The fact that 3.5 is working, and in no need of overhaul, exposes the fact that they are doing this under the motivation of short-sighted greed.
No. The 3.5 edition has many needed changes. Anyone who has the d20 Star Wars Saga knows that the rules can be improved, because that improved it. If WotC is basing 4th edition on SW Saga, it's a good sign.
I personally just wrapped up a gaming session tonight, and I have to tell you that 3.5 edition rules on grappling and turning undead are brain-dead. Not brain-dead as in dead-easy, but brain-dead as in stupidly cluttered. Also, later in this very Slashdot topic, someone posted about the changes he'd seen playing out in test games, and I have to say that I VERY much like some of the things described. For example, the fact that only the attacker rolls (I cast a fireball, I roll once, those in the blast take full or half damage without rolling). That alone will double the speed at which we complete battles, and I don't think (based upon what I've heard of the implementation) that we will lose much detail. These are great improvements. I had a session last month that was 5 hours long. During that session, we had one battle with 8 goblins. The ENTIRE five hours was spent fighting them. They were not particularly hard (or easy) but we were pouring over rule books for nuances about 5-foot steps, flanking, charges/bullrushes, and so on. If 4th edition fixes some of this nitpicking by streamlining away the cruft, then I'll happily give WotC my money for the new books.
PS: Our 3.5 edition game is at 5th level, we're in San Jose, California, we're professionals in our 30s, and we're looking for a 5th player. Email me at tony [at] outshine [dot] com, if you might be able to join.
...but I lost it. There was an article from 2 to 4 years ago in which clean code was discussed. This one guy wrote in to brag not about his own code, but about the code of the first seasoned developer he worked with. The guy was using some old language, but it had "if" statements and the like. Anyway, the guy had named his variables beautifully so that any given line of code read like a normal English sentence (almost). I discounted his implication that code could be "prettified" just by variable naming, but then the guy posted an example -- maybe 20 lines -- that he had kept all those years. And it REALLY WAS beautiful. It was so clean that a year or so ago I searched Slashdot to try to relocate that sample code. Never did find it.
Use dupe only when a Slashdot story is an actual duplicate of a previous Slashdot story, offering no new information. [...] These tags will alert us to problems immediately (but they won't show up on the top tags list).
Yes, and it was so helpful in getting the editors to take no action on this. Clearly, removing the dupe tag from the list of tags and showing it only to the editors has helped us exactly not at all. Yay for Slashdot.
I would note that in addition to the original design documents, the original Fallout 3 tech demo has been leaked. That's right, it's the playable game that the original team was working on 4 years ago. It doesn't have anything to do with the new game that Bethesda is trying to build. Bethesda only came into the picture when the original company folded.
If you actually bothered to read the correspondence like you claimed, you'd realize just how absurd this is, and that goes to the people that modded you informative as well...
Huh? I did read the correspondence, and I do think it is absurd. Why do you have to be a jerk to everybody about it? Especially when you're clearly having trouble with reading comprehension?
He was hacking. He uses the a property of user controls to allow him to inject his code into VS to replace the Addin Manager MS removed.
Um, OK. I guess I defer to you, as I'm not an MS developer. But Jamie maintains that he only used methods documented by Microsoft itself. So if he was hacking, it was MS-approved and MS-documented hacks that were used. I would tend to think that means it's not hacking, but is instead programming as proscribed by the company.
This has been going on for two years now. He has been asked nicely and has reneged on previous agreements. Now surprise surprise they are pissed with him.
OK, again, I guess I have to defer to you. You're stating your opinion, and you're free to have it. However, I can't share your opinion. I've read it all, and I feel that Weber was rude almost from the start. In addition, if Microsoft is frustrated that they asked nicely and didn't get the results they wanted, I feel they need to blame themselves. The only reason that I can see that it didn't work out as Microsoft wanted is because they wouldn't answer Jamie's questions. He wasn't going to cripple his product without some justification for it, and yet over and over again Microsoft ignored that request or answered in generalities. You can blame Jamie, if you want. But I'm going to say that Microsoft was handling members of the developer community very poorly there.
