Actually, US copyright law contains a deliberate exception to the no-copying rule, allowing all copying necessary to the normal functioning of the program. To me this implies that if it normally runs off of the HD, you can copy it there (or tell it to do so) and make copies in ram, cache, etc, for the purposes of executing it.
This further weakens the EULA arguments.
However, the most damning argument (IMHO) is that MS, Adobe, and others are trying to buy the UCITA, a law that would (primarily) make EULAs binding. If their highly-paid staff of lawyers thought that EULAs would be found to be enforceable by the courts, they'd recommend against wasting money on a useless (for them) law. The fact that they are in fact bribing like crazy implies that they feel they need the law.
You can't justify the unsafe working conditions and lousy treatment of workers that way. Sure, they may only need to be payed $1.50 a day, but they should have a safe place to work and be free from harassment if they try to find other options.
Most sweatshops (and Nike's not the only guilty party) pay more than the going local wage but easily make up for that by mistreating the workers. Many workers have died because they were locked in a factory that caught fire... Much like the "?? Shirt Fire" that happened around the turn of last century and started the push for workplace safety regulations.
Actually, in many ways an artist is forced to sign with one of the big music promoters. You can't get radio play without that, or concert venues, etc, etc.
It's not an open market where everyone can compete equally. It's an ugly market completely controlled by a small number of nearly identical companies who certainly aren't going to tolerate any competition that they could destroy.
The middlemen don't push music that's worth listening to, they push music they can make money off of. Big difference. Do you think they'd stop pushing their music if they knew they didn't have anyone worth promoting right then? Of course not. In fact they'd probably promote all the harder to keep from appearing as not having any good artists.
An independent site however could promote only those artists they feel their customers (either paying, or via eyeballs) would actually want to hear.
I once had a really snooty author tell me that I'd be screwed without publishers simply because those publishers have the terrible job of looking through slush piles for the gems.
I've done similar jobs. I've reviewed Quake maps, Star-Trek fanfic, and other amateur works. It's not something I'd want to do all the time, as in, in order to find a book to read I have to go through nine bad ones to find one good one, but as a side project it was actually fun.
And look at the sites that host these reviews. Tons of content, sorted by author, theme, and score, all available for download by anyone interested. All run by fans.
Even if no businesses wanted to touch the music promotion business it'd be taken up by fans in a minute and would likely provide a better service. There's a lot to be said for not having a vested interest in either result.
Gotcha. You're wrong, but it's my fault because I didn't discount all evidence against your point of view.
As I said before, get over yourself. Stupid racial stereotypes are as good as nonexistant in mainstream movies and television. If you keep seeing them, you may want to up the tinfoil content of your hat.
You tend to care about someone you've heard of, and you tend to hear of people of similar heritage and people in close phsyical proximity. Someone around the world, who you've never heard of, regardless of skin color, isn't going to interest you as much as a close relation, a neighbor, or the close relation of a neighbor.
Now, understand that not caring as much about people you don't know isn't a crime. Hell, it's a good thing. I'd be very upset if a family member died in a car accident. If I was that upset over anyone who died in a car accident, multiplied by the thousands who are, I'd be suicidal all the time.
This doesn't mean you have to be cold hearted though. I understand the trajedy it is for the people who are close to the victims. I am as sympathetic as I can be, given the fact that I don't know anyone involved. And I'm concerned about reducing the amount of world suffering. Because of this, the simple fact of needless deaths is upsetting.
But it's not a racial issue in any way. I know people in Germany and Ireland, both directly and through local family. I know my neighbors and have travelled a fair bit, so I know people in a range of place. I also indirectly know their families, primarily asian and the aforementioned europeans. So when news about europe of asia comes on it's more likely to concern someone I know, or who is known by someone I know. In a "six degrees" sense, I'm closed to them. But in a racial sense, not necessarily.
For every nasty stereotype you see of a black guy there are more positive ones.
I thought Wil Smith's character in Independence Day was pretty cool. Samuel Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction, while a criminal, was just as cool and smart as any of the others.
If you're seeing offensive black stereotypes everywhere you look, you're either watching KKK TV, or you're increadily hypersensitive.
This whole racist obsession people have is kinda ridiculous. Colors aren't hidden racist subtext.
White is fascinating and black is scary. This makes sense. Think about it. The dark is "black". If you go into the dark, you can't see things and this is bad. Things can eat you in the dark. There are Grue's in the dark. Everyone naturally is warrier in the dark, even someone with "black" skin.
