And replying to myself, of course... Based on the laws in the last link in the previous post, Florida is in agreement with Texas. "Unauthorized use" is prohibited, implying that the burden is on the user to secure consent before using the network.
"Yes, your honor, I accidentally crafted packets containing his MAC address, using a layer 2 protocol that specified his SSID and network. But it was legal, because it's in the unrestricted spectrum."
I feel certain that you must have mis-spoken (mis-typed) that last sentence. The very case we are responding to is regarding illegal access to an open wifi network. It's clear cut in the law:
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;
That's from Florida. Other states have similar laws, though some states (such as New York) seem to require that notice of unauthorized access be posted, rather than requiring explicit authorization.
The only unknown is whether an SSID broadcast counts as "authorization" and I suspect that it won't be found that way.
As for the doors, fences, signs, and the like, what if you walk into your ISP, walk to one of the computers, plug in your computer and use the Internet. Pretend there are no "no trespassing" notices and that no one sees you. Do you really think that's legal, legitimate network access?
In general, cattle are stupid. In general, people who sit in front of a house with their computer accessing the Internet from an open access point nearby know what they are doing, and they probably know that the person with that access likely doesn't want them using it.
But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.
So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.
Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.
Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.
Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.
Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.
Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.
Texas, for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
New York, however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.
I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."
Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.
There's a difference in that Joe Schmoe doesn't know that he's leaving the cable on the front porch, nor does he know that there's a sign on it saying, "Free Internet."
Interestingly, the guy in the article who got his Internet mooched did know this, but then, most of the analogies and discussion about the article assume people who don't realize it.
Put simply, it's fairly likely that most people with open access points don't realize that anyone can come along and use it, and probably don't want people using them. Even if legality doesn't apply, the Golden Rule ought to.
Sure. The idea certainly is that an endpoint, by virtue of the fact that it's open and requires no authorization and generally is only placed for public access if you want people to see it, has a de facto accessibility agreement. The same is not true for any of the routers that get you to that endpoint. My point is that this might include the wireless router your neighbor operates, regardless of whether they know that you can access it.
Put another way, it might be considered illegal to access a person's wireless router for the purposes of routing traffic. However no court would convict someone of accessing an open website hosted on a wireless router, because there is probably a clear intent to allow people to view that page.
Even this is slowly changing, however. If you look around, you can find some sites that are posting Terms of Use for the site itself, saying that by accessing the site you agree to various terms. Regardless of the legality of this "click-wrap" license, it shows that people are starting to attach strings to site access, which could lead to a more closed nature.
You have an agreement with your ISP that allows you to access their network. They, in turn, have agreements with their upstream providers to allow their customers access, and so forth. You only start getting into "non-authorized" access when you start talking about the end-points. But the traffic-passing request itself seems to be fairly locked down and, in general, considered NOT to be "open".
If you want to test this, tap into your ISP's line and start browsing from it. See how long before they notice you and send in the police. Why should wireless be any different just because you don't have to physically gain access to the line?
On the other hand, there's a concept of broadcasting--namely that anything you can receive from a broadcast is fair game for you to listen to. Does the same apply to sending? Who knows. It all remains to be tested.
Well he/was/ talking about how people might interpret it.
Based solely on copyright rather than physical property laws, I've heard that making the copy is the offense. Owning a copy is not. The question becomes, "Who made the copy? The person who put it up for download, or the person who downloaded it?" I think you could make the argument that both people copied it, if only due to a very strict interpretation of "copy" coupled with the fundamental basics of how computers work. In fact, multiple copies are being made, however only one is actually being distributed.
Say I get a CD. I copy the CD to my computer (copy #1, though probably covered under Fair Use). I move that copy to my shared folder and wait. Random person on the Internet comes along, sees what I have to offer, and requests it. My computer reads the copy from the disk and puts it in memory (copy #2), then copies the file from memory to the network cable (copy #3). Servers all along the Internet copy the file as it traverses through routers and switches, but we'll ignore those. Finally it gets to the downloader's wire. He reads the song from the wire, where it is copied into memory (copy #4), then from memory, it is copied to his hard drive (copy #5). Finally, he listens to the song.
