It depends. Someone else said it, and I totally agree with them.
Paraphrased: The way a game story and movie story is written is different.
Unless the movie can hire writers that can cut out the parts that make it distinctive as a game, and put more movie ingredients.. a game can be made into a good movie easily.
Take Mortal Kombat. What made it a good fighting game is the variety of characters, cool moves, good control and what not. Isn't that what makes any fighter game good? But when they made the movie, they kept MANY of the characters in it. If they took two of the characters who would be natural enemies, and expand on just that, it may have been better.
Take Mario Bros. Go through many obstacles, save the princess. The movie was the same exact thing minus mushrooms making you grow. As the movie went on, things got harder until the end when things finally resolved.
Now let's take something that may have been a made up game that could have been made into a movie that existed. Let's take an action movie, since they have battles and what not.. not so emotion based. Let's take "The Rock", the Nicholas Cage movie. Cage and Mr Connery have to get back some nasty bio weapons and save 150 hostages. Also have to take out the enemy. It sounds like a drawn out rainbow six mission, no?
So imagine taking the simple elements of a game, and making that a movie. Wouldn't THAT be the key? Zelda 64 isn't a rehash of Zelda or Adventures of Link, right? So why should a movie about Zelda be a rehash of an old video game?
Re:because it's an ugly, lumbering dinosaur
on
Postfix 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
NO no no! This is bloody wrong. Sendmail is quite powerful in that in the rules, you can manipulate addresses in scary ways. Much more powerful than qmail or postfix is. It does a lot of evaluation on the fly because it is built for that flexibility.
Sounds like you just used the wrong tool for the wrong job.
I can't agree, primarily because you are arguing in support of a lack of professionalism. If a person's job is to check IDs they ought to have the experience and knowledge to do their job well. If a company hires someone without the required level of experience, then it is that company's fault and not the government's.
But, in the USA it was believed that "the police" serve the people and not the other way around.
In general, I agree with you on this. If you can't do your job, you have no business having it. As for the police, i believe it's in terms of policing power, not the power of identifying someone. An ID is valuable for people OTHER than police. Just like money is better to be easily identiable as well, since it affects everyone's ability to use it.
I believe that the variations make things more difficult in the end, especialy if there is low exposure. The same problem occurs in training people on a system way too soon, before they use it. They forget their training, or start to mis-remember it and get confused.
All in all, my argument isn't against Schiner and keeping variations as a method to deter copy-cats. If we had 5000 variations, everyone would have to specialize in one to copy.. at least then we could retire that one version and have 1/5000'th of the population change. A pain in the ass, but possible.
My problem is in making the system usable so that people don't become lazy. If there were multiple ways of verifying quickly, i.e. a marker, a scanner and some other things.. I'd be supportive. Unfortunately, Schiner shoots down the idea of convenience w/o giving an alternate solution. He's not bad for it. If he can propose something better, that'd be great.
Yes. Literally. I can recognize a NJ and NY drivers license and that's it. But you may ask me, what my job is? Let's say I take the job of a bouncer to a bar and lounge. It's rather dark. I'm less likely to go find a book of pictures, turn on a light, and start to compare.
Now take the new $20's. There are three versions of them. I am more likely able to tell the diff since i have general exposure to them. I also will have general tech to tell me if something is real, depending on my industry.
I'm not saying Schiner is wrong. If there were 100 types of cards, and I could identify them, I'd be in a better situation. But truth is, people aren't always trained in the fine art, nor in a pinch, will they do the due diligence of making sure, that a foreign card is real. Heck, some people wouldn't know a passport if you showwed it to them.
You may have missed his point in turn. Yes. Anything can be duplicated.
But if all of the US used blue ID cards, then an ID card that isn't blue is obviously not an ID card.
If NY uses blue, Idaho uses orange, Deleware uses black and white stripes, it is a little harder to tell what is fake or what is not. Reminds me when I was in Nashville. They usually have your SSN number on the cards there. Being a NY'er.. the guy was totally befudled.:)
The goal was to replace one cog in the machine. If you want to continue to use QuickTime to continue, he's telling you how. If you don't want to use QuickTime, you probably don't have to. Be happy he gave you ONE option out of the many.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that anyone using the software cannot claim it as their own (and distribute it). We agree on that much.
Not really. Copyright prevents you from claiming it as your own. The GPL is to make sure that anyone using the software is guaranteed the freedom to use that software.
Right. I agree. I was trying to same the same thing.:)
Right. Your freedom (to live, do as you choose, not be harmed) depends on others not having the freedom to do those things to you. In this way, freedom for everyone is maximized. We don't disallow those "freedoms" because they're "tollerable to lose", we disallow them because they are expressly at odds with the freedoms of others.