On the other hand, bright light is white, and it reveals everything that was hidden. Light also conquers darkness.
So if you're portraying a character who's evil and nasty you could (if you're wanting to make it blatantly obvious) dress them in black and have them hide in shadows. Dangerous things lurk in shadows, so the connection is obvious.
For an example. I, as a kid, was scared of the dark long before I'd ever seen a black person. I liked flashlights because they got rid of the darkness. This was long before I knew that I was "white" by comparison to anything else.
This is seperate from the skin color of the characters. It's just to explain that Gandalf the White and Sauron the Dark aren't necessarily racial comments in any way. Feel free to read anything you want into the skin colors of the orcs and the "good guys".
I am glad though, that they didn't throw in a token black character. They were dealing with small isolated populations. You likely wouldn't get someone with a really different skin color so it'd be a blatant "Don't hate us, here's your token minority" gesture. Now on the other hand, if they'd made (for instance) the wood elves dark (or the Rivendell ones) that would have made some sense because they were a seperate population. But it's unthinking knee-jerk PC gestures that stick out like a sore thumb. And in my opinion these do more harm than good because they bring the issue of skin color to mind, instead of ignoring it as the non-issue it is.
The problem with this view is that the whole world isn't subjective. It's not the nice little PC dream where everyone, regardless of conflicting views, can be right.
While someone may have a reason for acting the way they do doesn't mean it's an excuse. I wouldn't tolerate a nazi, or any other racist, no matter how much I could understand what made them small minded to begin with.
IMHO there's a big difference between what you do to yourself, or with consenting others, and what you try to force on people. Being tolerant of people with wacky ideas has nothing to do with most people's idea of tolerance, which involves letting idiots push you around.
I'm okay with living in an world with flat-earthers, or the religious, even wacky religions. But I'm not okay with them pushing their beliefs on me. I'm not okay with them demanding the right to hurt people, and so on.
If I was in a tolalitarian regime I'd want someone to come and get me out. I wouldn't want to have to then believe what the new people believed or anything, but if they were offering honest freedom, I'd prefer them over like-believing thugs. So I think we have the right to use "our" might to try to set things right. To give people the chance to peacefully and unobtrusively believe whatever wacky things they want.
To do this though might involve crushing a few people who stand in the way. I'm well aware of the irony in the idea of peace through bloody war, but I think it's sometimes the only way. The powerful leaders won't step down voluntarily and where their will is directly contradictory to that of the people, I think they should be removed.
This gets into the futility of modern war though, where we're willing to kill Sadamm's whole army to stop him, but we stop at the idea of sending in a "murder squad" to kill him.
Anyways, this ventures a bit off the strict topic of tolerance/pushover, but I think context is needed for what might sound like very inflamatory opinions.
You wrote that as a joke, or sarcasticly, perhaps, but it's all too common for people to think way.
What's to stop Stephen King, or Harlan Ellison, for example, from suing Baen claiming that the library is unfair. Here's a sample argument, "The free library gives exposure to authors who weren't going to sell (any real ammount) of books anyways. But if we (well-published) authors tried it, we'd be slitting our wrists. Thus the free library is an unfair advantage and should be stopped."
It could happen. Perhaps they'll get Judge Kaplan (2600 DeCSS case) and we'll find out that he used to work for a publishing house before Time Warner...
Go ahead and charge for access. But don't try to assert ownership of data that was entered by third parties, especially when there's an implicit understanding that if you volunteer effort towards something you'll be able to partake of the fruits of your labour.
So feel free to work out a payment scheme. But don't stop other companies, or generous individuals from doing the same. If you can't offer a better (consistent and fast) service than volunteers can, don't expect payment.
My suggestion for hosting it would be a distributed system where a round-robin DNS points you to various servers based on load and time of day. They all sync up every hour or so, and changes have to come through the master server. (Prevent duplicate entries.)
Space is cheap, so there's no reason to fragment the database, only to distribute the queries to save bandwidth and CPU time.
I'd host a node of this, if it existed. Tell the master server to limit how many people it passes to me and I'd happily dedicate 25% of my bandwidth to it.
Actually, I think reasonable and fair would involve huge damages (in the billions) and jail time for the officers of the company.
