It isn't, and that's a good thing. The more people are punished for not checking the license of content before they use it, the more people will demand those license terms be put out front, where they can see some of the ridiculous things that they are held to by some license agreements.
Those that insist on hiding it and putting usurous restrictions on the use of their content will then finally be subject to market forces. UNtil then, what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well. Cheers to the guy who hoisted at least one corp on it's own petard.
I agree, I only bought a single new game this year, whough "new" is stretching the point when that "new" game is the Mega Man X Collection. I've picked up tons of used games though. Cheap, and good. That's the way I like 'em.
Don't be a whiny brat. Be an adult and make some choices about your priorities. Which is more important to you, avoiding possible lawsuits and possibly working for the company, or helping an open source project or two.
OK, I freely admit that the science behind how a quantum computer works is WAY beyond me, so correct me if I'm wrong about this. Wouldn't the ability to run a program without the computer being in an active state mean that quantum computing is an insane security risk? The article mentioned that they believed they had to specifically build the computer to exhibit this strange (and frankly fascinating) property, so does that mean this particular feature can be designed out?
I'm not talking about "quantum cryptography", I realize the security of that has been disproven recently.
You can quad Knights of the Round. Maybe they took that out in the Greatest Hits or PC version, but I damn well did. Yeah, I did sit through the animation multiple times. At the time, I didn't mind. =)
Lemme guess, would this unnamed networked title be Battle for Middle Earth? I've noticed that the profanity filter for that was very like the crappy one in Command & Conquer Generals.
Yeah, it was way overkill, I admit. However, I didn't want to go through the 20 minute nail-biting battle that my friend did. I honestly didn't realize how easy the fight would be with Quad Knights. I knew it was tough for my friend and I knew he didn't bother with almost any of the hidden stuff, so I wanted to get the biggest gun I could find. I just didn't realize how big the gun I found was.
That works in many games, but not in all. RPGs and action games, yeah, that tends to work. The first time I beat FF7, I was so freaked about the Sephiroth fight at the end (having watched someone beat it who hadn't taken the time to unlock everything) that I went around and unlocked EVERYTHING, and spent serious time levelling up the powerful materia. As a result, when I finally got to Sephiroth, it only took a few turns of quadruple-cast Knights of the Round to do him in.
The prime counter-example would be the Mega Man series, where a quick frontal attack on the level boss in question is far more likely to get you a quick death than a quick victory. The boss battles are about about learning the pattern. Hell, the entire series is about learning the pattern.
Other examples of this are the Metroid Prime games, and just about any shoot-em-up or platformer.
"such a large amount of power in the hands of one company can be dangerous, regardless of intent"
The thing is, any power Google has is entirely derived from its goodwill, and the willingness of people to use it. I can stop using Google at any time, start using another search engine, and their power over me vanishes. Altavista used to be the king of search engines, look where they are now. It could just as easily be Google in the drainage ditch next to it in a few years. Google's made enough money that they can probably survive if they start doing too much evil (because they are doing evil, just not enough for most people to stop using them) and people move to something else. Nothing other than the will of someone to do it stops someone from creating a competitor to Google, and if it does its job better, it takes half a second for me to switch, no hassle. It's not like switching between Windows and Linux, where you need to repartition hard drives, format, look for new software to replace the old stuff, etc. To replace where I search, I just add a new address to my browser's search engines listing, make that the default, and I'm switched. End of story.
As someone who is now playing through MGS:Twin Snakes, and is going on through the next 2 games in succession, I have to agree.
Twin Snakes is a movie on its own. Even moreso than the original it's remaking. Everything about it is cinematic, except the actual game sequences, and even then they try. The game is frankly secondary, it's the storytelling, and that's mostly done cinematically, though the long codec conversations have a good bit of radio play to them as well. As a game alone, there really isn't much going for the MGS series, IMHO. There are a lot of fun gimmicks, like the Psycho Mantis fight (which is even gimmickier in Twin Snakes than the original Solid, but in a good way), the box, the ketchup, and such. But the gameplay is exceedingly simple once you grasp it. There's no more reason to play through it again after you've learned the game than there is for watching a movie again.
So yeah, I'm sure Kojima would make damn sure that he had first crack before he handed it off to anyone else.