No, because the analogy is still about people. The software is just the thing you need/want. It is the person giving it to you who wishes to own you, and the license is the legal mechanism.
Agreed, it gives everyone freedom w/o stepping on anyone else's toes. It's freedom for all!:) But software is different. I can create new software at will to mimic GPL software, especiall in a clean room. I cannot equate people with software.. that they should have the can be assigned the same rights. It holds no feelings, no anything. But you are right, it does have a value. That need and want gives it value.
But the value isn't JUST in the bits and bytes. It's in the ideas too. Gaim isn't great just because it's OSS, but also because it's a great interface, providing an idea.. a service.. a value to my life. And sharing that value is of that value, is one of the thigns the GPL facilititates. So it covers two things, not just code, but value in software.
Value in software isn't hard to duplicate given time. Some licenses make it easier to duplicate the idea with smaller retributions. That retribution, is the one freedom of the GPL, that is not a freedom at all sometimes. Especially in the software industry, where money is made at being a service, selling software, or just providing support (redhat), that retirbution is a big deal.
I view the BSD license to the old fishing proverb. Teach a man to fish, he can fish for life. More to fit, you give me the code to a firewall, I can now use the code at my own free will. With the GPL, I get the feeling I must teach everyone else. Not bad for some things, but has a value in itself sometimes.
Exactly why MS hates OSS. They don't want to teach people to make fish. They just want to make money by keeping the knowledge to themselves. Sometimes it's nice to share, sometimes it's nice to give away. MS seems a bit.. polar in this respect.
The purpose of the GPL is to unsure that recipients of the software have freedom for life. Because it does a better job of ensuring the freedom of the people who receive the software, I call it more free than the BSD license.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that anyone using the software cannot claim it as their own (and distribute it). We agree on that much. But there's one freedom I value as well... the freedom to be closed.
For instance, take something simple, like a bubble sort in basic. For the most part, there would be huge groups of people who would write it the same. But let's take the best one and GPL it.
That mean if I use that implementation, I can no longer use it in closed source software even if I've seen it. Otherwise, I may be violating the GPL by copying what I remember OR directly copying it byte for byte.
Now I'm not advocating everyone ditching GPL. It's a great license for the open source community, people who depend on each other for improvements and not to be taken advantage of. Heck, I'm one of those people. But if I want to one day close my source from the top-down, with no acknowledgement of who wrote what,I can't. I have gpl code that I must acknowledge and re-release. A freedom I no longer have.
That's where the BSD lisence shines. But every person has their preference and their place. Mine is with the GPL for some client software I'm writing, and if I closed-source it someday, I have nothing to gain other than annoying people. But if I develop somethign so cool, so awesome, as a computer scientist, you better believe it's going under BSD. My preference:)
The analogy with slavery is meant to illustrate this; do you truly believe your inability to own slaves means you have less freedom?
Well, my freedom to own slaves, shoot people at will, have sex with minors and what not are freedoms that are tollerable to lose. So yes, I do have less freedoms, but with the extra benefit that people can't shoot me, have sex with my kids (if i had) or to own me as a slave. Software can't own me, but I can own software. That's where the analogy fails.:)
Apples and oranges. You are making bad analogies. Once I have a copy of something in the BSD lisence, it's free for life. If I have something in the GPL, I am restricting certain behaviours. That is a restriction of a type of freedom, to lock away the source should I redistribute. BSD's freedom != GPL's freedom != Freedom in the United states. If there are any restrictions, then it's not "truely free" or any of that crap if you want to mince words.
So BSD may be a bit "more free" since there are less restrictions, though I personally don't agree with the little restrictions involved all the time.
In some ways, RMS is a kook. He's taken a basic word, "free" and redefined it. Free doesn't have to mean, free for anyony to get and use. Free can also mean, as gosling pointed out, free of charge. In some ways, the bsd license is "free-er" than GPL, as you owe no one anything other than a statement in the source. You can sell it in binary form, no hooks attached.
1. talk to parents. explain to them thuroughly what the situation is.
2. get a lawyer. you have a right to use their networks, not admin it. you can point things out, and use the system as intended, but that's as far as it goes. i.e. http vs https. changing other's passwords and what not is something for your parents and a lawyer to discuss with the school.
I disagree with RMS that we should not accept this even temporarily. I write open source Java libraries under the GPL so that people who find them useful and want to use them must adopt the GPL. Planting open source seeds in the Java community will help in the liberation of the platform as a whole.
The reliable way to avoid the Java Trap is to have only a free implementation of Java on your system. Then if you use a Java feature or library that free software does not yet support, you will find out straightaway, and you can rewrite that code immediately.
