Did we really need to wait for Mirror's Edge to find out that 3D platforming can work? I figure Mario 64 and Tomb Raider established that pretty well in 1996.
When you buy the game you are buying a license to the game software.
No, I'm not. I'm buying a physical object. Take the last game I bought, Final Fantasy XII; at no point in the transaction was I asked to agree to any kind of license, nor was any kind of license mentioned. I've just gone and looked at the box and manual, and it doesn't contain the text of any license, nor a reference to any such license.
The idea that our use of copyright works depends on some "license" from the copyright owner is a pernicious myth.
Because you didn't buy the game, you bought the rights to play the game.
That's not really true. A game cartridge or DVD is a physical object you can purchase, just like a car. When you buy a physical object you can do anything you like with it, except where specifically limited by law; in the case of a computer game, of course, copyright law specifies certain limitations. But these are specific and limited; the IP owner doesn't just get to set any conditions they like on your use of the object you own. Your right to play the game is not something you have to buy - if you own the physical stuff required to play the game, you have a right to play it.
Artistic production of all manner happened long before the imaginary property regime was instituted, and will continue long after it has crumbled.
Though I'm sure it's true that artistic production will continue after the end of intellectual property, I do think it's worth thinking about how the conditions of artistic production, and so the kinds of art that gets produced, might change.
Before intellectual property was introduced, a lot of art was either folk art (in which the producers and consumers of the art were more-or-less the same people), or supported by the patronage of wealthy individuals or institutions (and so not necessarily accessible to the majority of people or particularly responsive to their tastes). The kind of mass art, that is, widely distributed commercially produced media, that we're used to from the twentieth century is pretty closely tied to intellectual property, and post-IP art is likely to be different. It may also be possible that actions we take now, as the IP system collapses, will determine whether future artistic production is better or worse than the system we've had in the recent past.
I've often heard people praise Torment's story, but I'm not convinced. Or, rather, it may have an interesting story, but it's not a good example of game storytelling, because there's little match between the story and the game mechanics. Instead, what happens is you get assigned a standard RPG fetch quest, get given a chunk of story, do another fetch quest, get more story, etc.
Openoffice has, and has had for quite a while, a fairly extensive scripting capability. I haven't used it extensively, but from what I know, it isn't significantly less powerful than VBA.
Of course, that doesn't really help those who have already developed a signficant amount of code for VBA, and don't want to have to rewrite it.
NSPluginWrapper does just this. The main use, I think, is for using 32-bit plugins with a 64-bit browser, but you can also use it to isolate plugins in separate processes (which, given how unstable flash is on linux, is damn useful).
Yes, that e-mail I got telling me that swine flu must be genetically engineered because it combines DNA from pigs and humans; that was really well considered and fact-checked.
the community should look at bringing the cross *nix GUI standard of X-Windows into the 21st century
What does that mean? What 21st century features is X lacking, and what do they have to do with standard sets of controls and application frameworks? And how does it make sense in relation to:
makes it a real chore to port things like Monodevelop to UNIX platforms like OS X Leopard since it relies on GTK so much.
GTK is a standard set of controls that works on top of X Windows (as well as on top of other windowing systems); any "standard set of controls and application frameworks" the Linux community could develop would still run on top of X. You could port this standard set of controls and application frameworks to run on the Mac, either on the Mac version of X Windows, or on the native Mac windowing system. But you can already run GTK either on the Mac version of X Windows, or natively on the Mac's own windowing system. How would creating a new standard set of controls improve things in any way? We'd just have to port _that_ to the Mac as well!
However, once you transfer the copyright of your paper to someone else (who passes it in as their own), you no longer own the copyright and cannot resell it to another student.
Sure, but there's nothing to prevent you giving a student a non-exclusive license to pass the paper off as their own. You retain the copyright, so you can sell more non-exclusive licenses to as many other students as you like.
It is the product of deterministic inputs and processes.
But being the product of deterministic inputs and processes doesn't entail that something is deterministic. I realize this may seem like an odd claim, but have a look at the wikipedia link in my first reply to you; it actually turns out to be pretty plausible from certain points of view.
