Well, we can hack a game without dedicated servers, if we manage to successfully reverse engineer it. On a possibly not-good-enough example, look at OpenTTD, based on the disassembly of TTD. Sure, figuring out a protocol between server and client isn't the same thing, but there will always be a way to do it -- we just lack the right people.
No, I mean: "You shouldn't buy this game or this service, because it does not give you control of it. You are dependent on the decisions made by the company who made the game/service. Is it fun or useful? Yes it is! However, you'll be funding them so that they can control more and in tougher ways. It's your choice. After all, I don't use their products, YOU do."
Notice that I am not a "fascist pig" stating that they CANNOT.
Did I ever say that? All I said was that they can control it. I never said that they could also control PC games that well. Unfortunately, you decided to commit a fallacy on that one...
On the other hand, I *DO* know that. I *DO* want people to realize it. and I *DO* hope that you only accidentally didn't realize that I never stated that this wouldn't happen if it were a PC. Even without being a PC, it is possible to go around it; even if it ran in a PC with no dedicated servers possible, it'd be hackable.
True, and that's why I explicitly state that "Microsoft can and Microsoft shall, that's the price for being at their hands". Next time, don't be at their hands.
Exactly! The old model was great. We need to make these companies be punished and we must raise awareness! We must aware people about the danger of letting our lives get into other company's hands! What if this continues like this in the future? What if they'll be able to track our every move? What if they RULE THE WORLD? A bit too cataclysmic, but we really need to put them in their place.
We can't sit around and hope that everything will be maintained for ever...
Sometimes it has to go down as deprecated, no matter when, no matter how, no matter why. Microsoft can and Microsoft shall, that's the price for being at their hands. The reward? To get to use their products.
It isn't;) If you read through my posts you'll see that I rarely ever say something based on facts, but merely use somewhat false rhetoric to try and lead people to act. To make them change. Why? Because sometimes facts aren't everything, and sometimes a fix isn't always the right one. Imagine this does lower criminality -- but at what cost? We might get so depressed because of our constant fear of being traced. I'd rather have some criminality than thousands (or millions) of depressed and opressed people. Fascism also solved some issues at the cost of similar things. So did (and does) communism.
You see, if I have logical arguments, "logos", I use them. Otherwise I go with "pathos" and "ethos" and a bit of non-formal "logos" to try and persuade people to understand what I mean.
How far should we go in tightening security? Why don't we just shoot them if they commit crimes right away? Why, you may ask? Because it is ethically incorrect and wrong, even though Death Penalties are around to try and prove it wrong. It is wrong because we can feel it and know it to be wrong. It is wrong because we have no way of predicting the importance of the subject under judgement. It is wrong because we will be contradicting ourselves if commiting murder.
Of course can have some of the privacy-violating laws, but it is still incorrect to let our data wander around other people's hands. And we all know that politicians can get their hands on it, as well as many other people. No human being is perfect and, thus, there will always be someone to make the wrong thing.
Well, you can consider me some kind of philosopher. I understand that our political and democratic way of doing things isn't right. However, I can not propose an unbiased and fully correct alternative. Thus, we need a revolution, just not one whose contents I know.
All you say is true, but more people might be interested in this issue from an abstract point-of-view. See it as a philosophical question: "Is it or not right to do X?"
Of course that, in his case, that's probably overworrying (See, I made a new word!)
Now I'm giving in to that. Of course it isn't good to be invasive, but I didn't have any data to support my thesis.
And, then again, I might just be someone trying to use the power of false rehtoric (known as evil rhetoric here in Portugal) to manipulate people into believing what I say. If my sentences are phrased correctly, they might stay in the subconscious of some people, which will then, unconsciously, pass my message to everyone else. It's nuts, but I may just be trying to change the world. To a better place, may you ask? Define better.
The USA aren't the world. The article may be pointing it to the USA but I'm talking globally here. I live in a small country heading towards its end: Portugal. In spite of all statistics, I can clearly state that criminality is rising here.
We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the world -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.
Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.
As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here?