Combining RMS's idea and your own, come the day that java is "bad", your code can be ported to another language. Ruby, Python.. perl... you name it. Now mind you, you can't map it directly, but you can't write it.
You are doing more than developing java. You are developing algorithms and the likes. So come the day that you can't do java anymore, you still have a lot to walk away with, which is, those ideas.
As a programmer, who has used various UML tools, doing OOD (oo development) is a little easier with a graphical tool. It becomes REALLY easy to see how everything relates. Think of it like an ERD (entity relationship diagram) for a DB schema. Once I have my class diagrams and what not, i can generate java from them. I don't have to type out the class framework. Better yet, I can take an existing project and show how everything relates and in turn, have a map of an existing project.
Note, this should be KDE on Linux, not on freebsd. While it runs really well, any system level behavioral things, like USB management etc... don't work, because they (KDE) expect certain things to be in certain places to find certain things out. Certainly.
What needs to happen, perhaps within kde, is an abstractin level, that is plugable, so we can tell how to get freebsd and sun system information.
They were all rhetorical questions;) The only reason i liked the thumbnail idea, is that sometimes i'm on a blind search, and forget to bookmark something, i know it's in my history, just not the url by heart. it's useful for those "I know what the page looks like, just not the title" issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the movie can hire writers that can cut out the parts that make it distinctive as a game, and put more movie ingredients.. a game can be made into a good movie easily.
Take Mortal Kombat. What made it a good fighting game is the variety of characters, cool moves, good control and what not. Isn't that what makes any fighter game good? But when they made the movie, they kept MANY of the characters in it. If they took two of the characters who would be natural enemies, and expand on just that, it may have been better.
Take Mario Bros. Go through many obstacles, save the princess. The movie was the same exact thing minus mushrooms making you grow. As the movie went on, things got harder until the end when things finally resolved.
Now let's take something that may have been a made up game that could have been made into a movie that existed. Let's take an action movie, since they have battles and what not.. not so emotion based. Let's take "The Rock", the Nicholas Cage movie. Cage and Mr Connery have to get back some nasty bio weapons and save 150 hostages. Also have to take out the enemy. It sounds like a drawn out rainbow six mission, no?
So imagine taking the simple elements of a game, and making that a movie. Wouldn't THAT be the key? Zelda 64 isn't a rehash of Zelda or Adventures of Link, right? So why should a movie about Zelda be a rehash of an old video game?
Sounds like you just used the wrong tool for the wrong job.
Worst.. title.. ever.
Busted.
The 80's are calling. It wants its fanboy back. Good thing you have that delorian there McFly. :)
In general, I agree with you on this. If you can't do your job, you have no business having it. As for the police, i believe it's in terms of policing power, not the power of identifying someone. An ID is valuable for people OTHER than police. Just like money is better to be easily identiable as well, since it affects everyone's ability to use it.
I believe that the variations make things more difficult in the end, especialy if there is low exposure. The same problem occurs in training people on a system way too soon, before they use it. They forget their training, or start to mis-remember it and get confused.
All in all, my argument isn't against Schiner and keeping variations as a method to deter copy-cats. If we had 5000 variations, everyone would have to specialize in one to copy.. at least then we could retire that one version and have 1/5000'th of the population change. A pain in the ass, but possible.
My problem is in making the system usable so that people don't become lazy. If there were multiple ways of verifying quickly, i.e. a marker, a scanner and some other things.. I'd be supportive. Unfortunately, Schiner shoots down the idea of convenience w/o giving an alternate solution. He's not bad for it. If he can propose something better, that'd be great.
Now take the new $20's. There are three versions of them. I am more likely able to tell the diff since i have general exposure to them. I also will have general tech to tell me if something is real, depending on my industry.
I'm not saying Schiner is wrong. If there were 100 types of cards, and I could identify them, I'd be in a better situation. But truth is, people aren't always trained in the fine art, nor in a pinch, will they do the due diligence of making sure, that a foreign card is real. Heck, some people wouldn't know a passport if you showwed it to them.
No, I didn't miss that point. An "out of state" id card is useless if I can't identify it as a card.
But if all of the US used blue ID cards, then an ID card that isn't blue is obviously not an ID card.
If NY uses blue, Idaho uses orange, Deleware uses black and white stripes, it is a little harder to tell what is fake or what is not. Reminds me when I was in Nashville. They usually have your SSN number on the cards there. Being a NY'er.. the guy was totally befudled.
The goal was to replace one cog in the machine. If you want to continue to use QuickTime to continue, he's telling you how. If you don't want to use QuickTime, you probably don't have to. Be happy he gave you ONE option out of the many.
