As its difficult to get through the Slashdotting (I can't reach the site), this would be "The Kilrathi Saga" versions of the games - almost as valuable as a WoW Vanilla Collector's Edition to WC fans - which were "upgraded" versions of the original DOS Watcom C games for Windows 95. I say "upgraded" because I was once speaking to one of the original programmers who were working on the Kilrathi Saga edition and said that they couldn't even convert WC1. He called the original source a "Goat-fuck-hack" demo which Roberts put together to get a job at Origin, so they instead tinkered with a DirectDraw-wrapped WC2 engine.
The original DOS versions of the games, alternatively, work fine through DosBox.
As USB cables with directional markings for the electrons and electro-magnetically sealed power cables are doing a booming business in the music industry, I wouldn't pur much weight on many musicians making particularly wise business decisions. They might be very clever at making music, but that may be about it.
I'm sorry, but you've missed the point as well. The discussion is not about works "not" under copyright. Its about works which are. You've already got a CC license which insists on attribution, so this is a different matter altogether.
Plagiarising works under copyright, and copying works under copyright, are both breaches of copyright. The moral implications of the two are quite different however, as per the other thread of this conversation. As GP doesn't have a disclaimer permitting reproduction, his journal entries automatically fall under the Berne convention.
You seem to confuse CC licensed material with non-CC licensed material. They're not the same thing.
As soon as you say other people are allowed to copy your work, you've already given up some of the protections offered by copyright - namely, the exclusive right to reproduction. (Fair use, et al, aside). So you're comparing apples to.. pears.
And like the other guy said, you can plagiarise works out of copyright -both of which miss the point. We weren't discussing stuff "not under copyright". We were discussing stuff that IS under copyright.:) The point being, "copying" or "plagiarising" works under copyright are no different in that both are in breach of copyright where those rights aren't expressly permitted (or under fair use, etc - I don't really want to have to justify every exception for what is a simple original analysis that if GP doesn't care for any aspect of copyright - a "failed experiment" - he doesn't care if his works are copied - plagiarised or not).:)
While there's a difference between copying and plagiarizing - breaching copyright, which was the subject being discussed - and plagiarizing, can often be the same thing.
Interestingly (to some, I'm sure), the right of attribution is the only aspect of copyright which can't be breached on its own. It always must be in conjunction with another breach (most commonly, the rights concerning reproduction and less commonly, concerning derivative works).
So indeed, on it's own, the act of copying and the act of plagiarism are two quite different things (the latter, I agree with LikwidCirckel, is far worse), but fall under the same doctrines in the realm of copyright.
Precisely. Which is what GP is advocating - The right of attribution is one of 7 rights which make up "copyrights". My post was tongue-in-cheek. GP opposes copyright, thus, attribution.
Unless he's suggesting he likes all the parts of copyright which don't happen to coincidentally conflict with his morals, but the other aspects can go to hell - in which case that's just all maneuvering fluff.
I'm just going to start a blog posting all his journal entries as my own original works, with advertising, and see how long it takes for him.. err, I mean.. "an anoymous person".. to complain to Google about it.
Likewise, the first thing that crossed my mind. I presume there'll be some sort of security question which must be answered, or a single-use mailed password (or link) that's sent when the user wants to use the tool. All of these are however easily broken by non-savvy users (eg, using same password for email) - ie, the same people who get their account broken into in the first place.
Although, the security questions would have to be pretty mild. If someone has access to an average Sue's Facebook account, it's going to be fairly easy to find out "What's the name of your Pet?" "What school did you go to?" "What's your mother's maiden name?"
In fact, I've just realised what Facebook is - It's a "secret answers" repository!!
I understand, I should have specified I was after elaboration on "Flash sucks even if you're not on a iOS device!".:)
With the exception of low-processor workstations and mobile devices which support Flash but without the speed necessary to render tween Flash in real time, I've never really had any issues with Flash. I'm trying to determine if it's the performance or the proprietary nature or something else that you don't like?
I'm hoping its not a Apple fanboi stance of "since it doesn't work on iPhone/Pad/whatever, it must suck, because only what Apple does support is clean and bright and beautiful". Flash is the best out there, really. It's much more consistent and available than Silverlight, and faster than SVG or Cairo even for still renders. So - what sucks?:)
Interestingly, the study claims the C2050 result to be 77%, matching your calculations. It just doesn't match the graph, so I presume they were reporting on spikes as the top processing speed. Seems like you're spot on!