Of course, it's probably unreasonable to consider copies 2-4 when dealing with infringement. The generalized model of networks and computers would effectively show that I copied the file to the network and someone else copied it from the network to their computer. Regardless, it seems reasonable to suggest that both people made a copy.
That's not really my particular belief, however. I think that the person who sets the file up for download should be the infringer due to the photocopier analogy. Effectively, the file hoster is sitting at a copy machine, and every time someone requests a copy, he presses the button and hands them the slip of paper. Of course, a similar analogy could be that he leaves the paper in the machine and lets others come along, press the button, and retrieve the copy. In either case, only one copy was made and only one person would be at fault.
The key, though, is in the fact that non-profit copyright infringement is not, in the US, a criminal crime, but a civil one. As such, all that matters is who the copyright owner decides to prosecute and whether the court believes them over the alleged infringer. It would seem that if they decided to sue both the downloader and the uploader, that the second person they sued could have a slight advantage if the first lawsuit was found in favor of the copyright holder, since it should be easy to use the photocopier analogy to sway a jury.
It seems difficult, possibly even impossible, to create a game where advancement does not depend upon a particular path. Put simply, it's nearly impossible to create a game where you can advance as quickily by soloing as by grouping. In World of Warcraft, you can almost do this for the first 1/3 of your levels. Almost. Eventually it becomes impossible, and you're left with the same problems other MMORPGs have--you either have to be able to devote the same amount of time to the game as your friends, or you have to constantly find new groups. New groups can be fun, but I generally prefer to play with people I know or just solo. Of course, this means soloing, but then if I wanted to solo, why would I play a MMORPG?
The sad reason is that there just aren't that many good RPG-esque games out there. I'd love to play a single-player version of WoW, particularly with an added over-arching quest.
I'm really glad someone brought up this device. I've been toying with the idea of buying one for my next phone (my current phone is a POS, but only started having problems after it was out of warranty.)
It sounds just about perfect for me--specifically the lack of a camera. I'm glad it lives up to the hype--but how do you mean 802.11b scanner? We're not talking kismet here, right, just open access points?
I want to say the last motherboard I bought did not, in fact, have a floppy connector. I'd have to check.
I'm fairly certain that the last two notebooks I bought (2 of the 3 machines I was referring to in my post) did not have floppy connectors inside. I'll have to go read the specs on them to find out.
Occasionally you get a BIOS upgrade utility that you run in Windows to create a boot disk, then you boot from the disk. It may be possible to extract the disk image from the executable, but it certainly wouldn't be a task for the faint of heart.
In fact, a mention is not only made, the mention was in the Slashdot blurb:
This is the release that introduces the split between "maxi" DVD and "mini" CD releases.
The big news is that it's on a DVD, so it's no surprise that little detail is given on the CD version. Likely, it will have most of the same stuff that's been on every other CD release.
Generally there's a -en ISO and a -de ISO. The -de defaults to German while the -en defaults to English. It is possible to get a US language/keyboard from the de version and vice versa, however you have to know where the = key is on the German keyboard (something like shift-2?)
And that is why I (and Stallman before me) said it is a good way to release software under the GPL. If you start with GPLed software, you have two choices: keep it in house & don't release it (which many Universities and funding agencies are O.K. with) or release it under the GPL.
Precisely. A professor making a derivative work under the terms of the submitter's contract would effectively mean that the University owns the derivative work. As it is derivative of a GPL'd program, the University may choose what to do with it, however if they distribute it, it MUST be distributed under the GPL.
The professor writing the code won't be distributing it to the University--he is effectively a representative of the University while he is doing it, and thus should have no legal problems unless he himself tries to distribute the code [under the GPL]. Doing so would seemingly violate his contract, but just making a derivative work should be fine until/unless they tell him not to.