They had one too many. Alcohol will do that to a person.
Right. I agree. I was trying to same the same thing.
Agreed, it gives everyone freedom w/o stepping on anyone else's toes. It's freedom for all!
But the value isn't JUST in the bits and bytes. It's in the ideas too. Gaim isn't great just because it's OSS, but also because it's a great interface, providing an idea.. a service.. a value to my life. And sharing that value is of that value, is one of the thigns the GPL facilititates. So it covers two things, not just code, but value in software.
Value in software isn't hard to duplicate given time. Some licenses make it easier to duplicate the idea with smaller retributions. That retribution, is the one freedom of the GPL, that is not a freedom at all sometimes. Especially in the software industry, where money is made at being a service, selling software, or just providing support (redhat), that retirbution is a big deal.
I view the BSD license to the old fishing proverb. Teach a man to fish, he can fish for life. More to fit, you give me the code to a firewall, I can now use the code at my own free will. With the GPL, I get the feeling I must teach everyone else. Not bad for some things, but has a value in itself sometimes.
Exactly why MS hates OSS. They don't want to teach people to make fish. They just want to make money by keeping the knowledge to themselves. Sometimes it's nice to share, sometimes it's nice to give away. MS seems a bit
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that anyone using the software cannot claim it as their own (and distribute it). We agree on that much. But there's one freedom I value as well... the freedom to be closed.
For instance, take something simple, like a bubble sort in basic. For the most part, there would be huge groups of people who would write it the same. But let's take the best one and GPL it.
That mean if I use that implementation, I can no longer use it in closed source software even if I've seen it. Otherwise, I may be violating the GPL by copying what I remember OR directly copying it byte for byte.
Now I'm not advocating everyone ditching GPL. It's a great license for the open source community, people who depend on each other for improvements and not to be taken advantage of. Heck, I'm one of those people. But if I want to one day close my source from the top-down, with no acknowledgement of who wrote what,I can't. I have gpl code that I must acknowledge and re-release. A freedom I no longer have.
That's where the BSD lisence shines. But every person has their preference and their place. Mine is with the GPL for some client software I'm writing, and if I closed-source it someday, I have nothing to gain other than annoying people. But if I develop somethign so cool, so awesome, as a computer scientist, you better believe it's going under BSD. My preference
Well, my freedom to own slaves, shoot people at will, have sex with minors and what not are freedoms that are tollerable to lose. So yes, I do have less freedoms, but with the extra benefit that people can't shoot me, have sex with my kids (if i had) or to own me as a slave. Software can't own me, but I can own software. That's where the analogy fails.
So BSD may be a bit "more free" since there are less restrictions, though I personally don't agree with the little restrictions involved all the time.
Odd. Last I checked, APL, BSD, Perl license etc etc.. are all free as in freedom from proprietary software.
In some ways, RMS is a kook. He's taken a basic word, "free" and redefined it. Free doesn't have to mean, free for anyony to get and use. Free can also mean, as gosling pointed out, free of charge. In some ways, the bsd license is "free-er" than GPL, as you owe no one anything other than a statement in the source. You can sell it in binary form, no hooks attached.
2. get a lawyer. you have a right to use their networks, not admin it. you can point things out, and use the system as intended, but that's as far as it goes. i.e. http vs https. changing other's passwords and what not is something for your parents and a lawyer to discuss with the school.
Combining RMS's idea and your own, come the day that java is "bad", your code can be ported to another language. Ruby, Python.. perl... you name it. Now mind you, you can't map it directly, but you can't write it.
You are doing more than developing java. You are developing algorithms and the likes. So come the day that you can't do java anymore, you still have a lot to walk away with, which is, those ideas.
As a programmer, who has used various UML tools, doing OOD (oo development) is a little easier with a graphical tool. It becomes REALLY easy to see how everything relates. Think of it like an ERD (entity relationship diagram) for a DB schema. Once I have my class diagrams and what not, i can generate java from them. I don't have to type out the class framework. Better yet, I can take an existing project and show how everything relates and in turn, have a map of an existing project.
What needs to happen, perhaps within kde, is an abstractin level, that is plugable, so we can tell how to get freebsd and sun system information.
no.
q.e.d.
Except if you use java :)
Of course it can kill you. But it requires freezing it into an icicle first.
They were all rhetorical questions ;) The only reason i liked the thumbnail idea, is that sometimes i'm on a blind search, and forget to bookmark something, i know it's in my history, just not the url by heart. it's useful for those "I know what the page looks like, just not the title" issues.
Here's $1, go buy yourself a clue. Don't assume people speak your terminology, and don't mince words at the same time.