The stack of Kiddie Porn DVDs convicted him, not the open access point. The whole thing revolves around the fact that they found an IM of somebody with an IP originating from his residence that contained a child porn picture. This got them a search warrant, and they found additional evidence including a stack of DVDs with child porn images on them (and think HOW MANY images are needed to fill more than one DVD).
The only point where the open access point comes in to it is that he claimed that because it was open, it means that ANYBODY could have used IPs from inside his house, and thus the search should have been thrown out, and the evidence gathered suppressed. But the judge didn't go for it.
In non-technical terms, it's like claiming that your house is always unlocked, thus any evidence they ever find there should never be admissible, since anybody could have put it there. And as I said above, the judge didn't go for it, and rightfully so IMO. So this isn't "police look for open access points, and go fishing wherever they find one" but rather "an open access point doesn't get you out of finding DVDs of illegal material in your house."
If you're having problems, you should probably get a componant video cable, if that's an option for you... 480p looks A LOT BETTER. I run my Wii through component into a 1080p LCD.;)
Are there any articles about this from 3rd-party sources, and not the FSF themselves? I'd really like some analysis that isn't from those that produced it.
Basically, hydrocarbons (petroleum, etc) are very sugar-like chains. Basically carbs, with less oxygen. So is this technology adaptable to that? Then you have the energy density problem completely solved (though losing the renewable aspect).
I've read a few of the "in a Nutshell" books, and the C# one is by FAR the worst. Most of the others are anywhere from good to great (the Java one is outstanding IMO), but the C# one just falls really REALLY flat. The examples are bad, and he often jumps in "assuming" that you know how things are supposed to work. But most glaringly, it doesn't even cover the most common operations. Like take a guess how to bring in an entire text file at once? Guess what: you basically need to go into the API and figure it out yourself, because none of the string or file I/O examples touch on it at all. Now true, I haven't seen it since first edition, but I wouldn't trust it at all. I'm just glad I didn't lay money out for it, but rather got it from a library.
The authors of the "nutshell" books are not all the same, hence the vast differences in quality. Buyer beware!
Now, if you don't count multi-(simultaneous,interactive)-player, it absolutely floors me that this list left out Hack/NetHack (or for the purists, Rogue, but Hack went so far beyond Rogue that the distinction seems worthwhile). WoW owes its very existence to Hack, like it or not. Sure, as do most to things like Akallabeth, but dismissing the massively-multiplayer aspect is somewhat hard, as that's most of the point. And furthermore, there is a direct straight-line relationship from EQ1 to virtually the entire MMO community, and very few "grandchild" lines are warranted. But it is a clear relationship from EQ1 in every case to the rest of the MMO industry. WoW may be the son that made millions (billions?), but the father set the groundwork for the genre by toiling where nobody thought it'd succeed.
With EXTREMELY few exceptions, absolutely everything in WoW was pioneered with EverQuest.
Kinda... in the sense that the core elements (NPCs, walking around in a virtual world, having persistent characters, etc) are common to all MMOs that I'm aware of. Of course, WoW not only introduced new elements, but managed to get the old ones right.
Actually no, those things came with UO, and while common to all MMOs (or else you don't have a game at all), that's not what I meant.
I actually meant the core mechanic of killing monsters to level up, rather than a purely skill-point-based game with no experience (like UO was). Alternate Advancement beyond pure levels, called Talents in WoW, was in EQ1 beforehand, and the concept of non-gear and non-level-based character customization is in many MMOs. Even a gear-centric rather than item-centric game is core to the design. An area-based design, necessitated by the hardware/software requirements of EQ1's day has carried over even into the "seamless" worlds of WoW and others with discrete hunting areas, rather than a truly continuous world. Some have gone either direction since then, but the concept was EQ1's. Raiding being an integrated part of the game mechanic (more than one group in a formalized unit), rather than just players near one another also started in EQ1 in the PoP era (maybe before). Mounts for characters, rather than just running around (this was UO I'll admit). Even the core "tick" mechanism of game updates (rather than precise real-time triggers based on each person) is something that EQ started with. Level guidelines for items was only a feature that EQ1 had LONG after release (and probably after somebody else had already done it), but it still beat WoW to the punch. PvP flagging? EQ1 again (probably). One of the largest criticisms of UO was how you couldn't say "no" to PvP. EQ1 was lauded and derided for having "blue" servers. Where do you think that term came from? In UO, "blue" was "not a murderer" and thus "safe". And I'm sure the list goes on.