Weber wouldn't state what part of which license Jamie had violated.
He has been informed it was the section about complying with the technical limitations of the application.
Uh, yeah, a year after he asked! What was it, 5 days ago that they finally told him? That seems a bit tardy, so I'd not give Microsoft a break on that count.
In fact, it is apparent from the emails that MS was very careful not to say anything actionable.
I agree mostly, and that's part of my problem with Microsoft. They were pushy but unwilling to cite the clause Jamie violated. However, as provided in the link about the scans from the MS lawyers, Microsoft has in the last few days finally said something actionable.
Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how he violated Microsoft's contract by using the published APIs?
Yes and no. I can explain what I read, and why I believe that it will hold up in court. But I don't think you're asking for that. I think you feel that using public APIs should not be prevented or outlawed, and so you object to the entire concept. If I'm wrong about that, you can skip this paragraph and go to the ntext one. But if I'm right, all I can say is that's not an argument I can have with you, as I find it to be a boring one. MS has a contract, they've cited the passage he violates, and they'll sing it out loud in court. Whether we like that or not, it means MS will win in my book. So I don't really care to have a discussion about how ethical MS is, or whether they should be able to restrict a public API. The fact is, they do it, and seem to have a leg to stand on here. But by all means, have that discussion with other Slashdot readers. I'm sure it's one that many would like to have.
So with that disclaimer in place, here is what I read. Near the bottom of the first page of that scan, you'll see that they cite the part of the contract that has been violated. In particular, the contract states that you cannot circumvent the limitations they've put on the low-end product. One of the limitations is no plugins. That's explained elsewhere, but here in the letter from the lawyers we at least see now that they have a clause prohibiting end-runs around the crippled features of the low-end product. This is what Jamie asked for time and time again. No one would cite any clause that he violated. Finally, at last, someone did. Whatever I think about the merits of Microsoft's case, I will continue to think that they're jerks for taking a year to quote the relevant part of the contract.
Elsewhere, in another letter, they explain that they have the legal prohibition in the contract to cover cases exactly like this -- cases where they tried to block it technically, but someone found a loophole. So they use the contract as a way to say, "even if we screw up and left a way to do it technically, you still can't do it contractually." We may or may not think they should be allowed to get away with that, but again, that's where I get bored and drop out of the conversation.
...apparently Jamie has until 4 PM tomorrow (the 6th) to respond to the lawyers or remove the offending application.
If you read through ALL the correspondence (a boring, lengthy exercise), you'll find out a few interesting facts:
Weber, the guy at Microsoft stirring up trouble, was a jerk on 3 counts
He assumed that Jamie was hacking the low-end free version of Microsoft's products, when in fact Jamie used APIs published by Microsoft
Weber was rude
Weber wouldn't state what part of which license Jamie had violated. This is the boring part of the correspondence, because Jamie asks over and over again, and keeps getting back generalities such as "the relevant parts apply." That is crazy making, and I would not at all be as polite as Jamie has been.
Now that lawyers are involved, it's pretty clear how Jamie violated their terms.
Jamie is looking for a way to "stand up to the bullies" so to speak, even though it's now clear how he violated Microsoft's contract. That's not to say he's BAD -- he's quite great, actually, with a great product, too -- but now that MS has said "here is what you violated, please correct it" he should correct it. With no tricks, no reinstating the feature months later (which he has done once already).
The end result is that Jamie wants to fight it, but if he does, he's gonna lose in court. However, he is very very right in one aspect -- Microsoft deserves a black eye over this, and I don't blame Jamie for wanting to punch them in the face. I don't think Microsoft/Weber was particularly evil, but they were slightly rude and rather stupid. They would not answer Jamie's requests, over and over again. If they had just answered him plainly and clearly, this would have been solved a year ago.