They broke a few laws, and faked evidence in a federal court. This was done with an intent of profit, and intent is something you look at when handing out a sentence.
That's before you get to the civil aspects of the case, or consider abuse of monopoly powers. (Most of which isn't actual "law breaking".)
Basically, I think MS should get the same punishments that other people and companies would, if they had done the same things.
And no, I don't care that breaking MS would hurt the markets. If people invest in a company that's fairly obviously flouting the law I think they should see it as a high-risk investment. Otherwise there's no incentive (and in fact a dis-incentive) for other people to obey it the law. (Would you obey the law if doing so was sure to ruin your business, and nobody else was being punished for breaking it?)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but we do imprison criminals. Both a preventative, and a deterrant. We also take all the spoils of their illegal actions.
A consideration is that you may want more parity drives. Most drives tend to die for a reason, such as a power surge, or when shut down. This means that you're more likely to see a couple drives go at once than you would be if they just died during normal operation. Because of this, RAID units actually tend to lose a few drives at once even if the MTBF suggests otherwise.
So, if you have one 35+1 array, losing any two drives could kill it.
If you have four 7+1 arrays RAID 0ed together and lose two drives, there's a 1/4 chance that both drives were on the same array, which would kill it.
You could do four 6+2 arrays, but then you only get 3/4 of the space you paid for. That does take your safety margin to three disks, and only 1/16th of the time. That's probably safe enough to trust.
But ideally you'd do one large 28+4 array, without much more loss of space than originally (7/8ths usable) and it could tolerate the loss of any four drives, regardless of location. But I don't think that's possible with these cards, given that each controls only eight drives.
So you could do a software 3+1 RAID5 of four 7+1 arrays, which would tolerate the loss of any one array, which would happen 1/4 of the time with a two drive loss. But you're now back under the 3/4 usable space (21/32 actually) which starts to suck.
Unfortunately, there just isn't a good way to do it with that many drives and hardware RAID 5 that only supports eight at a time.
It'd greed, pure and simple. The law allows me to be greedy in many ways, yet I don't take advantage of it. If I did, I'd be lonely really damn quick.
So why do we accept this sort of anti-social behaviour from companies/associations?
I'm complaining to the author's guild. This is a legal action for them, but they should know that by trying to hide used books (which they wish weren't legal to sell at all) they've alienated a customer.
Actually, the theory that movies/software/music are licensed, not sold, hasn't been tested.
US Copyright law (and likely, that of most places) has a specific copy allowance, as long as it is required for proper intender usage of the product. (ie, software is sold with the implicit assumption that it will run, so any copying required to make it run (onto the HD, into RAM, cache, etc) is allowed. Duplicating it in a non-required was is (usually) prohibited.)
The idea that software needed to be licensed came about because it needed to be copied, so the sellers decided to claim that the copying was illegal without a license... They're just pulling that out of their asses though.
Really, EULAs aren't binding at all. That's why companies are pushing for the UCITA which would change that. If EULAs were binding they wouldn't be wasting millions bribing politicians to get a new law.
Sure, Blizzard used to be fairly friendly. And now they feel wronged. But does that excuse them striking out at innocents? bnetd has many uses that aren't related to piracy.
You'd understand if I felt upset if someone stole something from me, but would that excuse me lashing out at you, perhaps stealing a similar item from you, or falsely reporting you for the crime because I know you could pay to replace my item and the judge would likely order this?
Blizzard isn't trying to create new laws here, just abuse the existing ones.
It's established practice in all other industries that replacement parts and seperate utilities (example: tires, squeeges, gasoline, wipers, etc) can be made by any company that can figure out how.
It's also established practice that once you buy something the creator/distributor/seller have no control over it.
So why does Blizzard and the software industry rate totally new standards?
It's clear that once you buy software the creator loses all control over how you use it, EULAs aren't binding, and you're allowed to create addons. Any claims to the contrary are without any legal justification and are attempting to stifle competition through spurious lawsuits. Blizzard doesn't have a leg to stand on, however they have bags of money to prop themselves up on, so they'll abuse the legal system to get their own way.
Sheep. Really, if you'll put up with any semi-justified intusion on your freedoms without at least making a small stand you're going to wake up and find those freedoms gone.
When I'm turned away from a store because I'm carrying a bag I always ask to speak to the manager, when they come I explain how their rules are discriminatory (Do you ever see them banning purses? But small items can be just as valuable...) and how I refuse to shop at a store with a policy like that. I then show them the cash I was carrying, and tell them which item I was planning on buying.
