Could you publicly announce what law firm you work for so I can avoid ever accidently employing you?
"Again, you don't grasp the situation. Clickwraps are generally upheld, adhesive contracts are virtually always upheld, equal bargaining positions as a necessity for formation is absurd on its face, and agreement doesn't require a signature. You need to get yourself educated."
My lawyer laughed... and she doesn't find much amusing. Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even fully themselves. I presume you are under one of those juridictions and have a vested interest? Are you aware of UCITA "Bomb shelter" laws? (My state has them and specifically targets EULA as done in "clickwrap" as unenforcable... the fact you discount this scares me). This is not decided in either direction fully, but the fact that you see "adhesive contracts" and lack of negotiation as a plus (quick note: a great way to avoid a clause it to prove it adhesive or unnegotiated) tells me you are a danger to anyone who employs you.
However, where you go completely off course is by assuming that playing an RPG is a "performance of a copywritten work". The copywritten work is a ruleset, and rulesets can only be patented to enforce the ideas the rules embody... the corpwrite protects *only* the fixed form of those rules. The board game industry has long hated the fact that the courts rule that a game that has new terms and rewritten rules is not infringing despite the fact they copy the *ideas* within the rules slavishly. People "playing" the game are using the product as intended (not copying *any* of the content), with thier own characters, stories and actions. To claim this activity as "derivation" (or the fact you misunderstood my comment so much as to not comprehend this implication) takes you from "dangerous" to "who licensed you again?".
This is what I posted over there... interested in seeing if it stays:
There are only four things that White Wolf can hang this license: Patent, Copyright, Contract Law and Trademarks.
Note... I'm not a lawyer, but I make a living off of software which means I have to deal with all of these issues all the time. That said, this isn't legal advice (if you plan on taking a legal action may I suggest you talk to your lawyer instead of using random Internet posts as your basis).
Patent: If White Wolf had a patent on the rule system they have total control over the use of the same. A quick search of the patent databases show that they own nothing of the sort, so we can discount this as a "patent license".
Copyright: Copyright covers a very limited (but powerful) set of controls. The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work. If a group were to recite the rulebook and fictional pieces therein, White Wolf would be within their rights to stop this from happening. However, as people in the board game industry painfully know, people *playing* your rules do not trigger copyright. (A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law). Only patent can control game *rules* as ideas.
TSR attempted this type of control, claiming that being compatible with or working with a given rule set made something a derived work back in the bad old days. They failed miserably, except at intimidation (you can't *afford* to fight this). To exert this kind of control would be akin to writing a text book on a subject and then saying "using this knowledge is forbidden unless licensed" (assuming the knowledge was not covered by a patent, which is independent). Copyright does not give this sort of control.
In particular, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._ Straus is interesting because it shows that copyright law does *not* allow any restrictions (beyond replication) after the "first sale" of a work. The software industry has been angry for years about reselling "used" console games and rentals of the same (it cuts into profits *big-time*), but every lawsuit brought on the matter has fallen on the side of "no further restrictions beyond the first sale". The companies have tried the "you don't own this, you just license it" thing in the past will no effect... because of the doctrine of first sale. (Note, this limitation doesn't apply to big corporations who buy software in bulk: they actually sign a contract.)
Contract: That brings us to contract law. When you bought the book, you didn't sign anything, so any claims based on contract law are nonsense. Even printing a contract in the book won't work... only if you *negotiated* a contract *as equals* (i.e., you have the ability to reject terms and negotiate) and then signed the contract would the contract be binding. "Click wrap" licenses in software are on some pretty shoddy legal basis themselves and have been successfully avoided in quite a few lawsuits and this "retrofitting" of a contract onto a book is absurd to contemplate in terms of contract law.
Trademark: So that leaves us with trademark law. This seems to be what prompted the whole nonsense. Note the comment about "rights in terms of trademark and so forth"... trademark is the *only* framework that requires protection of rights to be proactive, so you can just delete "and so forth". (People who use the term "Intellectual Property" are talking about patent, copyright and trademark... there is nothing actually called "Intellectual Property" in law). However, if this is a trademark license then the whole issue can be safely bypassed by not *using* the trademarks in question. You can run a "Modern era live RPG featuring vampires"... even with White Wolf systems as the core
Having a collection of over 400 board games, I'm well aware of Settlers. I'm also aware that it isn't available in major toy stores to this day, *despite* selling millions. I would consider it a fluke more than a trend.
My point was that board games are dominated by games that don't *have* to be taught at all, because families play the game by memory and hand the games down through generations (thus Free Parking causing Monopoly to last even longer than the design merits). Soon, computer games will be dominated the same way. Not that there are not good casual games (TFA uses several Nintendo games as examples of that).