These things seem stupidly obvious now, but as is the case with many things (kinda like how historically, "zero" is a relatively advanced mathematical concept), somebody had to think of it first, and believe it or not, most of the things listed above (not all) were NOT there upon EQ release, or only STARTED with EQ1. A few were from UO, as I have mentioned, but to say WoW deserves credit is VASTLY overstating the case. They refined it well, and have created something that many people like, and I don't deny that, but just as Nolan Bushnell didn't invent video games (Ralph Baer did, and has the patent to prove it), WoW is NOT a pioneer in the MMO industry for ANY of the core mechanics. You might be able to credit them with cross-server PvP battlegrounds (or not, somebody else may have had those too), but that would be close to the only thing you could credit them with.
Warcraft was a nice series and all, but hardly one of the most important games ever. Start Craft really set the standard for Multiplayer RTS I think the guy you were responding to was actually referring to the RTS games before Warcraft. That's just a guess though.
while WoW has clearly set the standard for MMORPGs. With EXTREMELY few exceptions, absolutely everything in WoW was pioneered with EverQuest. And EQ was a commercial success too. Not the runaway cultural phenomenon that WoW has become, but with 400k active subscribers at peak (less now), it can hardly be thought of as a marginal game either way. UO might have taken this spot (it also at one time was in excess of 100k at the least, and it WAS first), but extremely few of its conventions survived to other MMOs. Virtually everything about EQ has been in successors. And yes, I've played all 3 of the games I mentioned for significant amounts of time (and more games besides those too). WoW put everything together in a good package, and that alone is a talent, and obviously has brought success, but innovation? Very very little.
Think Microsoft vs Apple, with WoW being Microsoft and EQ being Apple. It has many points of comparison which I'm sure others can elaborate on.
If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet When I saw that quote, I immediately thought of a Dilbert strip. Luckily, somebody already put the transcript online:
Pointy-haired boss: "If we can put a man on the moon, we can build a computer made entirely of recycled paper."
Dilbert: "Your flawed analogy only shows that other people can do things."
Boss: "Maybe you should call other people and ask how they do it."
I agree, but not with your theory about what caused it. The people granting the government more and more power is directly attributable to people that have socialist leanings. No, I'd rather say it has a correlation to people no longer being able to defend themselves. Yes I'm talking about Gun Control, but even beyond that. If somebody breaks into your home, they have less fear of you than you do of them (in most places) since if you hurt them getting them off your property, you're likely to spend time in prison, and them as less likely.
The whole thing is whacked, but the end result is that if people need protection, and they are FORBIDDEN from protecting themselves, then the power either goes to government (who will botch the job) or criminals will become even more powerful. Guns only give power when the criminals are the only ones that have them. What do you think the incidence of street crime would be if you had a 90%+ chance of being shot if you tried something?
And this is news? That's the thing actually. In many cases (politics, news, etc), there's PLENTY of "we say there's going to be consequences, but actually we've never followed through... ever." But these guys did. Anybody may or may not agree with the initial decision to not release upcoming information, timing, etc, but it wasn't like it was a surprise to those who ran the story. Sony followed through on what they said, which is unfortunately a too-rare occurrence these days.
I wish honesty (harsh honesty, but honesty nonetheless) wasn't news, but these days it is.
They said not to do it. They reinforce it. And yet they do it anyways. Makes sense that they get blackballed. If you want exclusive info, you play by their rules. If you want to be a "stick it to them" outfit, then they'd better be prepared to get their information from other sources.
As much as I think the Liberals are immoral yahoos, Paul Martin was from Quebec too (well, he had a Quebec seat at least), and that didn't save him. Dion is just more "obviously" french.
The security certificate legislation (which is almost-certainly what you're referring to with your "5 individuals" statement) is different I think. Not the same thing. Could be wrong on that though.
How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.
