I think the mazes in Zak, while not horribly "logical", maintained the sequence of rooms you'd entered and which exits lead to which new room. I base this on the dark maze, where you could find torches and light them, letting you note which rooms you'd been in before and making it easier to wander through the maze.
As I understand it, Star Fox Adventures wasn't even originally a Star Fox game. They modified an existing game to fit Star Fox (read: new character models and dialog) and threw in a couple of flying sequences and marketed it as Star Fox because they knew people would buy it.
So by that, do you imply that universities should not be able to have anti-spam measures? No blacklists (including OpenRBL or rfc-ignorant?) and certainly no spamassassin-like process to determine what is junk mail and what isn't?
Remove the consideration that this was a legitimate business that was wreaking havoc on the mail servers and pretend it was a random spammer "selling" v 1 @ g r a....should the university still allow that speech through?
But see, they wouldn't have to include all four Super Mario remakes, just the "best" one. My very point is that if updated graphics improve a game, it must be better than the original.
And it doesn't make sense to mix a "classics" list with a "best of" list. Those are two completely separate traits, which actually is demonstrated by my post above. Even if the game is still fun today, that does not make it an "all time best." I think for that moniker, you've got to have something that was never replicated--or at least, never replicated quite as well. And of course, a sequel does not necessarily mean better, even if it uses better technology and updated graphics. But come on.. the only time I ever pop in Super Mario Brothers is when I'm feeling nostalgic, and I always turn it off again very quickly and move on to something more fun. And I haven't played the original itself in probably over a decade. I opt for the updated graphics of the Super Mario All Stars collection.
Other than the obvious "it's just someone's opinion" is that they tend to put real innovators on there, leaving out games that surpassed them. Case in point, Final Fantasy 3, where they left out the compilation for the Playstation, which was almost a direct translation except for better graphics. Do they just prefer the old version? Maybe for nostalgia value, but most of the rest of the world would probably prefer the updated graphics.
Same goes for Super Mario Brothers, the number 1 on the list. It was good--for its time. But it absolutely shouldn't be on any "top X best" list because of the huge number of flaws. Give that game to anyone who didn't grow up with it, and they'll probably throw it across the room. You couldn't go backwards (to the left), the graphics are terrible, there were bugs all over the place (some of them were cool, but nevertheless, they often broke the game). The ending was nothing to speak of, and the music was, of course, sub-par compared to anything new.
If you're compiling a nostalgia list, or a list of "best games of their time" you can get away with this sort of thing. But to consider innovative games as "the best" simply because they innovated is stretching the generally accepted definition of the word.
Battletoads was an immensely addicting (if incredibly difficult) game. Most of the kids I knew played it for hours on end. And truthfully, there were only two extremely difficult portions that, these days, I skip over with cheats. Of course, I'm referring to the vehicle stages where you have to memorize the order of oncoming obstacles and you have less than a second to get into position for each one.
Original post: By doing this they're making Open WiFi illegal, because not only does your computer have to get permission to connect to the network (via the login) but now extra permission is needed too.
He said: All the open network owner has to do is put access permission in his window or on a web page. (Which almost all of them already do.) Somebody accused of stealing access can then point to that permission. But you can't assume every open access point is permission to access, any more than you can assume an unlocked front door is permission to enter.
You said: There need not be, and I presume usually is not, an associated web page.
I said: But there can be, and if the point is to run a "legal" open wifi point (assuming that, based on this court ruling, connecting to a wifi point without direct authorization is illegal) then this is an option.
Ultimately, the default behavior doesn't matter. The point is that if legality is a question, this is one way to ensure that authorization can be granted before the/internet/ connection on the wifi network is used.
I imagine that if the actual perpetrator could be found, he would be prosecuted instead. I think the point is that an open network in-and-of itself is not going to be considered reasonable doubt for the purposes of prosecution.
Personally, I'd strike a middle-ground and charge the person with aiding and abetting. You may not have known who was using your connection, but you gave them the access and equipment to hack into that company.