However, as an example, Grognards (war-gamers) have been reduced to *promising to buy games ahead of time* to convince publishers to expend the resources on a game. The publisher says "if we can get 500 orders, we will finish the game". The Grognards pledge to purchase those games (by submitting credit card info via a website) in the hopes that they can scrape together *499* other orders. That borders on the pathetic.
Now, why is it that the Hard Core gamers manage to convince companies to produce product that only they will buy while in the more mature board game world they have to pledge money up front to publishers to make something they might enjoy? I think it is because the mass market appeal of games is a fairly recent event and things haven't matured to the same point. Which means, as you say, the Hard Core "had better get over themselves quickly". Because once the suits realize they can make more serving the general public, you will see a similar stagnation that has produced 75 Monopoly editions, 10 Risk editions and one Settlers of Catan (which isn't even available to the "mainstream"... you might be a closet Eurogamer:) )
There is a similar dichotomy in board games at the moment. The casual board gamers (i.e., the typical American family) continue to buy "classic" games (Monopoly, Risk, Yahtzee, etc). Anyone can put these things on the table and play them (albeit, frequently not as the rules actually are spelled out...)
Meanwhile, there are several "hard core" gaming communities (Eurogamers, Grognards, etc) that demand games that fail to generate any interest at the Toys 'R Us level. The *interesting* thing is that (at least in America) the mass market controls board games (i.e., war-games are not sold at toy stores, nor are eurogames). In the computer game community, the Hard Core gamers seem to still control the gaming direction. Which seems a little weird to me, but enjoy it while you can, because once the development houses figure out they can sell 50 million "generic-easy-to-play" vs 5 million (if you are lucky) hard core games, the game industry will be nothing but forgettable tripe like the American board games available in the average store. I guess the only thing that keeps this unusual situation possible is the larger free time pool that the "hard core" can expend and the fact that $50 x 5 million looks acceptible compared to $10 x 50 million (especially with cost of shelf space, etc). If casual gamers continue to gain marketshare, expect that calculation to change.
I'm going to agree with this one... Drupal with a couple of modules added (I personally use "node privacy byrole" and "wiki", both of which I modified by a line or two to get exactly what I wanted) makes for a very flexible and nice environment. I can add public content, private content (by customer) and I can use an import format that is appropriate for each entry independently. Over time I plan on a bit more customization, but this has been the most usable CMS I have tried.
I don't call it FUD if he is actually experiencing the problem. Paul has near zero control over the allocation of the IP space he uses. Yahoo can remove the spammer after complaints, but the importaint issue is:
ONLY AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE.
The nondelivered mail remains non-delivered. It will remained undelivered until someone up the foodchain gives in to your demands. Interestingly, most blackmailers give their demands first and then execute consequences once those demands aren't met. Here we find the notification of demands is by rendering consequences *first* on a collection of randomly choosen innocent victims. Maybe they will figure out *why* e-mail isn't delivered, but we aren't going to actually give them any hints that could help them...
"If those innocent would just complain and have the spammer removed" is what I usually hear... but that takes time, and during that time the consequences remain enforced. I noticed here it is a new day and the block remains.
Sorry, it isn't FUD when you can point to the objective fact: Paul Graham is suffering from blocked e-mails based because of an accidental relationships with an IP address. Sounds like he has that "power corrupts" thing down just right to me based on what is said in your comment: "Graham has no concern for the fact that he is sharing his IP with a spammer". WTF? He seems awful concerned to me. What you really seem to mean is "Graham is GUILTY of the fact that he is sharing his IP with a spammer. If he won't bow to our will, well, we don't force anyone to use our block lists (just a lot of people do)."
All it takes is one luser to get a virus with your e-mail in their address book and your e-mail is done for. If giving my e-mail address to my clients (even the less clue ones) is "loose and easy", I guess that's just the way it is going to have to be.
I do have one spamless e-mail address, because I changed the mail server to reject any message without a specific tag in the message subject. People who need to use that e-mail know to add it. Obviously useless for newsletters, but spam gourmet on another account handles those.
My main, old "everyone knows it" address is hit with about 300 spam a day. Fortunatley, Spam Bayes is well trained after a few years of that.
Your best option depends on the resources you have available. If you have a PHP/MySQL capable web server Mantis can be a lifesaver. Simpler to set up than Buzilla, more structured than a Wiki. I don't recommend the 1.XX releases yet, get the latest of the downlevel (0.19.2 as I write this). Although there will be some nice features in the next release, it is still in Alpha.
If it probably a hair more than a single person needs, but it allows all of the things you described to be done. The other idea (using a wiki) also requires PHP (or some scripting language) and a database anyway: if you are going there, go for a complete solution. On the other hand, we also use a wiki for static documentation purposes. Nothing beats a wiki for hammering out "how to" and "FAQ" type documents.
