First: I agree that if Sony/Verant simply and outright banned all ShowEQ users (if they could determine who they were), then they would lose tons of money.
Second: I agree that Sony/Verant are doing the right thing by negotiating with it's users.
Third: I agree that if they take their ball and go home, then there is no ball. <Matrix>There is no spoon</Matrix>
Fourth: I agree that ShowEQ is a tool (and like other tools) and not inherently bad.
Fifth: I agree that having an edge is important. It feels good to know that you have one up against whatever you are competing against.
Now is where I think we start to diverge in opinion.
Sixth: A bad pathing system does not mean that it is ok to abuse that pathing system for your own gain. Likewise, a bad pathing system does not mean that the creator of it shouldn't improve it.
Your statement:
"Why does creating a bad pathing system give you the right to tell people how to use it?"
illustrates one of the big differences of opinion that shake the software market, not just EQ. Just replace "pathing system" with just about anything else. On the one hand, you have the developers and creators of the software along with the people who maintain the server/game. On the other, you have the users who are trying to get the most for their money. The developers/creators/maintainer only want you to use the software within the bounds that they've specified (not abusing poorly designed parts of their software, etc). The users see the fact that part of the software is poorly designed as an opportunity to exploit the poor design to get 'an edge'.
The big question is "Who is in the right?" The answer? Your guess is as good as mine. I tend towards the ambiguous "Both and neither".
Developers/creators/maintainers shouldn't allow poor design to last very long on the one hand. By doing so, they are implicitly allowing the abuse of those poor designs.
Users, though, shouldn't abuse those poor designs if they know that doing so violates the spirit of the game. (ie, just because the folks running the game aren't enforcing the rules completely, doesn't mean that you can abuse the rules that aren't being enforced). [ You can draw this analogy with speeding laws in the U.S. Are they vigorously enforced? No. You can be going 20 mph over the speed limit and as long as you aren't being reckless, chances are you won't be pulled over. ]
Is it reasonable to expect users to not get the most from their software? No.
Is it unreasonable for the folks running the game to expect users to follow the letter of the rules as well as the spirit? No.
You need to find a happy median. Those that can't live with it will leave. If the developers/etc can't live with it, the software dies. If a major percentage of the user base can't live with it, the software dies.
Lastly, "ShowEQ is not cheating because nothing is cheating in a complex society." is a fallacy. Cheating does exist in complex society. See the posts about measures that casinos take to prevent cheating. Also, see all the news stories to see all the trouble that corporations and individuals get in when they are caught cheating. And check the law books to see all the laws that define what cheating is in terms of business and individual practices. Seriously.
I think what you wanted to say is that ShowEQ should not be considered cheating because all it does is display information available to everyone's client. Everyone's client gets the data. ShowEQ just shows it to the folks that use it. If ShowEQ connected to the EQ server and got information that isn't sent to the client, then ShowEQ would definitely be cheating. But as you said, and I agree with, ShowEQ is a tool. And as with all tools, it should be certain uses of those tools that are 'cheating' or 'illegal', not the tools themselves.
If you and I take part in a larger social group and we things that the people who organized the group do not want, that's just how humans work in large groups.
And the people who organized the group will ostracize you and remove you from the group if there is sufficient support within the group to do so. If not, the people who ogranized the group will be the ones to leave and start their group anew. Your argument fails because in the case of EQ, Sony/Verant are the organizers and they have sufficient support to do what they please (they write the code for the game and that gives them all the support they need).
They've created a world, and catch-phrases asside, it's not theirs anymore, it belongs to the nebies and the ubers, the ebayers and the showeqers, the guides and the pvpers. They can shut off the servers and refund everyone's money, but that's about the extent of the "ownership" that they have over what people do.
Funny that. We don't hear about other people than Sony/Verant developing new additions to the official game. Nor do we hear about other people running servers for the game. So it sounds like Sony/Verant still own the world. The ability to shut off the game (and they don't need to refund any money if they do), gives them full ownership of the world.
Yes. They've used the data gathered by these third-party tools to make changes to 'better' the game, but doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved. The use of these tools by guides and GMs, doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved either.
Beyond that, there's enforcement. Notice that in the real world we have enforcement too. *That* is the key.
Exactly. And if the form of enforcement that Sony/Verant wants to use is to change the data that the client gets, or ban third-party software from accessing the data from the game, then that's their perogative. And if they feel that guides or GMs aren't performing their functions correctly, then those guides and GMs will no longer be guides or GMs.
If people are using EQ as a social venue rather than a game, then you know what, it won't matter if SEQ or other packet analyzers are banned or allowed. Why? Because people who are using EQ as a social venue, won't/don't care about the exact weapon ratings, location of mobs, health of mobs, etc.
Lastly,
you assume there is a universal "spirit of the game". There is not. There are quests in this game that are nearly unsolvable (even given detailed descriptions) without ShowEQ.
This is a nice non-sequitor. "Spirit of the Game" has nothing to do with whether or not there are some very hard and complicated quests. There is a universal "spirit of the game". It's defined in the agreements that you click-through and agree to before entering the game. It probably says something along the lines of:
You shall not cheat (as defined by what the game developers decide is cheating)
You shall respect other players and not use foul, obscene, or otherwise distasteful language
You shall not infringe upon the right of others to enjoy the game within the above
Not obeying that is violating the 'universal spirit of the game' that you claim doesn't exist.
Now to deal with your statement that there are things that can't be done "without ShowEQ". Please. Come on. That's possible the most ridiculous reason to use to try to legitimize the use of something. Have you considered that there are some things that are in the game that can not be done? Have you considered that some things need a lot more thought and effort than "Go to place A, pick up item B, kill monster C, talk to NPC D, go to place E, and give item B and loot C to object F"? Not everything is straight-forward.
After you 'solve' a quest with ShowEQ, do you ever try every combination of things without ShowEQ to try see if you jumped the gun on using SEQ to solve the quest? Or do you just tuck that bit of information away as a crutch?
And how about ditching the income and going to a sales tax on non-essential goods and services so that people can choose when they will and when they won't pay a tax.
Please define 'non-essential' goods.
Do you mean a computer or cell phone? To me, those are essential. I can't do my job without them.
Do you mean a car? Sure, I might be able to do without a car. It would be hard, but I think I could do it. There's enough public transportation where I live that it might be possible.
Do you mean cable tv? To be honest, I'm not sure I can even get tv without it being cable.
Maybe it would be easier to define what is universally essential.
There's water, electricity, gas, and telephone service. That's about all that is 'essential' for everyone. Somehow, I don't think that taxing everything else would fly. It would be interesting to see how many people would go for it though.
