Just because the attempt to get permission failed dismally doesn't give anyone the right to ignore any laws requiring permission.
IANAL, but it appears the whole issue somes down to Fair Use. If the quoting was legal, then the whole issue of asking for permission is moot.
If permission was required, then the law was broken. The fact that people could not be reached makes no difference. If the person could not be reached to ask for permission, then those posts should not have been used in the book.
In a perfect world with unlimited bandwidth and no latency, The Client Should Never Be Trusted, but we are dealing with the Internet.
Sometimes it is very wise to trust the client. For example, the entire terrain is preloaded in the client. The server just sends the x,y,z co-ordinate of your position and all the monsters around you. If the client was just a dumb terminal, the server would have to send complete terrain information every update. You just can't do that over a modem.
Another example is casting a spell. The Server tells the client how much mana you have. Then when you attempt to cast a spell, the client can determine if you have enough mana to cast the spell without checking with the server. The server can check after the fact if the client did the right thing. If the server detects a cheating client, that client can be kicked out or flagged as cheating. The end result is that lag doesn't affect casting a spell.
It is clear to me that a Smart Client is the best way to go with limited bandwidth and latency. You just have to be extra careful as to what you trust the client with.
I am also curious what they do to think that they can change the licencing whenever they want without telling you. At least that's my impression
Wrong. Everytime you start EQ it downloads new files from the server, including any changed EULA. Then it presents the EULA to you (changed or not) with an Accept/Decline button. The only way to play is to Accept. Part of the EULA says that Verant may modify it at any time.
The "incompetant coders" had to take some shortcuts to reduce the effects of Internet Lag. The game sends the information about the monster out of view just around the corner. When you do turn the corner, the client can display the monsters instantly, instead of waiting on the server to update what monsters are there. Preloading the client with such information greatly reduced the effects of lag. But ShowEQ intercepts the data stream and displays information which normally would not be displayed in the client. Should the "incomepetant coders" eliminate the extra data? No, that would cause more lag. Should they more accurately determine what data the client is likely to need in the next update? Maybe, but that would require much more processing power. Should they have used a better encryption method? Probably, but that takes more processing power as well. I don't think Verant should be scanning our computers. I also realize that cheaters can ruin an online game. I also want a game that plays fast and is lag-resistant. I can't have all three at the same time. Scanning the process list and reporting back (y/n) if one of the processes match known cheat programs is less of an invasion of privacy than a company reporting back every app I have installed on my computer. Do you drive a car? Registered to vote? Have a bank account? Use an ISP? In each instance, you are giving up part of your privacy for a benefit. It is up to you to decide if you are willing to give up your privacy in exchange for the benefit provided. Everquest is the same way. Are you willing to give up your processlist in exchange for a mostly-cheatfree-game? 80+% of EQ players said yes. Verant did make the mistake of scanning before they had actually announced it. That was bad of them.
Slashdot Mirror
WP O2000 SP3 (including help file) Size: 103 MB
WP O2000 SP2 Size: 82 MB
WP O2000 SP1 Size: 46 MB
Too late. I'm filing the patent on that idea now... or is that copyright? Don't matter, my laywer can figure it out. :)
The idea behind RISC is that a CPU can work on multiple simple instructions faster than one complex instruction.
(I am a lawyer) is IAAL, not IIAL.
IANAL, but it appears the whole issue somes down to Fair Use. If the quoting was legal, then the whole issue of asking for permission is moot.
If permission was required, then the law was broken. The fact that people could not be reached makes no difference. If the person could not be reached to ask for permission, then those posts should not have been used in the book.
EQ has just over 200,000 subscribers. On an average evening, 50-60k players are playing at once.
Sometimes it is very wise to trust the client. For example, the entire terrain is preloaded in the client. The server just sends the x,y,z co-ordinate of your position and all the monsters around you. If the client was just a dumb terminal, the server would have to send complete terrain information every update. You just can't do that over a modem.
Another example is casting a spell. The Server tells the client how much mana you have. Then when you attempt to cast a spell, the client can determine if you have enough mana to cast the spell without checking with the server. The server can check after the fact if the client did the right thing. If the server detects a cheating client, that client can be kicked out or flagged as cheating. The end result is that lag doesn't affect casting a spell.
It is clear to me that a Smart Client is the best way to go with limited bandwidth and latency. You just have to be extra careful as to what you trust the client with.
Wrong. Everytime you start EQ it downloads new files from the server, including any changed EULA. Then it presents the EULA to you (changed or not) with an Accept/Decline button. The only way to play is to Accept. Part of the EULA says that Verant may modify it at any time.
The "incompetant coders" had to take some shortcuts to reduce the effects of Internet Lag. The game sends the information about the monster out of view just around the corner. When you do turn the corner, the client can display the monsters instantly, instead of waiting on the server to update what monsters are there. Preloading the client with such information greatly reduced the effects of lag. But ShowEQ intercepts the data stream and displays information which normally would not be displayed in the client. Should the "incomepetant coders" eliminate the extra data? No, that would cause more lag. Should they more accurately determine what data the client is likely to need in the next update? Maybe, but that would require much more processing power. Should they have used a better encryption method? Probably, but that takes more processing power as well. I don't think Verant should be scanning our computers. I also realize that cheaters can ruin an online game. I also want a game that plays fast and is lag-resistant. I can't have all three at the same time. Scanning the process list and reporting back (y/n) if one of the processes match known cheat programs is less of an invasion of privacy than a company reporting back every app I have installed on my computer. Do you drive a car? Registered to vote? Have a bank account? Use an ISP? In each instance, you are giving up part of your privacy for a benefit. It is up to you to decide if you are willing to give up your privacy in exchange for the benefit provided. Everquest is the same way. Are you willing to give up your processlist in exchange for a mostly-cheatfree-game? 80+% of EQ players said yes. Verant did make the mistake of scanning before they had actually announced it. That was bad of them.