However, banks have a lot of legal means to collect on debts. The bank also usually takes collateral.
A video game bank not run by any central authority doesn't have that power. So suppose they did try to make a legit business out of lending others money. How could they collect?
As I see it, all they would need would be a few good bounty hunters on their payroll.
Correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause I haven't played an MMORPG back since they were generally called MUDs, and even then I didn't exactly spend my life on them, but generally speaking, if your character is killed in-game, you lose all of its posessions, don't you?
So you're as likely to lose real money like that as you are in a virtual scam.
So why would killing another player's character be acceptable, but convincing him to give you his virtual money wouldn't be? Even if it is possible to exchange that virtual money for real money?
Marxist claptrap. The labor theory of value is a load of horseshit concocted by political philosophers with no appreciation for the reality of economics. A thing has no value beyond what someone is willing to pay for it.
There is another way of looking at value which is perhaps more useful in this situation and just as sensible: a thing has the value of the cheapest way of replacing it. In this case, there are people willing to do that work for a couple of dollars per hour, so that 400-hour item could probably be purchased for around $800.
Except, as you say, work is not exchangeable for money per the TOS, so that argument has no place in a court of law.
In any individual game of monopoly, a stack of $500s requires quite a bit of effort to come by. You can't go out and buy a new stack, because that would be against the rules of the game.
Or, to look at it another way, there's nothing stopping you setting up your own MMORPG with identical items to the ones you've lost. Except it wouldn't be the same game, and chances are the other players wouldn't follow you to it.
Same deal in both cases. Sorry. In both, you lose the game. And you just have to remember that it's JUST A FUCKING GAME!
GPL advocates will tell you that the GPL is more free than the BSD license because of the extra restrictions in the GPL. Obviously the next step is to add more restrictions to make it even freer!:)
However, I was pretty disappointed the day I got to his site and saw that I had to pay for cdrecord if I wished to burn... a DVD ?! For crying out loud...
Not only that, but he offers 'free' licenses for non-commercial use, but then never follows up on the offer. I e-mailed him several times asking for a key to use cdrecord for DVD writing under Windows, but not once did I get a response. I used the exact format described in the README file.
Why does it matter if a piece of software that isn't licensed under the GPL happens to violate a term of the GPL? Isn't this totally irrelevant to anything?
So why can't Schilling, who I believe wrote all of the code in the package, relicense it however he wants? If he releases the code under CDDL, it's under CDDL. What's the issue? Was there somebody else's code in there?
The point is that there's nothing in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that prevents the use of the CDDL. Debian does *not* require GPL-compatibility. Usually.
Personally I suspect they're really doing this because Schilling is such a PITA to deal with, and because they know he hates it when people fork his code (see the rant on his site about how SuSE and RedHat are **eeeevill** for distributing "bastardized and defective variants of cdrtools" and how their software "illegally claims to be cdrecord").
And Debian is based on releasing only GPL'd or GPL-compatibly-licensed softwares.
Er, no. Debian is based on releasing only software which conforms to the debian free-software guidelines. Says nothing about the GPL in there, other than that the GPL conforms to these guidelines. They also release software under the artistic license, which isn't even free software, according to the FSF's definition, let alone GPL-compatible.
Err.. this approach just doesn't work. Images are inline elements, you can't replace them with an equivalently sized block element and expect the page layout to be the same. And setting the CSS 'width' attribute of an inline element doesn't work in Explorer, so the entire approach is flawed. Sorry.
Yeah, well, the reason the British are objecting to it is that, as the Daily Mail said when they broke the story a few days ago, the GERMANS ARE BUGGING OUR BINS!
Well, they didn't put it *exactly* like that, but you could tell thats what they were trying to get across...;)
Cost of Media is not really a factor. Ease of Use and Transparency is.
I disagree. *If* the user wants to do either of the two things I suggested (which is by no means certain, but both *are* good ideas), then cost of media does become a factor because you can't easily reuse the media (or reuse it at all in the 'permanent archive' case). At this point, the monetary cost of the operation has to be compared against the value of your time. I don't value my time highly enough to want to pay GBP100 in order to avoid a few occasions of having to change a disc. Particularly as I *can* be doing other stuff on my computer at the same time.