Anyone know how much money Americans spend on things other than water, electricity, gas, and telephone service? (Would you count rent/mortgage as non-essential?) Work it back from there. Unless sales tax on these non-essential goods and services (goods are one-time charges, services recur) is close to the current income tax, the government would probably end up losing money. I know that I don't even spend as much money as the government takes from me in income tax unless you count rent (and even then I barely outspend the income tax). It seems like a losing proposition to me.
This is really interesting. No really. I subscribed to AT&T BroadBand. They installed the BroadJump Client. I don't think I've ever seen it running on my system. The AT&T startup (which retrieves my account information) runs when I boot my machine, but there aren't any added icons in my system tray. I wondered about what the BroadJump client was but didn't really pay any attention to it since it never seemed to be running anywhere. I guess I'll check my system again when I get home.
There seems to be a plethora of prior art covering the topics of the patents listed.
Example: # 5,576,951 seems to cover search engines. But there have been search engines well before the patent. From the patent:
1. A computer search system for retrieving information, comprising:
means for storing interrelated textual information and graphical information;
means for interrelating said textual and graphical information;
a plurality of entry path means for searching said stored interrelated textual and graphical information, said entry path means comprising:
textual search entry path means for searching said textual information and for retrieving interrelated graphical information to said searched text;
graphics entry path means for searching said graphical information and for retrieving interrelated textual information to said searched graphical information;
selecting means for providing a menu of said plurality of entry path means for selection;
automatic data processing means for executing inquiries provided by a user in order to search said textual and graphical information through said selected entry path means and for fetching data as a function of other data;
indicating means for indicating a pathway that accesses information related in one of said entry path means to information accessible in another one of said entry path means;
accessing means for providing access to said related information in said another entry path means; and
output means for receiving search results from said processing means and said related information from said accessing means and for providing said search results and received information to such user.
Also, from the description of both patents it seems that the preferred embodiment of the patents are targetted at very specific applications. #5,576,951 has the preferred embodiment described as an airline reservation system for use by travel agents to build tour packages for people.
#6,289,319 seems to be specifically target loan application processes.
Now, I'm not a patent lawyer so I'm not sure if this can be used for the defense, but it seems that if your make very specific examples of what the patent is geared towards and then try to sue people who are doing similar things in different areas, then you have no grounds for suing them. You didn't patent that particular process. In this case, it would seem that PanIP has patents on remote loan application systems and customized travel package generation systems, not generalized remote and/or customized sales systems.
Now even if the patents did cover the generalized form of the idea, they were filed in '94. There were e-commerce sites on the Web by then. There were search engines on the Web by then. Prior art.
Another thing I'm not sure of, but don't you have to take active defence of your patent (like copyright??) in order for you to actually be able to gain anything from it? I don't know about the rest of you, but filing the patent in '94, getting one of the patents in '96 (the one that seems to cover airline reservation systems and search engines), and getting the other in '01 (the one that seems to cover loan applications), and then starting to enforce it near the end of '02 you've been awfully lax in defending your 'invention'. Once you have filed the patent, you have "patent pending" on it (right?) and can start defending it at that point (right?) (ie "I noticed that you have an ecommerce site. I am writing to inform you that according to patent application XXXXXX, I am the inventor of the technology behind ecommerce and as such I am willing to license the technology to you at a modest fee of <insert soul here>."). As noted above I'm not a patent lawyer, so I could be totally wrong on this. I'm making assumptions based on the number of things that have "patent pending" attached to them.
So where's the petition to have the patent office and process completely overhauled so that it makes sense?
Doesn't the "without boundry" mean that's it's an "open section"?
If I'm understanding you correctly, then no.
The surface of a sphere (ball) has no boundary. You can keep going in the same direction and never reach an edge. However, it's not "open" per se. The sphere (ball) surrounds a finite space. It's been a while since topology was in the forefront of my mind.
Another example:
Take a mobius strip. It is a closed loop. However in one direction it is without boundary.
The only problem with your argument is that in order to have the information to chalk it up, you have to be able to access the wireless network. Thus, you are 'mooching' the bandwidth, even if it is for a couple of seconds.
By no means am I suggesting that the police round up warchalkers and toss 'em in jail, but _technically_ by accessing the wireless network, you're stealing bandwidth. The act of chalking up the network is, as you said, as worst graffiti.
Your analogy to a "guide to the stars' homes" is also flawed in that those guides are authorized. Unauthorized "guides to the stars' homes" are very often cracked down on very hard if they contain information that is not commonly available (such as the contents of So-and-So's closet or safe).
Overall, I agree that warchalking (and the gathering of the information needed to provide accurate warchalking) should not be punished. Using that information to cause damage to someone else should be punished...severely. Just like manufacturing lockpicks isn't illegal, but unauthorized use of them is.
Why is it that companies (and individuals) complain and complain about how much time/money/energy they spend on patching Microsoft products and yet don't do anything to change a) their practices and b) their product choices?
This is an honest question that I'm wondering about. I agree with the people who also wonder why Microsoft flaws get so much attention from/. and Linux/Solaris/Apple/etc flaws get next to none. To those that say "Because there aren't any worthwhile reporting on." I say "Read more." The recommended patch cluster from Sun has lots of interesting reading.
There seem to be _alot_ of alternatives for almost everything. How many of those alternatives are used by more than the developers of those alternatives? By more than the friends/family of the developers? For my part, I don't have the money right now to get a second machine and my current Windows machine is used primarily for games. However, when I get the money, I will be running something other than Microsoft products where possible. My browser of choice right now is Mozilla. But there are sites that require me to use I.E. much to my disappointment. What are the technically savvy people doing to help their companies move away from Microsoft and what alternatives are they proposing? [And no 'Linux' isn't a good answer. What distro of Linux?]
Personally, I'm glad Microsoft changed their EULA to say that it gives them the right to run whatever they want on your computer. It gave me a wakeup call to read the EULAs more carefully. Occasionally, I turn down the EULA and don't use the product. Are other people finding that they are reading EULAs more carefully and actually turning them down more?
The top CS prize went to a researcher at MIT
Sudan received his PhD from Berkeley, but does his research at MIT.
Berkeley is top notch. For getting an education at least.
The argument that open source software or free software is better than proprietary software is useless.
Arguing that open source software or free software has a lower cost of ownership than proprietary software is likewise useless.
Why?
All software has limitations
The 'best' tool for the job is subjective
Just because it's ______ doesn't mean it deals with all the latest or even all the common protocols.
Just because the source is open doesn't mean it's easily changed to meet your needs, nor does it make it better to use than a proprietary application.