If you can't do a web based solution, I suggest simply following the recommendations of another here: use your mail client's "todo" system. It won't be shared (unless you have Outlook+Exchange, in which case, share your todo list) but it keeps things nicely organized: better than post-it notes.
I think you are confusing anti-Linux criticism with "smear campaign against an individual". I could freaking care less about anti-whatever opinions... everyone has opinions and can pretty well spout them off at will. I'm sure this isn't the death knell for doubters, criticism and FUD. In fact, it would be a bad thing if it was: the Linux crowd if *fueled* by every off in left field wacko who overstates the "communist conspiracy" or other hyperbole. Gets the blood pumping. More reasoned criticism is also a good thing as it identifies weaknesses and allows them to be exposed, attacked and resolved.
This was neither. This was a personal attack run by an angry, bitter woman against another woman. Not seeing what there is to *support* in that behaviour.
I was barely following you until the "end of the IT industry", at which point I'm totally lost. How does OSS being dominate (and that is a huge leap from the current situation to assume it will be anytime soon, if ever) equal the end of the IT industry? Once Open Office is the top dog everyone just goes home? Businesses no longer need IT solutions to unique problems anymore? People won't write programs to solve problems anymore? Technological advances and social change won't generate new and novel markets anymore?
Wow, pretty heavy burden for an office suite to assume.
No, my point was exactly that "marking everything private is better than marking nothing private": this was the header from a site I built. Now that I'm aware of the ramifications, I can remove that header from the appropriate pages (the few that are not data driven). But I far prefer the default this way that discovering "oh yay, all my data driven pages are stupidly cached". Right now the site is just rude and uninformed, not broken.
As far as Microsoft's sites, I really could care less how stupid their choices are, I'm just glad I can now implement it properly by adding the change where necessary instead of having egg on my face for not having a piece of information when I built the site. During building the site, the only cache I considered was the browser cache. Bad, but not as bad as what I'm finding on my personal PHP driven sites on this same issue. There I just look stupid:
But it likely would have passed the House and Senate and been signed by the president regardless.
Well, whoop-ti-doo, we just found a wonderful way to avoid all that messy discussion and debate. Declare it "likely to do stuff" and just toss it on the pile of "must be voted for" items.
Look, you admit it shouldn't have been on a spending bill, so why bother people with all the logic when what you really are saying is "the fact it won't get debated doesn't bother me because I'm for the whole thing". The people who are annoyed are annoyed because of the bypass of the whole open discussion and debate part of our lawmaking process. Obviously those opposed to it would be more annoyed than those who see it as manifest destiny. Even if it passed after discussion, it likely would be modified in some way if the normal processes took place. Ever notice the phrase "reconciling house and senate versions of the bills" bouncing around? That is because both houses have different makeup and therefor different viewpoints and often make different choices. Now the alternative viewpoint is squelched. Sure, the end result might be the same. In fact, it is probable... but why be all happy and supportive of short curcuits to the law making process?
I know what you mean - they need to start you out with a rating of 1200 and adjust it like chess, so those of us with a couple of hours to burn a weekend can play likewise "insufficient practice" players. I would love to play against 800 equivalent players and have some fun instead of being sworn out for 5 minutes (wow, live's audio chat really enhanced my game-play experience when I had to turn it off immediately because of the steady stream of swearing). I finished the game single player, so I'm not *totally* incompetent, but my skillz are not up to snuff with 20 hour a week halo players.
You don't have driver's licenses with signatures??? If you *do* (and I don't know what state doesn't) then you are just an arrogant idiot who is doing nothing to protect the credit card company or the credit card user or your company. Freaking power trips: "but I have no way of verifying your signature then". How the heck do you know that the card wasn't signed by the crook when you *weren't* being a prick? The customer wants to back it up with ID and you tell them no.
Personally I write both See ID and a signature because I want the signature on the card to match the signature on the ID. Do you bother to honor that request? Or are you just a prick for the sake of being one?
That is true for many of the pure arts as well (creating works more for the self than for others). However, the *impact* of that work on the culture is still determined by those other than the creator. The impact of LOTR has much to do with the authors moral story (a clear battle between good and evil, with little room from shades between). Commercial intent or not, that resonating was the "side effect" that caused LOTR to be what it is today instead of some scribblings of a mad linguist that no one ever read.