I agree that the mind is the product of a physical system (I don't think the mind is just the product of the brain, but of a larger physical system, but that's not particularly important here). And it may well be true that, if you knew the complete state of that physical system at time t, you would be able to predict the complete state of the system at time t+1. It doesn't follow from that, though, that if you know the state of the mind at time t, you can predict its state at time t+1. To do that, there also needs to be some way to "translate" descriptions of mental states to descriptions of physical states without losing any information. Now, maybe there is such a translation, but that's not something you can just assume.
That's true for their Scheme I, but I don't think it's true for Scheme II, or any of the subsequent schemes, is it? Scheme II and all subsequent schemes make the key for any word a function of that word, so, to search for a word, you just need to upload the word and its related key. I don't see why that would be anything like as much data as is stored remotely.
Now, the idea of making the key used to encrypt a given word a function of that word kind of sounds insecure to me, but I don't have the cryptography chops to back that feeling up.
Sure, the brain acts according to the laws of physics. Does the mind? What's the relationship between physical qualities (mass, charge, etc) and mental qualities (desire, fear, meaning)? If you can't translate these mental qualities into physical qualities, it doesn't make any sense to say that the mind obeys or disobeys the laws of physics.
Everything above this level leaves no room for free will in the classic sense, because determinism rules.
That's wrong. Just because determinism rules in physics above the microscopic level, that doesn't mean that determinism is also true at other, larger, levels. The determinism of classical physics would only entail determinism of psychology if psychological concepts were reducible to physical concepts, and the jury is still out on that.
...an outlandish, unsupported and non-parsimonious construct...
What the fuck are you talking about? The research discussed in the article concerns certain mathematical functions (quantum probability theory) that appear to have certain advantages in modelling human decision making, over other mathematical functions (classical probability theory). They're not advancing any kind of theory about the actual nature of the mind. What's "outlandish" or "non-parsimonious" about claiming that a certain set of equations give you a certain set of results?
You'ld rather do something dull for 40 hours, than do something interesting for 10 hours? Length is no more a good way to measure the quality of a game, than the number of pages would be to measure the quality of a book. The best example here would probably be Valve: their recent games have all been pretty short, but for almost all the time you're playing them, you're doing something new and interesting.
The page you linked to is the sign up form for members to get access to the web site. If you want to join the PRS, you want their online application form.
When you "buy" a song, a photo, or software, what you are really doing is purchasing a license to use a copy of the item.
No. When you acquire a copyrighted work, there's no license involved, and you can do anything you want with it, except for those things that are specifically restricted by copyright law. Your own source, the "Brief Intro to Copyright," says: "If you create something, and it fits the definition of a creative work, you get to control who can make copies of it and how they make copies." As the source says, the issue here is copying (and also public display), not mere use.
Your first example is of public display or performance, something specifically restricted by copyright.
Your second example is incorrect - if I own a copy of a photograph and I can make some commercial use of it without copying or publically distributing it, I don't need the permission of the copyright holder to do so (I can't think offhand of a way you could use an image commercially that didn't involve copying or publically displaying it; but if there are any such ways, they are permitted by copyright law).
Your third example is contentious. Software companies claim that using a program involves copying it, and so using it requires a license. But even if that's true, the license is only required because you are copying the software.
Paging gives you a lot more than just extra memory when you run out of physical RAM. On a modern OS, disk reads work by mapping the relevant part of the disk to the virtual address space, then transferring these disk sectors to physical RAM when they're read. This way, the disk cache is neatly integrated into the memory manager, which I don't think you'ld want to lose, even if you do decide to get rid of your swap space.
Slashdot Mirror
Did we really need to wait for Mirror's Edge to find out that 3D platforming can work? I figure Mario 64 and Tomb Raider established that pretty well in 1996.
You'd like it to be so, but it isn't.
Yes, it is.
When you buy the game you are buying a license to the game software.
