So let me get this straight...it's against the law to violate a contract you've agreed to? Holy shit!!! Man, is the world going to hell now!
No seriously, this doesn't change anything. There are absolutely no new developments in this case. Reverse engineering still isn't illegal per se, but violating an EULA is. Just like always. Go figure.
The standard now is SNES / NEO-GEO quality 2D graphics. Try to tell me you'd enjoy your favorite "simple" game as much if you reduced the resolution and limited the pallette to 16 colors or grayscales.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I do very much enjoy snake/nibbles on 80x24 monochrome. And I play my NES more than 10 times as often as my SNES, N64, and Playstation combined. (I didn't own an Atari in my childhood so I never got hooked on those games) I go to the local retro arcade a couple times a month but when I'm there, I ignore any game with better resolution than Donkey Kong, and the game I play most is Frogger.
I don't think it's so much a matter of what people will play any more, because people do enjoy simple, nearly graphicless games, as it is a matter of what can be hyped any more. And the less hype you can generate around a game, the less likely a company is going to want to make it. Part of it is also a factor of whether or not you will pay good money for a game that you know you enjoy. If I can go buy an almost identical game at Video Game X-Change for 2 bucks, I'm not going to pay 30 for it at Best Buy. Likewise if I can download a freeware clone. Now you try buiding a software empire selling games for $2 apiece. Good luck. But if I get flashy graphics with it, now there's something I can't get for less than $30, so I might pay my $30. (not me personally, I never buy new computer/video games, but an average game buyer works like this)
Maybe the games are so cheap to produce because they are ports of games from the PET, Trash 80 and Apple II et al.
What I want to know is, what do they spend that $40k on?? I could write snake in about 30 minutes. Hell, I have made games about that complex in about that time.
I'm more worried that the powers that be would hack my phone to buy me 5,743 copies of Battlefield Earth on DVD as punishment for speaking out against supporting invasive bill x.
Gun control was certainly one of his causes. Also slamming anything right of flaming liberal was another. If you missed that, YOU weren't watching. Also remember his little acceptance speech at the Academy Awards?
Seriously, if you don't think that Moore is completely political and completely left, you're either too daft or farther left than him to even notice the difference. Nothing wrong with either, but it makes Moore less than objective.
Ok, I will grant you that slamming everything right of flaming liberal did consume half the movie. I didn't see or hear his acceptance speech. And of course he's completely left, I merely was not yet privy to his fabrications. That said I think your post makes a very convincing argument that could not be made by merely saying "he's well-known to fabricate stuff." since in my case and, I'm sure, the case of plenty of other people it's not well-known at all.
Michael Moore is famously partisan and is known to skew (or outright fabricate) evidence to fit his case/cause, as in his Columbine documentary.
That's really not fair. Specifically what did he fabricate? What about the Columbine documentary was "skewed" to fit his cause? Hell, what exactly was his cause? If you say gun control, then either you didn't actually watch it, or you weren't paying attention.
Well, when you're talking about a 2.5 minute CGI shot, you have 24 frames/second (minimum) X 60 seconds/minute X 2.5 minutes = 3600 frames to render. 3600 frames X 5 minutes/frame savings = 18000 minutes or 300 hours in total saved by reducing a frame render from 50 minutes to 45.
He asked what the difference between 45sec/frame and 50 sec/frame was. Not between 45 min/frame and 50 min/frame. So we're looking at 5 hours, not 300.
Considering Clinton was unable to hide his affair and that the F117 was also known well enough about I doubt, very much doubt anything of this magnitude could be hidden. Heck, even the Chinese stole nuclear secrets.
From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music.
I know we've beaten this horse to death, but every time this argument is made I feel obligated to point out the untruth in it. I have pirated hundreds, perhaps thousands of songs over the course of my life. In doing so, I have NEVER, EVER taken money out of the pockets of any of the people who put their hard work into making the music. I rarely bought cds before I started pirating, and I've rarely bought them since. If I don't have access to pirated music, I just don't listen to music. Nobody is any poorer as a result of any act of piracy I've commited. No, they aren't out the cost of the cd, because the question is not whether they're poorer for me pirating than they would be if I had bought the cd. The proper question (in my case and that of many people I know) is whether they are poorer for me pirating than they would be had I just decided I didn't need to hear that song. Because I can guarantee you I wouldn't have bought the cd anyway.
It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use.
However qualified Captain RIAA may be to comment on the legal or ethical status of copying, I can guarantee he's not qualified to comment on what's cool and what isn't.
Well, you can decompile every binary programm at least to assembler code, so why shouldnt it possible with C++?