The CorelDRAW Suite does CMYK. That's only a couple hundred USD, I think. Add on NVU for Web design. That's free. The only thing you're missing at that point is a page layout program. You could try Scribus, but it's not getting great reviews here in the comments. Oh well, that's the deal with going cheap: you have to make sacrifices. However, as long as you install CutePDF or some other PDF printer program, you can make almost anything a page layout program. Open Office would probably be viable and free. Nothing will match InDesign and Quark, but since you're just setting up your friends with basic apps, maybe it will be good enough.
Any fool with access to a computer can touch thousands of other minds. We all as (hopefully) sane humans need to police the internet, consider it neighborhood watch if you like.
I totally agree. I want to report you and your posts. I hope your ability to post is quickly removed. Sorry. It's not censorship, just the neighborhood watch doing its job. Nothing personal.
Over the last season and a half, the show has been sucking pretty badly.
Yes. I stopped watching halfway through season 3. I got tired of the drama being played up, and the sci-fi being played down. It wasn't interesting, and I don't think I'd seen a tense gun battle in weeks at that point. How much trouble is BSG in? Well, more than Lost, in my opinion. Lost started picking up again in the last few episodes, and so I've taken care to watch all of them. But BSG turned me off so completely that I have no intention of catching up, even if season 4 turns out great. In other words, the 10 or 12 episodes that I've missed I will leave behind as forever missed and simply drop myself back into the episodes when they start to appeal again.
I've talked with a few people who own season 1 & 2 on DVD, but have no intention of buying season 3 ever. Even if season 4 is a hit and they buy that on DVD, they will just leave season 3 unpurchased, as the Season Which Shall Not Be Mentioned. So I feel like I'm in good company on this one, and I think this is an issue which Moore would have been wise to acknowledge earlier on. Lost lured me back just as I was giving up. BSG wasn't as quick to respond to viewer dissatisfaction. That's a problem that has now hurt them with both viewers and sales of DVDs (I suspect). Still, I have hope that season 4 will be as great as season 1. I'll give it a second chance.
I would submit that the definition you quote is slightly off-base. Perhaps a more accurate definition would be "to suppress the publication of material." While that still might be broad enough to cover some non-government cases, it more accurately suggests that forces must be used to deny the publication in (m)any forms. For example, if I have written a letter to the NYT and Slashdot, and NYT refuses to run it while Slashdot does run it, have I been censored? The message got out.
By this definition, I would suggest that Digg didn't censor anyone, as they were free to publish the hex code elsewhere. But the MPAA or other agencies that are serving up DMCA takedown notices to everyone may in fact be censoring, as they are reaching across all publications, effectively preventing the hex code from ever being published anywhere.
I started a page for this, here. It contains ribbons that use 5 colors. The 5 colors are comprised of the "secret" hex code that is being suppressed. Interested parties are free to use these ribbons on their own sites. If you would like to link your ribbon to an explanatory page, I provide one here.
I started a page for this, here. It includes a link to a page with graphics that use the hex values of the "secret code." While I'm pretty sure my 5-color ribbons are using the hex values correctly, I am not certain that I wrote up my summary of the five colors campaign correctly. Can anyone double-check that I have correctly summed up the issues? I will correct the text if it is inaccurate.
...check out the Podsafe Music Network. According to their FAQ, the artists certify their music is legally being licensed for podcasts. The artists have options to flag their work as being available for podcasts, broadcasts, derivative works, etc. Isn't that the equivalent of getting a new contract "directly from the artist" which allows stations to get away from compulsory licensing? If so, it seems like the system to avoid SoundExchange has already been built, and simply needs to be used more by artists & streaming stations.
I believe one reason for the panic is that the fees are retroactive to January 2006. Can anyone correct me, or confirm it?
In other words, tiny little Net radio outfits that did not sign on for tens of thousands of dollars in fees are now on the hook for very large sums of money. Radio stations that might have said, "we won't do radio if it costs $10,000" have effectively been tricked into debt. I think a lot of these stations are freaked out not because the fees are high, but because they have to pay 16 months worth of fees, now.