Example: If Microsoft gave away Windows 2000 for free, that wouldn't make it 'better' than it is now. It might make it more palatable but it won't improve the software. Likewise, if Microsoft made the source available for Microsoft Word, that wouldn't necessarily make it capable of handling the latest file formats. It may be that modifying Word is more work than it's worth.
With open source applications, just because you have the ability to modify it to suit your needs, doesn't mean you can (or want to) modify it. Example: Just because you _can_ modify an open source 'office suite', doesn't mean you have the people in your organization you have the expertise to modify it well. If you are forced to use the open application, you either have to use the limitations, modify the source by hiring people who can do that, or submit requests and wait for the feature. With proprietary or closed software you have to submit requests and wait, but in those cases, you very often have a contract with the vendor that allows you to pressure them to put in features you want/need (you == government in this case). Many corporations use proprietary software, not because it's the best thing out there, but rather because the contract they get with the vendor is better. A certain unnamed company decided to use a certain unnamed product after the employees of said company vehemently opposed said product because the vendor of the product was willing to bendover backwards and kiss ass.
No company (or government) is going to hire people to do work (and take on the HR overhead of those people when they can get a contract with a third party that is willing to do everything under the sun to please that company.
Do you really think open source developers or free software developers would be willing to do everything under the sun to please a company or government, just to make sure that their software is used? No.
The real question isn't whether or not open source software or free software is better than proprietary software or closed source software. The real question is whether or not politicians are willing to lose the lucrative contributions from vendors of proprietary/closed software.
Sorry, by definition, there are no hackers working in any humanities departments, anywhere. One does not "hack" part-time. Does one?
That's a rather narrow view of what "hacking" is, isn't it? Hacking isn't limited to finding the latest security hole in IE.
Try the following as an extension to your definition:
Taking existing technologies and making them useful in a field in which they aren't currently used.
Example: Hacking SGML and DTDs (used for many years in library sciences before being 'hacked' into HTML and it's ilk).
Those technologically inclined folks in humanities departments "hack" existing technologies in order to make them more useful in their field of study.
Some examples:
Speech Recognition: You need someone to write new and better software for this.
Translation: same as speech recognition
Storage of data: as someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread: Someone has to put together the collection of metadata to allow the most efficient and accurate storage of data.
No pure computer hacker would be able to do any of those tasks. In all cases, you would have to have some background in some area of the humanities. And in all likelihood, you would be working in a humanities department (if you work in a university), as well as (or instead of) working in a computer department.
Well they are. You can get gorgeous rings with most stones and still pay less than some hideous chuck of metal with a lump of carbon. I was probably lucky. My girlfriend, at the time, and I went to the Bahamas for a bit and she saw a ring there that she absolutely had to have. It was a nice piece of white gold with a black pearl and a couple of accent diamonds. So I gave that to her as her engagement ring. She's my wife now in case people were wondering.
Yes, you could go with diamonds and spend the 'traditional' two paychecks on it. Or you could pick another stone and get that. Sapphires, pearls, tourmaline, all good. Onyx is ok, but the stone is very fragile and not a particularly good deal for rings. What's her birthstone? Talk to a jeweler about what that stone looks like, costs, etc.
Also take into account what your girlfriend does during the day. If she works in a job in which she has a good chance of smacking her hand into something (retail), then a large stone might not be worth it since she might end up damaging the stone (same goes for wedding rings btw).
Also, think about the band. Yellow gold doesn't look great on everyone. White gold or platinum might look better (platinum is way more expensive though). Also think of the carats. Most jewelers won't work with more than 18 or 20 carat gold (at least in the US) and the color gets worse the lower you go. That all makes a difference (in both price and appreciation).
Other than diamonds, what stones does your girlfriend like? Look at a list of birthstones for a start. Emerald, Amethyst, Garnet, Ruby, Sapphire, Tourmaline, Onyx, etc. All nice stones.
Moral: Diamonds may be nice, but diamonds are pushed so hard, that people forget about the other stones and the fact that they make great pieces of jewelry as well as nice things to hand down to your children.
True. They aren't all innocent and nice. However, the US has far more cases of forcing it's way on others in recent years. I'll generalize then and say that all countries should enforce their laws only on things that are in their country. The Internet is in NO country. However, people's actions on the Internet take place in two places: The country in which the client is in and the country in which the server is in. (Yeah yeah, p2p refers to them as peers.)
Granted if Europe makes it's own Internet, then wouldn't they have a monopoly on it? Of course, if countries stopped letting themselves get walked over by the US (think DeCSS etc), maybe the US wouldn't have such a stranglehold on the Internet.
Seriously, other than the fact that the USG is an overbearing bully who wants to control everything it can and can't see, why do other countries let the US dictate their laws?
Concept: The Internet is global.
If JoeBlow in Country A goes to a site hosted in Country B, and views material considered illegal in Country A, then Country A should go after JoeBlow for importing illegal materials. But in no way should the site in Country B be held accountable to the laws in Country A.
If you are in Country A and run a site in Country B, then you need to be held accountable to the laws of both. Why? Because if you do something that is illegal in A, then you are exporting illegal stuff and if it's illegal in B, then you are importing illegal stuff.
This would get rid of those things like the US exerting it's will on the populations of other countries simply because something is illegal in the US.
Can it happen? Yes. Will it? That's up to the rest of the world. If they let the US continue, then it won't. If they stand up and stop the US from doing it, then other things happen (like the US arresting foreign nationals if they come to the US, or other countries arresting US nationals, or commerce with the US stops, etc).
The US needs to stop thinking it owns the Internet or other countries will follow the example set by European countries and look to start their own 'internets'. Do that and you end up with a bunch of disjointed networks that might or might not be able to talk to each other and the whole idea of a global network goes down the tubes.
Somehow I don't think Sony cares about computers that aren't connected in some way to the 'Net. After all, one requirement of using software with this tech in it might be a connection to the internet. In which case the software would be useful off 'Net. And it you block the connection, Sony might just decide that consistutes being "off 'Net" in which case the software is, again, useless.
In truth, this doesn't bother me at all. Technology is good. It promotes innovation and research. Laws, on the other hand, are what stifle innovation and research. The way technology is used also stifles innovation and research. If this technology is used to:
a) charge per use,
b) track data about me for the purposes of selling or giving that data to someone else,
c) make my life difficult by using it to restrict my activities,
or otherwise inflict hardship upon me,
then you know what, I'll stop using the technology (if I have the option) and complain to those people in power (the RIAA, MPAA, etc) about how their use of this technology sucks and I'm not going to stand for it and my money is going to go elsewhere.