That is only if you don't block all cookies unless there's a good reason not to, like I do.
IP anonymizing is still necessary if you're on a static IP, but it's simplicity itself to refuse a cookie from google. There isn't any reason other than tracking for google to need one, so I've never accepted it.
Distribution is not the issue. Restrictions on use, and other simmilar topics are addressed as well in software licenses. Even the GPL deals with these issues. From section 0 of version 2 of the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
Copyright law does not speak to whether I can use copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder. (IE, copyright law does not govern whether, or under what terms I can use the software I buy for my business or personal use) Contract law gives the agreements I make with copyright holders in their licences, INCLUDING THE GPL, other than for distribution, copying, and modification their weight. Otherwise it's unenforceable. I want that to be contractually binding, so that when the US government, in its infinite stupidity, allows copyright holders to put restrictions on use of their works, then some code monkey that doesn't like what I may be doing for a living, or my political bent, or whatever, can't deprive me and my business of the software I use daily.
Check the license agreement for Windows XP. Nothing in there says that Microsoft will ever provide fixes, period. If you don't like their service-after-the-sale, get off the upgrade treadmill and stop buying licenses from them or buy an expanded service agreement from them. They aren't
Software licenses are agreements that should have the full weight of contract law. There is no other way that the licenses I prefer, like the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT, etc, get any legal weight. If you can't abide by the terms, take a stand, show some guts, and click "Cancel" on the install. Find some software that is licensed under terms you can accept. Don't be a sheep and agree just because it would be too hard, or make you go look for other software if you disagree.
Of course it's a sad state of affairs, that's why it both is and should be news. People need to see that you CAN stand up and demand that federal officials follow the law.
Until the American people wake up and start actually seeing what the people they elected are allowing to happen without so much as a protest vote, or even actively participating in them (see Abramoff, DeLay, and other things that non-partisan public interest groups have been screaming about for years) it's going to be an extremely sad state of affairs, so I'd like to see more news of this nature, frankly. It's among the only things that keep me hopeful for this battered country.
Because I don't want to watch movies or listen to music on a GAME CONSOLE.
Especially when I'd have to buy all the movies I'd want to watch (which I already own) a second time, if they'd even come out for the PSP in the first place.
Maybe if the PSP price drops below $100 I'll get one, but until then I'm more than happy with my DS.
I believe the essential sarcasm of "Other Bits of Joy" has passed you by. =)
As to your other points...
"Ironically, I believe the inventors of those combos (the programmers and authors of DoA) would be the sole owners."
No, the move lists are facts. It isn't violating copyright or plagiarism to tell the world that "down, down-forward, forward, punch" makes Ryu and Ken throw a fireball in Street Fighter 2, no matter how many billions of other people have written FAQs with that move listed there. It is a fact. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation thereof.
From the 1up.com strategy guide in question: "Dragon Elbow P+K Jan performs a back-turn attack that hits mid and is extremely fast. But if it whiffs or is blocked, Jan will be highly vulnerable for a free throw or a combo."
The name of the move ("Dragon Elbow") is, I am presuming, a fact. Most modern fighting games have in-game movelists with names associated, or have a name associated in the manual. If the writer of the manual/in-game movelist called it that, it's a fact. The move itself ("P+K") is a fact as well. What would be plagiarism is copying without attibution, the description of what the move does, and the commentary on its usefulness.
"Furthermore, who do you give credit to? The forum owners? The owners of the posts?" and later, "And how do I know that this material wasn't ganked from some other website without my knowledge?"
Whom did you directly pull the text from? That is who you give attribution to. You are not responsible for the plagiarism of other people. Yes, you can plagiarise other people's plagiarism. Yes, it is just as bad.
"If it's the owners of the posts, how do you acquire their real names? Should I be writing "Taken from a post by worksucks69 at DoACentral"
Yes, you should be attributing it to whatever "nom de plume" the author you are quoting wrote it under, or give the URL of the forum post it was under if there are multiple authors at the very least. If you are embarrassed by the source you are quoting, your only other choice is to find a less embarrassing source, not lie about who or what the source is.
"What are you to do if you want good information from a forum but it is in no way credible?"
