That then, makes it a staggering blow to those who wish to file share, not to DALnet. If DALnet administrators have decided this is what they want to do, this is then an ENHANCEMENT for DALnet, as it defines its goal as facilitating chat and not file sharing.
Having been exposed to the kind of script kiddies and l33t h4x0rz that IRC attracts during my days on Undernet (I worked as a junior channel op on #quake3 and #trinity) though, I highly doubt that this will mark an end to the DOSing that DALnet has been experiencing.
I fully expect a mass tantrum from the Ju4r3z kiddies, and more attacks on the network.
It is one reason I stopped IRCing about 5 years ago. Children who have never learned "NO" and "not yours, don't touch" from their parents. I could have spent the last 5 years tracking them and helping law enforcement teach "NO" and "not yours, don't touch" through incarceration, injunction, and equipment confiscation. Instead, I decided to walk away and concentrate on my career.
I wish DALnet the best, but I really fear that IRC is living on borrowed time, thanks to the poorly socialized children shitting in the sandbox.
Oh, for the record, I have no problem with static ads. I go out of my way to make sure they can be displayed. I don't allow things to animate though, particularly Flash, which likes ot animate when I'm not looking at it.
Only took one screen covering Shoskeles ad for me to banish Flash forever. I don't bother with websites or entertainment that rely on a technology like flash that brings nothing useful to the table. There is nothing that can be done with Flash that cannot be done with >gasp HTML, or other, existant video technology. The only thing that Flash offers is that it gives control to the advertiser, rather than the person whos computer the ad is running on.
If the plug in is not allowed to install, then the ad can't run. Quite simple really. Strong Bad simply CAN'T be worth allowing screaming advertisements. Maybe to others, not to me.
I find the fact that someone wasted a mod point on that to mark it "overrated" hilarious. Glad Macromedia employees have time to make a feeble attempt to defend their company without actually defending it.
And yes. I have Karma to burn. Waste another point. Please.
No content on the web will ever make me install that crap on my main machine. I've seen stills of strongbad, but I can't imagine it's worth opening myself to Shoskeles, loud, intrusive ads, or other evils that Flash has brought to us.
Screw Macromedia sideways with a bandsaw. I'm not interested in a "technology" whos main use is interfering with my browsing, or other uses of my computer.
It was the manager. I tried being reasonable and the answer was no. That was not acceptable because it was a defective product, and I wasn't going to just throw away the money that went to pay for two copies of a game.
This WAS handled in person. Kind of hard to return a product without walking in to the store.
It DID feel good to get my money back. The state of mind the clerk was in was irrelivant. I'm not in the habit of donating money to shore up someone's self esteem.
Only a guess, but I think it was a troll because he was implying that people who had trouble with the copy protection didn't have legitimate copies. In this particular case, it is well documented that the copy protection caused problems for MANY legitimate customers.
No matter how well the game is coded, if the copy protection is faulty, it renders the game unplayable. Period.
Not all Electronics Boutiques (or EB Employees, apparently) follow the same code of "ethics". I bought it at EB, and had to threaten the salesdrone with economic ruin (I had the means to bring it, he didn't have the means to fend it off) before I could get a refund. I didn't want store credit at the time, as I was pissed off that I had been told it would work and it didn't.
Said employee no longer works at the EB that I go to, and the current bunch is much more reliable.
It DID interfere with legit copies. Because of the nature of the protection system used, it conflicted with widely popular CD drives (you know, the kind that also BURN CDs) It also seeks out virtual drive software and other software used by developers, and "accidentally" crashes if such is found.
I bought TWO copies legitimately the day it came out, to be able to play with friends on my LAN. My main machine was unable to run the game. It wouldn't recognize either ORIGINAL disc. only this particular sceme (Safedisk 2 I think) causes this problem. Both copies went back. I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get a refund. Against the clerk who had assured me that there would be no such problems. Obviously the store wouldn't care, but threaten to sue an individual, well, things happen much more quickly;)
It was suggested that I replace my brand new (and perfectly compliant with all standards) 40x burner drive with a NEW CD drive to resolve this. I suggested the PUBLISHER not expect me to replace perfectly legal and properly functional hardware (I use this drive to back up my network, incremental backups) that cost more than their GAME did.
Eventually, I believe they either fixed the game or the bug in their implementation. I'll never know, because I wrote that game off permanently.
Publishers need to remember it is NOT the responsibility of people with CD drives, new ones, to worry about a game being compatible. It's the publishers' responsibility to make sure their copy protection doesn't BREAK on current hardware. Nothing less is acceptable. Unless they want to put "WARNING, THIS PRODUCT IS PROTECTED BY (Insert protection scheme here) AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE THAT IT WILL NOT WORK WITH YOUR CD DRIVE", coupled with an easy to read list of known incompatible drives, in readable text, on the box (NOT IN IT).
I'm even less inclined to accept legislation that's intended to make the ignorant (soccer moms) feel better than I am legislation intended to allow parents to be lazy.
Legislation like this that achieves both in one fell swoop is something California has perfected, and unfortunately tends to infect the rest of the nation with.