Sound futile? probably is. Until you get into significant fractions of percentage points of the population doing the same. Then those in power will probably take note. Will they do anything? Probably not until you have at least a full percentage point.
People saying that this technology is bad should think about what they say. Rather than saying that the technology is bad, point out the ways it can be used constructively (allow companies to see what sells and what doesn't) and point out the ways it can be used in bad faith (selling data, etc). Come up with constructive, cogent, and coherent reasons for why the ways listed as 'bad faith' are in truth more harmful than good, and v.v. Take those points to the people wanting to implement the 'bad faith' practices. Take them to the media (all media, not just niche media points).
<Wishful Thinking>
Example: Imagine a group of people banding together to go to the RIAA and complain about the various policies that the RIAA wants to implement. Imagine that group of people contains artists who don't agree with the RIAA. Imagine you have the data to prove it. You get enough of them together and the RIAA has to take note and realize they are hurting themselves and the artists that agree with them.
</Wishful Thinking>
If the 'static' plaform calls home, home can always verify what's running on the platform and upgrade it there under the guise of a 'bug-fix' or a 'maintenance release', no? In which case, people hardly have a say in whether or not they have the latest bios in their consoles.
They may not understand the legalese or technobabble, but the second that someone breaks PassPort and steals all the data that it stores, Joe User is going to get pissed. Joe User will definitely start getting upset if they hear that some cracker stole millions of people's personal data from MS Passport. And if that results in any number of Joe Users switching away from MicroSoft, then it's a good thing.
Nothing, and I mean nothing short of a tacnuke going off in Redmond, is going to force Joe User away from MS except if Joe User is hurt in way that Joe User understands.
Things that Joe User understands:
Financial Damage (credit card numbers being stolen)
Lifestyle Damage (if their personal information is used to curtail their lifestyle)
Noticeable censorship (if they know that they should be able to go somewhere and then suddenly can't)
Computer Damage (if something they want to run on their computer won't)
Financial Damage is pretty obvious. Financially damaging anyone will make them pissed off.
Lifestyle Damage might not be obvious. Possible example: Joe User likes nude photos of adult women and visits websites that show them. Lifestyle damage would be if somehow the information that Joe User visits porn sites is used against him.
Noticeable censorship would be along the lines of going to a news site, seeing an article on MS, and then not being able to read it because MS deemed something in the article to be bad for MS.
Computer Damage would be along the lines of preventing Joe User from installing Email Client A because it's not OutLook or OLE.
If MS avoids doing all of those things to Joe User, then Joe User isn't going to budge from the status quo.
On a corporate level, MS has to watch out more. If corporations switch away from MS, then that will end up slowly dragging Joe User away also, since there is a correlation between what's used in a corporate environment and what Joe User uses at home. Joe User tends to use at home the same types of things he uses at work...because that way he can work at home easier. If a corporation ends up taking a no Microsoft approach, their employees who don't leave, will find ways to work from home. In otherwords, those people will be much more likely to move away from MS so that they don't have to go into the office to do work.
An easy algorithm to produce the original interesting concepts would be to take a number of lines, connect them in random ways, discard uninteresting ones and keep the ones that show interesting effects. Evolve the interesting ones and combine with other objects.
That sounds like an easy algorithm until you try and reduce 'interesting' to rules in the algorithm. What is 'interesting'? Two lines intersecting at 90 degree angles? Lines that don't? Lines that intersect only in their middle? Lines that never intersect in their 'left' half?
Aesthetics is one of the hardest things to implement in an algorithm because it's so subjective.
On the topic of chess though, as many people have said, it's all a matter of brute force. I used to be interested in seeing computers play chess. But since I found Go (and I'm in no way a good player of Go), chess is rather boring. Find a way to consistently win at Tic-Tac-Toe and I'll be interested. Program a grandmaster Go player and I'll be interested. But throwing some more CPUs, more memory, and the complete games of PlayerX into a computer just doesn't do anything.
Well, operating costs are more than just money.
If it takes 1000 seconds to send his bulk mail instead of 1 second, then his operating 'costs' have gone up.
If it takes him 6 hours to find a new tool to get around a new filter, instead of 1 hour, then his costs have gone up also.
Granted, the return for that time spent is still obscene, but any increase in their operating cost is good. Plus, the sheer visceral pleasure that we enjoy seeing the spammers having a 'hard' time is a bonus also.
So you're saying that the kids who own the games and have them installed on their home machine would bring in the software for the installation and use at school?
Wouldn't/Doesn't that violate the EULA? It's also not exactly fair use since the second installation isn't a backup copy.
So there are a couple of things that could be happening: 1) Kids are violating the EULA of games they've purchased by installing on more than one machine (provided that is a violation of the EULA of the game in question) 2) The software is unlicensed. 3) The money for the software licenses is coming out of the teacher's pocket. 4) The money comes out of an activities fund.
I'd recommend #4. That way the school has the licenses they need in case piracy charges do come up against them and you don't have the kids breaking laws.
Regarding the other points: I totally agree. Schools offer activities for everyone, not just activities that everyone wants. If they just catered to the lowest common denominator, you probably wouldn't even have classes.
I agree. But keeping the open-relay databases current is not a responsibility the database providers have to those listed in the databases. It may affect the popularity and usefulness of their service, but that's another matter altogether.
Keeping the open-relay database current isn't the responsibility of the provider, it's the responsibility of the maintainer. If they are going add me to their list without me asking them to and they aren't going to tell me that I'm on their list, then if I find out I'm on their list and fix the problem, I shouldn't have to do anything to get off their list.
I inherited a mail server from someone and found out 4 years after the mail server was up that it was an open relay. I also found out that it was on a blacklist for less than a month before I discovered it. And yes, I fixed it in about 15 minutes and 2 days later it was removed from the RBL. The point is that had I been told by the list that "Oh btw, you've been added to this RBL for being an open-relay", I would've fixed it right away. I couldn't care if they warned me first and then checked a couple of days later or not. But getting an email letting me know that something is broken on my system, would've been nice.
And no I didn't check the mail server when I inherited it because I trusted that the person I got it from had already made sure it was closed. My bad.
Point: If you put someone on a RBL, at least tell them. That way those who made an honest mistake can correct themselves. Those who are doing it on purpose couldn't care anyway.
For those that already use junkbuster you can easily spoof your User Agent in there so you don't have to muck around with every browser that you might want to try using.
Personally, I think the second two-hour bit of the miniseries was pathetic. It was painfully obvious where the actors were walking in front of a static background (no green-screen points for this folks).