These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.
Modifying hosts.txt could be one of the biggest issues with this one.
And yet, it's just another flaw much like there are hundreds of others in any browser.
Well, I didn't say he meant that either. I'm talking about the great fuzz around these issues. Everywhere I go there's someone trying to give his/her side of the "conspiracy against Linux", whereas I think that there is no such thing. So what if it can't be merged back? If it can't, it can't -- get something better and don't stay up all night banging the ceiling and complaining (if you get what I mean).
I would like to see people looking at what Google did and say: "Oh well, it's their choice and I can't do anything about it. However, I can help the Linux kernel with something better and more useful than that will ever be."
Unfortunately, few people think like me...am I just nuts?
"Because of this, Google has now prevented a large chunk of hardware drivers and platform code from ever getting merged into the main kernel tree. Effectively creating a kernel branch that a number of different vendors are now relying on."
That's all. It's obvious that Google doesn't care about it that much. And yet nobody demanded them to do so -- if Google wants it its own way, why shouldn't it be able to? I may be a crazy open-source lunatic, but I am tired of all of this "It's a world conspiracy against Linux"-thing. Let's get a grip, talk less and code more.
It's not the fact that it has already been possible that makes this news. Nor is it the fact that it has already been comercialized. It's the fact that not everybody knows about it and, so, it should be publicized.
That's the purpose of all news.
More than that, it's about manipulation of the media. It's about image. It's about making stupid people like some of us believe that this actually is a great leap forward. Even if this ever goes somewhere, it will always have started with this objective and this purpose.
With IE, everybody gets a shot at spying others -- and to think we needed KGB for that before!
"Internet Explorer -- You'll explore your neighbours' world."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we can hack a game without dedicated servers, if we manage to successfully reverse engineer it. On a possibly not-good-enough example, look at OpenTTD, based on the disassembly of TTD. Sure, figuring out a protocol between server and client isn't the same thing, but there will always be a way to do it -- we just lack the right people.
No, I mean: "You shouldn't buy this game or this service, because it does not give you control of it. You are dependent on the decisions made by the company who made the game/service. Is it fun or useful? Yes it is! However, you'll be funding them so that they can control more and in tougher ways. It's your choice. After all, I don't use their products, YOU do."
Notice that I am not a "fascist pig" stating that they CANNOT.
Did I ever say that? All I said was that they can control it. I never said that they could also control PC games that well. Unfortunately, you decided to commit a fallacy on that one...
On the other hand, I *DO* know that. I *DO* want people to realize it. and I *DO* hope that you only accidentally didn't realize that I never stated that this wouldn't happen if it were a PC. Even without being a PC, it is possible to go around it; even if it ran in a PC with no dedicated servers possible, it'd be hackable.
Yes, I'm sure one man can make the difference....
We need to spread the word so that *other* people so buying their games, as well as ourselves.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539026&cid=31038362
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539026&cid=31038302
Boy, do we think alike. We need to change their mentality. The problem is that they don't want it to be changed. Thus, trying to change it is considered, by modern society, to be....fascism.
True, and that's why I explicitly state that "Microsoft can and Microsoft shall, that's the price for being at their hands". Next time, don't be at their hands.
Exactly! The old model was great. We need to make these companies be punished and we must raise awareness! We must aware people about the danger of letting our lives get into other company's hands! What if this continues like this in the future? What if they'll be able to track our every move? What if they RULE THE WORLD? A bit too cataclysmic, but we really need to put them in their place.
We can't sit around and hope that everything will be maintained for ever...
Sometimes it has to go down as deprecated, no matter when, no matter how, no matter why. Microsoft can and Microsoft shall, that's the price for being at their hands. The reward? To get to use their products.
It isn't ;) If you read through my posts you'll see that I rarely ever say something based on facts, but merely use somewhat false rhetoric to try and lead people to act. To make them change. Why? Because sometimes facts aren't everything, and sometimes a fix isn't always the right one. Imagine this does lower criminality -- but at what cost? We might get so depressed because of our constant fear of being traced. I'd rather have some criminality than thousands (or millions) of depressed and opressed people. Fascism also solved some issues at the cost of similar things. So did (and does) communism.
