However, I see a potential gotcha for those who will inevitably use this to distribute mp3s and the like: You (the channel owner) are much more overt as a *broadcaster* of content you don't own the copyright to, rather than merely someone who makes a file available. Rather than both the uploader AND downloader choosing to share a file, the downloader is (to an extent) not picking specific content to obtain.
To some degree, it's an irrelevant distinction, probably even in a *purely* legal context. But being able to (accurately) use a term like "broadcaster" rather than "trader" of copyrighted content is the kind of statement that can have a powerful effect.
And, of course, the channel owners are more direct targets of legal action than the downloaders in this scenario (since the downloader may not obtain the file from the "original" broadcaster -- the owner, correct?); Kazaa and the like expose both the uploader and the downloader more or less equally.
Not sure how much difference that will make in the grand scheme of things, really. But at the least, I'd say that makes this system a somewhat more visible target for the R.abid I.nfernal lawyers A.ssociation of A.merica...
...is "garbage in, garbage out" right? One of the mottos anyway.
If you underestimate the resources you need to do software right, of course you'll have problems -- either getting it done on time, or getting the quality to the level it needs to be (or both).
That problem is hardly unique to the space programs. And of course, it would be a little tricky trying to upload a software patch to a hunk of solar-powered metal a few million miles away.
I wonder how much NASA et al. really tap the resources they should be tapping -- I mean, there ARE areas of industry where mission-critical or life-critical software has been developed and deployed for some time now. Maybe it's just a question of getting the right kind of experience in-house...
Xentax
Re:I'm not convinced about software patents.
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Oh, don't get me wrong -- if it were up to me, there would be *no such thing* as method patents -- the few exceptions aren't enough to justify the rule, not the way the system is getting abused these days, at least. Innovative or not, patenting a method (especially a software method) spits in the face of the body of work and knowledge that made it possible in the first place.
The problem with patenting the result of a method is that it may not be patentable -- especially if your method is just an improvement in degree rather than kind, or heck, just the same thing for substantially less cost (like figuring out a way to make tempered steel 10 times as fast or for a tenth of the cost compared to existing processes).
IMHO, if you have something that good, that you want to be the only player at, trade secrets are the way to go, since patenting *requires* disclosure which will only invite the very competition you're trying to avoid. The legal recourse a patent entitles you is often too little, too late, as Eli Whitney could easily attest (if he were only alive). A spilled trade secret has the same problem, but that *seems* to be more containable. I mean, Coke doesn't have patents on their various flavors or McD's on their "special sauce", right?
After all, if your "method" is that innovative and non-obvious, you shouldn't have to worry about someone else coming up with the idea independently, right? Unless you invented the movable printing press, maybe...
As I said before, the sad fact is that there is no easy "right" answer.
Xentax
Re:I'm not convinced about software patents.
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
It's well-understood that *some* methods -- which, as you suggested, are simply algorithms, a series of instructions -- *are* innovative, new, and non-obvious, and are thus patentable.
Personally, I tend to agree with you, to the extent that MANY MANY applied and even awarded method patents do not pass those tests the degree I would deem necessary.
But some do. Software patents are obviously already tougher for the reasons I outlined; but some truly nifty ones (like Dijkstra's algorithm, or Chichelli's perfect hashing method) are.
NON-software method patents, like the ones for various chemical or manufacturing processes, are somewhat easier to recognize as innovative.
It's that innovative component of the test that's so hard -- so subjective and problem-specific.
That's also the reason the USPTO has such problems with it -- they simply lack the expertise necessary to properly evaluate the innovative-ness of many modern patent applications. Unfortunately, it's not an easy problem to solve -- though I think throwing some budget to hire field-specific experts to be part of the review process would go a long way.
I should be able to patent the methods I used to achieve that, as well.
IF (and ONLY if) you (and for this discussion, "you" is any developer, not avalys in particular) actually innovated to do so. Changing from one well-known algorithm or data structure to another well-known one with better average or worst-case performance IS NOT INNOVATION. It's what you (hopefully) learned to do in school.
