Mozilla could take a leaf out of Microsoft's book. MS won't let third-party Ogg Vorbis files play on their Plays4Sure devices, because they want the user experience to be consistent across the entire Plays4Sure "platform", and having a media file play on one device but not another is, according to them, not a good thing for the consumer. Therefore Mozilla should, according to MS's play-book, act to prevent.Net components from working in Mozilla, because that creates a fractured Firefox platform experience. Someone will probably point out to me some feature or add-on that only works on GNU/Linux Firefox now...
I hadn't realised it was that bad. So, if I connect to a SMB shared drive that is running a GPLv3 version of Samba, how am I supposed to see this notice? I just see a drive letter appear on my Windows box, there is no place for this information to be displayed. Similarly, if my web browser loads a page served by a GPLv3 web server, where on the web page should this information be inserted? Should the server force my browser to open a pop-up window, that my GPL'd browser then tries to block because I'm using a GPL'd pop-up blocker? Madness.
The Q3 handicap worked well, without it it was like I was playing in God Mode. Kind of fun, but not really challenging. The challenge for me became "how low can I set my handicap and still beat my friends".
For multiplayer, all I've seen in the past are ways to set the overall arena difficulty, not to set the players separately. It's no fun as a new player playing against a seasoned vetran - no matter where you set the difficulty it's not a fun game for either player.
Quake 3 did. When I played it against my friends, they put me on a 30% handicap (so I had 30% of their health and did 30% of their damage) because that's the only way they could avoid me from wiping the floor with them. There was something about that game that just clicked with the way I play - I wasn't nearly as dominant in Counterstrike, in fact I was regularly thrashed by one of them, but I tore through opposition in any id game like soft fruit through an old granny.
So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online? On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?
Starcraft II isn't a persistent world that requires the active involvement of GMs, so they don't have that overhead. It's much more like the matchmaking service that Battle.net was originally, with the hard work being done on your client PC, not a huge server farm.
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account. You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login. If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).
I don't see the Shuttleworth thing as being sexist. He referred to "our work in Linux" as being "hard to explain to girls", clearly there he's referring to girls that he meets in a social context, probably on dates. What's the big deal? He probably mostly meets men who are geeks and get it already, but meets lots of women who aren't and don't.
Pretty loose ties. http://c.fsdn.com/sd/logo.png is a valid URI, and IE renders it perfectly well. Anyway, you're talking nonsense, and no-one is going to listen to you.
The only one of the three elements listed that survives into the executable is the strings, but most of those are going to be changed (into Chinese, probably). De-compiled code - if that's even possible depending on the language - usually bears very little resemblance to the original source. This kind of reverse-engineering (which some might claim is even illegal under the DMCA) is an unreasonable burden to place on software hosting sites.
It has been known for a long time that green dam was stolen code, and they knowingly continued to distribute it.
Microsoft should be forced to halt any further support for non-standards compliant browsers and should not be allowed to create extensions and addons that could be further used to damage compatibility with W3C standards.
I get your point, but an absolute ban goes too far. For example, if Microsoft wanted to implement Firefox's "layerX" and "layerY" JavaScript elements for compatability, they would not be allowed to because that is a non-standard extension of JavaScript? Or, if JavaScript is a bad example, how about the Blink element? Firefox supports it, but should Microsoft be banned from doing so?
You've raised an interesting point there. OOo is changing their behaviour to be more compatible with Excel - in that text cells containing values that can be interpreted as numbers can be used in calculations - and this is one of the key reasons (or excuses) why Microsoft put their formulae into a different namespace. I wonder if they will change that when the OOo change is released, and what excuse they will use if they don't.
In the case of a "traditional" copyrighted work, it is possible to tell that the copy is related to the original - the picture looks the same, the plot and characters' names are similar, etc., but with software you don't have any way to tell that some of the source code is a direct copy. Judgements need to take this fundamental difference into account.
RTFFBI report, they say that he ran the script from a location outside of the library using the library password. Either the FBI are wrong, or the article summary is.
...For example, in WCDMA the network hands out one or more PRNs to the device on the fly, to meet the device's bandwidth demands. The more PRNs you have allocated to you, the more bandwidth you get.
OK, I'm happy to be corrected, you sound like you know a lot more than me about it.
I mean, the networks are probably different but can't they institute a cap and just let my phone slow to a crawl due to limited bandwidth while everyone else doesn't even notice my usage? Are the cell phone networks really that helpless in that they cannot cap usages on cell phones?
No they can't. There's no way the network can prevent your phone from sending as much data as it wants. It can refuse to pass all of that data on to the internet, but by then it's too late, your phone has already taken up the wireless bandwidth. The only way to throttle your iPhone's "upload" usage is to put software on the iPhone that does it. They can throttle your download usage, but that would have little effect on a web server app.
It was ever thus, telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what devices can connect to their networks. And I think they are right to do so, allowing unrestricted software access to their network infrastructure might well be disastrous. Most computers have to connect via a modem, but the iPhone is the modem, so allowing software to access the hardware directly would remove this layer of abstraction and security.
We have rules about the capabilities of devices that can run on our roads, this is not much different.
Games and shareware programs that generated a local authentication key based on what hardware it was running on, and stopped working if you changed a major hardware component? I don't remember any of those.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla could take a leaf out of Microsoft's book. MS won't let third-party Ogg Vorbis files play on their Plays4Sure devices, because they want the user experience to be consistent across the entire Plays4Sure "platform", and having a media file play on one device but not another is, according to them, not a good thing for the consumer. Therefore Mozilla should, according to MS's play-book, act to prevent .Net components from working in Mozilla, because that creates a fractured Firefox platform experience. Someone will probably point out to me some feature or add-on that only works on GNU/Linux Firefox now...