It was also really really hard to believe that in a society that values the conservation of water SO much that people would be so casually removing the mouth coverings on their stillsuits or worse yet walking around UNDER THE OPEN SKY without they stillsuit on (scene where Stilgar sees the spiceblow, both Stil and Paul are NOT wearing stillsuits).
Also, where did these people learn to pronounce some of the words. It's har-CO-nen not HAR-ka-nen. It's FEY-da-keen not fah-DI-kin. The fremen seitches were IN the rock, not surrounded by rock. The fremen children didn't laugh, chase each other around and play. They were just as much a part of the _warrior_ culture as the adults. Baron Harkonnen was incredibly fat (400 kilos I think) not mildly pudgy. Paul and Gurney run into each other in the middle of a heated battle not knowing the other is still alive, Paul doesn't see Gurney and decide not to attack the smugglers.
One of THE MOST UNBELIEVEABLE scenes was just after crash, Paul is calming sitting IN THE SAND UNDER THE OPEN SKY WITHOUT A STILLSUIT ON. The book does not mention that. The book repeatedly reminds us that NO ONE goes into the desert without a stillsuit. And where did the 'fall down a dune' thing come in? If I remember, Paul steps on drum-sand and that's what brings the worm.
The actors involved were pathetic as well. The sets were weak (see above). The special effects weren't awe-inspiring. Maybe it's just me, but even in rags, the Lady Jessica also (in my mind) would hold herself regally, not like a weak servant.
The miniseries, quite plainily, was a waste of howeever much money they spent on it.
The only GOOD things that I saw in Part II were the worms (much cooler than the movie), and the fact they there was something that approximated an ornithopter on the ground with a Harkonnen patrol next to it (of course the patrol was soon dispatched by fremen who mysteriously burst out of the sand like baby worms).
IMHO, an ISP should feel free to keep logs of all traffic that crosses their network. The use of the logs afterwards is really what matters as well as how long the logs are kept. In general, I'd feel comfortable saying that a year worth of logs is a good time frame. However, if that's too short you might want to keep the logs for as long as you can based on available storage. As for what to do with the logs after you have collected them, that's pretty easy. Nothing. Unless of course they are needed by 'the authorities' for an investigation. In that case a method of reporting is needed that will only report on the desired target so that you don't end up looking at EVERYONE with suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
Second: I agree that Sony/Verant are doing the right thing by negotiating with it's users.
Third: I agree that if they take their ball and go home, then there is no ball. <Matrix>There is no spoon</Matrix>
Fourth: I agree that ShowEQ is a tool (and like other tools) and not inherently bad.
Fifth: I agree that having an edge is important. It feels good to know that you have one up against whatever you are competing against.
Now is where I think we start to diverge in opinion. Sixth: A bad pathing system does not mean that it is ok to abuse that pathing system for your own gain. Likewise, a bad pathing system does not mean that the creator of it shouldn't improve it.
Your statement: "Why does creating a bad pathing system give you the right to tell people how to use it?" illustrates one of the big differences of opinion that shake the software market, not just EQ. Just replace "pathing system" with just about anything else. On the one hand, you have the developers and creators of the software along with the people who maintain the server/game. On the other, you have the users who are trying to get the most for their money. The developers/creators/maintainer only want you to use the software within the bounds that they've specified (not abusing poorly designed parts of their software, etc). The users see the fact that part of the software is poorly designed as an opportunity to exploit the poor design to get 'an edge'.
The big question is "Who is in the right?" The answer? Your guess is as good as mine. I tend towards the ambiguous "Both and neither".
Developers/creators/maintainers shouldn't allow poor design to last very long on the one hand. By doing so, they are implicitly allowing the abuse of those poor designs.
Users, though, shouldn't abuse those poor designs if they know that doing so violates the spirit of the game. (ie, just because the folks running the game aren't enforcing the rules completely, doesn't mean that you can abuse the rules that aren't being enforced). [ You can draw this analogy with speeding laws in the U.S. Are they vigorously enforced? No. You can be going 20 mph over the speed limit and as long as you aren't being reckless, chances are you won't be pulled over. ]
Is it reasonable to expect users to not get the most from their software? No.
Is it unreasonable for the folks running the game to expect users to follow the letter of the rules as well as the spirit? No.
You need to find a happy median. Those that can't live with it will leave. If the developers/etc can't live with it, the software dies. If a major percentage of the user base can't live with it, the software dies.
Lastly, "ShowEQ is not cheating because nothing is cheating in a complex society." is a fallacy. Cheating does exist in complex society. See the posts about measures that casinos take to prevent cheating. Also, see all the news stories to see all the trouble that corporations and individuals get in when they are caught cheating. And check the law books to see all the laws that define what cheating is in terms of business and individual practices. Seriously.
I think what you wanted to say is that ShowEQ should not be considered cheating because all it does is display information available to everyone's client. Everyone's client gets the data. ShowEQ just shows it to the folks that use it. If ShowEQ connected to the EQ server and got information that isn't sent to the client, then ShowEQ would definitely be cheating. But as you said, and I agree with, ShowEQ is a tool. And as with all tools, it should be certain uses of those tools that are 'cheating' or 'illegal', not the tools themselves.
And the people who organized the group will ostracize you and remove you from the group if there is sufficient support within the group to do so. If not, the people who ogranized the group will be the ones to leave and start their group anew. Your argument fails because in the case of EQ, Sony/Verant are the organizers and they have sufficient support to do what they please (they write the code for the game and that gives them all the support they need).
Funny that. We don't hear about other people than Sony/Verant developing new additions to the official game. Nor do we hear about other people running servers for the game. So it sounds like Sony/Verant still own the world. The ability to shut off the game (and they don't need to refund any money if they do), gives them full ownership of the world.Yes. They've used the data gathered by these third-party tools to make changes to 'better' the game, but doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved. The use of these tools by guides and GMs, doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved either.
Exactly. And if the form of enforcement that Sony/Verant wants to use is to change the data that the client gets, or ban third-party software from accessing the data from the game, then that's their perogative. And if they feel that guides or GMs aren't performing their functions correctly, then those guides and GMs will no longer be guides or GMs.If people are using EQ as a social venue rather than a game, then you know what, it won't matter if SEQ or other packet analyzers are banned or allowed. Why? Because people who are using EQ as a social venue, won't/don't care about the exact weapon ratings, location of mobs, health of mobs, etc.
Lastly,
This is a nice non-sequitor. "Spirit of the Game" has nothing to do with whether or not there are some very hard and complicated quests. There is a universal "spirit of the game". It's defined in the agreements that you click-through and agree to before entering the game. It probably says something along the lines of:Not obeying that is violating the 'universal spirit of the game' that you claim doesn't exist.