Yes, if you really, TRULY, come up with some new algorithm that no-one thought of before, yes, you should be *allowed* to patent it.
But there are two very good reasons why you should think long and hard before you do:
1) Chances are, you *didn't* invent it -- you probably just independently arrived at a solution that HAS been done before. So, there's a considerable risk that it's *already* been patented somewhere else (e.g. IBM or Microsoft), or that there's prior art that's clearly NOT patent-encumbered.
2) More importantly to software engineering as a field of practice, a great many true innovators make it a point NOT to protect their innovation, but instead to share it with their collegues, with students, with anyone who's interested.
Yes, that may be bad for business for the short term, but as a field that's still very research oriented, it's better for everyone in the long term.
Imagine where we'd be today if Dijkstra (holy crap, I spelled that right on the first try?) had patented his shortest-path algorithm? If various process-scheduling algorithms were patented, instead of published in textbooks?
If you only care about the here and now and your back pocket, sure, patent a method -- if you can truly convince yourself that you've innovated, and were the FIRST to do so.
But if you're interested in furthering the field, or if you know full well that what you did is neat but not truly new, *innovative*, and *non-obvious* (even after the fact), consider sharing, and letting others build on your work, instead.
As for the friends, with the advent of internet bsed multiplayer games friends are not require, but it is more fun if you are playing someone you know.
That's putting it mildly, IMHO.
I've played MUDs and most of the MMOG's out there, and more or less burned out on them.
But, having said that, I think the biggest deterrent to that is having either a regular group of "real" (as in real-life) people to play with (and/or against), or a *very* regular group of people you know online (or, obviously, a mix).
I just couldn't stand the leveling grind again these days, not playing with essentially strangers, at least. But I probably *could* still enjoy it with the right group of people. Right means regular, reasonably skilled, and reasonably entertaining in ways that have very little to do with the game itself. It still seems (to me) that purely-online contacts can only carry that out but so far...
What isn't clear to me is whether or not he's selling the recovered physical patterns themselves, or allowing people to pay and download a file that lets them re-create the same patterns.
IMHO, the first is perfectly legal, given one assumption -- I'm assuming he's legally allowed to do the "dumpster diving" which AFAIK *is* legal. That the stores simply tossed out rather than destroying the patterns is THEIR problem -- they're basically giving them to anyone who wants them at that point.
If he's NOT allowed to recover their trash, than he's stealing the materials, which obviously makes it illegal for him to possess, let alone sell, them.
What I originally thought is that he was scanning in or otherwise digitizing the patterns he finds, and selling THOSE online. This *would* be a copyright violation -- he's copying and selling the original work without permission to do so.
The doctrine of first sale protects the first case, as others have pointed out.
Barring the potential issue of whether the dumpster-recovery is legal, it sounds like McCall has a pretty good case for his actions being legal.
If that's true, it sounds like the *real* issue is whether or not IBM needed, or at least relied upon, their licensing agreement with SCO in order to obtain/share whatever code SCO claims ended up in Linux.
First, I'm still skeptical of the notion that IBM management would drop the ball enough to let code -- even a whole program!?! -- get copied if there was ANY question as to the "openness" of said code.
But even if that were the case, I think IBM should see if this code -- they'll be able to demand the proof soon via discovery, right? -- is available elsewhere, specifically from Novell, under an Open license.
Of course, finding it freely available "after the fact" is a somewhat thorny position for IBM in particular, but it DOES absolve Linux users, developers, and distributors of any worries that SCO would be after them next -- any offending sections that exist need only be examine to make sure they're in compliance with whatever license(s) Novell provides the code under.
Well, I don't think they're required to save the resume in its submitted format -- especially considering many are received electronically.
It would still be worth it though, just to see a new posting for the "lucky" person whose job it will be to copy/scan/decode lead-plate/clay tablet/written-in-Mayan resumes...
Yeah -- more specifically, "everyone" is misleading as well, isn't it?
I thought you were only on the hook to provide source to whoever you distributed binaries to -- not *everyone* (unless, of course, you are giving away the binaries).