The difference is, there's no downside here. Incandescent bulbs produce less light per watt, waste far more exlectricity, and they don't last near as long as their flourescent counterparts. Flourescent's are more expensive at the get-go, but that is easily made up for by their low power usage and extremely long life. But what about the energy cost of manufacturing? How much energy does the entire manufacturing process for a CFL take compared to an incandescent bulb? I really don't know the answer here, so if somebody has numbers, that'd be great. If it's drastically more for CFLs, then it's just useless switching to them (the energy consumption is shifted to the factory, not actually reduced). If it's truly less, then that part at least is a real benefit.
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
Then what incentive is there to innovate? Why invent? 3M or some other big company will just take your idea and mass produce it cheaper than you could. This is no time to be entirely reasonable!
Now having made the obvious joke, they're still right, but the counterargument is of course all of the shenanigans we've seen so far with abuse of the system. The problems with obvious patents is much easier IMO since all that is required is a better review system so that these are identified and denied both quickly and publicly. This is the easy part because it doesn't require any essential re-think of the existing system, merely cleaning up a lot of the crap.
The other problems come where something IS new, yet it stifles innovation. The 3M example is quite apt, as well as any examples involving drug companies. For most products out there, there's already somebody "big" who could produce it for almost-nothing, and drive any small innovators out of it. And specifically on the drug side, the discovery is almost-all of the effort. So how do you encourage new products, and yet reward inventors? Then comes along the obvious "information should be free so that others can innovate further" argument, but that has pitfalls too.
What's the solution? I dunno, but I do think at the least the "get rid of the obvious patents" argument should be very separate from the rest of the debate.
Regardless, I think the best course would be to absolve motorists of 100% contributory negligence in accidents with pedestrians who are otherwise electronic-gadget engaged while crossing a street or intersection. It is otherwise unnecessary to proscribe pedestrians from using electronic gadgets (and, hey, why just electronic?... what about the dolts who are reading the paper, a magazine, etc. while walking into an intersection?)
I think your point about other distractions is well-taken, from BOTH sides of the debate. If you're going to do it, why should the "traditional" forms of idiocy while walking be excluded? They're just as bad (or worse). But hey, if you're going to take the smaller distraction just because it's "new" then also take out the old.
From the "those with the sense to not walk out in traffic" side, walkman-like device (this is hardly limited to iPods, or even modern equivalents, since the ORIGINAL sony walkman would qualify here) is in one way no more dangerous than a deaf person. You can still be safe with enough care to LOOK. A newspaper or book is actually worse.
I agree. That game was really fun (not QUITE as fun as N64 version, but close), with great visuals (better than N64, obviously), but the frustration of knowing that there was more that I'd NEVER touch was something that always really got to me.
Whatever you can say about "firsts" and "blood vs none" that happened in those days, SF2 was "the" game that popularized the fighting genre like no other. I'm not qualified to say what was "new" or "different" about it, but let's just say that in ONE SITTING with my friends and I, I MORE than covered the cost of the cartridge in games played vs quarters at the arcade. And to think the cartridge was around $80 in early-90s money, think of how many games we played. And that was HARDLY one session.
Slashdot Mirror
The stack of Kiddie Porn DVDs convicted him, not the open access point. The whole thing revolves around the fact that they found an IM of somebody with an IP originating from his residence that contained a child porn picture. This got them a search warrant, and they found additional evidence including a stack of DVDs with child porn images on them (and think HOW MANY images are needed to fill more than one DVD).
The only point where the open access point comes in to it is that he claimed that because it was open, it means that ANYBODY could have used IPs from inside his house, and thus the search should have been thrown out, and the evidence gathered suppressed. But the judge didn't go for it.
In non-technical terms, it's like claiming that your house is always unlocked, thus any evidence they ever find there should never be admissible, since anybody could have put it there. And as I said above, the judge didn't go for it, and rightfully so IMO. So this isn't "police look for open access points, and go fishing wherever they find one" but rather "an open access point doesn't get you out of finding DVDs of illegal material in your house."
Does the new text rendering also go into things like the news reader and Wii Shop? The text there could use some work too.
Are there any articles about this from 3rd-party sources, and not the FSF themselves? I'd really like some analysis that isn't from those that produced it.