The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market". That means whatever moral code (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the product they product. It is up to the market to the determine the worth of the product in the greater context. If the game has moral value *and* provides a worthwhile experience it will do well with specific market segments. A game with no moral compass but a good game experience will do well, albeit in a different market segment. If the game provides no value as a game, it should fail. Why do people expect this to be any different from book, film, music or the more traditional arts? From what I have seen there are quite a few successful games that I won't bring into my home. As there are with books, films and music. (Both from a "too harsh" to "too preachy" standpoint). If people go to such extremes that they cater to an incredibly narrow market segment they will still potentially be successful in the niche they choose.
What I think this question is really trying to say: "Do we (for some hypothetical 'we') have the power to cause game developers to bend to our moral values and force them to teach what we believe." I hope the answer is a resounding no to that, no matter who is chosen for 'we'.
I heard about glibc problems, but I managed to drag a system from 7.3->9.0->FC1->FC2->FC3 using yum and then manually installing RPMs when it got confused. A few manual adjustments to some files along the way, but nothing I would call *hard* to do. Of course, I didn't reboot the system until I had every single snag I could find fixed. The exciting update was when the RPM database corrupted mid way, but even then I was able to recover remote.
I suspect the people who develop the distribution know more than I do and perhaps I have been a sixteen time freak occurance, but that's how I updated 4 machines to FC3 from 7.3 over the years.
Not 3rd cousin removed, but a 20+ year store owner. I quote:
In 1996 I wrote an article for Comics & Game Retailer (a trade magazine) predicting exactly this current situation and asking publishers to consider the route companies like Games Workshop took - restricting who could access their products at wholesale and eventually restricting online sales to their own operation only. While this hasn't made Games Workshop products less expensive, it has allowed them and retailers such as Dark Horse to make a fair profit and if anything, the market for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K has grown over the years. There is also a thriving secondary market on sites such as eBay for players to sell off their GW items, often at terrific discounts, which doesn't directly impact the sales of GW or the retailers.
and
Games Workshop's model works. That alone is enough to lend credence to my suggestion that online discounters could eventually shrink the market for board games rather than increase it. Miniature games demand in-store selling. Columbia Games is another example of an approach that works. They sell at retail. And except for sales when they have slow-moving games, people pay retail when they buy from Columbia. So why did Grant and Tom take that approach? I think they took it to do two things: keep the company alive and make a good living doing it.
As you can see, as a retailer he *prefers* the GW model, and feels that deep discounting and Internet sales runs the risk of destroying the market. (Read the entire piece for more).
Good googily moogly, did you just suggest someone OVERCLOCK the CPU for a RAID solution? Please tell me you were joking... high reliability != overclocked. (I also find the memory suggestion a bit high for your average home use, but that at least isn't madness.)
Thank you for perhaps the clearest explanation I have ever heard of the EU system. I didn't really mean to belittle it (frankly, I'm amazed it holds together considering the diversity within it) but instead was simply amazed that a lot of the "EU Patents" talk (and other EU issues I have heard about) seem to have this underlying "those unaccountable scoundrels" sentiment to it. From your description it would appear to be the other way around: the individual countries are moving forward more quickly than the system as a whole.
Here we have a growing question of "states rights" vs "federal power". Scratch that... it is more of an eternal question. From the very founding days of this country the question of how much power the states would have vs the federal government have been a hot spot: and a primary source of our civil war.
Recently the states have been on the losing end of that equation more often than not, and I suspect that isn't a good trend. It sounds like the same issues are fairly front and center within the EU as well. I wish for the best outcome as I agree that "It's a pretty complex and important experiment".
Re:8 bit propritary code ... hm ...
on
Archon to be Revived
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I had the same thought.. the board cycle and the character attributes are really quite straightforward to understand, and I'm sure *somebody* could draw new pictures for the handful of pieces, weapons and "terrain" such as it was. I loved Archon, but it was basically a chessboard with a sprite on sprite battle on each capture attempt.
You know, I normally ignore EU (for that matter political in general) stuff, but this stuff makes me laugh at the comments made about American political issues. I know the EU is attempting to do something immensely complicated by tying together many countries with diverse cultures, languages and political and legal histories, but everything I have seen seems to indicate that the upper tier of the EU basically ignores the local governments wishes and has just about zero accountability to the people. I'm baffled as to the reason that direct elections were avoided in the EU: it is clear that the upper tier politicians have no reason to fear the popular opinion of the actions they take.
Because of that appearance, could someone tell me what the "check and balance" is in the EU system against abuse of power by the actual EU vs the populace? Here in the US, as broken as it is, if someone ticks the populace off enough they have to worry about re-election...
"So, instead of bitching about the status quo, come up with a viable alternative."
Woah there cowboy... my point is that I *prefer* the status-quo to the online distribution methods that are being created, as they hamper the use I get from the status-quo. I can still play MAX on my XP box, and that makes me happy.