So, if I write XYZ including GPL'd source, I have to make source available to anyone I make binaries available to. So, if that's a single customer contract, they get the source when I deliver on the contract, along with the binaries, docs, etc. If that's anyone willing to pay a sticker price, they get the source when they buy the box (binaries, docs, etc.). But I *don't* need to post the source on a website or anything unless I post the binaries on a website, right??
This may sound like a flammable comment, but can anyone think of a *method* patent that you would deem actually worthy its patentability? Every modern method patent seems to be something that just doesn't pass the "innovative" component of the patent test (The "work" must be new, non-obvious, and innovative to be worthy of a patent, IIRC, though of course "innovative" in particular is a woefully vague term).
Conversely, a great many of these popularly "bad patents" -- e.g. one-click shopping, online auctioning/reverse auctioning, hyperlinking, and now multiple-simultaneous-DNS-lookups -- are process/method patents.
Maybe we should just scrap 'method' patents? How much of the problem would that solve? What sorts of innovation would a lack of method patents fail to protect? This is certainly (IMHO) a shining example of NON-innovation that has been awarded patent protection.
Xentax
Re:Einstein would be impressed.
on
DVRs for Cop Cars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um, it sounds like the *central* tape will start from 3-5 minutes before the cop "actually" turns recording on -- just so they make sure they get a bit more than just what the cop feels like needs to be seen.
I don't really think this is a keep-the-cop-honest feature, because there are much better ways to go about it than that. I think it's just to help establish the context in which the cop used the recorder.
True, if everyone was filtering their email to where noone ever saw any spam, the problem would die off from lack of demand.
But, IMHO, that's a pipe dream. There will always be a fair number of people who will receive spam against their will (with the current system), and there will always be a small (and idiotic) subset of those people who will fall for the scams and thus keep spamming alive as a business practice.
The kind of solution Tripoli proposes would keep spam from being delivered in the first place, and make it easier to discourage ISPs from tolerating spamming customers for short-term financial gain. Both of these will (IMHO, naturally) go a lot farther in containing or even eliminating the "spam problem".
I dunno -- when I read the paper, one big group of candidates that came to mind as potential PCAs are those very same end-user ISPs.
That is, when you sign up for dialup, or broadband, or whatever services your ISP provides, you'd get access to their mail server, *including* Pits certified by that ISP for any messages you send via their mailservers (given that you authenticate with them, something POP3 and IMAP already support, right?). It certainly keeps a fair amount of control and influence in the hands of that ISP, but it doesn't *preclude* alternatives, and it WOULD make it easier for those ISPs to follow good/friendly practices.
That way, any other ISP/mail provider who is willing to receive emails from *YOUR* ISP would deliver your mail. Should your ISP get a reputation for harboring spammers or other miscreants, any given mail provider can choose to simply reject your ISP as a valid certifier (or subscribe to a RBL-equivalent watchdogging the various PCAs, perhaps).
Obviously an ISP as your (or one of) your PCAs wouldn't be for everyone. Obviously there'd be a bit of a setup challenge, as far as getting various ISPs and other mail providers to recognize each other as valid PCAs. But those aren't insurmountable problems.
In fact, it sounds a lot like the SSL certification system (probably no coincidence). Hierarchical PCAs would certainly be one way to organize the solution...
Not as cool as they could be; at least not yet. They don't have their own art for combat units, for example.
But they DO have their own habitability preferences (which is the main reason they're so strategically valuable), and one of the Magnate Races is THE best ground combat race in the game; others can at best tie them.
There are no bugs in this area that I'm aware of; however, some things are still built whether the AI is on or not.
This set of things is the ones that there's reason NOT to build -- the "routine" sort of DEA improvements. So, if you put 3 Research DEAs on a planet, and some funding into planetary improvements, it'll put the Advanced Research labs or whatever else is available to improve the DEA's capacity and/or efficiency. But it will NOT place any DEAs on the planet for you if it's turned off.