Now legislation that would strip soccer moms of their license for endangering others by yaking on their cell phones and doing other things in their mini-vans and SUVs that interfere with their driving and endanger others... THAT I could support.
Watched an idiotic soccer mom hang her SUV off an overpass because she wasn't paying attention while she was talking, scared herself by getting too close to the vehicle in front of her, and lost control of her vehicle. Luckily she didn't kill anyone (like me). Hopefully she's never allowed to drive anything bigger than a unicycle again.
"Violent video games may play a part in contributing to violent behaviour in some people, perhaps in those who are also at risk of becoming violent offenders due to additional contributing factors."
BFD, so might: low grades, poor parenting, peer persecution at school, poor parenting, organized religion, poor parenting, excessive exposure to "elevator music", idolization of thug-like pro sports figures, diet, the weather, poor parenting, participation in school sporting programs, exclusion from school sporting programs, high grades, certain colors, lack of certain colors, knitting, cross stitch, "my little pony", pre-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, post-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, a severe defecit in Sinatra intake, and bad clams. (also bad parenting)
My point? The kind of personalities that are affected by violent (or other) videogames to a degree that they exhibit violent behavior are likely to be triggered by pretty much ANYTHING. Add to that the fact that BAD PARENTING (such as relying on laws and regulations on entertainment and the behavior of others to regulate little Johnny Snot-Nose's intake of "Bad Things") is the chief cause of said behavior, and this whole issue is a non-starter and less than worthy of even Congress' time.
Drugs, underage alchohol, many things are already illegal. It doesn't stop the little hoodlums that exhibit "violent behavior" from getting it anyway and doing whatever they damn well please, because mummy and daddy can't be arsed to actually be PARENTS./sarcasm That's everyone else's responsibility, after all.../!sarcasm
They were actually did this with the Sega Saturn, I believe. Around the time of Windows 95's launch. Nvidia's original card (I can't remember the name, it was pretty bad, driver wise) was an integrated video and sound card, with connectors for Saturn controllers on it. Back then, Gates was pushing windows games that would boot and play off the CD, and they also demo'd some Sega games running on a board.
Now that I think about it, I don't know that any of the Saturn boards shipped, but I had one of the Nvidia boards...
IIRC, noone is really sure about the Calico "third color" gene. It appears to be X recessive, since 99.8% of tricolored cats are Female. Perhaps it is a mutation that's transmitted through some pre-partum vector like a virus or prion.
Pure speculation on my part, of course.
If cc was concieved in vitro and the cat that recieved the implant didn't have the calico gene, perhaps that breaks the cycle somehow... Cats were an interesting choice for this experiment, for reasons like that.
Or perhaps, as you suggest, some elements of coloration are influenced by the same kinds of factors that cause variation in human fingerprints.
"There is also the whole pro-walking thing which lobbied pretty hard against it. They believe this device would cause everyone to get fat.
The price of the device didn't help its case either. Being a liberal city, a $4000 device is seen as a rich man's toy and rich men should be spending their money on social problems such as the homeless problem, not toys. This viewpoint is pretty common here unfortunately."
Just two more examples of what happens when hippies get political power. San Fran just clicked up a notch higher on the "cities I never want to visit for any reason" list.
I very much wish that HomeLife (a former division of Sears, still minority owned by Sears at the time of their bankrupcy, but spun off to avoid tarnishing the Sears name) was subject to French Law, if you are correct.
I was robbed of several thousand dollars by unethical salesweasels who knew full well the company was going down the tubes but happily accepted my check for 7 grand in furniature. I got one piece, and a refund for less than half the remaining amount.
Sears, of course, denies all responsibility "Look, we spun them off, see? our hands arent dirty!"
Sears and whatever Homelife rematerializes into will never see a dime of my or my family's cash, and I wouldn't urinate on former employees of the Homelife store near me if they were on fire (and if they jaywalk in front of me they'd better pray to god that I don't recognize them).
the thought that under French law the principals of Homelife would be broken and destitute, and likely never eat anything more interesting than a CHUNKY peanut butter sandwich appeals to me very much. Too bad it won't happen to them. Oh well, there's always the Karma they've gotten themselves.
Mandrakes another case. It's my distro of choice, and I'm a member of the Club as well.
As a matter of fact, the "Philadelphia Experiment" the alleged cloak/teleport experimentation that was done on a US Naval Vessel (was it during WWII or after?) was actually a test of a degaussing system, apparently, one meant to be used on large ships in dock.
Quite frankly, after the last strike, I hope this puts as many of them out of work as possible. Breaking the Dockworker's Union's grip on a large portion of our economy would be a tremendous boon. Striking right before a holiday... didn't gain them any sympathy from me at all.
I agree. Sadly the lobbiests are doing a decent job of preventing thier back door into the system from being removed.
Eliminating the lobby effect would do a great deal to fix whats wrong with American Government. I only wish there was a way we could actually do it. The people getting the donations seem a bit reluctant to do it...