Unfortunately I can't mod having already posted in this thread, but please allow me to/bow. This is the best explanation I've ever read anywhere for the differences. Even I knew the differences but couldn't have expressed it so finely. Bravo.
It's quite possible a 2070 would perform just as well, except they tested it against a 2050. I thought the 2070 would actually perform better than the 480, due to screeds (still no idea if it's a word, but love it!) more RAM, but I presume it's simply what they had available. Maybe a dedicated 2070 wasn't on this year's budget?:)
It's not a digital signal, so it's not as if there are 1s and 0s in the buzz. While it would be trivial to hide a message inside a digital signal where the data is precise and any slight differentiation can be interpreted as a signal - in analog transmissions that's simply not the case. You cannot hide digital information in an analog transmission, unless it's a patently obvious signal such as spikes doing morse-code or something similar (unless it's an analog signal with a lot of noise such as an active music station or television signal, which can be used to disguise a possible "obvious" signal). However this is not the case with the buzz. It's been analysed constantly for years, and has always been a consistant sound, without fluctuations or changes. Until recently when it changed pitch and length.
So, if it was transmitting "hidden" information in the buzz, then that information thus far can be decoded as several years of 1s followed by a few months of 0s. The process you're referring to is steganography, and using a constant buzzing would be the WORST way to hide a signal, but it's taking me too long to try and explain why.. Hopefully someone else can fill this in a little better.:)
Ah, my high school computer teacher didn't so much teach us how to break into computer systems, as much as challenge us to break into the school computer systems, and then disclose our methods. It was part of their ongoing security auditing and improvements.
It was a lot of fun. Starting with the library computers which had limited internet access and less-than-perfect policy controls. I remember using Netscape Navigator on one machine, to associate command.com as the default application for.wav files, then clicking through to a.wav file to get to a command prompt and wreak havoc. Years later we were breaking into the main school Unix network with ctrl-break's at susceptible points during the execution of scripts with elevated priveleges (which they rapidly fixed as a severe issue). Ahh great times. Alas, I was a mere hobbyist back then, and have trouble actually relating what I was dealing with at the time because I didn't really know... Fun times.
All "anything" gets cracked. That's not the point. Steam is by far the best solution to the issue that has come along to date, short of "let people copy whatever they want". The fact the earth could get destroyed at any moment by an errant asteroid is another "little tidbit" the article left out, because - like your point - it's wholly irrelevant to the conversation.
I can live with Steam's DRM. It's hassle-free and as long as Steam is around, I can play all my games, wherever I want, without any discs. Great! Now if only Steam let you transfer your licenses to another Steam account - that would be solid GOLD. Even set up an online store where you can sell or trade games with other players, with Steam (and the publisher) taking a percentage of the sale. Steam would replace EB Games.:P
Ditto. I was disgusted with the bullshit you have to install to play GTA4 on PC. I wish I'd known about it beforehand because I would have just pirated a copy of it instead. Felt so violated by the install process that two days later I formatted my PC (just to make sure I got rid of every last piece of crapware it put on my system - I don't trust "uninstall" when they're pushing invasive DRM) and threw the game away. I've purchased every GTA game on PC up to this one - I won't be buying another. Congrats Rockstar - DRM loses you another customer while pirates have no issues at all. GG.
Same deal with C&C4 (which, folks, is the worst RTS game ever created), which doesn't let you play until you create a new EA account on their website, purely to prevent resale. It's not necessary for DRM purposes - locking down CD keys takes care of that. Nope, it's just to make sure everyone who wants to play it has to buy it new (unlike console games - although publishers will be pushing next-gen console manufacturers to lock keys to consoles, you can be sure of it). Of course, then I actually played it which makes the abyssmal install process look like a walk in the garden of Eden.
It's getting really bad on PC. Activision promises they'll look after us. We'll see..
Slashdot Mirror
As its difficult to get through the Slashdotting (I can't reach the site), this would be "The Kilrathi Saga" versions of the games - almost as valuable as a WoW Vanilla Collector's Edition to WC fans - which were "upgraded" versions of the original DOS Watcom C games for Windows 95. I say "upgraded" because I was once speaking to one of the original programmers who were working on the Kilrathi Saga edition and said that they couldn't even convert WC1. He called the original source a "Goat-fuck-hack" demo which Roberts put together to get a job at Origin, so they instead tinkered with a DirectDraw-wrapped WC2 engine.