Obviously, if there IS a bug (or even if people just don't like the way it's working), hit the forum (linked from in the article) and let QSI know about it.
I think the game delivers most of what was promised, though clearly not all.
Namely, it's a game that's VERY deep, yet still fun. Obviously, it's not quite as deep as some had hoped. For example, you can't fight battles at starlane junctions, only at planets or otherwise in-system. Targets and missions for espionage aren't nearly as dynamic and intricate as I'd hoped (or as was originally designed).
But what's there is still going to be worth it to most people. Combat is FAR more interesting than it was in MOO or MOO2; as I said elsewhere, MOO3 space combat allows for maneuver -- not just firepower -- to make a significant difference in the outcome of a battle. Ground combat is much more interesting than previous incarnations (though I realize it could go even farther, yet some people would just as soon not have ground combat at all). The research side of the game is huge, though some will find it more "noisy" than interesting, I suspect, as the player can't take as direct a hand in research planning as some would like.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the game lives up to what was *planned* a year or more ago, in some ways. But, what IS there is still a worthy game for most fans of the series and the genre.
You can choose to min-max food/mineral/production/research values for each and every colony, *if you want to*, by turning off planetary AI at every colony.
Personally, this was the kind of stuff I *hated* having to do in MOO2, especially the late game, so I'm glad that AI control is there, and (IMHO at least) it does a pretty good job of doing it for you. With even limited macromanagement of development plans for your empire, you get AI-run development that puts lots of mining on mineral rich worlds, lots of farming on biologically-diverse and fertile worlds, and lots of industry on large planets, etc.
Hmm. I was a beta tester too, and I feel no need to remain anonymous. Are you afraid of NDA-related trouble, or are you pretending to be something you're not?
I think the game is great. By no means perfect, and the learning curve is one of the steepest I've encountered in a "game", but it *definitely* grows on you. As I recall, it was little different for MOO2, just to a lesser degree.
In general folks, don't take a reviewer's word for it, unless they're VERY specific on what's not to like, and if that applies to you or not. I mean, the graphics will probably get slammed, but eye-candy isn't a must-have for everyone. Also, too many people will sell this game short because they haven't put enough time into it -- the first stages of the game aren't very compelling, and your first game or two might feel more like work than fun as you're learning the ropes.
I'll say this -- if you want something *simple*, this is not the place to look. You don't really have to micromanage in the MOO2 sense of the term, but there's a lot going on there, maybe more than some people will want to deal with.
Otherwise, it's a great game. The battles in the later stages of a game are amazing and fun; real-time combat means you FINALLY have a space strategy game where maneuver is a non-trivial factor in the outcome. Also, combined arms are there and fairly balanced -- you can't win with JUST fighter or missiles or beam weapons, you probably need all 3 against a savvy opponent.
I haven't checked since Spring 2000, but Win95, Win98, and WinNT4 were all "trivial" as well, at the time.
And yeah, I've used the BEFSR41 for two+ years now, and it's been rock solid for me, as well. There is (or at least was) one problem where you could slip traffic into the inside network even though the firewall should have rejected it, but I'm pretty sure that's been fixed by now. Besides, you'd have to know the IP assigned to the interior machine to actually get traffic to it using this technique (which is why mine's not setup to use the default DHCP scheme).
Take a look at one of my other messages -- my answer here is pretty much the same thing.
I agree that this may just be a marketing/sales ploy; but (as my other message asks), could it be that today's bleeding-edge supercomputers have capabilities that desktop pc's (or clusters of desktop PC's) lack?
Supercomputers and Desktop CPU's are bred for very different purposes, which is part of what clustering/distributed computing software fixes when such techniques are used to "sub in" for a "real" supercomputer...
Slashdot Mirror
This looks nifty.
However, I see a potential gotcha for those who will inevitably use this to distribute mp3s and the like: You (the channel owner) are much more overt as a *broadcaster* of content you don't own the copyright to, rather than merely someone who makes a file available. Rather than both the uploader AND downloader choosing to share a file, the downloader is (to an extent) not picking specific content to obtain.