Basically, hydrocarbons (petroleum, etc) are very sugar-like chains. Basically carbs, with less oxygen. So is this technology adaptable to that? Then you have the energy density problem completely solved (though losing the renewable aspect).
I've read a few of the "in a Nutshell" books, and the C# one is by FAR the worst. Most of the others are anywhere from good to great (the Java one is outstanding IMO), but the C# one just falls really REALLY flat. The examples are bad, and he often jumps in "assuming" that you know how things are supposed to work. But most glaringly, it doesn't even cover the most common operations. Like take a guess how to bring in an entire text file at once? Guess what: you basically need to go into the API and figure it out yourself, because none of the string or file I/O examples touch on it at all. Now true, I haven't seen it since first edition, but I wouldn't trust it at all. I'm just glad I didn't lay money out for it, but rather got it from a library.
The authors of the "nutshell" books are not all the same, hence the vast differences in quality. Buyer beware!
that this list left out Hack/NetHack (or for the purists, Rogue, but Hack went so far
beyond Rogue that the distinction seems worthwhile). WoW owes its very existence to Hack,
like it or not. Sure, as do most to things like Akallabeth, but dismissing the massively-multiplayer aspect is somewhat hard, as that's most of the point. And furthermore, there is a direct straight-line relationship from EQ1 to virtually the entire MMO community, and very few "grandchild" lines are warranted. But it is a clear relationship from EQ1 in every case to the rest of the MMO industry. WoW may be the son that made millions (billions?), but the father set the groundwork for the genre by toiling where nobody thought it'd succeed.
Kinda... in the sense that the core elements (NPCs, walking around in a virtual world, having persistent characters, etc) are common to all MMOs that I'm aware of. Of course, WoW not only introduced new elements, but managed to get the old ones right.
Actually no, those things came with UO, and while common to all MMOs (or else you don't have a game at all), that's not what I meant.I actually meant the core mechanic of killing monsters to level up, rather than a purely skill-point-based game with no experience (like UO was). Alternate Advancement beyond pure levels, called Talents in WoW, was in EQ1 beforehand, and the concept of non-gear and non-level-based character customization is in many MMOs. Even a gear-centric rather than item-centric game is core to the design. An area-based design, necessitated by the hardware/software requirements of EQ1's day has carried over even into the "seamless" worlds of WoW and others with discrete hunting areas, rather than a truly continuous world. Some have gone either direction since then, but the concept was EQ1's. Raiding being an integrated part of the game mechanic (more than one group in a formalized unit), rather than just players near one another also started in EQ1 in the PoP era (maybe before). Mounts for characters, rather than just running around (this was UO I'll admit). Even the core "tick" mechanism of game updates (rather than precise real-time triggers based on each person) is something that EQ started with. Level guidelines for items was only a feature that EQ1 had LONG after release (and probably after somebody else had already done it), but it still beat WoW to the punch. PvP flagging? EQ1 again (probably). One of the largest criticisms of UO was how you couldn't say "no" to PvP. EQ1 was lauded and derided for having "blue" servers. Where do you think that term came from? In UO, "blue" was "not a murderer" and thus "safe". And I'm sure the list goes on.
These things seem stupidly obvious now, but as is the case with many things (kinda like how historically, "zero" is a relatively advanced mathematical concept), somebody had to think of it first, and believe it or not, most of the things listed above (not all) were NOT there upon EQ release, or only STARTED with EQ1. A few were from UO, as I have mentioned, but to say WoW deserves credit is VASTLY overstating the case. They refined it well, and have created something that many people like, and I don't deny that, but just as Nolan Bushnell didn't invent video games (Ralph Baer did, and has the patent to prove it), WoW is NOT a pioneer in the MMO industry for ANY of the core mechanics. You might be able to credit them with cross-server PvP battlegrounds (or not, somebody else may have had those too), but that would be close to the only thing you could credit them with.
Think Microsoft vs Apple, with WoW being Microsoft and EQ being Apple. It has many points of comparison which I'm sure others can elaborate on.
Dilbert: "Your flawed analogy only shows that other people can do things."
Boss: "Maybe you should call other people and ask how they do it."