Now to deal with your statement that there are things that can't be done "without ShowEQ". Please. Come on. That's possible the most ridiculous reason to use to try to legitimize the use of something. Have you considered that there are some things that are in the game that can not be done? Have you considered that some things need a lot more thought and effort than "Go to place A, pick up item B, kill monster C, talk to NPC D, go to place E, and give item B and loot C to object F"? Not everything is straight-forward.
After you 'solve' a quest with ShowEQ, do you ever try every combination of things without ShowEQ to try see if you jumped the gun on using SEQ to solve the quest? Or do you just tuck that bit of information away as a crutch?
Please define 'non-essential' goods.
Do you mean a computer or cell phone? To me, those are essential. I can't do my job without them.
Do you mean a car? Sure, I might be able to do without a car. It would be hard, but I think I could do it. There's enough public transportation where I live that it might be possible.
Do you mean cable tv? To be honest, I'm not sure I can even get tv without it being cable.
Maybe it would be easier to define what is universally essential.
There's water, electricity, gas, and telephone service. That's about all that is 'essential' for everyone. Somehow, I don't think that taxing everything else would fly. It would be interesting to see how many people would go for it though.
Anyone know how much money Americans spend on things other than water, electricity, gas, and telephone service? (Would you count rent/mortgage as non-essential?) Work it back from there. Unless sales tax on these non-essential goods and services (goods are one-time charges, services recur) is close to the current income tax, the government would probably end up losing money. I know that I don't even spend as much money as the government takes from me in income tax unless you count rent (and even then I barely outspend the income tax). It seems like a losing proposition to me.
Please tell me if I'm missing something.
This is really interesting. No really. I subscribed to AT&T BroadBand. They installed the BroadJump Client. I don't think I've ever seen it running on my system. The AT&T startup (which retrieves my account information) runs when I boot my machine, but there aren't any added icons in my system tray. I wondered about what the BroadJump client was but didn't really pay any attention to it since it never seemed to be running anywhere. I guess I'll check my system again when I get home.
Example: # 5,576,951 seems to cover search engines. But there have been search engines well before the patent. From the patent: Also, from the description of both patents it seems that the preferred embodiment of the patents are targetted at very specific applications.
#5,576,951 has the preferred embodiment described as an airline reservation system for use by travel agents to build tour packages for people.
#6,289,319 seems to be specifically target loan application processes.
Now, I'm not a patent lawyer so I'm not sure if this can be used for the defense, but it seems that if your make very specific examples of what the patent is geared towards and then try to sue people who are doing similar things in different areas, then you have no grounds for suing them. You didn't patent that particular process. In this case, it would seem that PanIP has patents on remote loan application systems and customized travel package generation systems, not generalized remote and/or customized sales systems.
Now even if the patents did cover the generalized form of the idea, they were filed in '94. There were e-commerce sites on the Web by then. There were search engines on the Web by then. Prior art.
Another thing I'm not sure of, but don't you have to take active defence of your patent (like copyright??) in order for you to actually be able to gain anything from it? I don't know about the rest of you, but filing the patent in '94, getting one of the patents in '96 (the one that seems to cover airline reservation systems and search engines), and getting the other in '01 (the one that seems to cover loan applications), and then starting to enforce it near the end of '02 you've been awfully lax in defending your 'invention'. Once you have filed the patent, you have "patent pending" on it (right?) and can start defending it at that point (right?) (ie "I noticed that you have an ecommerce site. I am writing to inform you that according to patent application XXXXXX, I am the inventor of the technology behind ecommerce and as such I am willing to license the technology to you at a modest fee of <insert soul here>."). As noted above I'm not a patent lawyer, so I could be totally wrong on this. I'm making assumptions based on the number of things that have "patent pending" attached to them.
So where's the petition to have the patent office and process completely overhauled so that it makes sense?
The surface of a sphere (ball) has no boundary. You can keep going in the same direction and never reach an edge. However, it's not "open" per se. The sphere (ball) surrounds a finite space. It's been a while since topology was in the forefront of my mind.
Another example:
Take a mobius strip. It is a closed loop. However in one direction it is without boundary.
By no means am I suggesting that the police round up warchalkers and toss 'em in jail, but _technically_ by accessing the wireless network, you're stealing bandwidth. The act of chalking up the network is, as you said, as worst graffiti.
Your analogy to a "guide to the stars' homes" is also flawed in that those guides are authorized. Unauthorized "guides to the stars' homes" are very often cracked down on very hard if they contain information that is not commonly available (such as the contents of So-and-So's closet or safe).
Overall, I agree that warchalking (and the gathering of the information needed to provide accurate warchalking) should not be punished. Using that information to cause damage to someone else should be punished...severely. Just like manufacturing lockpicks isn't illegal, but unauthorized use of them is.
Why is it that companies (and individuals) complain and complain about how much time/money/energy they spend on patching Microsoft products and yet don't do anything to change a) their practices and b) their product choices?
This is an honest question that I'm wondering about. I agree with the people who also wonder why Microsoft flaws get so much attention from /. and Linux/Solaris/Apple/etc flaws get next to none. To those that say "Because there aren't any worthwhile reporting on." I say "Read more." The recommended patch cluster from Sun has lots of interesting reading.
There seem to be _alot_ of alternatives for almost everything. How many of those alternatives are used by more than the developers of those alternatives? By more than the friends/family of the developers? For my part, I don't have the money right now to get a second machine and my current Windows machine is used primarily for games. However, when I get the money, I will be running something other than Microsoft products where possible. My browser of choice right now is Mozilla. But there are sites that require me to use I.E. much to my disappointment. What are the technically savvy people doing to help their companies move away from Microsoft and what alternatives are they proposing? [And no 'Linux' isn't a good answer. What distro of Linux?]
Personally, I'm glad Microsoft changed their EULA to say that it gives them the right to run whatever they want on your computer. It gave me a wakeup call to read the EULAs more carefully. Occasionally, I turn down the EULA and don't use the product. Are other people finding that they are reading EULAs more carefully and actually turning them down more?
--Maarten
The top CS prize went to a researcher at MIT
Sudan received his PhD from Berkeley, but does his research at MIT.
Berkeley is top notch. For getting an education at least.
Arguing that open source software or free software has a lower cost of ownership than proprietary software is likewise useless.
Why?
Example: If Microsoft gave away Windows 2000 for free, that wouldn't make it 'better' than it is now. It might make it more palatable but it won't improve the software. Likewise, if Microsoft made the source available for Microsoft Word, that wouldn't necessarily make it capable of handling the latest file formats. It may be that modifying Word is more work than it's worth.