Not quite sure how that obligate me to create a better solution again. I have *zero* problem with CD checks... that was the point of saying that I keep a DVD *and* a CD drive in my machine. If you have problems with the old order *and* the new order, perhaps you should go off and do the design. Me, my point is that the new order has too many kinks for me to bother with. In fact, I pretty much ignored all your ideas, because those are exactly the problems I am currently *actively* ignoring. I find a product that I can use as long as I can keep compatible hardware to be useful product. A product that is useful for as long as the company says it is... nope, not for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you publicly announce what law firm you work for so I can avoid ever accidently employing you?
"Again, you don't grasp the situation. Clickwraps are generally upheld, adhesive contracts are virtually always upheld, equal bargaining positions as a necessity for formation is absurd on its face, and agreement doesn't require a signature. You need to get yourself educated."
My lawyer laughed... and she doesn't find much amusing. Only the seventh and eighth circuits subscribe to your views and not even fully themselves. I presume you are under one of those juridictions and have a vested interest? Are you aware of UCITA "Bomb shelter" laws? (My state has them and specifically targets EULA as done in "clickwrap" as unenforcable... the fact you discount this scares me). This is not decided in either direction fully, but the fact that you see "adhesive contracts" and lack of negotiation as a plus (quick note: a great way to avoid a clause it to prove it adhesive or unnegotiated) tells me you are a danger to anyone who employs you.
However, where you go completely off course is by assuming that playing an RPG is a "performance of a copywritten work". The copywritten work is a ruleset, and rulesets can only be patented to enforce the ideas the rules embody... the corpwrite protects *only* the fixed form of those rules. The board game industry has long hated the fact that the courts rule that a game that has new terms and rewritten rules is not infringing despite the fact they copy the *ideas* within the rules slavishly. People "playing" the game are using the product as intended (not copying *any* of the content), with thier own characters, stories and actions. To claim this activity as "derivation" (or the fact you misunderstood my comment so much as to not comprehend this implication) takes you from "dangerous" to "who licensed you again?".
This is what I posted over there... interested in seeing if it stays:
There are only four things that White Wolf can hang this license: Patent, Copyright, Contract Law and Trademarks.
Note... I'm not a lawyer, but I make a living off of software which means I have to deal with all of these issues all the time. That said, this isn't legal advice (if you plan on taking a legal action may I suggest you talk to your lawyer instead of using random Internet posts as your basis).
Patent: If White Wolf had a patent on the rule system they have total control over the use of the same. A quick search of the patent databases show that they own nothing of the sort, so we can discount this as a "patent license".
Copyright: Copyright covers a very limited (but powerful) set of controls. The long and short of it is that a copyright protects *replication* of a work. If a group were to recite the rulebook and fictional pieces therein, White Wolf would be within their rights to stop this from happening. However, as people in the board game industry painfully know, people *playing* your rules do not trigger copyright. (A similar thing happens in software: technically running software requires copying it into RAM... because this is required as a "fundamental step" to using the copyrighted materials this replication is permitted by law). Only patent can control game *rules* as ideas.
TSR attempted this type of control, claiming that being compatible with or working with a given rule set made something a derived work back in the bad old days. They failed miserably, except at intimidation (you can't *afford* to fight this). To exert this kind of control would be akin to writing a text book on a subject and then saying "using this knowledge is forbidden unless licensed" (assuming the knowledge was not covered by a patent, which is independent). Copyright does not give this sort of control.
In particular, the information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._ Straus is interesting because it shows that copyright law does *not* allow any restrictions (beyond replication) after the "first sale" of a work. The software industry has been angry for years about reselling "used" console games and rentals of the same (it cuts into profits *big-time*), but every lawsuit brought on the matter has fallen on the side of "no further restrictions beyond the first sale". The companies have tried the "you don't own this, you just license it" thing in the past will no effect... because of the doctrine of first sale. (Note, this limitation doesn't apply to big corporations who buy software in bulk: they actually sign a contract.)
Contract: That brings us to contract law. When you bought the book, you didn't sign anything, so any claims based on contract law are nonsense. Even printing a contract in the book won't work... only if you *negotiated* a contract *as equals* (i.e., you have the ability to reject terms and negotiate) and then signed the contract would the contract be binding. "Click wrap" licenses in software are on some pretty shoddy legal basis themselves and have been successfully avoided in quite a few lawsuits and this "retrofitting" of a contract onto a book is absurd to contemplate in terms of contract law.