To some degree, it's an irrelevant distinction, probably even in a *purely* legal context. But being able to (accurately) use a term like "broadcaster" rather than "trader" of copyrighted content is the kind of statement that can have a powerful effect.
And, of course, the channel owners are more direct targets of legal action than the downloaders in this scenario (since the downloader may not obtain the file from the "original" broadcaster -- the owner, correct?); Kazaa and the like expose both the uploader and the downloader more or less equally.
Not sure how much difference that will make in the grand scheme of things, really. But at the least, I'd say that makes this system a somewhat more visible target for the R.abid I.nfernal lawyers A.ssociation of A.merica...
Xentax
Bingo.
I would bet money that the other software groups at NASA are *not* SEI CMMI level 5.
Xentax
...is "garbage in, garbage out" right? One of the mottos anyway.
If you underestimate the resources you need to do software right, of course you'll have problems -- either getting it done on time, or getting the quality to the level it needs to be (or both).
That problem is hardly unique to the space programs. And of course, it would be a little tricky trying to upload a software patch to a hunk of solar-powered metal a few million miles away.
I wonder how much NASA et al. really tap the resources they should be tapping -- I mean, there ARE areas of industry where mission-critical or life-critical software has been developed and deployed for some time now. Maybe it's just a question of getting the right kind of experience in-house...
Xentax
Oh, don't get me wrong -- if it were up to me, there would be *no such thing* as method patents -- the few exceptions aren't enough to justify the rule, not the way the system is getting abused these days, at least. Innovative or not, patenting a method (especially a software method) spits in the face of the body of work and knowledge that made it possible in the first place.
The problem with patenting the result of a method is that it may not be patentable -- especially if your method is just an improvement in degree rather than kind, or heck, just the same thing for substantially less cost (like figuring out a way to make tempered steel 10 times as fast or for a tenth of the cost compared to existing processes).
IMHO, if you have something that good, that you want to be the only player at, trade secrets are the way to go, since patenting *requires* disclosure which will only invite the very competition you're trying to avoid. The legal recourse a patent entitles you is often too little, too late, as Eli Whitney could easily attest (if he were only alive). A spilled trade secret has the same problem, but that *seems* to be more containable. I mean, Coke doesn't have patents on their various flavors or McD's on their "special sauce", right?
After all, if your "method" is that innovative and non-obvious, you shouldn't have to worry about someone else coming up with the idea independently, right? Unless you invented the movable printing press, maybe...
As I said before, the sad fact is that there is no easy "right" answer.
Xentax
It's well-understood that *some* methods -- which, as you suggested, are simply algorithms, a series of instructions -- *are* innovative, new, and non-obvious, and are thus patentable.
Personally, I tend to agree with you, to the extent that MANY MANY applied and even awarded method patents do not pass those tests the degree I would deem necessary.
But some do. Software patents are obviously already tougher for the reasons I outlined; but some truly nifty ones (like Dijkstra's algorithm, or Chichelli's perfect hashing method) are.
NON-software method patents, like the ones for various chemical or manufacturing processes, are somewhat easier to recognize as innovative.
It's that innovative component of the test that's so hard -- so subjective and problem-specific.
That's also the reason the USPTO has such problems with it -- they simply lack the expertise necessary to properly evaluate the innovative-ness of many modern patent applications. Unfortunately, it's not an easy problem to solve -- though I think throwing some budget to hire field-specific experts to be part of the review process would go a long way.
Xentax
I should be able to patent the methods I used to achieve that, as well.
IF (and ONLY if) you (and for this discussion, "you" is any developer, not avalys in particular) actually innovated to do so. Changing from one well-known algorithm or data structure to another well-known one with better average or worst-case performance IS NOT INNOVATION. It's what you (hopefully) learned to do in school.
Yes, if you really, TRULY, come up with some new algorithm that no-one thought of before, yes, you should be *allowed* to patent it.
But there are two very good reasons why you should think long and hard before you do:
1) Chances are, you *didn't* invent it -- you probably just independently arrived at a solution that HAS been done before. So, there's a considerable risk that it's *already* been patented somewhere else (e.g. IBM or Microsoft), or that there's prior art that's clearly NOT patent-encumbered.