Oh, right, I hadn't even heard of that.
I hadn't realised it was that bad. So, if I connect to a SMB shared drive that is running a GPLv3 version of Samba, how am I supposed to see this notice? I just see a drive letter appear on my Windows box, there is no place for this information to be displayed. Similarly, if my web browser loads a page served by a GPLv3 web server, where on the web page should this information be inserted? Should the server force my browser to open a pop-up window, that my GPL'd browser then tries to block because I'm using a GPL'd pop-up blocker? Madness.
...would that be mushroom cloud computing?
Or you could use something other than a : to designate a port. There's no reason why the protocol suffix and the port prefix have to be the same.
The Q3 handicap worked well, without it it was like I was playing in God Mode. Kind of fun, but not really challenging. The challenge for me became "how low can I set my handicap and still beat my friends".
For multiplayer, all I've seen in the past are ways to set the overall arena difficulty, not to set the players separately. It's no fun as a new player playing against a seasoned vetran - no matter where you set the difficulty it's not a fun game for either player.
Quake 3 did. When I played it against my friends, they put me on a 30% handicap (so I had 30% of their health and did 30% of their damage) because that's the only way they could avoid me from wiping the floor with them. There was something about that game that just clicked with the way I play - I wasn't nearly as dominant in Counterstrike, in fact I was regularly thrashed by one of them, but I tore through opposition in any id game like soft fruit through an old granny.
So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online? On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?
Starcraft II isn't a persistent world that requires the active involvement of GMs, so they don't have that overhead. It's much more like the matchmaking service that Battle.net was originally, with the hard work being done on your client PC, not a huge server farm.
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account. You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login. If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).
Confirmed, this is what I do.
I don't see the Shuttleworth thing as being sexist. He referred to "our work in Linux" as being "hard to explain to girls", clearly there he's referring to girls that he meets in a social context, probably on dates. What's the big deal? He probably mostly meets men who are geeks and get it already, but meets lots of women who aren't and don't.
I think it depends on whether "warez" is a mass noun or is countable.
One of these days there'll be a "Get in the coffin you 7-figure granddad" meme, so enjoy it while you can.
Pretty loose ties. http://c.fsdn.com/sd/logo.png is a valid URI, and IE renders it perfectly well. Anyway, you're talking nonsense, and no-one is going to listen to you.
The only one of the three elements listed that survives into the executable is the strings, but most of those are going to be changed (into Chinese, probably). De-compiled code - if that's even possible depending on the language - usually bears very little resemblance to the original source. This kind of reverse-engineering (which some might claim is even illegal under the DMCA) is an unreasonable burden to place on software hosting sites.
It has been known for a long time that green dam was stolen code, and they knowingly continued to distribute it.
Yes, that's a valid point.
Microsoft should be forced to halt any further support for non-standards compliant browsers and should not be allowed to create extensions and addons that could be further used to damage compatibility with W3C standards.
I get your point, but an absolute ban goes too far. For example, if Microsoft wanted to implement Firefox's "layerX" and "layerY" JavaScript elements for compatability, they would not be allowed to because that is a non-standard extension of JavaScript? Or, if JavaScript is a bad example, how about the Blink element? Firefox supports it, but should Microsoft be banned from doing so?
You've raised an interesting point there. OOo is changing their behaviour to be more compatible with Excel - in that text cells containing values that can be interpreted as numbers can be used in calculations - and this is one of the key reasons (or excuses) why Microsoft put their formulae into a different namespace. I wonder if they will change that when the OOo change is released, and what excuse they will use if they don't.
If you're hosting an installer package or an executable for download, then you can't see any of that.
In the case of a "traditional" copyrighted work, it is possible to tell that the copy is related to the original - the picture looks the same, the plot and characters' names are similar, etc., but with software you don't have any way to tell that some of the source code is a direct copy. Judgements need to take this fundamental difference into account.
...the first 'Open Source' over the internet fan made movie...
Second
RTFFBI report, they say that he ran the script from a location outside of the library using the library password. Either the FBI are wrong, or the article summary is.
...For example, in WCDMA the network hands out one or more PRNs to the device on the fly, to meet the device's bandwidth demands. The more PRNs you have allocated to you, the more bandwidth you get.
OK, I'm happy to be corrected, you sound like you know a lot more than me about it.
I mean, the networks are probably different but can't they institute a cap and just let my phone slow to a crawl due to limited bandwidth while everyone else doesn't even notice my usage? Are the cell phone networks really that helpless in that they cannot cap usages on cell phones?
No they can't. There's no way the network can prevent your phone from sending as much data as it wants. It can refuse to pass all of that data on to the internet, but by then it's too late, your phone has already taken up the wireless bandwidth. The only way to throttle your iPhone's "upload" usage is to put software on the iPhone that does it. They can throttle your download usage, but that would have little effect on a web server app.
You mean 1 in base pi, or 10 in base sqrt(pi)
1 in base ten is not ten.
It was ever thus, telecoms operators have always tried to maintain a tight grip on what devices can connect to their networks. And I think they are right to do so, allowing unrestricted software access to their network infrastructure might well be disastrous. Most computers have to connect via a modem, but the iPhone is the modem, so allowing software to access the hardware directly would remove this layer of abstraction and security.
We have rules about the capabilities of devices that can run on our roads, this is not much different.
Games and shareware programs that generated a local authentication key based on what hardware it was running on, and stopped working if you changed a major hardware component? I don't remember any of those.