Trademark: So that leaves us with trademark law. This seems to be what prompted the whole nonsense. Note the comment about "rights in terms of trademark and so forth"... trademark is the *only* framework that requires protection of rights to be proactive, so you can just delete "and so forth". (People who use the term "Intellectual Property" are talking about patent, copyright and trademark... there is nothing actually called "Intellectual Property" in law). However, if this is a trademark license then the whole issue can be safely bypassed by not *using* the trademarks in question. You can run a "Modern era live RPG featuring vampires"... even with White Wolf systems as the core
Having a collection of over 400 board games, I'm well aware of Settlers. I'm also aware that it isn't available in major toy stores to this day, *despite* selling millions. I would consider it a fluke more than a trend.
:) )
My point was that board games are dominated by games that don't *have* to be taught at all, because families play the game by memory and hand the games down through generations (thus Free Parking causing Monopoly to last even longer than the design merits). Soon, computer games will be dominated the same way. Not that there are not good casual games (TFA uses several Nintendo games as examples of that).
However, as an example, Grognards (war-gamers) have been reduced to *promising to buy games ahead of time* to convince publishers to expend the resources on a game. The publisher says "if we can get 500 orders, we will finish the game". The Grognards pledge to purchase those games (by submitting credit card info via a website) in the hopes that they can scrape together *499* other orders. That borders on the pathetic.
Now, why is it that the Hard Core gamers manage to convince companies to produce product that only they will buy while in the more mature board game world they have to pledge money up front to publishers to make something they might enjoy? I think it is because the mass market appeal of games is a fairly recent event and things haven't matured to the same point. Which means, as you say, the Hard Core "had better get over themselves quickly". Because once the suits realize they can make more serving the general public, you will see a similar stagnation that has produced 75 Monopoly editions, 10 Risk editions and one Settlers of Catan (which isn't even available to the "mainstream"... you might be a closet Eurogamer
There is a similar dichotomy in board games at the moment. The casual board gamers (i.e., the typical American family) continue to buy "classic" games (Monopoly, Risk, Yahtzee, etc). Anyone can put these things on the table and play them (albeit, frequently not as the rules actually are spelled out...)
Meanwhile, there are several "hard core" gaming communities (Eurogamers, Grognards, etc) that demand games that fail to generate any interest at the Toys 'R Us level. The *interesting* thing is that (at least in America) the mass market controls board games (i.e., war-games are not sold at toy stores, nor are eurogames). In the computer game community, the Hard Core gamers seem to still control the gaming direction. Which seems a little weird to me, but enjoy it while you can, because once the development houses figure out they can sell 50 million "generic-easy-to-play" vs 5 million (if you are lucky) hard core games, the game industry will be nothing but forgettable tripe like the American board games available in the average store. I guess the only thing that keeps this unusual situation possible is the larger free time pool that the "hard core" can expend and the fact that $50 x 5 million looks acceptible compared to $10 x 50 million (especially with cost of shelf space, etc). If casual gamers continue to gain marketshare, expect that calculation to change.
I'm going to agree with this one... Drupal with a couple of modules added (I personally use "node privacy byrole" and "wiki", both of which I modified by a line or two to get exactly what I wanted) makes for a very flexible and nice environment. I can add public content, private content (by customer) and I can use an import format that is appropriate for each entry independently. Over time I plan on a bit more customization, but this has been the most usable CMS I have tried.
I don't call it FUD if he is actually experiencing the problem. Paul has near zero control over the allocation of the IP space he uses. Yahoo can remove the spammer after complaints, but the importaint issue is:
ONLY AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE.
The nondelivered mail remains non-delivered. It will remained undelivered until someone up the foodchain gives in to your demands. Interestingly, most blackmailers give their demands first and then execute consequences once those demands aren't met. Here we find the notification of demands is by rendering consequences *first* on a collection of randomly choosen innocent victims. Maybe they will figure out *why* e-mail isn't delivered, but we aren't going to actually give them any hints that could help them...
"If those innocent would just complain and have the spammer removed" is what I usually hear... but that takes time, and during that time the consequences remain enforced. I noticed here it is a new day and the block remains.
Sorry, it isn't FUD when you can point to the objective fact: Paul Graham is suffering from blocked e-mails based because of an accidental relationships with an IP address. Sounds like he has that "power corrupts" thing down just right to me based on what is said in your comment: "Graham has no concern for the fact that he is sharing his IP with a spammer". WTF? He seems awful concerned to me. What you really seem to mean is "Graham is GUILTY of the fact that he is sharing his IP with a spammer. If he won't bow to our will, well, we don't force anyone to use our block lists (just a lot of people do)."
All it takes is one luser to get a virus with your e-mail in their address book and your e-mail is done for. If giving my e-mail address to my clients (even the less clue ones) is "loose and easy", I guess that's just the way it is going to have to be.