If the information isn't credible, why, by all the gods, are you even considering passing off suspect information as your own?
...games that fall into one of these four categories.
1. Are $20 or lower. (rarely) 2. Are so good no one has returned them, so I can't find them used. (this is the most frequent) 3. Are designed so having a used copy is impossible (CD-keys basically make used PC games quite untrustworthy...consequently I buy very few PC games anymore...new or otherwise)
I've bought 6 new games in the last year. I've bought over 50 preowned and bargain-binned games in the last year, most under $20. I imagine that ratio will only get more lopsided this year.
With stuff like Combo Winter lurking in Wizard's collective nightmares, and the more recent Affinity debacle (the reason I stopped playing Magic altogether) rearing it's head, Wizards needs to have their sets designed as far in advance as humanly possible, so that they can test the bajeezus out of them, so that these ridiculously broken cards and combos are identified as early as possible.
There's apparently an internal Magic league in the design department of Wizards designed to help these kind of broken things float to the surface. Most of the time it works well enough. It kept them going well up until Mirrodin, where they were 100% blind to the fact that they had printed Skullclamp, the most overpowered card since Memory Jar. Now everyone is looking for the next sure thing card, and rumors make the market, both primary (preorder) and secondary markets go batshit insane.
Science is run by corporations now. Non-commercial scientific research has been getting the gas pipe for years. Corporate scientists are more than willing to take all the data the silly hippy scientists are willing to give them for free. They're not so willing to share their data in return, because their shareholders will string them up.
This is what you get with that cushy research job at the biotech company, folks. Now it can start biting you in the ass, just like your greed has bankrupted the rest of us.
I think that entire spectrum is important for you guys to take action on.
When a summary focuses on a small detail within a story that isn't the focus of the article, nothing really stops the editor from making a small comment to that effect after the submission text. Often these small extra details in an article are more important than the bulk of the article, but some recognition of the context in advance would be helpful to the more casual browsers of slashdot.
As to summaries which make factually wrong claims about the linked article, I don't see how there is any real excuse for them being posted at all. If you don't actually read any of the articles, how can you ever be certain that any of the links are real? If a submitter has a summaries that makes false statements about the content of the link, then that summary should be removed. I've seen plenty of articles posted by editors with "JoeSchmoe was the first of many submitters to alert us to a story in X" with none of JoeSchmoe's actual summary text. I don't see why attribution of the interesting and valid submission can't be kept with the editor writing a generally accurate summary of the linked articles contents. If nothing else, it will avoid many of the "Update: we were alerted to the fact that the article didn't actually say that, it said this" corrections the editors are forced to do.
I understand that people will find something else to complain about if this particular issue gets fixed, but if I were an editor, I'd much rather these complaints be about issues I find no need to "struggle with."
Well, technically it probably will suddenly lose value because a portion of the demand supporting the ridiculously high price will be removed. Those of us who want Panzer Dragoon Saga primarily to play instead of for a collection will no longer need to compete in the same market as the collectors.
However, eventually the price of an original Panzer Dragoon Saga will push back up, as the collectibles released back into the market by the reprint (since many will sell their originals at a profit and buy the cheaper so they can still play it) get snapped up, it will be just as hard to find an original.
The main problem with the people that wail and gnash their teeth about protecting the value of their collections is that their position is quite immature. They seem to be of the opinion that it is everyone else's obligation to protect the scarcity their nest egg is based on. Quite the contrary, if they're that concerned with protecting the value of their collections, they should take steps to aquire the copyrights to those works. Otherwise, they need to recognize that they are gamblers, plain and simple.
The answer is to suss out an original MS Natural Touch keyboard without all the fancy dan functions.
I've been looking around local computers stores for a second one for when this one eventually dies and haven't found one, but I'm sure I can find one on the Internet. Hell, maybe MS even still sells it. Worth a look.
Until the American government decides to provide decent mass transit for more than the pittance of areas that now have it, people who aren't godo drivers are going to still need to drive. Get on the horn to your local elected officials and make some noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Point them at Congress and get something actually done. Nothing scares congress more than angry old people.
How is this different from a shrinkwrap license?