Dilbert: "Maybe they use good analogies."
The whole thing is whacked, but the end result is that if people need protection, and they are FORBIDDEN from protecting themselves, then the power either goes to government (who will botch the job) or criminals will become even more powerful. Guns only give power when the criminals are the only ones that have them. What do you think the incidence of street crime would be if you had a 90%+ chance of being shot if you tried something?
Exactly.
They don't want off, they just want to threaten to do so. That gets them the money train from Alberta via the feds.
(guess where I live?)
This is the one I'd go with if we assume that etc doesn't mean et-cetera.
Environment Tool Configuration
Could be...
I wish honesty (harsh honesty, but honesty nonetheless) wasn't news, but these days it is.
They said not to do it. They reinforce it. And yet they do it anyways. Makes sense that they get blackballed. If you want exclusive info, you play by their rules. If you want to be a "stick it to them" outfit, then they'd better be prepared to get their information from other sources.
As much as I think the Liberals are immoral yahoos, Paul Martin was from Quebec too (well, he had a Quebec seat at least), and that didn't save him. Dion is just more "obviously" french.
The security certificate legislation (which is almost-certainly what you're referring to with your "5 individuals" statement) is different I think. Not the same thing. Could be wrong on that though.
How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.
Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.
How long until the "Blue Screen of Death" (BSOD) has a somewhat more ominous (and literal) meaning?
Pam's from up here. At least we're not responsible for Anna though. Only the USA could produce a trainwreck of that magnitude.
Unfortunately, there's also the environmental cost, as I see the probability of these being recycled at a high rate as a near-zero probability concept. People only do it with Cans because of the deposit. You'd NEED that to have it happen here, and even then plenty of mercury will be going into landfills. It'd be interesting to me to know what the current rate is with all types of fluorescent bulbs.
Now having made the obvious joke, they're still right, but the counterargument is of course all of the shenanigans we've seen so far with abuse of the system. The problems with obvious patents is much easier IMO since all that is required is a better review system so that these are identified and denied both quickly and publicly. This is the easy part because it doesn't require any essential re-think of the existing system, merely cleaning up a lot of the crap.
The other problems come where something IS new, yet it stifles innovation. The 3M example is quite apt, as well as any examples involving drug companies. For most products out there, there's already somebody "big" who could produce it for almost-nothing, and drive any small innovators out of it. And specifically on the drug side, the discovery is almost-all of the effort. So how do you encourage new products, and yet reward inventors? Then comes along the obvious "information should be free so that others can innovate further" argument, but that has pitfalls too.
What's the solution? I dunno, but I do think at the least the "get rid of the obvious patents" argument should be very separate from the rest of the debate.
Regardless, I think the best course would be to absolve motorists of 100% contributory negligence in accidents with pedestrians who are otherwise electronic-gadget engaged while crossing a street or intersection. It is otherwise unnecessary to proscribe pedestrians from using electronic gadgets (and, hey, why just electronic?... what about the dolts who are reading the paper, a magazine, etc. while walking into an intersection?)
I think your point about other distractions is well-taken, from BOTH sides of the debate. If you're going to do it, why should the "traditional" forms of idiocy while walking be excluded? They're just as bad (or worse). But hey, if you're going to take the smaller distraction just because it's "new" then also take out the old.From the "those with the sense to not walk out in traffic" side, walkman-like device (this is hardly limited to iPods, or even modern equivalents, since the ORIGINAL sony walkman would qualify here) is in one way no more dangerous than a deaf person. You can still be safe with enough care to LOOK. A newspaper or book is actually worse.
I agree. That game was really fun (not QUITE as fun as N64 version, but close), with great visuals (better than N64, obviously), but the frustration of knowing that there was more that I'd NEVER touch was something that always really got to me.
Whatever you can say about "firsts" and "blood vs none" that happened in those days, SF2 was "the" game that popularized the fighting genre like no other. I'm not qualified to say what was "new" or "different" about it, but let's just say that in ONE SITTING with my friends and I, I MORE than covered the cost of the cartridge in games played vs quarters at the arcade. And to think the cartridge was around $80 in early-90s money, think of how many games we played. And that was HARDLY one session.