I do have one spamless e-mail address, because I changed the mail server to reject any message without a specific tag in the message subject. People who need to use that e-mail know to add it. Obviously useless for newsletters, but spam gourmet on another account handles those.
My main, old "everyone knows it" address is hit with about 300 spam a day. Fortunatley, Spam Bayes is well trained after a few years of that.
Your best option depends on the resources you have available. If you have a PHP/MySQL capable web server Mantis can be a lifesaver. Simpler to set up than Buzilla, more structured than a Wiki. I don't recommend the 1.XX releases yet, get the latest of the downlevel (0.19.2 as I write this). Although there will be some nice features in the next release, it is still in Alpha.
If it probably a hair more than a single person needs, but it allows all of the things you described to be done. The other idea (using a wiki) also requires PHP (or some scripting language) and a database anyway: if you are going there, go for a complete solution. On the other hand, we also use a wiki for static documentation purposes. Nothing beats a wiki for hammering out "how to" and "FAQ" type documents.
If you can't do a web based solution, I suggest simply following the recommendations of another here: use your mail client's "todo" system. It won't be shared (unless you have Outlook+Exchange, in which case, share your todo list) but it keeps things nicely organized: better than post-it notes.
I think you are confusing anti-Linux criticism with "smear campaign against an individual". I could freaking care less about anti-whatever opinions... everyone has opinions and can pretty well spout them off at will. I'm sure this isn't the death knell for doubters, criticism and FUD. In fact, it would be a bad thing if it was: the Linux crowd if *fueled* by every off in left field wacko who overstates the "communist conspiracy" or other hyperbole. Gets the blood pumping. More reasoned criticism is also a good thing as it identifies weaknesses and allows them to be exposed, attacked and resolved.
This was neither. This was a personal attack run by an angry, bitter woman against another woman. Not seeing what there is to *support* in that behaviour.
I was barely following you until the "end of the IT industry", at which point I'm totally lost. How does OSS being dominate (and that is a huge leap from the current situation to assume it will be anytime soon, if ever) equal the end of the IT industry? Once Open Office is the top dog everyone just goes home? Businesses no longer need IT solutions to unique problems anymore? People won't write programs to solve problems anymore? Technological advances and social change won't generate new and novel markets anymore?
Wow, pretty heavy burden for an office suite to assume.
As far as Microsoft's sites, I really could care less how stupid their choices are, I'm just glad I can now implement it properly by adding the change where necessary instead of having egg on my face for not having a piece of information when I built the site. During building the site, the only cache I considered was the browser cache. Bad, but not as bad as what I'm finding on my personal PHP driven sites on this same issue. There I just look stupid:(Um, yeah, haven't updated that ugly site in four years).
But it likely would have passed the House and Senate and been signed by the president regardless.
Well, whoop-ti-doo, we just found a wonderful way to avoid all that messy discussion and debate. Declare it "likely to do stuff" and just toss it on the pile of "must be voted for" items.
Look, you admit it shouldn't have been on a spending bill, so why bother people with all the logic when what you really are saying is "the fact it won't get debated doesn't bother me because I'm for the whole thing". The people who are annoyed are annoyed because of the bypass of the whole open discussion and debate part of our lawmaking process. Obviously those opposed to it would be more annoyed than those who see it as manifest destiny. Even if it passed after discussion, it likely would be modified in some way if the normal processes took place. Ever notice the phrase "reconciling house and senate versions of the bills" bouncing around? That is because both houses have different makeup and therefor different viewpoints and often make different choices. Now the alternative viewpoint is squelched. Sure, the end result might be the same. In fact, it is probable... but why be all happy and supportive of short curcuits to the law making process?
I know what you mean - they need to start you out with a rating of 1200 and adjust it like chess, so those of us with a couple of hours to burn a weekend can play likewise "insufficient practice" players. I would love to play against 800 equivalent players and have some fun instead of being sworn out for 5 minutes (wow, live's audio chat really enhanced my game-play experience when I had to turn it off immediately because of the steady stream of swearing). I finished the game single player, so I'm not *totally* incompetent, but my skillz are not up to snuff with 20 hour a week halo players.
You don't have driver's licenses with signatures??? If you *do* (and I don't know what state doesn't) then you are just an arrogant idiot who is doing nothing to protect the credit card company or the credit card user or your company. Freaking power trips: "but I have no way of verifying your signature then". How the heck do you know that the card wasn't signed by the crook when you *weren't* being a prick? The customer wants to back it up with ID and you tell them no.
Personally I write both See ID and a signature because I want the signature on the card to match the signature on the ID. Do you bother to honor that request? Or are you just a prick for the sake of being one?