2) More importantly to software engineering as a field of practice, a great many true innovators make it a point NOT to protect their innovation, but instead to share it with their collegues, with students, with anyone who's interested.
Yes, that may be bad for business for the short term, but as a field that's still very research oriented, it's better for everyone in the long term.
Imagine where we'd be today if Dijkstra (holy crap, I spelled that right on the first try?) had patented his shortest-path algorithm? If various process-scheduling algorithms were patented, instead of published in textbooks?
If you only care about the here and now and your back pocket, sure, patent a method -- if you can truly convince yourself that you've innovated, and were the FIRST to do so.
But if you're interested in furthering the field, or if you know full well that what you did is neat but not truly new, *innovative*, and *non-obvious* (even after the fact), consider sharing, and letting others build on your work, instead.
Xentax
As for the friends, with the advent of internet bsed multiplayer games friends are not require, but it is more fun if you are playing someone you know.
That's putting it mildly, IMHO.
I've played MUDs and most of the MMOG's out there, and more or less burned out on them.
But, having said that, I think the biggest deterrent to that is having either a regular group of "real" (as in real-life) people to play with (and/or against), or a *very* regular group of people you know online (or, obviously, a mix).
I just couldn't stand the leveling grind again these days, not playing with essentially strangers, at least. But I probably *could* still enjoy it with the right group of people. Right means regular, reasonably skilled, and reasonably entertaining in ways that have very little to do with the game itself. It still seems (to me) that purely-online contacts can only carry that out but so far...
Xentax
Ok, I should clarify.
What isn't clear to me is whether or not he's selling the recovered physical patterns themselves, or allowing people to pay and download a file that lets them re-create the same patterns.
IMHO, the first is perfectly legal, given one assumption -- I'm assuming he's legally allowed to do the "dumpster diving" which AFAIK *is* legal. That the stores simply tossed out rather than destroying the patterns is THEIR problem -- they're basically giving them to anyone who wants them at that point.
If he's NOT allowed to recover their trash, than he's stealing the materials, which obviously makes it illegal for him to possess, let alone sell, them.
What I originally thought is that he was scanning in or otherwise digitizing the patterns he finds, and selling THOSE online. This *would* be a copyright violation -- he's copying and selling the original work without permission to do so.
The doctrine of first sale protects the first case, as others have pointed out.
Barring the potential issue of whether the dumpster-recovery is legal, it sounds like McCall has a pretty good case for his actions being legal.
Xentax
I think the point is that he's selling copyrighted material (the patterns) without the copyright holder's permission...
Xentax
If that's true, it sounds like the *real* issue is whether or not IBM needed, or at least relied upon, their licensing agreement with SCO in order to obtain/share whatever code SCO claims ended up in Linux.
First, I'm still skeptical of the notion that IBM management would drop the ball enough to let code -- even a whole program!?! -- get copied if there was ANY question as to the "openness" of said code.
But even if that were the case, I think IBM should see if this code -- they'll be able to demand the proof soon via discovery, right? -- is available elsewhere, specifically from Novell, under an Open license.
Of course, finding it freely available "after the fact" is a somewhat thorny position for IBM in particular, but it DOES absolve Linux users, developers, and distributors of any worries that SCO would be after them next -- any offending sections that exist need only be examine to make sure they're in compliance with whatever license(s) Novell provides the code under.
Xentax
Well, I don't think they're required to save the resume in its submitted format -- especially considering many are received electronically.
It would still be worth it though, just to see a new posting for the "lucky" person whose job it will be to copy/scan/decode lead-plate/clay tablet/written-in-Mayan resumes...
Xentax
Yeah -- more specifically, "everyone" is misleading as well, isn't it?
I thought you were only on the hook to provide source to whoever you distributed binaries to -- not *everyone* (unless, of course, you are giving away the binaries).