I don't have to call the cell phone tower. The chip in my phone asks the tower if it's ok for me to use, the tower responds. If I stop payment to my cell company, my chip will ask the tower and be rejected.
That's the key. There's an agreement set up ahead of time with the company that I may use any tower that the chip they provide (the SIM card, I believe it's called) says I can access.
With a wireless AP, it's different. There has been no agreement with anyone.
Don't presume that just because Linux acts that way, that somehow removes the guilt. That Windows connects to any open AP is Microsoft's fault; it's just a fault that happens to be shared by other operating systems.
There need not be, and I presume usually is not, an associated web page.
It is possible to redirect all HTTP requests to a local server, which could forward requests to the correct host or not based on some form of authentication or at a minimum, clicking "Ok" to a user agreement. Or hell, just saying, "Hey, it's cool that you're using this, but be ready to be cut off if you start being a bandwidth hog." This would be an excellent way to have a legitimate open access point for the public to connect to.
i didnt really hear too much of a cry when nintendo decided to go with their own format for cartridges or for gamecube discs.
Are you kidding me? Nintendo was highly criticized for not switching to an optical format with the N64, and they were moderately frowned at for using their own format for the Gamecube. The cartridge-based N64 was the biggest gaff, though, and is almost certainly one of the factors that gave Sony the edge in that generation of consoles.
It's completely unreasonable to assume that a home connection will have the terms "dsl" or "dialup" in the DNS name. It's/is/ completely reasonable to assume that a connection with the term "dsl" or "dialup" is a home connection. and since well over 99% of home connections won't be used as a legitimate SMTP server, any smtp server coming from one of those is likely a zombie.
Sure, but in the context of his post (Nobody owns anything anymore) it doesn't make sense. The rules haven't changed, only how much you can bend/break them. And honestly, with broadband as prevalent as it is, "innocent copying" quickly becomes mass piracy.
And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.
I'm not sure this was ever the case with consumer-level operating systems. Remember that copyright law exists regardless of EULAs. I don't think MS-DOS had a license explicitly allowing you to copy the program, thus only one copy would be permitted. Installing it on multiple machines would imply multiple copies (yes yes, installing it on/one/ machine is a copy, nitpickers).
I don't know how other operating systems licences worked. It would be interesting to read through them and compare them to modern-day licenses...can anyone find a copy of some MS-DOS licenses as well as other OSs, like OS/2?
Guess it depends on definitions. Fedora isn't a retail desktop Linux distribution, is it? Fedora's counterpart, is an enterprise solution, and thus doesn't fit the "desktop" modifier.
In fact, offhand, the only other retail, desktop Linux distribution I can think of is SuSE, which is downloadable for free, but costs money if you want it on CDs. The full retail package of SuSE is around $90, but again, you're getting more than just a download.
I have seen Debian CDs for sale in retail stores, and they were less than $50 I believe, however I haven't seen this in awhile.
Truthfully, I'd like to know about all these other retail desktop LInux distributions....
Actually, nearly every Xbox revision has included changes to make it harder to mod the machine. With nearly every revision, old mods stopped working and new ones had to be developed. Only softmods were generally exempt from this trend, but even those holes were closed in rereleases of the games they relied on.
Most product keys from OEMs are actually on the computer itself, often on the side, back, or bottom.
Luckily, Microsoft realized that people would have this sort of problem and frankly, doesn't even require much input from you. Once you download the WGA update, it just checks your system and moves on. The only input you have to give are the mouse-clicks to move through the 2-3 screens.
But it's nice to just immediately assume that Microsoft is going to screw you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the mazes in Zak, while not horribly "logical", maintained the sequence of rooms you'd entered and which exits lead to which new room. I base this on the dark maze, where you could find torches and light them, letting you note which rooms you'd been in before and making it easier to wander through the maze.
As I understand it, Star Fox Adventures wasn't even originally a Star Fox game. They modified an existing game to fit Star Fox (read: new character models and dialog) and threw in a couple of flying sequences and marketed it as Star Fox because they knew people would buy it.