With open source applications, just because you have the ability to modify it to suit your needs, doesn't mean you can (or want to) modify it. Example: Just because you _can_ modify an open source 'office suite', doesn't mean you have the people in your organization you have the expertise to modify it well. If you are forced to use the open application, you either have to use the limitations, modify the source by hiring people who can do that, or submit requests and wait for the feature. With proprietary or closed software you have to submit requests and wait, but in those cases, you very often have a contract with the vendor that allows you to pressure them to put in features you want/need (you == government in this case). Many corporations use proprietary software, not because it's the best thing out there, but rather because the contract they get with the vendor is better. A certain unnamed company decided to use a certain unnamed product after the employees of said company vehemently opposed said product because the vendor of the product was willing to bendover backwards and kiss ass.
No company (or government) is going to hire people to do work (and take on the HR overhead of those people when they can get a contract with a third party that is willing to do everything under the sun to please that company.
Do you really think open source developers or free software developers would be willing to do everything under the sun to please a company or government, just to make sure that their software is used? No.
The real question isn't whether or not open source software or free software is better than proprietary software or closed source software. The real question is whether or not politicians are willing to lose the lucrative contributions from vendors of proprietary/closed software.
Try the following as an extension to your definition:
Example: Hacking SGML and DTDs (used for many years in library sciences before being 'hacked' into HTML and it's ilk).
Those technologically inclined folks in humanities departments "hack" existing technologies in order to make them more useful in their field of study.
Some examples:
- Speech Recognition: You need someone to write new and better software for this.
- Translation: same as speech recognition
- Storage of data: as someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread: Someone has to put together the collection of metadata to allow the most efficient and accurate storage of data.
No pure computer hacker would be able to do any of those tasks. In all cases, you would have to have some background in some area of the humanities. And in all likelihood, you would be working in a humanities department (if you work in a university), as well as (or instead of) working in a computer department.Yes, you could go with diamonds and spend the 'traditional' two paychecks on it. Or you could pick another stone and get that. Sapphires, pearls, tourmaline, all good. Onyx is ok, but the stone is very fragile and not a particularly good deal for rings. What's her birthstone? Talk to a jeweler about what that stone looks like, costs, etc.
Also take into account what your girlfriend does during the day. If she works in a job in which she has a good chance of smacking her hand into something (retail), then a large stone might not be worth it since she might end up damaging the stone (same goes for wedding rings btw).
Also, think about the band. Yellow gold doesn't look great on everyone. White gold or platinum might look better (platinum is way more expensive though). Also think of the carats. Most jewelers won't work with more than 18 or 20 carat gold (at least in the US) and the color gets worse the lower you go. That all makes a difference (in both price and appreciation).
Other than diamonds, what stones does your girlfriend like? Look at a list of birthstones for a start. Emerald, Amethyst, Garnet, Ruby, Sapphire, Tourmaline, Onyx, etc. All nice stones.
Moral: Diamonds may be nice, but diamonds are pushed so hard, that people forget about the other stones and the fact that they make great pieces of jewelry as well as nice things to hand down to your children.
True. They aren't all innocent and nice. However, the US has far more cases of forcing it's way on others in recent years. I'll generalize then and say that all countries should enforce their laws only on things that are in their country. The Internet is in NO country. However, people's actions on the Internet take place in two places: The country in which the client is in and the country in which the server is in. (Yeah yeah, p2p refers to them as peers.)
Seriously, other than the fact that the USG is an overbearing bully who wants to control everything it can and can't see, why do other countries let the US dictate their laws?
Concept: The Internet is global.
This would get rid of those things like the US exerting it's will on the populations of other countries simply because something is illegal in the US.
Can it happen? Yes. Will it? That's up to the rest of the world. If they let the US continue, then it won't. If they stand up and stop the US from doing it, then other things happen (like the US arresting foreign nationals if they come to the US, or other countries arresting US nationals, or commerce with the US stops, etc).
The US needs to stop thinking it owns the Internet or other countries will follow the example set by European countries and look to start their own 'internets'. Do that and you end up with a bunch of disjointed networks that might or might not be able to talk to each other and the whole idea of a global network goes down the tubes.
In truth, this doesn't bother me at all. Technology is good. It promotes innovation and research. Laws, on the other hand, are what stifle innovation and research. The way technology is used also stifles innovation and research. If this technology is used to:
- a) charge per use,
- b) track data about me for the purposes of selling or giving that data to someone else,
- c) make my life difficult by using it to restrict my activities,
- or otherwise inflict hardship upon me,
then you know what, I'll stop using the technology (if I have the option) and complain to those people in power (the RIAA, MPAA, etc) about how their use of this technology sucks and I'm not going to stand for it and my money is going to go elsewhere.Sound futile? probably is. Until you get into significant fractions of percentage points of the population doing the same. Then those in power will probably take note. Will they do anything? Probably not until you have at least a full percentage point.
People saying that this technology is bad should think about what they say. Rather than saying that the technology is bad, point out the ways it can be used constructively (allow companies to see what sells and what doesn't) and point out the ways it can be used in bad faith (selling data, etc). Come up with constructive, cogent, and coherent reasons for why the ways listed as 'bad faith' are in truth more harmful than good, and v.v. Take those points to the people wanting to implement the 'bad faith' practices. Take them to the media (all media, not just niche media points).
<Wishful Thinking>
Example: Imagine a group of people banding together to go to the RIAA and complain about the various policies that the RIAA wants to implement. Imagine that group of people contains artists who don't agree with the RIAA. Imagine you have the data to prove it. You get enough of them together and the RIAA has to take note and realize they are hurting themselves and the artists that agree with them.
</Wishful Thinking>
If the 'static' plaform calls home, home can always verify what's running on the platform and upgrade it there under the guise of a 'bug-fix' or a 'maintenance release', no? In which case, people hardly have a say in whether or not they have the latest bios in their consoles.
Nothing, and I mean nothing short of a tacnuke going off in Redmond, is going to force Joe User away from MS except if Joe User is hurt in way that Joe User understands.
Things that Joe User understands:
Financial Damage is pretty obvious. Financially damaging anyone will make them pissed off.
Lifestyle Damage might not be obvious. Possible example: Joe User likes nude photos of adult women and visits websites that show them. Lifestyle damage would be if somehow the information that Joe User visits porn sites is used against him.
Noticeable censorship would be along the lines of going to a news site, seeing an article on MS, and then not being able to read it because MS deemed something in the article to be bad for MS.
Computer Damage would be along the lines of preventing Joe User from installing Email Client A because it's not OutLook or OLE.
If MS avoids doing all of those things to Joe User, then Joe User isn't going to budge from the status quo.