So, if I write XYZ including GPL'd source, I have to make source available to anyone I make binaries available to. So, if that's a single customer contract, they get the source when I deliver on the contract, along with the binaries, docs, etc. If that's anyone willing to pay a sticker price, they get the source when they buy the box (binaries, docs, etc.). But I *don't* need to post the source on a website or anything unless I post the binaries on a website, right??
Xentax
This may sound like a flammable comment, but can anyone think of a *method* patent that you would deem actually worthy its patentability? Every modern method patent seems to be something that just doesn't pass the "innovative" component of the patent test (The "work" must be new, non-obvious, and innovative to be worthy of a patent, IIRC, though of course "innovative" in particular is a woefully vague term).
Conversely, a great many of these popularly "bad patents" -- e.g. one-click shopping, online auctioning/reverse auctioning, hyperlinking, and now multiple-simultaneous-DNS-lookups -- are process/method patents.
Maybe we should just scrap 'method' patents? How much of the problem would that solve? What sorts of innovation would a lack of method patents fail to protect? This is certainly (IMHO) a shining example of NON-innovation that has been awarded patent protection.
Xentax
Um, it sounds like the *central* tape will start from 3-5 minutes before the cop "actually" turns recording on -- just so they make sure they get a bit more than just what the cop feels like needs to be seen.
I don't really think this is a keep-the-cop-honest feature, because there are much better ways to go about it than that. I think it's just to help establish the context in which the cop used the recorder.
Xentax
True, if everyone was filtering their email to where noone ever saw any spam, the problem would die off from lack of demand.
But, IMHO, that's a pipe dream. There will always be a fair number of people who will receive spam against their will (with the current system), and there will always be a small (and idiotic) subset of those people who will fall for the scams and thus keep spamming alive as a business practice.
The kind of solution Tripoli proposes would keep spam from being delivered in the first place, and make it easier to discourage ISPs from tolerating spamming customers for short-term financial gain. Both of these will (IMHO, naturally) go a lot farther in containing or even eliminating the "spam problem".
Xentax
I dunno -- when I read the paper, one big group of candidates that came to mind as potential PCAs are those very same end-user ISPs.
That is, when you sign up for dialup, or broadband, or whatever services your ISP provides, you'd get access to their mail server, *including* Pits certified by that ISP for any messages you send via their mailservers (given that you authenticate with them, something POP3 and IMAP already support, right?). It certainly keeps a fair amount of control and influence in the hands of that ISP, but it doesn't *preclude* alternatives, and it WOULD make it easier for those ISPs to follow good/friendly practices.
That way, any other ISP/mail provider who is willing to receive emails from *YOUR* ISP would deliver your mail. Should your ISP get a reputation for harboring spammers or other miscreants, any given mail provider can choose to simply reject your ISP as a valid certifier (or subscribe to a RBL-equivalent watchdogging the various PCAs, perhaps).
Obviously an ISP as your (or one of) your PCAs wouldn't be for everyone. Obviously there'd be a bit of a setup challenge, as far as getting various ISPs and other mail providers to recognize each other as valid PCAs. But those aren't insurmountable problems.
In fact, it sounds a lot like the SSL certification system (probably no coincidence). Hierarchical PCAs would certainly be one way to organize the solution...
Xentax
Magnate Civs are *very* cool.
Not as cool as they could be; at least not yet. They don't have their own art for combat units, for example.
But they DO have their own habitability preferences (which is the main reason they're so strategically valuable), and one of the Magnate Races is THE best ground combat race in the game; others can at best tie them.
Xentax
There are no bugs in this area that I'm aware of; however, some things are still built whether the AI is on or not.
This set of things is the ones that there's reason NOT to build -- the "routine" sort of DEA improvements. So, if you put 3 Research DEAs on a planet, and some funding into planetary improvements, it'll put the Advanced Research labs or whatever else is available to improve the DEA's capacity and/or efficiency. But it will NOT place any DEAs on the planet for you if it's turned off.
Obviously, if there IS a bug (or even if people just don't like the way it's working), hit the forum (linked from in the article) and let QSI know about it.