Exactly. I just want the choice. Of course, given that I've already purchased any game I'm likely to want to download (in some cases, multiple times) re-buying yet another time is not going to appeal to me. In fact, the updated graphics might actually sway me on a few games (I'd like to play The Legend of Zelda legitimately with SNES-style graphics, for example).
It's the same with Star Wars. I don't particularly care how Lucas screws up his movies. I just want the option of the originals. If Lucas put out both versions on DVD, he'd make much more money because some people would buy both versions, while others would stick to the versions they prefer. As it is, he just wants to constantly reinvent his creation, and so he loses out on a few sales (die-hards who don't care for the new versions at all as well as those who would buy both versions) but maintains his creative control.
Actually, I'll be watching for that with baited breath. I'm really interested to see how it pans out, and frankly, as long as the originals aren't coming out anyway, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
It depends entirely on the game. Many Windows-native games run without a noticeable performance loss under WINE. Heck, in World of Warcraft (on my machine, at least), I consistently get higher FPS values under WINE using the same graphics settings.
As for buying the Windows version over the Mac version, I'd probably do that regardless, as long as a compatibility layer existed. The reason being, the Windows version will have much more resale value than the Macintel-native version. It will also run on any of my computers, not just my Macintel. If my Macintel breaks, for example, I can just load the software on my Windows notebook and go.
What I think we'll really start seeing with Apple's move is Apple bridging the gap between the three main operating systems of choice these days--Windows, Linux, and OS X. Many, if not most Linux apps already could be compiled on OS X before the x86 switchover. Now we're seeing simpler compatibility layers for WindowsApple. If Codeweavers/Wine/Cedega can really step up the development and get their products working with higher compatibility rates, Apple could easily begin to take over the market. After all, you can buy an Apple, with a good, intuitive UI (like Windows) and the ability to run just about any piece of software on the market, or you can buy a PC which will suffer from hardware driver issues and which will not run everything you throw at it.
This is a case where the owners of the games decide what is cheating and what isn't. Probably, everyone could have exploited that bug, but in the MUD, you're probably not doing so much playing against other players as against the system. As such, you've gained an advantage that the system likely can't take advantage of (although the MUD I used to play on actually had a bug where MOBs could become invincible...)
Sounds like the admins on your MUD were intolerant of bug abuse. The problem I have with this is where the line of "bug" meets "unintentional effect", which is where the Slashdot blurb implied that the story was going. For another MUD example, the same MUD I played on with the invincible MOB bug recently had a player wipe. Basically, they wanted to start over as there were some players who simply destroyed the economy with all their money/possessions. They also wanted to make some inherent engine changes, which required that they start over lest some players have a distinct advantage over new players.
Anyway, part of the reason for the wipe was the economy, right? As it turned out, there were numerous places in the game where items could be harvested free, with no fighting or monetary investment required, and very little time required. This meant that players were able to start buying back all the stuff they'd originally purchased and bankrolling money, which meant that the wipe had little effect on the economy. Given a few months of this behavior, we'd be right back where we started.
The administrators didn't seem to take too kindly to this behavior. There were threats of deletion, banning, etc. In the end, the items were simply reduced in sale price, and I don't know of any deletions. Nevertheless, it was absurd to even consider deletion in a case like this, for the very reason this subthread started. It was a part of the game, anyone could do it, and it/certainly/ wasn't breaking a rule or exploiting a bug. People were simply not playing the game the way the creators wanted them to.
Another MUD I was on for a/very/ short time required large amounts of roleplay. It's hard to create a system like this, of course, so the effective restriction was that if you gained levels too fast, you obviously weren't roleplaying enough and thus you were deleted. Again, it's a flaw in the design. If you want people to slow down their levelling, it's easy enough to code that in. There's no reason to force people to play the game in a way that's more restrictive than the game allows.
Slashdot Mirror
And replying to myself, of course...
Based on the laws in the last link in the previous post, Florida is in agreement with Texas. "Unauthorized use" is prohibited, implying that the burden is on the user to secure consent before using the network.
"Yes, your honor, I accidentally crafted packets containing his MAC address, using a layer 2 protocol that specified his SSID and network. But it was legal, because it's in the unrestricted spectrum."