It isn't, and that's a good thing. The more people are punished for not checking the license of content before they use it, the more people will demand those license terms be put out front, where they can see some of the ridiculous things that they are held to by some license agreements.
Those that insist on hiding it and putting usurous restrictions on the use of their content will then finally be subject to market forces. UNtil then, what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well. Cheers to the guy who hoisted at least one corp on it's own petard.
I agree, I only bought a single new game this year, whough "new" is stretching the point when that "new" game is the Mega Man X Collection. I've picked up tons of used games though. Cheap, and good. That's the way I like 'em.
Don't be a whiny brat. Be an adult and make some choices about your priorities. Which is more important to you, avoiding possible lawsuits and possibly working for the company, or helping an open source project or two.
You can't have both. Grow up.
OK, I freely admit that the science behind how a quantum computer works is WAY beyond me, so correct me if I'm wrong about this. Wouldn't the ability to run a program without the computer being in an active state mean that quantum computing is an insane security risk? The article mentioned that they believed they had to specifically build the computer to exhibit this strange (and frankly fascinating) property, so does that mean this particular feature can be designed out?
I'm not talking about "quantum cryptography", I realize the security of that has been disproven recently.
You can quad Knights of the Round. Maybe they took that out in the Greatest Hits or PC version, but I damn well did. Yeah, I did sit through the animation multiple times. At the time, I didn't mind. =)
Lemme guess, would this unnamed networked title be Battle for Middle Earth? I've noticed that the profanity filter for that was very like the crappy one in Command & Conquer Generals.
Yeah, it was way overkill, I admit. However, I didn't want to go through the 20 minute nail-biting battle that my friend did. I honestly didn't realize how easy the fight would be with Quad Knights. I knew it was tough for my friend and I knew he didn't bother with almost any of the hidden stuff, so I wanted to get the biggest gun I could find. I just didn't realize how big the gun I found was.
That works in many games, but not in all. RPGs and action games, yeah, that tends to work. The first time I beat FF7, I was so freaked about the Sephiroth fight at the end (having watched someone beat it who hadn't taken the time to unlock everything) that I went around and unlocked EVERYTHING, and spent serious time levelling up the powerful materia. As a result, when I finally got to Sephiroth, it only took a few turns of quadruple-cast Knights of the Round to do him in.
The prime counter-example would be the Mega Man series, where a quick frontal attack on the level boss in question is far more likely to get you a quick death than a quick victory. The boss battles are about about learning the pattern. Hell, the entire series is about learning the pattern.
Other examples of this are the Metroid Prime games, and just about any shoot-em-up or platformer.
"such a large amount of power in the hands of one company can be dangerous, regardless of intent"
The thing is, any power Google has is entirely derived from its goodwill, and the willingness of people to use it. I can stop using Google at any time, start using another search engine, and their power over me vanishes. Altavista used to be the king of search engines, look where they are now. It could just as easily be Google in the drainage ditch next to it in a few years. Google's made enough money that they can probably survive if they start doing too much evil (because they are doing evil, just not enough for most people to stop using them) and people move to something else. Nothing other than the will of someone to do it stops someone from creating a competitor to Google, and if it does its job better, it takes half a second for me to switch, no hassle. It's not like switching between Windows and Linux, where you need to repartition hard drives, format, look for new software to replace the old stuff, etc. To replace where I search, I just add a new address to my browser's search engines listing, make that the default, and I'm switched. End of story.
As someone who is now playing through MGS:Twin Snakes, and is going on through the next 2 games in succession, I have to agree.
Twin Snakes is a movie on its own. Even moreso than the original it's remaking. Everything about it is cinematic, except the actual game sequences, and even then they try. The game is frankly secondary, it's the storytelling, and that's mostly done cinematically, though the long codec conversations have a good bit of radio play to them as well. As a game alone, there really isn't much going for the MGS series, IMHO. There are a lot of fun gimmicks, like the Psycho Mantis fight (which is even gimmickier in Twin Snakes than the original Solid, but in a good way), the box, the ketchup, and such. But the gameplay is exceedingly simple once you grasp it. There's no more reason to play through it again after you've learned the game than there is for watching a movie again.
So yeah, I'm sure Kojima would make damn sure that he had first crack before he handed it off to anyone else.