...I think the more interesting aspect here is that people in the UK have shopped their inventions to the USA, which bought them, and will likely use them ON the UK. In other words, the UK is perhaps selling technology that will be used against them. Of course that's an exaggeration to some degree, as the USA & UK are pretty chummy. But still, isn't it odd that surveillance technology is being giving to other countries? I'm pretty sure we haven't loaned out any of our stealth planes, or even made the specs available. Are there gaps in my understanding that others could fill?
Dun Malg, I love you. I basically created an entire Web site to say what you just said. People like you are VERY rare. My wife read the site and said, "but you're a writer, how can you want people to copy your stuff?" And I thought, wow, if my own wife totally misses the point -- a wife who is technology-friendly and talks with me about this stuff regularly -- then LOTS of people are out of touch with the ideas behind copyright. Here's to you, Dun Malg.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep telling yourself that.
Wow, some people will come up with any justification to avoid facing the reality that they've failed to make a good point.
Wow, that's really sad that you think what you've described is quality role playing. Perhaps D&D really does offer more.
No. The 3.5 edition has many needed changes. Anyone who has the d20 Star Wars Saga knows that the rules can be improved, because that improved it. If WotC is basing 4th edition on SW Saga, it's a good sign.
I personally just wrapped up a gaming session tonight, and I have to tell you that 3.5 edition rules on grappling and turning undead are brain-dead. Not brain-dead as in dead-easy, but brain-dead as in stupidly cluttered. Also, later in this very Slashdot topic, someone posted about the changes he'd seen playing out in test games, and I have to say that I VERY much like some of the things described. For example, the fact that only the attacker rolls (I cast a fireball, I roll once, those in the blast take full or half damage without rolling). That alone will double the speed at which we complete battles, and I don't think (based upon what I've heard of the implementation) that we will lose much detail. These are great improvements. I had a session last month that was 5 hours long. During that session, we had one battle with 8 goblins. The ENTIRE five hours was spent fighting them. They were not particularly hard (or easy) but we were pouring over rule books for nuances about 5-foot steps, flanking, charges/bullrushes, and so on. If 4th edition fixes some of this nitpicking by streamlining away the cruft, then I'll happily give WotC my money for the new books.
PS: Our 3.5 edition game is at 5th level, we're in San Jose, California, we're professionals in our 30s, and we're looking for a 5th player. Email me at tony [at] outshine [dot] com, if you might be able to join.
...but I lost it. There was an article from 2 to 4 years ago in which clean code was discussed. This one guy wrote in to brag not about his own code, but about the code of the first seasoned developer he worked with. The guy was using some old language, but it had "if" statements and the like. Anyway, the guy had named his variables beautifully so that any given line of code read like a normal English sentence (almost). I discounted his implication that code could be "prettified" just by variable naming, but then the guy posted an example -- maybe 20 lines -- that he had kept all those years. And it REALLY WAS beautiful. It was so clean that a year or so ago I searched Slashdot to try to relocate that sample code. Never did find it.
Yes, and it was so helpful in getting the editors to take no action on this. Clearly, removing the dupe tag from the list of tags and showing it only to the editors has helped us exactly not at all. Yay for Slashdot.
I would note that in addition to the original design documents, the original Fallout 3 tech demo has been leaked. That's right, it's the playable game that the original team was working on 4 years ago. It doesn't have anything to do with the new game that Bethesda is trying to build. Bethesda only came into the picture when the original company folded.
You deserve a + mod for that post. Wish I had a point. Good contribution to the discussion.
Huh? I did read the correspondence, and I do think it is absurd. Why do you have to be a jerk to everybody about it? Especially when you're clearly having trouble with reading comprehension?
Um, OK. I guess I defer to you, as I'm not an MS developer. But Jamie maintains that he only used methods documented by Microsoft itself. So if he was hacking, it was MS-approved and MS-documented hacks that were used. I would tend to think that means it's not hacking, but is instead programming as proscribed by the company.