They always offer to get the item for me, but I tell them I won't buy it from them anymore unless they change the no-bag rule. Some don't care, but some do. I've changed the policy of a local bookstore by doing this. It's their choice to implement the policy, but I feel they deserve to be informed of the consequences, and those are less sales.
I'd like to see some shoplifting punishment that would work to reform. IMHO if you're caught you should pay for, or return the item, then pay a few times its value (or do equivalent community service) and then stand outside the store for a day or two with a sandwich-board sign saying "I'm a criminal - I tried to shoplift from STORENAME and I got caught." The peer pressure would provide a strong incentive to reform. Perhaps having to stand in the area you live would help, to deter people who shoplifted in distant suburbs.
You actually *like* random maps? Ugh. They're such a hack which was obviously implemented to save them from having to make a map. Really, it's hard to see how Diablo took more than six months to make.
The thing I'm most looking forward to in Dungeon Siege is the fact that maps were designed. Someone went through and built them, so they look the way they do intentionally.
I suppose it's not good for running around slaughtering endless monsters, but then, what's the fun in slaying ten thousand identical randomly placed monsters to get the +23 Boots of Walking? Might as well play solitaire or some other random game.
Well, have no fear. It can't be long before someone with the Dungeon Siege editor makes a few square maps and some sort of hack to randomly place them, along with monsters.
Funny though, how the part you like most about Diablo is what I liked the least. When I found the maps were random, all the interest in exploring them was gone.
If you use GPL code as a crib-sheet, you can re-write a program and claim your own copyright on it. The GPL is basically something you agree to if you don't mind, or are too lazy to reimplement it.
Microsoft wants to keep anyone from ever doing what they're doing, regardless of how the person figures it out.
There's a big difference. The GPL can be worked around, crooked patents can't.
It's a shame that we think that when people represent themselves. If only we had a system designed to be usable by the people...
But in this case it looks like sounds strategy. When you're just filing harassing lawsuits you don't want to waste money on a lawyer. Keep that for when you get countersued. If anyone actually mounts a credible defense, find some technicality and "let them off", while maintaining your case against the people who can be bullied.
To call and harass them would be wrong, yes. But to call them and calmly explain to the representative that spurious lawsuits and scare tactics have cost them a potential customer, as well as leading you to warn all of your friends against ever shopping there... That wouldn't be wrong. In fact, I think it's the "right" thing to do. If you have a problem with someone, tell them up front. It's a business issue, so using the business line is appropriate.
Just keep it honest, and non-harassing and it's a legit call. The fact that they can't be duping an innocent customer while taking complaints is just gravy... Really though, if this were a "bricks and mortar" store people could picket out front, there's no cyber-equivalent (except putting up opposing web pages) so this seems justified to me.
I'm in exactly this position now. I was doing some programming (hourly wage) for a guy who changed his mind partway through and decided he wouldn't pay for the parts he didn't want, despite having clearly asked for it to be done. When I billed him for it he said he decided not to pay. No justification, just decided not to.
I need to find out if I can get damages (time lost filing) as well as the outstanding bill. Also, if I lose, am I liable for his legal fees? (Not really asking for advice, just saying where I am in the process, Canadian law would be different anyways.)
What a jerk though. He has the money, but no doubt thinks I won't bother filing for a small ammount ($750).
I also want to find out how much of this I can say without fear of defamation suits. I mean, he did very obviously break the contract. Can I put that (and his names/business name) on my webpage with the facts? I'd love to, he gets business from the web and being on google with some nasty facts in the public eye would hurt his business a lot, but justifiably IMHO.
Truer even, if you realize that the ultimate backing of laws is force. Those lawyers are really just negotiators for the mercenaries, but if you don't play along, even in an outrageous case like this, you could be bankrupt and without prospects when they're through with you.
There needs to be some way for people to defend themselves in these cases. I support the idea that the two sides be forced to pool money and share equally. That way you can't buy your way out in either case. Loser being forced to pay only up to double the ammount they put up... If A sues B, A puts in $5k and B puts in $50k, A should only be responsible for $10k, tops. (Otherwise you couldn't out-lawyer your opponent, but you could still hold the threat of huge legal bills, should they lose, over their head.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, US copyright law contains a deliberate exception to the no-copying rule, allowing all copying necessary to the normal functioning of the program. To me this implies that if it normally runs off of the HD, you can copy it there (or tell it to do so) and make copies in ram, cache, etc, for the purposes of executing it.