That is only if you don't block all cookies unless there's a good reason not to, like I do.
IP anonymizing is still necessary if you're on a static IP, but it's simplicity itself to refuse a cookie from google. There isn't any reason other than tracking for google to need one, so I've never accepted it.
Distribution is not the issue. Restrictions on use, and other simmilar topics are addressed as well in software licenses. Even the GPL deals with these issues. From section 0 of version 2 of the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
Copyright law does not speak to whether I can use copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder. (IE, copyright law does not govern whether, or under what terms I can use the software I buy for my business or personal use) Contract law gives the agreements I make with copyright holders in their licences, INCLUDING THE GPL, other than for distribution, copying, and modification their weight. Otherwise it's unenforceable. I want that to be contractually binding, so that when the US government, in its infinite stupidity, allows copyright holders to put restrictions on use of their works, then some code monkey that doesn't like what I may be doing for a living, or my political bent, or whatever, can't deprive me and my business of the software I use daily.
Check the license agreement for Windows XP. Nothing in there says that Microsoft will ever provide fixes, period. If you don't like their service-after-the-sale, get off the upgrade treadmill and stop buying licenses from them or buy an expanded service agreement from them. They aren't
Software licenses are agreements that should have the full weight of contract law. There is no other way that the licenses I prefer, like the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT, etc, get any legal weight. If you can't abide by the terms, take a stand, show some guts, and click "Cancel" on the install. Find some software that is licensed under terms you can accept. Don't be a sheep and agree just because it would be too hard, or make you go look for other software if you disagree.
THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT.
Of course it's a sad state of affairs, that's why it both is and should be news. People need to see that you CAN stand up and demand that federal officials follow the law.
Until the American people wake up and start actually seeing what the people they elected are allowing to happen without so much as a protest vote, or even actively participating in them (see Abramoff, DeLay, and other things that non-partisan public interest groups have been screaming about for years) it's going to be an extremely sad state of affairs, so I'd like to see more news of this nature, frankly. It's among the only things that keep me hopeful for this battered country.
Because I don't want to watch movies or listen to music on a GAME CONSOLE.
Especially when I'd have to buy all the movies I'd want to watch (which I already own) a second time, if they'd even come out for the PSP in the first place.
Maybe if the PSP price drops below $100 I'll get one, but until then I'm more than happy with my DS.
I believe the essential sarcasm of "Other Bits of Joy" has passed you by. =)
As to your other points...
"Ironically, I believe the inventors of those combos (the programmers and authors of DoA) would be the sole owners."
No, the move lists are facts. It isn't violating copyright or plagiarism to tell the world that "down, down-forward, forward, punch" makes Ryu and Ken throw a fireball in Street Fighter 2, no matter how many billions of other people have written FAQs with that move listed there. It is a fact. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation thereof.
From the 1up.com strategy guide in question:
"Dragon Elbow
P+K
Jan performs a back-turn attack that hits mid and is extremely fast. But if it whiffs or is blocked, Jan will be highly vulnerable for a free throw or a combo."
The name of the move ("Dragon Elbow") is, I am presuming, a fact. Most modern fighting games have in-game movelists with names associated, or have a name associated in the manual. If the writer of the manual/in-game movelist called it that, it's a fact. The move itself ("P+K") is a fact as well. What would be plagiarism is copying without attibution, the description of what the move does, and the commentary on its usefulness.
"Furthermore, who do you give credit to? The forum owners? The owners of the posts?" and later, "And how do I know that this material wasn't ganked from some other website without my knowledge?"
Whom did you directly pull the text from? That is who you give attribution to. You are not responsible for the plagiarism of other people. Yes, you can plagiarise other people's plagiarism. Yes, it is just as bad.
"If it's the owners of the posts, how do you acquire their real names? Should I be writing "Taken from a post by worksucks69 at DoACentral"
Yes, you should be attributing it to whatever "nom de plume" the author you are quoting wrote it under, or give the URL of the forum post it was under if there are multiple authors at the very least. If you are embarrassed by the source you are quoting, your only other choice is to find a less embarrassing source, not lie about who or what the source is.
"What are you to do if you want good information from a forum but it is in no way credible?"
If the information isn't credible, why, by all the gods, are you even considering passing off suspect information as your own?