Yeah. All HDD manufacturers sometimes put out disks with a bad design. I've had 3 HDD failures over the last five years: all of them were Maxtor 40GB slimline 7200 RPM models. Those were the only 3 disks I've ever owned with that spec, and all of them died within 18 months of purchase. But the Maxtor 80GB drives I replaced them with have been solid as a rock.
It's defined in the results-of-consultation document as something which is likely to cause death or serious permanent injury. That's the proposed phrasing that will likely be used in the bill when this actually makes it as far as parliament.
I know that System of a Down doesn't agree with some people, but isn't this a bit harsh?
No. And the rest of the tracks are a stepping-stone to listening to the actual thing, so at the very least listening to them should warrant a three month community service order.
The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes.
Perhaps we should make antidepressants illegal? After all, a significant proportion of offenders in violent crime take them. It might even be a high enough figure that we could see a statistically significant correlation.
Cost of 8 DVD-Rs: about GBP 4.00 Cost of 21k floppies: about (2.1k packs of 10 @ GBP 2 per pack) = GBP 4,200.00 Cost of external HDD: about GBP 100.00
If you're permanently archiving the stuff (which is a good idea, IMO) or sending copies off to different locations (which is almost essential, if you value your data), the choice is clear.
True, but a simple modification (piping the output of tar to a simple script that reads input and writes them to chunk files, then uses growisofs to write those directly to disc) means you only need a media-size of scratch space.
Using a DVD+RW in block mode (yes, they support that: see Linux kernel patch here) means you need no temporary space.
But it's all a little academic, as the poster was looking for a Windows solution, which this isn't.
The problem with hard drive backups is that the media is very expensive. This means that practices like keeping archive copies (in case you delete something you later decide you need) and sending redundant copies off-site in case of disaster (e.g. house fire) are prohibitively expensive.
I backup my 80Gb system with DVDs, and it isn't difficult, although that system runs Linux so the tool I use ("dar") is unlikely to be much use to an XP user.
That said, 'dar' does work with cygwin, so if you're willing to persevere, it could be a working solution.
I do quarterly complete backups and weekly incremental backups with reference to the last complete backup. The complete backups go onto DVD-Rs, the incrementals onto -RWs.
The manual for 'dar' is quite explicit on how to use it; the file format is well documented and the program is open-source, so there's no need to worry about lock-in. The only thing you need to know that the documentation supplied with it doesn't tell you is that the ISO file systems you'll put on the disc have a maximum file size that is less than the size of a single disc, so you'll have to split your backup into smaller chunks than disc-sized ones. I use the following command line:
The '-Z' options disable compression for those files. 896M is calculated to fit five slices onto a DVD with enough space left over that I'm not writing on the very edge of the disc, which I've often found to be unreliable. The last 50MB of space on the DVD is unused. I put a statically linked 'dar' binary in this space, so that the discs have everything I need (other than a working Linux PC) to extract the data.
a typical power usage of an astounding 80 W per machine.
This is astounding why? My PC-based fileserver typically idles at 60W and has two hard disks. With one disk powersaved, this drops to 45W, so if I took it up to 4 disks, I'd estimate it would only use 90W. OK, so its CPU doesn't quite run at 1GHz, but I bet it has more RAM to cache stuff with than these devices do.
Perhaps with good enough AI the idea of writing a "story" will be less about the story-line, and more about the detailed crafting of individual personalities.
A lot of writers will tell you that you end up with better stories if you do it that way. A lot of the books you read/movies you watch were written like this. Stephen King seems to be the canonical example of a writer who feels that the best way to write is create the personalities and then see what they do.
Yeah, but what gets me is the fact that despite my ability to get 15Mb/s from the hardware, which ought to be adequate, the software in my environment (Either WinXP-WinXP or WinXP-Linux/Samba) fails to deliver more than about 5Mb/s when I'm trying to access files over this damned thing. It's like the protocol's deliberately crippled or something.
Slashdot Mirror
However, banks have a lot of legal means to collect on debts. The bank also usually takes collateral.
A video game bank not run by any central authority doesn't have that power. So suppose they did try to make a legit business out of lending others money. How could they collect?
As I see it, all they would need would be a few good bounty hunters on their payroll.
Correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause I haven't played an MMORPG back since they were generally called MUDs, and even then I didn't exactly spend my life on them, but generally speaking, if your character is killed in-game, you lose all of its posessions, don't you?