I think even this was changed in a later board revision of Pac Man, and by Ms. Pac Man, it was right out.
So by that, do you imply that universities should not be able to have anti-spam measures? No blacklists (including OpenRBL or rfc-ignorant?) and certainly no spamassassin-like process to determine what is junk mail and what isn't?
Remove the consideration that this was a legitimate business that was wreaking havoc on the mail servers and pretend it was a random spammer "selling" v 1 @ g r a....should the university still allow that speech through?
But see, they wouldn't have to include all four Super Mario remakes, just the "best" one. My very point is that if updated graphics improve a game, it must be better than the original.
And it doesn't make sense to mix a "classics" list with a "best of" list. Those are two completely separate traits, which actually is demonstrated by my post above. Even if the game is still fun today, that does not make it an "all time best." I think for that moniker, you've got to have something that was never replicated--or at least, never replicated quite as well. And of course, a sequel does not necessarily mean better, even if it uses better technology and updated graphics. But come on.. the only time I ever pop in Super Mario Brothers is when I'm feeling nostalgic, and I always turn it off again very quickly and move on to something more fun. And I haven't played the original itself in probably over a decade. I opt for the updated graphics of the Super Mario All Stars collection.
Other than the obvious "it's just someone's opinion" is that they tend to put real innovators on there, leaving out games that surpassed them. Case in point, Final Fantasy 3, where they left out the compilation for the Playstation, which was almost a direct translation except for better graphics. Do they just prefer the old version? Maybe for nostalgia value, but most of the rest of the world would probably prefer the updated graphics.
Same goes for Super Mario Brothers, the number 1 on the list. It was good--for its time. But it absolutely shouldn't be on any "top X best" list because of the huge number of flaws. Give that game to anyone who didn't grow up with it, and they'll probably throw it across the room. You couldn't go backwards (to the left), the graphics are terrible, there were bugs all over the place (some of them were cool, but nevertheless, they often broke the game). The ending was nothing to speak of, and the music was, of course, sub-par compared to anything new.
If you're compiling a nostalgia list, or a list of "best games of their time" you can get away with this sort of thing. But to consider innovative games as "the best" simply because they innovated is stretching the generally accepted definition of the word.
Battletoads was an immensely addicting (if incredibly difficult) game. Most of the kids I knew played it for hours on end. And truthfully, there were only two extremely difficult portions that, these days, I skip over with cheats. Of course, I'm referring to the vehicle stages where you have to memorize the order of oncoming obstacles and you have less than a second to get into position for each one.
You don't allow people to run un-authorized executables. How will they encrypt it?
What does it matter?
/internet/ connection on the wifi network is used.
Original post: By doing this they're making Open WiFi illegal, because not only does your computer have to get permission to connect to the network (via the login) but now extra permission is needed too.
He said: All the open network owner has to do is put access permission in his window or on a web page. (Which almost all of them already do.) Somebody accused of stealing access can then point to that permission. But you can't assume every open access point is permission to access, any more than you can assume an unlocked front door is permission to enter.
You said: There need not be, and I presume usually is not, an associated web page.
I said: But there can be, and if the point is to run a "legal" open wifi point (assuming that, based on this court ruling, connecting to a wifi point without direct authorization is illegal) then this is an option.
Ultimately, the default behavior doesn't matter. The point is that if legality is a question, this is one way to ensure that authorization can be granted before the
In the general case, we're not talking about someone printing, we're talking about someone using the web. But let's extend the concept.
2 15839, it's relevant.
You could just as easily refuse to forward traffic from the unauthorized wireless device until it's visited your webpage and read your agreement.
Clearly this is not for the casual user who wants to share wifi, but since this is in the subthread from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157633&cid=13
I imagine that if the actual perpetrator could be found, he would be prosecuted instead. I think the point is that an open network in-and-of itself is not going to be considered reasonable doubt for the purposes of prosecution.
Personally, I'd strike a middle-ground and charge the person with aiding and abetting. You may not have known who was using your connection, but you gave them the access and equipment to hack into that company.