Yeah. They'll buy that.
I feel certain that you must have mis-spoken (mis-typed) that last sentence. The very case we are responding to is regarding illegal access to an open wifi network. It's clear cut in the law:
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;
That's from Florida. Other states have similar laws, though some states (such as New York) seem to require that notice of unauthorized access be posted, rather than requiring explicit authorization.
The only unknown is whether an SSID broadcast counts as "authorization" and I suspect that it won't be found that way.
As for the doors, fences, signs, and the like, what if you walk into your ISP, walk to one of the computers, plug in your computer and use the Internet. Pretend there are no "no trespassing" notices and that no one sees you. Do you really think that's legal, legitimate network access?
In general, cattle are stupid. In general, people who sit in front of a house with their computer accessing the Internet from an open access point nearby know what they are doing, and they probably know that the person with that access likely doesn't want them using it.
But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.
So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.
Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.
Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.
Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.
Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.
Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.
Texas, for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.
New York, however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.
I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."
Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.
There's a difference in that Joe Schmoe doesn't know that he's leaving the cable on the front porch, nor does he know that there's a sign on it saying, "Free Internet."
Interestingly, the guy in the article who got his Internet mooched did know this, but then, most of the analogies and discussion about the article assume people who don't realize it.
Put simply, it's fairly likely that most people with open access points don't realize that anyone can come along and use it, and probably don't want people using them. Even if legality doesn't apply, the Golden Rule ought to.
Sure. The idea certainly is that an endpoint, by virtue of the fact that it's open and requires no authorization and generally is only placed for public access if you want people to see it, has a de facto accessibility agreement. The same is not true for any of the routers that get you to that endpoint. My point is that this might include the wireless router your neighbor operates, regardless of whether they know that you can access it.
Put another way, it might be considered illegal to access a person's wireless router for the purposes of routing traffic. However no court would convict someone of accessing an open website hosted on a wireless router, because there is probably a clear intent to allow people to view that page.
Even this is slowly changing, however. If you look around, you can find some sites that are posting Terms of Use for the site itself, saying that by accessing the site you agree to various terms. Regardless of the legality of this "click-wrap" license, it shows that people are starting to attach strings to site access, which could lead to a more closed nature.
Only partially.
You have an agreement with your ISP that allows you to access their network. They, in turn, have agreements with their upstream providers to allow their customers access, and so forth. You only start getting into "non-authorized" access when you start talking about the end-points. But the traffic-passing request itself seems to be fairly locked down and, in general, considered NOT to be "open".
If you want to test this, tap into your ISP's line and start browsing from it. See how long before they notice you and send in the police. Why should wireless be any different just because you don't have to physically gain access to the line?
On the other hand, there's a concept of broadcasting--namely that anything you can receive from a broadcast is fair game for you to listen to. Does the same apply to sending? Who knows. It all remains to be tested.
Well he /was/ talking about how people might interpret it.
Based solely on copyright rather than physical property laws, I've heard that making the copy is the offense. Owning a copy is not. The question becomes, "Who made the copy? The person who put it up for download, or the person who downloaded it?" I think you could make the argument that both people copied it, if only due to a very strict interpretation of "copy" coupled with the fundamental basics of how computers work. In fact, multiple copies are being made, however only one is actually being distributed.
Say I get a CD. I copy the CD to my computer (copy #1, though probably covered under Fair Use). I move that copy to my shared folder and wait. Random person on the Internet comes along, sees what I have to offer, and requests it. My computer reads the copy from the disk and puts it in memory (copy #2), then copies the file from memory to the network cable (copy #3). Servers all along the Internet copy the file as it traverses through routers and switches, but we'll ignore those. Finally it gets to the downloader's wire. He reads the song from the wire, where it is copied into memory (copy #4), then from memory, it is copied to his hard drive (copy #5). Finally, he listens to the song.
Of course, it's probably unreasonable to consider copies 2-4 when dealing with infringement. The generalized model of networks and computers would effectively show that I copied the file to the network and someone else copied it from the network to their computer. Regardless, it seems reasonable to suggest that both people made a copy.