So you're as likely to lose real money like that as you are in a virtual scam.
So why would killing another player's character be acceptable, but convincing him to give you his virtual money wouldn't be? Even if it is possible to exchange that virtual money for real money?
Marxist claptrap. The labor theory of value is a load of horseshit concocted by political philosophers with no appreciation for the reality of economics. A thing has no value beyond what someone is willing to pay for it.
There is another way of looking at value which is perhaps more useful in this situation and just as sensible: a thing has the value of the cheapest way of replacing it. In this case, there are people willing to do that work for a couple of dollars per hour, so that 400-hour item could probably be purchased for around $800.
Except, as you say, work is not exchangeable for money per the TOS, so that argument has no place in a court of law.
In any individual game of monopoly, a stack of $500s requires quite a bit of effort to come by. You can't go out and buy a new stack, because that would be against the rules of the game.
Or, to look at it another way, there's nothing stopping you setting up your own MMORPG with identical items to the ones you've lost. Except it wouldn't be the same game, and chances are the other players wouldn't follow you to it.
Same deal in both cases. Sorry. In both, you lose the game. And you just have to remember that it's JUST A FUCKING GAME!
GPL advocates will tell you that the GPL is more free than the BSD license because of the extra restrictions in the GPL. Obviously the next step is to add more restrictions to make it even freer! :)
However, I was pretty disappointed the day I got to his site and saw that I had to pay for cdrecord if I wished to burn... a DVD ?! For crying out loud...
Not only that, but he offers 'free' licenses for non-commercial use, but then never follows up on the offer. I e-mailed him several times asking for a key to use cdrecord for DVD writing under Windows, but not once did I get a response. I used the exact format described in the README file.
So it's illegal for Debian to distribute the CDDL licensed bits of cdrecord with the GPL licensed bits.
What GPL licensed bits? The impression I've got is that it's all Schilling's copyright, so he can relicense however he wishes. Is this wrong?
Why does it matter if a piece of software that isn't licensed under the GPL happens to violate a term of the GPL? Isn't this totally irrelevant to anything?
So why can't Schilling, who I believe wrote all of the code in the package, relicense it however he wants? If he releases the code under CDDL, it's under CDDL. What's the issue? Was there somebody else's code in there?
The point is that there's nothing in the Debian Free Software Guidelines that prevents the use of the CDDL. Debian does *not* require GPL-compatibility. Usually.
Personally I suspect they're really doing this because Schilling is such a PITA to deal with, and because they know he hates it when people fork his code (see the rant on his site about how SuSE and RedHat are **eeeevill** for distributing "bastardized and defective variants of cdrtools" and how their software "illegally claims to be cdrecord").
And Debian is based on releasing only GPL'd or GPL-compatibly-licensed softwares.
Er, no. Debian is based on releasing only software which conforms to the debian free-software guidelines. Says nothing about the GPL in there, other than that the GPL conforms to these guidelines. They also release software under the artistic license, which isn't even free software, according to the FSF's definition, let alone GPL-compatible.
Err.. this approach just doesn't work. Images are inline elements, you can't replace them with an equivalently sized block element and expect the page layout to be the same. And setting the CSS 'width' attribute of an inline element doesn't work in Explorer, so the entire approach is flawed. Sorry.
Yeah, well, the reason the British are objecting to it is that, as the Daily Mail said when they broke the story a few days ago, the GERMANS ARE BUGGING OUR BINS!
;)
Well, they didn't put it *exactly* like that, but you could tell thats what they were trying to get across...
Cost of Media is not really a factor. Ease of Use and Transparency is.
I disagree. *If* the user wants to do either of the two things I suggested (which is by no means certain, but both *are* good ideas), then cost of media does become a factor because you can't easily reuse the media (or reuse it at all in the 'permanent archive' case). At this point, the monetary cost of the operation has to be compared against the value of your time. I don't value my time highly enough to want to pay GBP100 in order to avoid a few occasions of having to change a disc. Particularly as I *can* be doing other stuff on my computer at the same time.
Yeah. All HDD manufacturers sometimes put out disks with a bad design. I've had 3 HDD failures over the last five years: all of them were Maxtor 40GB slimline 7200 RPM models. Those were the only 3 disks I've ever owned with that spec, and all of them died within 18 months of purchase. But the Maxtor 80GB drives I replaced them with have been solid as a rock.