Xentax
I think the game delivers most of what was promised, though clearly not all.
Namely, it's a game that's VERY deep, yet still fun. Obviously, it's not quite as deep as some had hoped. For example, you can't fight battles at starlane junctions, only at planets or otherwise in-system. Targets and missions for espionage aren't nearly as dynamic and intricate as I'd hoped (or as was originally designed).
But what's there is still going to be worth it to most people. Combat is FAR more interesting than it was in MOO or MOO2; as I said elsewhere, MOO3 space combat allows for maneuver -- not just firepower -- to make a significant difference in the outcome of a battle. Ground combat is much more interesting than previous incarnations (though I realize it could go even farther, yet some people would just as soon not have ground combat at all). The research side of the game is huge, though some will find it more "noisy" than interesting, I suspect, as the player can't take as direct a hand in research planning as some would like.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the game lives up to what was *planned* a year or more ago, in some ways. But, what IS there is still a worthy game for most fans of the series and the genre.
Xentax
Hey, as long as you're clear about what you don't like and why, that's fine.
I just want people to realize that, to some extent at least, this is a situation where one man's junk is another man's treasure.
Xentax
You can choose to min-max food/mineral/production/research values for each and every colony, *if you want to*, by turning off planetary AI at every colony.
Personally, this was the kind of stuff I *hated* having to do in MOO2, especially the late game, so I'm glad that AI control is there, and (IMHO at least) it does a pretty good job of doing it for you. With even limited macromanagement of development plans for your empire, you get AI-run development that puts lots of mining on mineral rich worlds, lots of farming on biologically-diverse and fertile worlds, and lots of industry on large planets, etc.
Xentax
Hmm. I was a beta tester too, and I feel no need to remain anonymous. Are you afraid of NDA-related trouble, or are you pretending to be something you're not?
I think the game is great. By no means perfect, and the learning curve is one of the steepest I've encountered in a "game", but it *definitely* grows on you. As I recall, it was little different for MOO2, just to a lesser degree.
In general folks, don't take a reviewer's word for it, unless they're VERY specific on what's not to like, and if that applies to you or not. I mean, the graphics will probably get slammed, but eye-candy isn't a must-have for everyone. Also, too many people will sell this game short because they haven't put enough time into it -- the first stages of the game aren't very compelling, and your first game or two might feel more like work than fun as you're learning the ropes.
I'll say this -- if you want something *simple*, this is not the place to look. You don't really have to micromanage in the MOO2 sense of the term, but there's a lot going on there, maybe more than some people will want to deal with.
Otherwise, it's a great game. The battles in the later stages of a game are amazing and fun; real-time combat means you FINALLY have a space strategy game where maneuver is a non-trivial factor in the outcome. Also, combined arms are there and fairly balanced -- you can't win with JUST fighter or missiles or beam weapons, you probably need all 3 against a savvy opponent.
Xentax
MOO3 has *very* modest system requirements, except perhaps on the RAM front.
You definitely DO NOT need hardware graphics acceleration; just DirectX 8.1 (which is on the CD, of course) DirectDraw capability.
Xentax
I haven't checked since Spring 2000, but Win95, Win98, and WinNT4 were all "trivial" as well, at the time.
And yeah, I've used the BEFSR41 for two+ years now, and it's been rock solid for me, as well. There is (or at least was) one problem where you could slip traffic into the inside network even though the firewall should have rejected it, but I'm pretty sure that's been fixed by now. Besides, you'd have to know the IP assigned to the interior machine to actually get traffic to it using this technique (which is why mine's not setup to use the default DHCP scheme).
Xentax
Take a look at one of my other messages -- my answer here is pretty much the same thing.
I agree that this may just be a marketing/sales ploy; but (as my other message asks), could it be that today's bleeding-edge supercomputers have capabilities that desktop pc's (or clusters of desktop PC's) lack?
Supercomputers and Desktop CPU's are bred for very different purposes, which is part of what clustering/distributed computing software fixes when such techniques are used to "sub in" for a "real" supercomputer...
Xentax