That's not really my particular belief, however. I think that the person who sets the file up for download should be the infringer due to the photocopier analogy. Effectively, the file hoster is sitting at a copy machine, and every time someone requests a copy, he presses the button and hands them the slip of paper. Of course, a similar analogy could be that he leaves the paper in the machine and lets others come along, press the button, and retrieve the copy. In either case, only one copy was made and only one person would be at fault.
The key, though, is in the fact that non-profit copyright infringement is not, in the US, a criminal crime, but a civil one. As such, all that matters is who the copyright owner decides to prosecute and whether the court believes them over the alleged infringer. It would seem that if they decided to sue both the downloader and the uploader, that the second person they sued could have a slight advantage if the first lawsuit was found in favor of the copyright holder, since it should be easy to use the photocopier analogy to sway a jury.
Of course, any class with a pet is already effectively grouping :)
It seems difficult, possibly even impossible, to create a game where advancement does not depend upon a particular path. Put simply, it's nearly impossible to create a game where you can advance as quickily by soloing as by grouping. In World of Warcraft, you can almost do this for the first 1/3 of your levels. Almost. Eventually it becomes impossible, and you're left with the same problems other MMORPGs have--you either have to be able to devote the same amount of time to the game as your friends, or you have to constantly find new groups. New groups can be fun, but I generally prefer to play with people I know or just solo. Of course, this means soloing, but then if I wanted to solo, why would I play a MMORPG?
The sad reason is that there just aren't that many good RPG-esque games out there. I'd love to play a single-player version of WoW, particularly with an added over-arching quest.
I'm really glad someone brought up this device. I've been toying with the idea of buying one for my next phone (my current phone is a POS, but only started having problems after it was out of warranty.)
It sounds just about perfect for me--specifically the lack of a camera. I'm glad it lives up to the hype--but how do you mean 802.11b scanner? We're not talking kismet here, right, just open access points?
I want to say the last motherboard I bought did not, in fact, have a floppy connector. I'd have to check.
I'm fairly certain that the last two notebooks I bought (2 of the 3 machines I was referring to in my post) did not have floppy connectors inside. I'll have to go read the specs on them to find out.
Occasionally you get a BIOS upgrade utility that you run in Windows to create a boot disk, then you boot from the disk. It may be possible to extract the disk image from the executable, but it certainly wouldn't be a task for the faint of heart.
No computer I've bought in the past 3 years has had a floppy drive. "Everything still supports it." my ass.
In fact, a mention is not only made, the mention was in the Slashdot blurb:
This is the release that introduces the split between "maxi" DVD and "mini" CD releases.
The big news is that it's on a DVD, so it's no surprise that little detail is given on the CD version. Likely, it will have most of the same stuff that's been on every other CD release.
Generally there's a -en ISO and a -de ISO. The -de defaults to German while the -en defaults to English. It is possible to get a US language/keyboard from the de version and vice versa, however you have to know where the = key is on the German keyboard (something like shift-2?)
And that is why I (and Stallman before me) said it is a good way to release software under the GPL. If you start with GPLed software, you have two choices: keep it in house & don't release it (which many Universities and funding agencies are O.K. with) or release it under the GPL.
Precisely. A professor making a derivative work under the terms of the submitter's contract would effectively mean that the University owns the derivative work. As it is derivative of a GPL'd program, the University may choose what to do with it, however if they distribute it, it MUST be distributed under the GPL.
The professor writing the code won't be distributing it to the University--he is effectively a representative of the University while he is doing it, and thus should have no legal problems unless he himself tries to distribute the code [under the GPL]. Doing so would seemingly violate his contract, but just making a derivative work should be fine until/unless they tell him not to.
Exactly. I just want the choice. Of course, given that I've already purchased any game I'm likely to want to download (in some cases, multiple times) re-buying yet another time is not going to appeal to me. In fact, the updated graphics might actually sway me on a few games (I'd like to play The Legend of Zelda legitimately with SNES-style graphics, for example).