That is true for many of the pure arts as well (creating works more for the self than for others). However, the *impact* of that work on the culture is still determined by those other than the creator. The impact of LOTR has much to do with the authors moral story (a clear battle between good and evil, with little room from shades between). Commercial intent or not, that resonating was the "side effect" that caused LOTR to be what it is today instead of some scribblings of a mad linguist that no one ever read.
The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market". That means whatever moral code (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the product they product. It is up to the market to the determine the worth of the product in the greater context. If the game has moral value *and* provides a worthwhile experience it will do well with specific market segments. A game with no moral compass but a good game experience will do well, albeit in a different market segment. If the game provides no value as a game, it should fail. Why do people expect this to be any different from book, film, music or the more traditional arts? From what I have seen there are quite a few successful games that I won't bring into my home. As there are with books, films and music. (Both from a "too harsh" to "too preachy" standpoint). If people go to such extremes that they cater to an incredibly narrow market segment they will still potentially be successful in the niche they choose.
What I think this question is really trying to say: "Do we (for some hypothetical 'we') have the power to cause game developers to bend to our moral values and force them to teach what we believe." I hope the answer is a resounding no to that, no matter who is chosen for 'we'.
I heard about glibc problems, but I managed to drag a system from 7.3->9.0->FC1->FC2->FC3 using yum and then manually installing RPMs when it got confused. A few manual adjustments to some files along the way, but nothing I would call *hard* to do. Of course, I didn't reboot the system until I had every single snag I could find fixed. The exciting update was when the RPM database corrupted mid way, but even then I was able to recover remote.
I suspect the people who develop the distribution know more than I do and perhaps I have been a sixteen time freak occurance, but that's how I updated 4 machines to FC3 from 7.3 over the years.
Not 3rd cousin removed, but a 20+ year store owner. I quote:
and
As you can see, as a retailer he *prefers* the GW model, and feels that deep discounting and Internet sales runs the risk of destroying the market. (Read the entire piece for more).
Good googily moogly, did you just suggest someone OVERCLOCK the CPU for a RAID solution? Please tell me you were joking... high reliability != overclocked. (I also find the memory suggestion a bit high for your average home use, but that at least isn't madness.)
Thank you for perhaps the clearest explanation I have ever heard of the EU system. I didn't really mean to belittle it (frankly, I'm amazed it holds together considering the diversity within it) but instead was simply amazed that a lot of the "EU Patents" talk (and other EU issues I have heard about) seem to have this underlying "those unaccountable scoundrels" sentiment to it. From your description it would appear to be the other way around: the individual countries are moving forward more quickly than the system as a whole.
Here we have a growing question of "states rights" vs "federal power". Scratch that... it is more of an eternal question. From the very founding days of this country the question of how much power the states would have vs the federal government have been a hot spot: and a primary source of our civil war.
Recently the states have been on the losing end of that equation more often than not, and I suspect that isn't a good trend. It sounds like the same issues are fairly front and center within the EU as well. I wish for the best outcome as I agree that "It's a pretty complex and important experiment".
I had the same thought.. the board cycle and the character attributes are really quite straightforward to understand, and I'm sure *somebody* could draw new pictures for the handful of pieces, weapons and "terrain" such as it was. I loved Archon, but it was basically a chessboard with a sprite on sprite battle on each capture attempt.
You know, I normally ignore EU (for that matter political in general) stuff, but this stuff makes me laugh at the comments made about American political issues. I know the EU is attempting to do something immensely complicated by tying together many countries with diverse cultures, languages and political and legal histories, but everything I have seen seems to indicate that the upper tier of the EU basically ignores the local governments wishes and has just about zero accountability to the people. I'm baffled as to the reason that direct elections were avoided in the EU: it is clear that the upper tier politicians have no reason to fear the popular opinion of the actions they take.
Because of that appearance, could someone tell me what the "check and balance" is in the EU system against abuse of power by the actual EU vs the populace? Here in the US, as broken as it is, if someone ticks the populace off enough they have to worry about re-election...
"So, instead of bitching about the status quo, come up with a viable alternative."
Woah there cowboy... my point is that I *prefer* the status-quo to the online distribution methods that are being created, as they hamper the use I get from the status-quo. I can still play MAX on my XP box, and that makes me happy.
Not quite sure how that obligate me to create a better solution again. I have *zero* problem with CD checks... that was the point of saying that I keep a DVD *and* a CD drive in my machine. If you have problems with the old order *and* the new order, perhaps you should go off and do the design. Me, my point is that the new order has too many kinks for me to bother with. In fact, I pretty much ignored all your ideas, because those are exactly the problems I am currently *actively* ignoring. I find a product that I can use as long as I can keep compatible hardware to be useful product. A product that is useful for as long as the company says it is... nope, not for me.
You just got a place on my friends list for answering that ;)