There's a huge difference between disassembling and decompiling. With assembly, you generally have a 1 to 1 correspondence between machine language instructions and assembly instructions. That is, one specific instruction you feed to the assembler becomes one specific assembled instruction. Sometimes it's more complicated than this, but only slightly.
Now look at c, where one line of code could be arbitrarily many opcodes, depending on the complexity of the logic within that line (and the length of the line). Now suddenly, instead of looking at one instruction and translating it back to it's equivalent, your decompiler has to look at possibly hundreds of instructions, parse them logically and figure out where each line starts, and ends, and what the logical purpose of each set of instructions is. Then dealing with structures (or in C++, objects) where you have to come up with a definition for how data is laid out based solely on the instructions for dealing with that data.
That's quite a bit more complicated. I sure as hell couldn't do it. I know I could write an assembler or disassembler, I might be able to write a simple compiler, but there's no way in hell I could write a functional decompiler.
Yeah...as far as I got was figuring out that 211 was the number of years after 1792. I originally assumed it was a non-decimal number, but when I saw the 223 being used for 2015 in the back to the future 2 related item, I knew that couldn't be right.
"Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D...". Note that there is a spelling error hear for which I shall whip one of the judges as soon as I've slept enough to move.
I found it!!! No seriously, I don't see the spelling error in "Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D.."
Now its just a way to describe settings that can't be found in the manual.
That's more or less always been the case...granted to a far lesser extent...but what gets me is the number of "hacks" on this book's list that can be found in the manual. Or that are fairly obvious to anyone who's used a similar feature before. (i.e. everything they talked about in hack #1, obvious to anyone who's ever used a system with multiple user accounts before) I'm not saying that people for whom these things are obvious don't deserve a book about them. But a book on hacks should address hacks. Those of us who want seriously, actually advanced tips deserve a book as well.
Slashdot Mirror
...are you using "campaign donations" as a euphamism for bribes or for explosives?
So let me get this straight...it's against the law to violate a contract you've agreed to? Holy shit!!! Man, is the world going to hell now!
No seriously, this doesn't change anything. There are absolutely no new developments in this case. Reverse engineering still isn't illegal per se, but violating an EULA is. Just like always. Go figure.
The standard now is SNES / NEO-GEO quality 2D graphics. Try to tell me you'd enjoy your favorite "simple" game as much if you reduced the resolution and limited the pallette to 16 colors or grayscales.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I do very much enjoy snake/nibbles on 80x24 monochrome. And I play my NES more than 10 times as often as my SNES, N64, and Playstation combined. (I didn't own an Atari in my childhood so I never got hooked on those games) I go to the local retro arcade a couple times a month but when I'm there, I ignore any game with better resolution than Donkey Kong, and the game I play most is Frogger.
I don't think it's so much a matter of what people will play any more, because people do enjoy simple, nearly graphicless games, as it is a matter of what can be hyped any more. And the less hype you can generate around a game, the less likely a company is going to want to make it.
Part of it is also a factor of whether or not you will pay good money for a game that you know you enjoy. If I can go buy an almost identical game at Video Game X-Change for 2 bucks, I'm not going to pay 30 for it at Best Buy. Likewise if I can download a freeware clone. Now you try buiding a software empire selling games for $2 apiece. Good luck. But if I get flashy graphics with it, now there's something I can't get for less than $30, so I might pay my $30. (not me personally, I never buy new computer/video games, but an average game buyer works like this)
Maybe the games are so cheap to produce because they are ports of games from the PET, Trash 80 and Apple II et al.
What I want to know is, what do they spend that $40k on?? I could write snake in about 30 minutes. Hell, I have made games about that complex in about that time.
...a beowulf cluster of...never mind...
I'm more worried that the powers that be would hack my phone to buy me 5,743 copies of Battlefield Earth on DVD as punishment for speaking out against supporting invasive bill x.
As the average American has so much trouble spending money fast enough, this is a much needed development in the lagging money-spending field.
...what I want to know is, how exactly is he planning on destroying my computer?
Gun control was certainly one of his causes. Also slamming anything right of flaming liberal was another. If you missed that, YOU weren't watching. Also remember his little acceptance speech at the Academy Awards?
Seriously, if you don't think that Moore is completely political and completely left, you're either too daft or farther left than him to even notice the difference. Nothing wrong with either, but it makes Moore less than objective.
Ok, I will grant you that slamming everything right of flaming liberal did consume half the movie. I didn't see or hear his acceptance speech. And of course he's completely left, I merely was not yet privy to his fabrications. That said I think your post makes a very convincing argument that could not be made by merely saying "he's well-known to fabricate stuff." since in my case and, I'm sure, the case of plenty of other people it's not well-known at all.