This further weakens the EULA arguments.
However, the most damning argument (IMHO) is that MS, Adobe, and others are trying to buy the UCITA, a law that would (primarily) make EULAs binding. If their highly-paid staff of lawyers thought that EULAs would be found to be enforceable by the courts, they'd recommend against wasting money on a useless (for them) law. The fact that they are in fact bribing like crazy implies that they feel they need the law.
You can't justify the unsafe working conditions and lousy treatment of workers that way. Sure, they may only need to be payed $1.50 a day, but they should have a safe place to work and be free from harassment if they try to find other options.
Most sweatshops (and Nike's not the only guilty party) pay more than the going local wage but easily make up for that by mistreating the workers. Many workers have died because they were locked in a factory that caught fire... Much like the "?? Shirt Fire" that happened around the turn of last century and started the push for workplace safety regulations.
Actually, you could think of the missile as a high-speed binary-distribution system...
Actually, in many ways an artist is forced to sign with one of the big music promoters. You can't get radio play without that, or concert venues, etc, etc.
It's not an open market where everyone can compete equally. It's an ugly market completely controlled by a small number of nearly identical companies who certainly aren't going to tolerate any competition that they could destroy.
The middlemen don't push music that's worth listening to, they push music they can make money off of. Big difference. Do you think they'd stop pushing their music if they knew they didn't have anyone worth promoting right then? Of course not. In fact they'd probably promote all the harder to keep from appearing as not having any good artists.
An independent site however could promote only those artists they feel their customers (either paying, or via eyeballs) would actually want to hear.
I once had a really snooty author tell me that I'd be screwed without publishers simply because those publishers have the terrible job of looking through slush piles for the gems.
I've done similar jobs. I've reviewed Quake maps, Star-Trek fanfic, and other amateur works. It's not something I'd want to do all the time, as in, in order to find a book to read I have to go through nine bad ones to find one good one, but as a side project it was actually fun.
And look at the sites that host these reviews. Tons of content, sorted by author, theme, and score, all available for download by anyone interested. All run by fans.
Even if no businesses wanted to touch the music promotion business it'd be taken up by fans in a minute and would likely provide a better service. There's a lot to be said for not having a vested interest in either result.
Gotcha. You're wrong, but it's my fault because I didn't discount all evidence against your point of view.
As I said before, get over yourself. Stupid racial stereotypes are as good as nonexistant in mainstream movies and television. If you keep seeing them, you may want to up the tinfoil content of your hat.
You tend to care about someone you've heard of, and you tend to hear of people of similar heritage and people in close phsyical proximity. Someone around the world, who you've never heard of, regardless of skin color, isn't going to interest you as much as a close relation, a neighbor, or the close relation of a neighbor.
Now, understand that not caring as much about people you don't know isn't a crime. Hell, it's a good thing. I'd be very upset if a family member died in a car accident. If I was that upset over anyone who died in a car accident, multiplied by the thousands who are, I'd be suicidal all the time.
This doesn't mean you have to be cold hearted though. I understand the trajedy it is for the people who are close to the victims. I am as sympathetic as I can be, given the fact that I don't know anyone involved. And I'm concerned about reducing the amount of world suffering. Because of this, the simple fact of needless deaths is upsetting.
But it's not a racial issue in any way. I know people in Germany and Ireland, both directly and through local family. I know my neighbors and have travelled a fair bit, so I know people in a range of place. I also indirectly know their families, primarily asian and the aforementioned europeans. So when news about europe of asia comes on it's more likely to concern someone I know, or who is known by someone I know. In a "six degrees" sense, I'm closed to them. But in a racial sense, not necessarily.
Get over yourself.
For every nasty stereotype you see of a black guy there are more positive ones.
I thought Wil Smith's character in Independence Day was pretty cool. Samuel Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction, while a criminal, was just as cool and smart as any of the others.
If you're seeing offensive black stereotypes everywhere you look, you're either watching KKK TV, or you're increadily hypersensitive.
This whole racist obsession people have is kinda ridiculous. Colors aren't hidden racist subtext.
White is fascinating and black is scary. This makes sense. Think about it. The dark is "black". If you go into the dark, you can't see things and this is bad. Things can eat you in the dark. There are Grue's in the dark. Everyone naturally is warrier in the dark, even someone with "black" skin.