I don't have to call the cell phone tower. The chip in my phone asks the tower if it's ok for me to use, the tower responds. If I stop payment to my cell company, my chip will ask the tower and be rejected.
That's the key. There's an agreement set up ahead of time with the company that I may use any tower that the chip they provide (the SIM card, I believe it's called) says I can access.
With a wireless AP, it's different. There has been no agreement with anyone.
Don't presume that just because Linux acts that way, that somehow removes the guilt. That Windows connects to any open AP is Microsoft's fault; it's just a fault that happens to be shared by other operating systems.
There need not be, and I presume usually is not, an associated web page.
It is possible to redirect all HTTP requests to a local server, which could forward requests to the correct host or not based on some form of authentication or at a minimum, clicking "Ok" to a user agreement. Or hell, just saying, "Hey, it's cool that you're using this, but be ready to be cut off if you start being a bandwidth hog." This would be an excellent way to have a legitimate open access point for the public to connect to.
i didnt really hear too much of a cry when nintendo decided to go with their own format for cartridges or for gamecube discs.
Are you kidding me? Nintendo was highly criticized for not switching to an optical format with the N64, and they were moderately frowned at for using their own format for the Gamecube. The cartridge-based N64 was the biggest gaff, though, and is almost certainly one of the factors that gave Sony the edge in that generation of consoles.
It's completely unreasonable to assume that a home connection will have the terms "dsl" or "dialup" in the DNS name. It's /is/ completely reasonable to assume that a connection with the term "dsl" or "dialup" is a home connection. and since well over 99% of home connections won't be used as a legitimate SMTP server, any smtp server coming from one of those is likely a zombie.
Sure, but in the context of his post (Nobody owns anything anymore) it doesn't make sense. The rules haven't changed, only how much you can bend/break them. And honestly, with broadband as prevalent as it is, "innocent copying" quickly becomes mass piracy.
And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.
/one/ machine is a copy, nitpickers).
I'm not sure this was ever the case with consumer-level operating systems. Remember that copyright law exists regardless of EULAs. I don't think MS-DOS had a license explicitly allowing you to copy the program, thus only one copy would be permitted. Installing it on multiple machines would imply multiple copies (yes yes, installing it on
I don't know how other operating systems licences worked. It would be interesting to read through them and compare them to modern-day licenses...can anyone find a copy of some MS-DOS licenses as well as other OSs, like OS/2?
Although I guess the "want it on CDs" bit may have caused confusion.
I just meant, you can't get the retail package for free, which includes getting pre-burned CDs, manuals, etc.
Nifty link, thanks!
Yeeesss.......go back and actually READ my post and see if your reply isn't redudnant ;)
Guess it depends on definitions. Fedora isn't a retail desktop Linux distribution, is it? Fedora's counterpart, is an enterprise solution, and thus doesn't fit the "desktop" modifier.
In fact, offhand, the only other retail, desktop Linux distribution I can think of is SuSE, which is downloadable for free, but costs money if you want it on CDs. The full retail package of SuSE is around $90, but again, you're getting more than just a download.
I have seen Debian CDs for sale in retail stores, and they were less than $50 I believe, however I haven't seen this in awhile.
Truthfully, I'd like to know about all these other retail desktop LInux distributions....
Actually, nearly every Xbox revision has included changes to make it harder to mod the machine. With nearly every revision, old mods stopped working and new ones had to be developed. Only softmods were generally exempt from this trend, but even those holes were closed in rereleases of the games they relied on.
Most product keys from OEMs are actually on the computer itself, often on the side, back, or bottom.
Luckily, Microsoft realized that people would have this sort of problem and frankly, doesn't even require much input from you. Once you download the WGA update, it just checks your system and moves on. The only input you have to give are the mouse-clicks to move through the 2-3 screens.
But it's nice to just immediately assume that Microsoft is going to screw you.
I guess your mentioning the Windows Update marketing threw me off. My apologies.