OK, again, I guess I have to defer to you. You're stating your opinion, and you're free to have it. However, I can't share your opinion. I've read it all, and I feel that Weber was rude almost from the start. In addition, if Microsoft is frustrated that they asked nicely and didn't get the results they wanted, I feel they need to blame themselves. The only reason that I can see that it didn't work out as Microsoft wanted is because they wouldn't answer Jamie's questions. He wasn't going to cripple his product without some justification for it, and yet over and over again Microsoft ignored that request or answered in generalities. You can blame Jamie, if you want. But I'm going to say that Microsoft was handling members of the developer community very poorly there.Uh, yeah, a year after he asked! What was it, 5 days ago that they finally told him? That seems a bit tardy, so I'd not give Microsoft a break on that count.
It's in the new scans from the MS lawyers. They cite the clause that Jamie violated.
I agree mostly, and that's part of my problem with Microsoft. They were pushy but unwilling to cite the clause Jamie violated. However, as provided in the link about the scans from the MS lawyers, Microsoft has in the last few days finally said something actionable.
Yes and no. I can explain what I read, and why I believe that it will hold up in court. But I don't think you're asking for that. I think you feel that using public APIs should not be prevented or outlawed, and so you object to the entire concept. If I'm wrong about that, you can skip this paragraph and go to the ntext one. But if I'm right, all I can say is that's not an argument I can have with you, as I find it to be a boring one. MS has a contract, they've cited the passage he violates, and they'll sing it out loud in court. Whether we like that or not, it means MS will win in my book. So I don't really care to have a discussion about how ethical MS is, or whether they should be able to restrict a public API. The fact is, they do it, and seem to have a leg to stand on here. But by all means, have that discussion with other Slashdot readers. I'm sure it's one that many would like to have.
So with that disclaimer in place, here is what I read. Near the bottom of the first page of that scan, you'll see that they cite the part of the contract that has been violated. In particular, the contract states that you cannot circumvent the limitations they've put on the low-end product. One of the limitations is no plugins. That's explained elsewhere, but here in the letter from the lawyers we at least see now that they have a clause prohibiting end-runs around the crippled features of the low-end product. This is what Jamie asked for time and time again. No one would cite any clause that he violated. Finally, at last, someone did. Whatever I think about the merits of Microsoft's case, I will continue to think that they're jerks for taking a year to quote the relevant part of the contract.
Elsewhere, in another letter, they explain that they have the legal prohibition in the contract to cover cases exactly like this -- cases where they tried to block it technically, but someone found a loophole. So they use the contract as a way to say, "even if we screw up and left a way to do it technically, you still can't do it contractually." We may or may not think they should be allowed to get away with that, but again, that's where I get bored and drop out of the conversation.
...apparently Jamie has until 4 PM tomorrow (the 6th) to respond to the lawyers or remove the offending application.
If you read through ALL the correspondence (a boring, lengthy exercise), you'll find out a few interesting facts:
The end result is that Jamie wants to fight it, but if he does, he's gonna lose in court. However, he is very very right in one aspect -- Microsoft deserves a black eye over this, and I don't blame Jamie for wanting to punch them in the face. I don't think Microsoft/Weber was particularly evil, but they were slightly rude and rather stupid. They would not answer Jamie's requests, over and over again. If they had just answered him plainly and clearly, this would have been solved a year ago.
The CorelDRAW Suite does CMYK. That's only a couple hundred USD, I think. Add on NVU for Web design. That's free. The only thing you're missing at that point is a page layout program. You could try Scribus, but it's not getting great reviews here in the comments. Oh well, that's the deal with going cheap: you have to make sacrifices. However, as long as you install CutePDF or some other PDF printer program, you can make almost anything a page layout program. Open Office would probably be viable and free. Nothing will match InDesign and Quark, but since you're just setting up your friends with basic apps, maybe it will be good enough.
I totally agree. I want to report you and your posts. I hope your ability to post is quickly removed. Sorry. It's not censorship, just the neighborhood watch doing its job. Nothing personal.