It's the same with Star Wars. I don't particularly care how Lucas screws up his movies. I just want the option of the originals. If Lucas put out both versions on DVD, he'd make much more money because some people would buy both versions, while others would stick to the versions they prefer. As it is, he just wants to constantly reinvent his creation, and so he loses out on a few sales (die-hards who don't care for the new versions at all as well as those who would buy both versions) but maintains his creative control.
Bated, even. :)
Actually, I'll be watching for that with baited breath. I'm really interested to see how it pans out, and frankly, as long as the originals aren't coming out anyway, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
I'd like to agree, but those gamepads aren't particularly ergonomic. They hurt my hands long before newer gamepads do (like PS2, etc).
That would be nice. Part of the fun of playing these old games is the nostalgia factor, which is reduced when you update them.
Then again, I'm one of those weirdos that wants Lucas to release the original trilogy without the later additions/changes.
Is it still a Prisoner's Dilemma if he only gets a chance at a prize?
It depends entirely on the game. Many Windows-native games run without a noticeable performance loss under WINE. Heck, in World of Warcraft (on my machine, at least), I consistently get higher FPS values under WINE using the same graphics settings.
As for buying the Windows version over the Mac version, I'd probably do that regardless, as long as a compatibility layer existed. The reason being, the Windows version will have much more resale value than the Macintel-native version. It will also run on any of my computers, not just my Macintel. If my Macintel breaks, for example, I can just load the software on my Windows notebook and go.
What I think we'll really start seeing with Apple's move is Apple bridging the gap between the three main operating systems of choice these days--Windows, Linux, and OS X. Many, if not most Linux apps already could be compiled on OS X before the x86 switchover. Now we're seeing simpler compatibility layers for WindowsApple. If Codeweavers/Wine/Cedega can really step up the development and get their products working with higher compatibility rates, Apple could easily begin to take over the market. After all, you can buy an Apple, with a good, intuitive UI (like Windows) and the ability to run just about any piece of software on the market, or you can buy a PC which will suffer from hardware driver issues and which will not run everything you throw at it.
This is a case where the owners of the games decide what is cheating and what isn't. Probably, everyone could have exploited that bug, but in the MUD, you're probably not doing so much playing against other players as against the system. As such, you've gained an advantage that the system likely can't take advantage of (although the MUD I used to play on actually had a bug where MOBs could become invincible...)
/certainly/ wasn't breaking a rule or exploiting a bug. People were simply not playing the game the way the creators wanted them to.
/very/ short time required large amounts of roleplay. It's hard to create a system like this, of course, so the effective restriction was that if you gained levels too fast, you obviously weren't roleplaying enough and thus you were deleted. Again, it's a flaw in the design. If you want people to slow down their levelling, it's easy enough to code that in. There's no reason to force people to play the game in a way that's more restrictive than the game allows.
Sounds like the admins on your MUD were intolerant of bug abuse. The problem I have with this is where the line of "bug" meets "unintentional effect", which is where the Slashdot blurb implied that the story was going. For another MUD example, the same MUD I played on with the invincible MOB bug recently had a player wipe. Basically, they wanted to start over as there were some players who simply destroyed the economy with all their money/possessions. They also wanted to make some inherent engine changes, which required that they start over lest some players have a distinct advantage over new players.
Anyway, part of the reason for the wipe was the economy, right? As it turned out, there were numerous places in the game where items could be harvested free, with no fighting or monetary investment required, and very little time required. This meant that players were able to start buying back all the stuff they'd originally purchased and bankrolling money, which meant that the wipe had little effect on the economy. Given a few months of this behavior, we'd be right back where we started.
The administrators didn't seem to take too kindly to this behavior. There were threats of deletion, banning, etc. In the end, the items were simply reduced in sale price, and I don't know of any deletions. Nevertheless, it was absurd to even consider deletion in a case like this, for the very reason this subthread started. It was a part of the game, anyone could do it, and it
Another MUD I was on for a