1. Plant wind
2. Raise wind
3. Harvest wind
4. PROFIT!
So, how much is that wind seed going for these days?
(according to the book "Stupid White American" by Micheal Moore)
The book was called "Stupid White Men", not "Stupid White American".
Michael Moore is famously partisan and is known to skew (or outright fabricate) evidence to fit his case/cause, as in his Columbine documentary.
That's really not fair. Specifically what did he fabricate? What about the Columbine documentary was "skewed" to fit his cause? Hell, what exactly was his cause? If you say gun control, then either you didn't actually watch it, or you weren't paying attention.
Well, when you're talking about a 2.5 minute CGI shot, you have 24 frames/second (minimum) X 60 seconds/minute X 2.5 minutes = 3600 frames to render. 3600 frames X 5 minutes/frame savings = 18000 minutes or 300 hours in total saved by reducing a frame render from 50 minutes to 45.
He asked what the difference between 45sec/frame and 50 sec/frame was. Not between 45 min/frame and 50 min/frame. So we're looking at 5 hours, not 300.
Slow down, that's way to much acronymization!
What is this Sega Master System spam you speak of??
Considering Clinton was unable to hide his affair and that the F117 was also known well enough about I doubt, very much doubt anything of this magnitude could be hidden. Heck, even the Chinese stole nuclear secrets.
Well, we all know about it, don't we?
From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music.
I know we've beaten this horse to death, but every time this argument is made I feel obligated to point out the untruth in it. I have pirated hundreds, perhaps thousands of songs over the course of my life. In doing so, I have NEVER, EVER taken money out of the pockets of any of the people who put their hard work into making the music. I rarely bought cds before I started pirating, and I've rarely bought them since. If I don't have access to pirated music, I just don't listen to music. Nobody is any poorer as a result of any act of piracy I've commited. No, they aren't out the cost of the cd, because the question is not whether they're poorer for me pirating than they would be if I had bought the cd. The proper question (in my case and that of many people I know) is whether they are poorer for me pirating than they would be had I just decided I didn't need to hear that song. Because I can guarantee you I wouldn't have bought the cd anyway.
It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use.
However qualified Captain RIAA may be to comment on the legal or ethical status of copying, I can guarantee he's not qualified to comment on what's cool and what isn't.
Cursive was always such a waste of time to begin with. Despite taking it for a year in third grade, I've never actually used it.
Barring some connection between the two (...), there is no connection between the two.
You think? That's pretty deep, man.
Well, you can decompile every binary programm at least to assembler code, so why shouldnt it possible with C++?
There's a huge difference between disassembling and decompiling. With assembly, you generally have a 1 to 1 correspondence between machine language instructions and assembly instructions. That is, one specific instruction you feed to the assembler becomes one specific assembled instruction. Sometimes it's more complicated than this, but only slightly.
Now look at c, where one line of code could be arbitrarily many opcodes, depending on the complexity of the logic within that line (and the length of the line). Now suddenly, instead of looking at one instruction and translating it back to it's equivalent, your decompiler has to look at possibly hundreds of instructions, parse them logically and figure out where each line starts, and ends, and what the logical purpose of each set of instructions is. Then dealing with structures (or in C++, objects) where you have to come up with a definition for how data is laid out based solely on the instructions for dealing with that data.
That's quite a bit more complicated. I sure as hell couldn't do it. I know I could write an assembler or disassembler, I might be able to write a simple compiler, but there's no way in hell I could write a functional decompiler.
2003 AD is 211 years since the French Revolution.
Yeah...as far as I got was figuring out that 211 was the number of years after 1792. I originally assumed it was a non-decimal number, but when I saw the 223 being used for 2015 in the back to the future 2 related item, I knew that couldn't be right.
"Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D...". Note that there is a spelling error hear for which I shall whip one of the judges as soon as I've slept enough to move.
I found it!!!
No seriously, I don't see the spelling error in "Rockford. Knutson, Elixir. Lost I.D.."
You're not invited to next year's party.
I'm not saying that people for whom these things aren't obvious don't deserve a book about them.
My bad. I guess I should type slower.
Now its just a way to describe settings that can't be found in the manual.
That's more or less always been the case...granted to a far lesser extent...but what gets me is the number of "hacks" on this book's list that can be found in the manual. Or that are fairly obvious to anyone who's used a similar feature before. (i.e. everything they talked about in hack #1, obvious to anyone who's ever used a system with multiple user accounts before)
I'm not saying that people for whom these things are obvious don't deserve a book about them. But a book on hacks should address hacks. Those of us who want seriously, actually advanced tips deserve a book as well.