprised if it was as late as 2003.
Ah - curiosity got the better of me and I went searching through the document archives. I've actually found a document describing what was done to implement the change, dated 17/02/03. I have absolutely no reason to believe that we didn't borrow the idea from elsewhere on the net. This patent certainly seems bogus to me.
This absolutely is an obvious use of mod_rewrite, and is something that we did about 5 years ago to make an e-commerce site we developed here in the UK more Google-friendly. So, instead of having URLs of the form /product.do?id=12345, we made them of the form /product/12345 and had a mod_rewrite rule in Apache rewrite that internally so Resin saw it as the first form. It wasn't exactly new back then, either.
I've not read the patent fully, but if the Slashdot summary is accurate then it's utterly ridiculous.
To what extent ARE you allowed to modify a product you bought anyway?
He didn't modify it, he infringed copyright by downloading a copy of it.
You can debate the ethical and moral issues until you're blue in the face, but as the law stands that's illegal.
It's not just media hype, it's been US law since 1998.
Last time I checked Hong Kong was Chinese-governed, not American.
You're right, but it's kind of beside the point; the rest of us don't (yet) have to deal with that particular unjust law.
No innovation? How about Spore?
;) )
Ok, one counterexample doesn't disprove your general point, but I have to say that I think you're looking at the past through nostalgia-tinted glasses. I got my first computer in 1983, and have been playing games ever since (and boy are my hands tired...
There were some incredible games back in the day, and some wonderfully inventive ones too. It seems like every few months some whole new genre was being created, envelopes were being pushed, creativity was at an all time high both technically and in design and gameplay.
But you know what? It wasn't like that at all. Yes, innovation was happening and some incredible games were being released. But there was also a huge amount of utter dross being released that merely jumped on the latest bandwagon. The good stuff is what's sticking in your mind is all. Also, I don't know how old you are, but for my part I was 8 when I got my first computer, so of course there's a temptation to think of that period as being the best. All the games were wonderful and new and amazing because to a certain degree *everything* is to a young child!
Indeed. If anything, as another poster has said I think the average game quality has been increasing, not decreasing. Yes, I remember some fantastic games. I also remember being 10 years old at the time.
Now I'm 33 and rather more demanding. Games cost £30 or so, not £5, and come on DVDs not cassette tapes; they feature 32bpp high resolution graphics running on expensive computer hardware I dare say with more power in one PC than the combined computing power of some towns or even cities back then, if it could have been clustered. (As an aside, I sometimes wonder at what point in history the sum total computing power of the world was equal to what I have sat under my desk now - but I digress) The point being that these days my standards are way higher than they were back then, and yet I'm still having just as much fun.
Besides which, my parents had an early console, so I actually played Pong. As one of the first games of its kind it's an outstanding achievement, but as a game? It sucks. Even at that age it really wasn't worth the time. (And yes, I appreciate that that's pretty much the effect he's going for)
Look at WoW. $15 a month, plus $50 a year for an expansion, plus no single player. And you don't hear anyone bitching about that.
Of course not. Those of us who don't like the idea simply aren't playing the game; I really don't see any point to moaning about it, they're not going to change it if I start.
but when I play a game, I'm usually playing because it's *not* like real life. If I wanted a game that was just like real life, I'd go out side and experience actual real life.
Fighting the demonic hordes is cool. Fighting the demonic hordes in a futuristic setting is cooler. Fighting the demonic hordes in a futuristic setting in my home town is about as cool as it can get. (Although note that I've not played the game yet, it could well suck)
when your game is about demons from hell invading London thirty years in the future, being realistic goes straight out the window
Just because the premise is unrealistic, doesn't mean that the setting has to be. Believe me, the Tube is *covered* with adverts - some stations now even have LCD screens with moving ads playing (thankfully no sound as yet...). Not having adverts in the game would be jarring for those of us who actually use the Tube (or I guess any similar train system) on a daily basis. Kind of like when it rains in Oblivion and the rain goes straight through archways, etc. It's a little thing, but it spoils the realism a bit.
Pretty-much everyone I know uses some sort of IM client or other. I am only aware of one of them who uses Talk.
your defense of their crimes against language
Their crimes? I wasn't aware that the RIAA was around in the 18th century.
Like it or not, "piracy" refers to copyright infringement as well as attacking and stealing from ships at sea. It's in common use, it's in the dictionary, and the first recorded use dates from 1701. You've lost that battle I'm afraid.
In an age when real piracy was rife, is it so hard to imagine some writer or musician calling someone a pirate for "stealing" their work? Hell, there's a thread here on this site with comments in which people use the word "murder" when referring to animals rather than humans.
If you are going to troll, do it correctly.
Deliberately using a loaded term in order to better incite a reaction isn't trolling correctly?
I can think of much worse companies than IBM to have this one granted.
There was a time when saying that would have been the equivalent of saying it about Microsoft now, or Eolas.
They changed; but can you be sure they won't change back?
A bad patent is a bad patent no matter who has it.
"British Intelligence" isn't inserting anything anywhere; a government department has purchased advertising space in a game just like anyone else could.
The headline makes it sound like something nefarious is going on, as though someone in MI5 is hacking the game (or servers or whatever) and surreptitiously planting the adverts without permission...
Yes I know the summary is better, I'm just talking about the headline - something like "British Intelligence buys in-game advertising space" would be rather more accurate is all.
You're right. Given that (as a UK citizen) my taxes will be paying for the adverts, they should be paying me to play the game.
OK, so shooting games, where you traditionally need to move as erratically and unpredictably as possible to stay alive and kill effectively, are well predicted by dead reckoning; MMOs, where you generally move directly from one beast to the next waiting for your skills to kick in, are not?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Nice, predictable, straight-line movement is a sure-fire way to get yourself killed in an FPS, if you'll pardon the pun. If the guy you're after doesn't get you, one of his team mates probably will - especially in a game that includes a sniper weapon and open areas of some sort.
No, but a lot of time it does seem that you need to be evil to be rich.
No you can't. But if you own the copyright on the code, then while v2 was GPL, v3 most certainly doesn't have to be.
But they'll have to... meet dates... and all the things a behemoth like Microsoft always thinks they have to do.
Given the absolute roasting we've given them for how long it took them to get Vista out the door, do you really believe that MS only "thinks" they have to meet dates?
Interesting? Insightful?!
/me shakes head sadly.
Funny yes; the rest of the mods though?