On the other hand, bright light is white, and it reveals everything that was hidden. Light also conquers darkness.
So if you're portraying a character who's evil and nasty you could (if you're wanting to make it blatantly obvious) dress them in black and have them hide in shadows. Dangerous things lurk in shadows, so the connection is obvious.
For an example. I, as a kid, was scared of the dark long before I'd ever seen a black person. I liked flashlights because they got rid of the darkness. This was long before I knew that I was "white" by comparison to anything else.
This is seperate from the skin color of the characters. It's just to explain that Gandalf the White and Sauron the Dark aren't necessarily racial comments in any way. Feel free to read anything you want into the skin colors of the orcs and the "good guys".
I am glad though, that they didn't throw in a token black character. They were dealing with small isolated populations. You likely wouldn't get someone with a really different skin color so it'd be a blatant "Don't hate us, here's your token minority" gesture. Now on the other hand, if they'd made (for instance) the wood elves dark (or the Rivendell ones) that would have made some sense because they were a seperate population. But it's unthinking knee-jerk PC gestures that stick out like a sore thumb. And in my opinion these do more harm than good because they bring the issue of skin color to mind, instead of ignoring it as the non-issue it is.
The problem with this view is that the whole world isn't subjective. It's not the nice little PC dream where everyone, regardless of conflicting views, can be right.
While someone may have a reason for acting the way they do doesn't mean it's an excuse. I wouldn't tolerate a nazi, or any other racist, no matter how much I could understand what made them small minded to begin with.
IMHO there's a big difference between what you do to yourself, or with consenting others, and what you try to force on people. Being tolerant of people with wacky ideas has nothing to do with most people's idea of tolerance, which involves letting idiots push you around.
I'm okay with living in an world with flat-earthers, or the religious, even wacky religions. But I'm not okay with them pushing their beliefs on me. I'm not okay with them demanding the right to hurt people, and so on.
If I was in a tolalitarian regime I'd want someone to come and get me out. I wouldn't want to have to then believe what the new people believed or anything, but if they were offering honest freedom, I'd prefer them over like-believing thugs. So I think we have the right to use "our" might to try to set things right. To give people the chance to peacefully and unobtrusively believe whatever wacky things they want.
To do this though might involve crushing a few people who stand in the way. I'm well aware of the irony in the idea of peace through bloody war, but I think it's sometimes the only way. The powerful leaders won't step down voluntarily and where their will is directly contradictory to that of the people, I think they should be removed.
This gets into the futility of modern war though, where we're willing to kill Sadamm's whole army to stop him, but we stop at the idea of sending in a "murder squad" to kill him.
Anyways, this ventures a bit off the strict topic of tolerance/pushover, but I think context is needed for what might sound like very inflamatory opinions.
You wrote that as a joke, or sarcasticly, perhaps, but it's all too common for people to think way.
What's to stop Stephen King, or Harlan Ellison, for example, from suing Baen claiming that the library is unfair. Here's a sample argument, "The free library gives exposure to authors who weren't going to sell (any real ammount) of books anyways. But if we (well-published) authors tried it, we'd be slitting our wrists. Thus the free library is an unfair advantage and should be stopped."
It could happen. Perhaps they'll get Judge Kaplan (2600 DeCSS case) and we'll find out that he used to work for a publishing house before Time Warner...
Could happen.
Go ahead and charge for access. But don't try to assert ownership of data that was entered by third parties, especially when there's an implicit understanding that if you volunteer effort towards something you'll be able to partake of the fruits of your labour.
So feel free to work out a payment scheme. But don't stop other companies, or generous individuals from doing the same. If you can't offer a better (consistent and fast) service than volunteers can, don't expect payment.
My suggestion for hosting it would be a distributed system where a round-robin DNS points you to various servers based on load and time of day. They all sync up every hour or so, and changes have to come through the master server. (Prevent duplicate entries.)
Space is cheap, so there's no reason to fragment the database, only to distribute the queries to save bandwidth and CPU time.
I'd host a node of this, if it existed. Tell the master server to limit how many people it passes to me and I'd happily dedicate 25% of my bandwidth to it.
Actually, I think reasonable and fair would involve huge damages (in the billions) and jail time for the officers of the company.