No, I'm not. I'm buying a physical object. Take the last game I bought, Final Fantasy XII; at no point in the transaction was I asked to agree to any kind of license, nor was any kind of license mentioned. I've just gone and looked at the box and manual, and it doesn't contain the text of any license, nor a reference to any such license.
The idea that our use of copyright works depends on some "license" from the copyright owner is a pernicious myth.
Because you didn't buy the game, you bought the rights to play the game.
That's not really true. A game cartridge or DVD is a physical object you can purchase, just like a car. When you buy a physical object you can do anything you like with it, except where specifically limited by law; in the case of a computer game, of course, copyright law specifies certain limitations. But these are specific and limited; the IP owner doesn't just get to set any conditions they like on your use of the object you own. Your right to play the game is not something you have to buy - if you own the physical stuff required to play the game, you have a right to play it.
Artistic production of all manner happened long before the imaginary property regime was instituted, and will continue long after it has crumbled.
Though I'm sure it's true that artistic production will continue after the end of intellectual property, I do think it's worth thinking about how the conditions of artistic production, and so the kinds of art that gets produced, might change.
Before intellectual property was introduced, a lot of art was either folk art (in which the producers and consumers of the art were more-or-less the same people), or supported by the patronage of wealthy individuals or institutions (and so not necessarily accessible to the majority of people or particularly responsive to their tastes). The kind of mass art, that is, widely distributed commercially produced media, that we're used to from the twentieth century is pretty closely tied to intellectual property, and post-IP art is likely to be different. It may also be possible that actions we take now, as the IP system collapses, will determine whether future artistic production is better or worse than the system we've had in the recent past.
I've often heard people praise Torment's story, but I'm not convinced. Or, rather, it may have an interesting story, but it's not a good example of game storytelling, because there's little match between the story and the game mechanics. Instead, what happens is you get assigned a standard RPG fetch quest, get given a chunk of story, do another fetch quest, get more story, etc.
Openoffice has, and has had for quite a while, a fairly extensive scripting capability. I haven't used it extensively, but from what I know, it isn't significantly less powerful than VBA.
Of course, that doesn't really help those who have already developed a signficant amount of code for VBA, and don't want to have to rewrite it.
NSPluginWrapper does just this. The main use, I think, is for using 32-bit plugins with a 64-bit browser, but you can also use it to isolate plugins in separate processes (which, given how unstable flash is on linux, is damn useful).
Yes, that e-mail I got telling me that swine flu must be genetically engineered because it combines DNA from pigs and humans; that was really well considered and fact-checked.
the community should look at bringing the cross *nix GUI standard of X-Windows into the 21st century
What does that mean? What 21st century features is X lacking, and what do they have to do with standard sets of controls and application frameworks? And how does it make sense in relation to:
makes it a real chore to port things like Monodevelop to UNIX platforms like OS X Leopard since it relies on GTK so much.
GTK is a standard set of controls that works on top of X Windows (as well as on top of other windowing systems); any "standard set of controls and application frameworks" the Linux community could develop would still run on top of X. You could port this standard set of controls and application frameworks to run on the Mac, either on the Mac version of X Windows, or on the native Mac windowing system. But you can already run GTK either on the Mac version of X Windows, or natively on the Mac's own windowing system. How would creating a new standard set of controls improve things in any way? We'd just have to port _that_ to the Mac as well!
The linux community needs to create a standard set of controls and application frameworks.
The linux community has already created at least two standard sets of controls and application frameworks. Why would we need to create any more?
However, once you transfer the copyright of your paper to someone else (who passes it in as their own), you no longer own the copyright and cannot resell it to another student.
Sure, but there's nothing to prevent you giving a student a non-exclusive license to pass the paper off as their own. You retain the copyright, so you can sell more non-exclusive licenses to as many other students as you like.
You identify as far left, and yet you call people who are so far to the left of you they scare you, "liberal"? That's... confusing.
I realized that to properly build my characters I'd have to spend boring hours drawing shit.
No, you don't. After the first mission or so, you should be refining magic from objects, not drawing it.
Forget about the 75% of workers that don't belong to one.
Maybe they could, I don't know, join a union? It's not difficult.