You see, if I have logical arguments, "logos", I use them. Otherwise I go with "pathos" and "ethos" and a bit of non-formal "logos" to try and persuade people to understand what I mean.
How far should we go in tightening security? Why don't we just shoot them if they commit crimes right away? Why, you may ask? Because it is ethically incorrect and wrong, even though Death Penalties are around to try and prove it wrong. It is wrong because we can feel it and know it to be wrong. It is wrong because we have no way of predicting the importance of the subject under judgement. It is wrong because we will be contradicting ourselves if commiting murder.
Of course can have some of the privacy-violating laws, but it is still incorrect to let our data wander around other people's hands. And we all know that politicians can get their hands on it, as well as many other people. No human being is perfect and, thus, there will always be someone to make the wrong thing.
And,yes, I know I'm nuts.
Well, you can consider me some kind of philosopher. I understand that our political and democratic way of doing things isn't right. However, I can not propose an unbiased and fully correct alternative. Thus, we need a revolution, just not one whose contents I know.
All you say is true, but more people might be interested in this issue from an abstract point-of-view. See it as a philosophical question: "Is it or not right to do X?"
Of course that, in his case, that's probably overworrying (See, I made a new word!)
Now I'm giving in to that. Of course it isn't good to be invasive, but I didn't have any data to support my thesis.
And, then again, I might just be someone trying to use the power of false rehtoric (known as evil rhetoric here in Portugal) to manipulate people into believing what I say. If my sentences are phrased correctly, they might stay in the subconscious of some people, which will then, unconsciously, pass my message to everyone else. It's nuts, but I may just be trying to change the world. To a better place, may you ask? Define better.
The USA aren't the world. The article may be pointing it to the USA but I'm talking globally here. I live in a small country heading towards its end: Portugal. In spite of all statistics, I can clearly state that criminality is rising here.
We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the world -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.
Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.
As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here? These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.
You are correct and I should be shot ;)
Either way, other flaws which allow this are equally dangerous.
Modifying hosts.txt could be one of the biggest issues with this one. And yet, it's just another flaw much like there are hundreds of others in any browser.
It's end of the line. Move on, there's nothing to see. But give it a one-minute silence break to honour what server us for such a long time.
Well, I didn't say he meant that either. I'm talking about the great fuzz around these issues. Everywhere I go there's someone trying to give his/her side of the "conspiracy against Linux", whereas I think that there is no such thing. So what if it can't be merged back? If it can't, it can't -- get something better and don't stay up all night banging the ceiling and complaining (if you get what I mean).
I would like to see people looking at what Google did and say: "Oh well, it's their choice and I can't do anything about it. However, I can help the Linux kernel with something better and more useful than that will ever be."
Unfortunately, few people think like me...am I just nuts?
"Because of this, Google has now prevented a large chunk of hardware drivers and platform code from ever getting merged into the main kernel tree. Effectively creating a kernel branch that a number of different vendors are now relying on."
That's all. It's obvious that Google doesn't care about it that much. And yet nobody demanded them to do so -- if Google wants it its own way, why shouldn't it be able to?
I may be a crazy open-source lunatic, but I am tired of all of this "It's a world conspiracy against Linux"-thing. Let's get a grip, talk less and code more.
It's not the fact that it has already been possible that makes this news. Nor is it the fact that it has already been comercialized. It's the fact that not everybody knows about it and, so, it should be publicized.
That's the purpose of all news.
More than that, it's about manipulation of the media. It's about image. It's about making stupid people like some of us believe that this actually is a great leap forward. Even if this ever goes somewhere, it will always have started with this objective and this purpose.
Tops everything else!
With IE, everybody gets a shot at spying others -- and to think we needed KGB for that before!
"Internet Explorer -- You'll explore your neighbours' world."
The new IPad is here to help us clean our asses, not to help us shove pieces up into others'.