They broke a few laws, and faked evidence in a federal court. This was done with an intent of profit, and intent is something you look at when handing out a sentence.
That's before you get to the civil aspects of the case, or consider abuse of monopoly powers. (Most of which isn't actual "law breaking".)
Basically, I think MS should get the same punishments that other people and companies would, if they had done the same things.
And no, I don't care that breaking MS would hurt the markets. If people invest in a company that's fairly obviously flouting the law I think they should see it as a high-risk investment. Otherwise there's no incentive (and in fact a dis-incentive) for other people to obey it the law. (Would you obey the law if doing so was sure to ruin your business, and nobody else was being punished for breaking it?)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but we do imprison criminals. Both a preventative, and a deterrant. We also take all the spoils of their illegal actions.
A consideration is that you may want more parity drives. Most drives tend to die for a reason, such as a power surge, or when shut down. This means that you're more likely to see a couple drives go at once than you would be if they just died during normal operation. Because of this, RAID units actually tend to lose a few drives at once even if the MTBF suggests otherwise.
So, if you have one 35+1 array, losing any two drives could kill it.
If you have four 7+1 arrays RAID 0ed together and lose two drives, there's a 1/4 chance that both drives were on the same array, which would kill it.
You could do four 6+2 arrays, but then you only get 3/4 of the space you paid for. That does take your safety margin to three disks, and only 1/16th of the time. That's probably safe enough to trust.
But ideally you'd do one large 28+4 array, without much more loss of space than originally (7/8ths usable) and it could tolerate the loss of any four drives, regardless of location. But I don't think that's possible with these cards, given that each controls only eight drives.
So you could do a software 3+1 RAID5 of four 7+1 arrays, which would tolerate the loss of any one array, which would happen 1/4 of the time with a two drive loss. But you're now back under the 3/4 usable space (21/32 actually) which starts to suck.
Unfortunately, there just isn't a good way to do it with that many drives and hardware RAID 5 that only supports eight at a time.
What does that have to do with this?
It'd greed, pure and simple. The law allows me to be greedy in many ways, yet I don't take advantage of it. If I did, I'd be lonely really damn quick.
So why do we accept this sort of anti-social behaviour from companies/associations?
I'm complaining to the author's guild. This is a legal action for them, but they should know that by trying to hide used books (which they wish weren't legal to sell at all) they've alienated a customer.
Actually, the theory that movies/software/music are licensed, not sold, hasn't been tested.
US Copyright law (and likely, that of most places) has a specific copy allowance, as long as it is required for proper intender usage of the product. (ie, software is sold with the implicit assumption that it will run, so any copying required to make it run (onto the HD, into RAM, cache, etc) is allowed. Duplicating it in a non-required was is (usually) prohibited.)
The idea that software needed to be licensed came about because it needed to be copied, so the sellers decided to claim that the copying was illegal without a license... They're just pulling that out of their asses though.
Really, EULAs aren't binding at all. That's why companies are pushing for the UCITA which would change that. If EULAs were binding they wouldn't be wasting millions bribing politicians to get a new law.
Sure, Blizzard used to be fairly friendly. And now they feel wronged. But does that excuse them striking out at innocents? bnetd has many uses that aren't related to piracy.
You'd understand if I felt upset if someone stole something from me, but would that excuse me lashing out at you, perhaps stealing a similar item from you, or falsely reporting you for the crime because I know you could pay to replace my item and the judge would likely order this?
Blizzard isn't trying to create new laws here, just abuse the existing ones.
It's established practice in all other industries that replacement parts and seperate utilities (example: tires, squeeges, gasoline, wipers, etc) can be made by any company that can figure out how.
It's also established practice that once you buy something the creator/distributor/seller have no control over it.
So why does Blizzard and the software industry rate totally new standards?
It's clear that once you buy software the creator loses all control over how you use it, EULAs aren't binding, and you're allowed to create addons. Any claims to the contrary are without any legal justification and are attempting to stifle competition through spurious lawsuits. Blizzard doesn't have a leg to stand on, however they have bags of money to prop themselves up on, so they'll abuse the legal system to get their own way.
Sheep. Really, if you'll put up with any semi-justified intusion on your freedoms without at least making a small stand you're going to wake up and find those freedoms gone.
When I'm turned away from a store because I'm carrying a bag I always ask to speak to the manager, when they come I explain how their rules are discriminatory (Do you ever see them banning purses? But small items can be just as valuable...) and how I refuse to shop at a store with a policy like that. I then show them the cash I was carrying, and tell them which item I was planning on buying.