The original DOS versions of the games, alternatively, work fine through DosBox.
As USB cables with directional markings for the electrons and electro-magnetically sealed power cables are doing a booming business in the music industry, I wouldn't pur much weight on many musicians making particularly wise business decisions. They might be very clever at making music, but that may be about it.
Exceptions, as always, apply.
I'm sorry, but you've missed the point as well. The discussion is not about works "not" under copyright. Its about works which are. You've already got a CC license which insists on attribution, so this is a different matter altogether.
Plagiarising works under copyright, and copying works under copyright, are both breaches of copyright. The moral implications of the two are quite different however, as per the other thread of this conversation. As GP doesn't have a disclaimer permitting reproduction, his journal entries automatically fall under the Berne convention.
You seem to confuse CC licensed material with non-CC licensed material. They're not the same thing.
As soon as you say other people are allowed to copy your work, you've already given up some of the protections offered by copyright - namely, the exclusive right to reproduction. (Fair use, et al, aside). So you're comparing apples to .. pears.
And like the other guy said, you can plagiarise works out of copyright -both of which miss the point. We weren't discussing stuff "not under copyright". We were discussing stuff that IS under copyright. :) The point being, "copying" or "plagiarising" works under copyright are no different in that both are in breach of copyright where those rights aren't expressly permitted (or under fair use, etc - I don't really want to have to justify every exception for what is a simple original analysis that if GP doesn't care for any aspect of copyright - a "failed experiment" - he doesn't care if his works are copied - plagiarised or not). :)
While there's a difference between copying and plagiarizing - breaching copyright, which was the subject being discussed - and plagiarizing, can often be the same thing.
Interestingly (to some, I'm sure), the right of attribution is the only aspect of copyright which can't be breached on its own. It always must be in conjunction with another breach (most commonly, the rights concerning reproduction and less commonly, concerning derivative works).
So indeed, on it's own, the act of copying and the act of plagiarism are two quite different things (the latter, I agree with LikwidCirckel, is far worse), but fall under the same doctrines in the realm of copyright.
Precisely. Which is what GP is advocating - The right of attribution is one of 7 rights which make up "copyrights". My post was tongue-in-cheek. GP opposes copyright, thus, attribution.
Unless he's suggesting he likes all the parts of copyright which don't happen to coincidentally conflict with his morals, but the other aspects can go to hell - in which case that's just all maneuvering fluff.
I'm just going to start a blog posting all his journal entries as my own original works, with advertising, and see how long it takes for him .. err, I mean.. "an anoymous person".. to complain to Google about it.
Likewise, the first thing that crossed my mind. I presume there'll be some sort of security question which must be answered, or a single-use mailed password (or link) that's sent when the user wants to use the tool. All of these are however easily broken by non-savvy users (eg, using same password for email) - ie, the same people who get their account broken into in the first place.
Although, the security questions would have to be pretty mild. If someone has access to an average Sue's Facebook account, it's going to be fairly easy to find out "What's the name of your Pet?" "What school did you go to?" "What's your mother's maiden name?"
In fact, I've just realised what Facebook is - It's a "secret answers" repository!!
I understand, I should have specified I was after elaboration on "Flash sucks even if you're not on a iOS device!". :)
With the exception of low-processor workstations and mobile devices which support Flash but without the speed necessary to render tween Flash in real time, I've never really had any issues with Flash. I'm trying to determine if it's the performance or the proprietary nature or something else that you don't like?
I'm hoping its not a Apple fanboi stance of "since it doesn't work on iPhone/Pad/whatever, it must suck, because only what Apple does support is clean and bright and beautiful". Flash is the best out there, really. It's much more consistent and available than Silverlight, and faster than SVG or Cairo even for still renders. So - what sucks? :)
Interestingly, the study claims the C2050 result to be 77%, matching your calculations. It just doesn't match the graph, so I presume they were reporting on spikes as the top processing speed. Seems like you're spot on!
Unfortunately I can't mod having already posted in this thread, but please allow me to /bow. This is the best explanation I've ever read anywhere for the differences. Even I knew the differences but couldn't have expressed it so finely. Bravo.