It is the product of deterministic inputs and processes.
But being the product of deterministic inputs and processes doesn't entail that something is deterministic. I realize this may seem like an odd claim, but have a look at the wikipedia link in my first reply to you; it actually turns out to be pretty plausible from certain points of view.
I agree that the mind is the product of a physical system (I don't think the mind is just the product of the brain, but of a larger physical system, but that's not particularly important here). And it may well be true that, if you knew the complete state of that physical system at time t, you would be able to predict the complete state of the system at time t+1. It doesn't follow from that, though, that if you know the state of the mind at time t, you can predict its state at time t+1. To do that, there also needs to be some way to "translate" descriptions of mental states to descriptions of physical states without losing any information. Now, maybe there is such a translation, but that's not something you can just assume.
That's true for their Scheme I, but I don't think it's true for Scheme II, or any of the subsequent schemes, is it? Scheme II and all subsequent schemes make the key for any word a function of that word, so, to search for a word, you just need to upload the word and its related key. I don't see why that would be anything like as much data as is stored remotely.
Now, the idea of making the key used to encrypt a given word a function of that word kind of sounds insecure to me, but I don't have the cryptography chops to back that feeling up.
Sure, the brain acts according to the laws of physics. Does the mind? What's the relationship between physical qualities (mass, charge, etc) and mental qualities (desire, fear, meaning)? If you can't translate these mental qualities into physical qualities, it doesn't make any sense to say that the mind obeys or disobeys the laws of physics.
Everything above this level leaves no room for free will in the classic sense, because determinism rules.
That's wrong. Just because determinism rules in physics above the microscopic level, that doesn't mean that determinism is also true at other, larger, levels. The determinism of classical physics would only entail determinism of psychology if psychological concepts were reducible to physical concepts, and the jury is still out on that.
...an outlandish, unsupported and non-parsimonious construct...
What the fuck are you talking about? The research discussed in the article concerns certain mathematical functions (quantum probability theory) that appear to have certain advantages in modelling human decision making, over other mathematical functions (classical probability theory). They're not advancing any kind of theory about the actual nature of the mind. What's "outlandish" or "non-parsimonious" about claiming that a certain set of equations give you a certain set of results?
You'ld rather do something dull for 40 hours, than do something interesting for 10 hours? Length is no more a good way to measure the quality of a game, than the number of pages would be to measure the quality of a book. The best example here would probably be Valve: their recent games have all been pretty short, but for almost all the time you're playing them, you're doing something new and interesting.
Hell, what guarantees that looking at real 19 year olds won't have the same effect. Ban 19 year olds, I say, for the sake of the children.
The page you linked to is the sign up form for members to get access to the web site. If you want to join the PRS, you want their online application form.
You have to be a member of the PRS to access the members section of their site? How shocking!
When you "buy" a song, a photo, or software, what you are really doing is purchasing a license to use a copy of the item.
No. When you acquire a copyrighted work, there's no license involved, and you can do anything you want with it, except for those things that are specifically restricted by copyright law. Your own source, the "Brief Intro to Copyright," says: "If you create something, and it fits the definition of a creative work, you get to control who can make copies of it and how they make copies." As the source says, the issue here is copying (and also public display), not mere use.
Your first example is of public display or performance, something specifically restricted by copyright.
Your second example is incorrect - if I own a copy of a photograph and I can make some commercial use of it without copying or publically distributing it, I don't need the permission of the copyright holder to do so (I can't think offhand of a way you could use an image commercially that didn't involve copying or publically displaying it; but if there are any such ways, they are permitted by copyright law).
Your third example is contentious. Software companies claim that using a program involves copying it, and so using it requires a license. But even if that's true, the license is only required because you are copying the software.
Paging gives you a lot more than just extra memory when you run out of physical RAM. On a modern OS, disk reads work by mapping the relevant part of the disk to the virtual address space, then transferring these disk sectors to physical RAM when they're read. This way, the disk cache is neatly integrated into the memory manager, which I don't think you'ld want to lose, even if you do decide to get rid of your swap space.