They always offer to get the item for me, but I tell them I won't buy it from them anymore unless they change the no-bag rule. Some don't care, but some do. I've changed the policy of a local bookstore by doing this. It's their choice to implement the policy, but I feel they deserve to be informed of the consequences, and those are less sales.
I'd like to see some shoplifting punishment that would work to reform. IMHO if you're caught you should pay for, or return the item, then pay a few times its value (or do equivalent community service) and then stand outside the store for a day or two with a sandwich-board sign saying "I'm a criminal - I tried to shoplift from STORENAME and I got caught." The peer pressure would provide a strong incentive to reform. Perhaps having to stand in the area you live would help, to deter people who shoplifted in distant suburbs.
You actually *like* random maps? Ugh. They're such a hack which was obviously implemented to save them from having to make a map. Really, it's hard to see how Diablo took more than six months to make.
The thing I'm most looking forward to in Dungeon Siege is the fact that maps were designed. Someone went through and built them, so they look the way they do intentionally.
I suppose it's not good for running around slaughtering endless monsters, but then, what's the fun in slaying ten thousand identical randomly placed monsters to get the +23 Boots of Walking? Might as well play solitaire or some other random game.
Well, have no fear. It can't be long before someone with the Dungeon Siege editor makes a few square maps and some sort of hack to randomly place them, along with monsters.
Funny though, how the part you like most about Diablo is what I liked the least. When I found the maps were random, all the interest in exploring them was gone.
If you use GPL code as a crib-sheet, you can re-write a program and claim your own copyright on it. The GPL is basically something you agree to if you don't mind, or are too lazy to reimplement it.
Microsoft wants to keep anyone from ever doing what they're doing, regardless of how the person figures it out.
There's a big difference. The GPL can be worked around, crooked patents can't.
It's a shame that we think that when people represent themselves. If only we had a system designed to be usable by the people...
But in this case it looks like sounds strategy. When you're just filing harassing lawsuits you don't want to waste money on a lawyer. Keep that for when you get countersued. If anyone actually mounts a credible defense, find some technicality and "let them off", while maintaining your case against the people who can be bullied.
To call and harass them would be wrong, yes. But to call them and calmly explain to the representative that spurious lawsuits and scare tactics have cost them a potential customer, as well as leading you to warn all of your friends against ever shopping there... That wouldn't be wrong. In fact, I think it's the "right" thing to do. If you have a problem with someone, tell them up front. It's a business issue, so using the business line is appropriate.
Just keep it honest, and non-harassing and it's a legit call. The fact that they can't be duping an innocent customer while taking complaints is just gravy... Really though, if this were a "bricks and mortar" store people could picket out front, there's no cyber-equivalent (except putting up opposing web pages) so this seems justified to me.
I'm in exactly this position now. I was doing some programming (hourly wage) for a guy who changed his mind partway through and decided he wouldn't pay for the parts he didn't want, despite having clearly asked for it to be done. When I billed him for it he said he decided not to pay. No justification, just decided not to.
I need to find out if I can get damages (time lost filing) as well as the outstanding bill. Also, if I lose, am I liable for his legal fees? (Not really asking for advice, just saying where I am in the process, Canadian law would be different anyways.)
What a jerk though. He has the money, but no doubt thinks I won't bother filing for a small ammount ($750).
I also want to find out how much of this I can say without fear of defamation suits. I mean, he did very obviously break the contract. Can I put that (and his names/business name) on my webpage with the facts? I'd love to, he gets business from the web and being on google with some nasty facts in the public eye would hurt his business a lot, but justifiably IMHO.
I have to agree, it's sad but true.
Truer even, if you realize that the ultimate backing of laws is force. Those lawyers are really just negotiators for the mercenaries, but if you don't play along, even in an outrageous case like this, you could be bankrupt and without prospects when they're through with you.
There needs to be some way for people to defend themselves in these cases. I support the idea that the two sides be forced to pool money and share equally. That way you can't buy your way out in either case. Loser being forced to pay only up to double the ammount they put up... If A sues B, A puts in $5k and B puts in $50k, A should only be responsible for $10k, tops. (Otherwise you couldn't out-lawyer your opponent, but you could still hold the threat of huge legal bills, should they lose, over their head.)