It's quite possible a 2070 would perform just as well, except they tested it against a 2050. I thought the 2070 would actually perform better than the 480, due to screeds (still no idea if it's a word, but love it!) more RAM, but I presume it's simply what they had available. Maybe a dedicated 2070 wasn't on this year's budget? :)
Specifically, a GTX480 (just over 1 B keys/sec), followed up by a Tesla 2050 at around 75% of the speed of the GTX480. (745 M keys/sec)
Just as I thought, you can't back up your statement. +Funny for the pun, though. ;)
Elaborate?
When I look at these pictures, all I think is "Jackal. A jackal. Is it a jackal? It's a jackal! A jackal!"
It is disappointing when there's so many good articles in the 'hose.
..designer frames. The black boxes.. eh..
Alas, no. Steam version still has both Rockstar Social and Windows Live "Games for Windows" requirements.
It's not a digital signal, so it's not as if there are 1s and 0s in the buzz. While it would be trivial to hide a message inside a digital signal where the data is precise and any slight differentiation can be interpreted as a signal - in analog transmissions that's simply not the case. You cannot hide digital information in an analog transmission, unless it's a patently obvious signal such as spikes doing morse-code or something similar (unless it's an analog signal with a lot of noise such as an active music station or television signal, which can be used to disguise a possible "obvious" signal). However this is not the case with the buzz. It's been analysed constantly for years, and has always been a consistant sound, without fluctuations or changes. Until recently when it changed pitch and length.
So, if it was transmitting "hidden" information in the buzz, then that information thus far can be decoded as several years of 1s followed by a few months of 0s. The process you're referring to is steganography, and using a constant buzzing would be the WORST way to hide a signal, but it's taking me too long to try and explain why.. Hopefully someone else can fill this in a little better. :)
Ah, my high school computer teacher didn't so much teach us how to break into computer systems, as much as challenge us to break into the school computer systems, and then disclose our methods. It was part of their ongoing security auditing and improvements.
It was a lot of fun. Starting with the library computers which had limited internet access and less-than-perfect policy controls. I remember using Netscape Navigator on one machine, to associate command.com as the default application for .wav files, then clicking through to a .wav file to get to a command prompt and wreak havoc. Years later we were breaking into the main school Unix network with ctrl-break's at susceptible points during the execution of scripts with elevated priveleges (which they rapidly fixed as a severe issue). Ahh great times. Alas, I was a mere hobbyist back then, and have trouble actually relating what I was dealing with at the time because I didn't really know... Fun times.
I know what my lottery numbers will be this week..
All "anything" gets cracked. That's not the point. Steam is by far the best solution to the issue that has come along to date, short of "let people copy whatever they want". The fact the earth could get destroyed at any moment by an errant asteroid is another "little tidbit" the article left out, because - like your point - it's wholly irrelevant to the conversation.
I can live with Steam's DRM. It's hassle-free and as long as Steam is around, I can play all my games, wherever I want, without any discs. Great! Now if only Steam let you transfer your licenses to another Steam account - that would be solid GOLD. Even set up an online store where you can sell or trade games with other players, with Steam (and the publisher) taking a percentage of the sale. Steam would replace EB Games. :P
Ditto. I was disgusted with the bullshit you have to install to play GTA4 on PC. I wish I'd known about it beforehand because I would have just pirated a copy of it instead. Felt so violated by the install process that two days later I formatted my PC (just to make sure I got rid of every last piece of crapware it put on my system - I don't trust "uninstall" when they're pushing invasive DRM) and threw the game away. I've purchased every GTA game on PC up to this one - I won't be buying another. Congrats Rockstar - DRM loses you another customer while pirates have no issues at all. GG.
Same deal with C&C4 (which, folks, is the worst RTS game ever created), which doesn't let you play until you create a new EA account on their website, purely to prevent resale. It's not necessary for DRM purposes - locking down CD keys takes care of that. Nope, it's just to make sure everyone who wants to play it has to buy it new (unlike console games - although publishers will be pushing next-gen console manufacturers to lock keys to consoles, you can be sure of it). Of course, then I actually played it which makes the abyssmal install process look like a walk in the garden of Eden.
It's getting really bad on PC. Activision promises they'll look after us. We'll see..