On a corporate level, MS has to watch out more. If corporations switch away from MS, then that will end up slowly dragging Joe User away also, since there is a correlation between what's used in a corporate environment and what Joe User uses at home. Joe User tends to use at home the same types of things he uses at work...because that way he can work at home easier. If a corporation ends up taking a no Microsoft approach, their employees who don't leave, will find ways to work from home. In otherwords, those people will be much more likely to move away from MS so that they don't have to go into the office to do work.
That sounds like an easy algorithm until you try and reduce 'interesting' to rules in the algorithm. What is 'interesting'? Two lines intersecting at 90 degree angles? Lines that don't? Lines that intersect only in their middle? Lines that never intersect in their 'left' half?
Aesthetics is one of the hardest things to implement in an algorithm because it's so subjective.
On the topic of chess though, as many people have said, it's all a matter of brute force. I used to be interested in seeing computers play chess. But since I found Go (and I'm in no way a good player of Go), chess is rather boring. Find a way to consistently win at Tic-Tac-Toe and I'll be interested. Program a grandmaster Go player and I'll be interested. But throwing some more CPUs, more memory, and the complete games of PlayerX into a computer just doesn't do anything.
Well, operating costs are more than just money. If it takes 1000 seconds to send his bulk mail instead of 1 second, then his operating 'costs' have gone up. If it takes him 6 hours to find a new tool to get around a new filter, instead of 1 hour, then his costs have gone up also. Granted, the return for that time spent is still obscene, but any increase in their operating cost is good. Plus, the sheer visceral pleasure that we enjoy seeing the spammers having a 'hard' time is a bonus also.
So you're saying that the kids who own the games and have them installed on their home machine would bring in the software for the installation and use at school?
Wouldn't/Doesn't that violate the EULA? It's also not exactly fair use since the second installation isn't a backup copy.
So there are a couple of things that could be happening:
1) Kids are violating the EULA of games they've purchased by installing on more than one machine (provided that is a violation of the EULA of the game in question)
2) The software is unlicensed.
3) The money for the software licenses is coming out of the teacher's pocket.
4) The money comes out of an activities fund.
I'd recommend #4. That way the school has the licenses they need in case piracy charges do come up against them and you don't have the kids breaking laws.
Regarding the other points:
I totally agree. Schools offer activities for everyone, not just activities that everyone wants. If they just catered to the lowest common denominator, you probably wouldn't even have classes.
I agree. But keeping the open-relay databases current is not a responsibility the database providers have to those listed in the databases. It may affect the popularity and usefulness of their service, but that's another matter altogether.
Keeping the open-relay database current isn't the responsibility of the provider, it's the responsibility of the maintainer. If they are going add me to their list without me asking them to and they aren't going to tell me that I'm on their list, then if I find out I'm on their list and fix the problem, I shouldn't have to do anything to get off their list.
I inherited a mail server from someone and found out 4 years after the mail server was up that it was an open relay. I also found out that it was on a blacklist for less than a month before I discovered it. And yes, I fixed it in about 15 minutes and 2 days later it was removed from the RBL. The point is that had I been told by the list that "Oh btw, you've been added to this RBL for being an open-relay", I would've fixed it right away. I couldn't care if they warned me first and then checked a couple of days later or not. But getting an email letting me know that something is broken on my system, would've been nice.
And no I didn't check the mail server when I inherited it because I trusted that the person I got it from had already made sure it was closed. My bad.
Point: If you put someone on a RBL, at least tell them. That way those who made an honest mistake can correct themselves. Those who are doing it on purpose couldn't care anyway.
For those that already use junkbuster you can easily spoof your User Agent in there so you don't have to muck around with every browser that you might want to try using.
Personally, I think the second two-hour bit of the miniseries was pathetic. It was painfully obvious where the actors were walking in front of a static background (no green-screen points for this folks).
It was also really really hard to believe that in a society that values the conservation of water SO much that people would be so casually removing the mouth coverings on their stillsuits or worse yet walking around UNDER THE OPEN SKY without they stillsuit on (scene where Stilgar sees the spiceblow, both Stil and Paul are NOT wearing stillsuits).
Also, where did these people learn to pronounce some of the words. It's har-CO-nen not HAR-ka-nen. It's FEY-da-keen not fah-DI-kin. The fremen seitches were IN the rock, not surrounded by rock. The fremen children didn't laugh, chase each other around and play. They were just as much a part of the _warrior_ culture as the adults. Baron Harkonnen was incredibly fat (400 kilos I think) not mildly pudgy. Paul and Gurney run into each other in the middle of a heated battle not knowing the other is still alive, Paul doesn't see Gurney and decide not to attack the smugglers.
One of THE MOST UNBELIEVEABLE scenes was just after crash, Paul is calming sitting IN THE SAND UNDER THE OPEN SKY WITHOUT A STILLSUIT ON. The book does not mention that. The book repeatedly reminds us that NO ONE goes into the desert without a stillsuit. And where did the 'fall down a dune' thing come in? If I remember, Paul steps on drum-sand and that's what brings the worm.
The actors involved were pathetic as well. The sets were weak (see above). The special effects weren't awe-inspiring. Maybe it's just me, but even in rags, the Lady Jessica also (in my mind) would hold herself regally, not like a weak servant.
The miniseries, quite plainily, was a waste of howeever much money they spent on it.
The only GOOD things that I saw in Part II were the worms (much cooler than the movie), and the fact they there was something that approximated an ornithopter on the ground with a Harkonnen patrol next to it (of course the patrol was soon dispatched by fremen who mysteriously burst out of the sand like baby worms).
--Maarten
IMHO, an ISP should feel free to keep logs of all traffic that crosses their network. The use of the logs afterwards is really what matters as well as how long the logs are kept. In general, I'd feel comfortable saying that a year worth of logs is a good time frame. However, if that's too short you might want to keep the logs for as long as you can based on available storage. As for what to do with the logs after you have collected them, that's pretty easy. Nothing. Unless of course they are needed by 'the authorities' for an investigation. In that case a method of reporting is needed that will only report on the desired target so that you don't end up looking at EVERYONE with suspicion.
1) The one used at Columbia University for the time-sharing machines: translations of 'hello'...ie hello, caio, dag, konichiwa, mohoram...
2) The one used (for a short time) in my department at work: Star Wars planets...ie Dathomir, Alderaan, Kashyyyk, Corellia, Kessel, Dagobah...
The Star Wars planets get even more varied depending on what sources you take as canon. For me, it's the movies and the LucasArts productions.
But as everyone has proven here, there are no limits in terms of the types and numbers of naming conventions.