But seriously, what is considered violent?
It's defined in the results-of-consultation document as something which is likely to cause death or serious permanent injury. That's the proposed phrasing that will likely be used in the bill when this actually makes it as far as parliament.
I know that System of a Down doesn't agree with some people, but isn't this a bit harsh?
No. And the rest of the tracks are a stepping-stone to listening to the actual thing, so at the very least listening to them should warrant a three month community service order.
The problem I have with laws like this is that we are treating symptoms of psychoses as crimes.
Perhaps we should make antidepressants illegal? After all, a significant proportion of offenders in violent crime take them. It might even be a high enough figure that we could see a statistically significant correlation.
Hmmm.
Cost of 8 DVD-Rs: about GBP 4.00
Cost of 21k floppies: about (2.1k packs of 10 @ GBP 2 per pack) = GBP 4,200.00
Cost of external HDD: about GBP 100.00
If you're permanently archiving the stuff (which is a good idea, IMO) or sending copies off to different locations (which is almost essential, if you value your data), the choice is clear.
True, but a simple modification (piping the output of tar to a simple script that reads input and writes them to chunk files, then uses growisofs to write those directly to disc) means you only need a media-size of scratch space.
Using a DVD+RW in block mode (yes, they support that: see Linux kernel patch here) means you need no temporary space.
But it's all a little academic, as the poster was looking for a Windows solution, which this isn't.
And when somebody steals the computer, how do you restore the data?
The problem with hard drive backups is that the media is very expensive. This means that practices like keeping archive copies (in case you delete something you later decide you need) and sending redundant copies off-site in case of disaster (e.g. house fire) are prohibitively expensive.
I backup my 80Gb system with DVDs, and it isn't difficult, although that system runs Linux so the tool I use ("dar") is unlikely to be much use to an XP user.
That said, 'dar' does work with cygwin, so if you're willing to persevere, it could be a working solution.
I do quarterly complete backups and weekly incremental backups with reference to the last complete backup. The complete backups go onto DVD-Rs, the incrementals onto -RWs.
The manual for 'dar' is quite explicit on how to use it; the file format is well documented and the program is open-source, so there's no need to worry about lock-in. The only thing you need to know that the documentation supplied with it doesn't tell you is that the ISO file systems you'll put on the disc have a maximum file size that is less than the size of a single disc, so you'll have to split your backup into smaller chunks than disc-sized ones. I use the following command line:
dar --create "$path/$name" -v -R '$source' -X tmp -X '*.tmp' -X '*.bak' -X '*~' -y9 -s 896M -Z '*.jpg' -Z '*.avi' -Z '*.vob' -Z '*.mpg' -Z '*.zip' -Z '*.bz2' -Z '*.gz' -Z '*.rar' -Z '*.mp3'
The '-Z' options disable compression for those files. 896M is calculated to fit five slices onto a DVD with enough space left over that I'm not writing on the very edge of the disc, which I've often found to be unreliable. The last 50MB of space on the DVD is unused. I put a statically linked 'dar' binary in this space, so that the discs have everything I need (other than a working Linux PC) to extract the data.
a typical power usage of an astounding 80 W per machine.
;)
This is astounding why? My PC-based fileserver typically idles at 60W and has two hard disks. With one disk powersaved, this drops to 45W, so if I took it up to 4 disks, I'd estimate it would only use 90W. OK, so its CPU doesn't quite run at 1GHz, but I bet it has more RAM to cache stuff with than these devices do.
And it runs Linux.
Perhaps with good enough AI the idea of writing a "story" will be less about the story-line, and more about the detailed crafting of individual personalities.
A lot of writers will tell you that you end up with better stories if you do it that way. A lot of the books you read/movies you watch were written like this. Stephen King seems to be the canonical example of a writer who feels that the best way to write is create the personalities and then see what they do.
Yeah, but what gets me is the fact that despite my ability to get 15Mb/s from the hardware, which ought to be adequate, the software in my environment (Either WinXP-WinXP or WinXP-Linux/Samba) fails to deliver more than about 5Mb/s when I'm trying to access files over this damned thing. It's like the protocol's deliberately crippled or something.