Yes, the problem was that they didn't playtest their changes anywhere near as hard as they tested the original card.
A failure of the playtesting system, not to mention the people on the playtesting system, which had been doing fairly well up until Mirrodin.
...games that fall into one of these four categories.
1. Are $20 or lower. (rarely)
2. Are so good no one has returned them, so I can't find them used. (this is the most frequent)
3. Are designed so having a used copy is impossible (CD-keys basically make used PC games quite untrustworthy...consequently I buy very few PC games anymore...new or otherwise)
I've bought 6 new games in the last year. I've bought over 50 preowned and bargain-binned games in the last year, most under $20. I imagine that ratio will only get more lopsided this year.
With stuff like Combo Winter lurking in Wizard's collective nightmares, and the more recent Affinity debacle (the reason I stopped playing Magic altogether) rearing it's head, Wizards needs to have their sets designed as far in advance as humanly possible, so that they can test the bajeezus out of them, so that these ridiculously broken cards and combos are identified as early as possible.
There's apparently an internal Magic league in the design department of Wizards designed to help these kind of broken things float to the surface. Most of the time it works well enough. It kept them going well up until Mirrodin, where they were 100% blind to the fact that they had printed Skullclamp, the most overpowered card since Memory Jar. Now everyone is looking for the next sure thing card, and rumors make the market, both primary (preorder) and secondary markets go batshit insane.
Science is run by corporations now. Non-commercial scientific research has been getting the gas pipe for years. Corporate scientists are more than willing to take all the data the silly hippy scientists are willing to give them for free. They're not so willing to share their data in return, because their shareholders will string them up.
This is what you get with that cushy research job at the biotech company, folks. Now it can start biting you in the ass, just like your greed has bankrupted the rest of us.
I think that entire spectrum is important for you guys to take action on.
When a summary focuses on a small detail within a story that isn't the focus of the article, nothing really stops the editor from making a small comment to that effect after the submission text. Often these small extra details in an article are more important than the bulk of the article, but some recognition of the context in advance would be helpful to the more casual browsers of slashdot.
As to summaries which make factually wrong claims about the linked article, I don't see how there is any real excuse for them being posted at all. If you don't actually read any of the articles, how can you ever be certain that any of the links are real? If a submitter has a summaries that makes false statements about the content of the link, then that summary should be removed. I've seen plenty of articles posted by editors with "JoeSchmoe was the first of many submitters to alert us to a story in X" with none of JoeSchmoe's actual summary text. I don't see why attribution of the interesting and valid submission can't be kept with the editor writing a generally accurate summary of the linked articles contents. If nothing else, it will avoid many of the "Update: we were alerted to the fact that the article didn't actually say that, it said this" corrections the editors are forced to do.
I understand that people will find something else to complain about if this particular issue gets fixed, but if I were an editor, I'd much rather these complaints be about issues I find no need to "struggle with."
It doesn't lose value all of a sudden.
Well, technically it probably will suddenly lose value because a portion of the demand supporting the ridiculously high price will be removed. Those of us who want Panzer Dragoon Saga primarily to play instead of for a collection will no longer need to compete in the same market as the collectors.
However, eventually the price of an original Panzer Dragoon Saga will push back up, as the collectibles released back into the market by the reprint (since many will sell their originals at a profit and buy the cheaper so they can still play it) get snapped up, it will be just as hard to find an original.
The main problem with the people that wail and gnash their teeth about protecting the value of their collections is that their position is quite immature. They seem to be of the opinion that it is everyone else's obligation to protect the scarcity their nest egg is based on. Quite the contrary, if they're that concerned with protecting the value of their collections, they should take steps to aquire the copyrights to those works. Otherwise, they need to recognize that they are gamblers, plain and simple.
The answer is to suss out an original MS Natural Touch keyboard without all the fancy dan functions.
I've been looking around local computers stores for a second one for when this one eventually dies and haven't found one, but I'm sure I can find one on the Internet. Hell, maybe MS even still sells it. Worth a look.
Until the American government decides to provide decent mass transit for more than the pittance of areas that now have it, people who aren't godo drivers are going to still need to drive. Get on the horn to your local elected officials and make some noise.