Yes. I stopped watching halfway through season 3. I got tired of the drama being played up, and the sci-fi being played down. It wasn't interesting, and I don't think I'd seen a tense gun battle in weeks at that point. How much trouble is BSG in? Well, more than Lost, in my opinion. Lost started picking up again in the last few episodes, and so I've taken care to watch all of them. But BSG turned me off so completely that I have no intention of catching up, even if season 4 turns out great. In other words, the 10 or 12 episodes that I've missed I will leave behind as forever missed and simply drop myself back into the episodes when they start to appeal again.
I've talked with a few people who own season 1 & 2 on DVD, but have no intention of buying season 3 ever. Even if season 4 is a hit and they buy that on DVD, they will just leave season 3 unpurchased, as the Season Which Shall Not Be Mentioned. So I feel like I'm in good company on this one, and I think this is an issue which Moore would have been wise to acknowledge earlier on. Lost lured me back just as I was giving up. BSG wasn't as quick to respond to viewer dissatisfaction. That's a problem that has now hurt them with both viewers and sales of DVDs (I suspect). Still, I have hope that season 4 will be as great as season 1. I'll give it a second chance.
I would submit that the definition you quote is slightly off-base. Perhaps a more accurate definition would be "to suppress the publication of material." While that still might be broad enough to cover some non-government cases, it more accurately suggests that forces must be used to deny the publication in (m)any forms. For example, if I have written a letter to the NYT and Slashdot, and NYT refuses to run it while Slashdot does run it, have I been censored? The message got out.
By this definition, I would suggest that Digg didn't censor anyone, as they were free to publish the hex code elsewhere. But the MPAA or other agencies that are serving up DMCA takedown notices to everyone may in fact be censoring, as they are reaching across all publications, effectively preventing the hex code from ever being published anywhere.
I started a page for this, here. It contains ribbons that use 5 colors. The 5 colors are comprised of the "secret" hex code that is being suppressed. Interested parties are free to use these ribbons on their own sites. If you would like to link your ribbon to an explanatory page, I provide one here.
I started a page for this, here. It includes a link to a page with graphics that use the hex values of the "secret code." While I'm pretty sure my 5-color ribbons are using the hex values correctly, I am not certain that I wrote up my summary of the five colors campaign correctly. Can anyone double-check that I have correctly summed up the issues? I will correct the text if it is inaccurate.
...check out the Podsafe Music Network. According to their FAQ, the artists certify their music is legally being licensed for podcasts. The artists have options to flag their work as being available for podcasts, broadcasts, derivative works, etc. Isn't that the equivalent of getting a new contract "directly from the artist" which allows stations to get away from compulsory licensing? If so, it seems like the system to avoid SoundExchange has already been built, and simply needs to be used more by artists & streaming stations.
I believe one reason for the panic is that the fees are retroactive to January 2006. Can anyone correct me, or confirm it?
In other words, tiny little Net radio outfits that did not sign on for tens of thousands of dollars in fees are now on the hook for very large sums of money. Radio stations that might have said, "we won't do radio if it costs $10,000" have effectively been tricked into debt. I think a lot of these stations are freaked out not because the fees are high, but because they have to pay 16 months worth of fees, now.
...I think the more interesting aspect here is that people in the UK have shopped their inventions to the USA, which bought them, and will likely use them ON the UK. In other words, the UK is perhaps selling technology that will be used against them. Of course that's an exaggeration to some degree, as the USA & UK are pretty chummy. But still, isn't it odd that surveillance technology is being giving to other countries? I'm pretty sure we haven't loaned out any of our stealth planes, or even made the specs available. Are there gaps in my understanding that others could fill?
Yes. First, get this and this. Then try this URL to read it ad-free.
Here is a device that allows the blind to "see" by imprinting images onto the tongue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0
Kinda neat. Extremely low-resolution. I probably first found that link on Slashdot, for all I know....
Dun Malg, I love you. I basically created an entire Web site to say what you just said. People like you are VERY rare. My wife read the site and said, "but you're a writer, how can you want people to copy your stuff?" And I thought, wow, if my own wife totally misses the point -- a wife who is technology-friendly and talks with me about this stuff regularly -- then LOTS of people are out of touch with the ideas behind copyright. Here's to you, Dun Malg.