Ah but if you're not signed with an RIAA affiliated label, they're just as interested in supressing your ability to distribute your music. Doesn't make them any money if you do:/
I dealt with some of this back in the late 80's with a band I played bass for. Back before the days of CD burners, we actually got enough money together to self-publish a single. Had absolutely no luck at all with distribution, because the lead singer (who wrote all the lyrics and about half the music, although he'd tell you he wrote it all...) wouldn't sign his rights over to the record company suits. Little clauses like "if we don't want to publish it, we still get to keep it and you can't do it yourself" tend to stir up mistrust. I think he made the right decision in the long run, because the odds were still against us.
I did sound tracks for a couple local radio commercials and played a couple local bars, but never tried to get in a published band again. I want no part of that business anymore. Now I test software for a living.
Record company executives are some of the lowest scum in the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
That then, makes it a staggering blow to those who wish to file share, not to DALnet. If DALnet administrators have decided this is what they want to do, this is then an ENHANCEMENT for DALnet, as it defines its goal as facilitating chat and not file sharing.
Having been exposed to the kind of script kiddies and l33t h4x0rz that IRC attracts during my days on Undernet (I worked as a junior channel op on #quake3 and #trinity) though, I highly doubt that this will mark an end to the DOSing that DALnet has been experiencing.
I fully expect a mass tantrum from the Ju4r3z kiddies, and more attacks on the network.
It is one reason I stopped IRCing about 5 years ago. Children who have never learned "NO" and "not yours, don't touch" from their parents. I could have spent the last 5 years tracking them and helping law enforcement teach "NO" and "not yours, don't touch" through incarceration, injunction, and equipment confiscation. Instead, I decided to walk away and concentrate on my career.
I wish DALnet the best, but I really fear that IRC is living on borrowed time, thanks to the poorly socialized children shitting in the sandbox.
Oh, for the record, I have no problem with static ads. I go out of my way to make sure they can be displayed. I don't allow things to animate though, particularly Flash, which likes ot animate when I'm not looking at it.
Only took one screen covering Shoskeles ad for me to banish Flash forever. I don't bother with websites or entertainment that rely on a technology like flash that brings nothing useful to the table. There is nothing that can be done with Flash that cannot be done with >gasp HTML, or other, existant video technology. The only thing that Flash offers is that it gives control to the advertiser, rather than the person whos computer the ad is running on.
If the plug in is not allowed to install, then the ad can't run. Quite simple really. Strong Bad simply CAN'T be worth allowing screaming advertisements. Maybe to others, not to me.
I find the fact that someone wasted a mod point on that to mark it "overrated" hilarious. Glad Macromedia employees have time to make a feeble attempt to defend their company without actually defending it.
And yes. I have Karma to burn. Waste another point. Please.
No content on the web will ever make me install that crap on my main machine. I've seen stills of strongbad, but I can't imagine it's worth opening myself to Shoskeles, loud, intrusive ads, or other evils that Flash has brought to us.
Screw Macromedia sideways with a bandsaw. I'm not interested in a "technology" whos main use is interfering with my browsing, or other uses of my computer.
I think there is already a system like this. Something like Kazoo or Cuzaa... The RIAA uses it to back up their data...
I once got the "only trying to make a living" line from a telemarketer once, live on the phone.
My response "Well, honey, why not try something less morally repugnant, like prostitution or selling heroin to preschoolers."
I heard only the beginning of the screaming when I set the receiver back on the hook.
I have absolutely no sympathy at all for them.
You misspelled "drummer".
It was the manager. I tried being reasonable and the answer was no. That was not acceptable because it was a defective product, and I wasn't going to just throw away the money that went to pay for two copies of a game.
This WAS handled in person. Kind of hard to return a product without walking in to the store.
It DID feel good to get my money back. The state of mind the clerk was in was irrelivant. I'm not in the habit of donating money to shore up someone's self esteem.
Only a guess, but I think it was a troll because he was implying that people who had trouble with the copy protection didn't have legitimate copies. In this particular case, it is well documented that the copy protection caused problems for MANY legitimate customers.
No matter how well the game is coded, if the copy protection is faulty, it renders the game unplayable. Period.
Not all Electronics Boutiques (or EB Employees, apparently) follow the same code of "ethics". I bought it at EB, and had to threaten the salesdrone with economic ruin (I had the means to bring it, he didn't have the means to fend it off) before I could get a refund. I didn't want store credit at the time, as I was pissed off that I had been told it would work and it didn't.
Said employee no longer works at the EB that I go to, and the current bunch is much more reliable.
It DID interfere with legit copies. Because of the nature of the protection system used, it conflicted with widely popular CD drives (you know, the kind that also BURN CDs) It also seeks out virtual drive software and other software used by developers, and "accidentally" crashes if such is found.
;)
I bought TWO copies legitimately the day it came out, to be able to play with friends on my LAN. My main machine was unable to run the game. It wouldn't recognize either ORIGINAL disc. only this particular sceme (Safedisk 2 I think) causes this problem. Both copies went back. I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get a refund. Against the clerk who had assured me that there would be no such problems. Obviously the store wouldn't care, but threaten to sue an individual, well, things happen much more quickly
It was suggested that I replace my brand new (and perfectly compliant with all standards) 40x burner drive with a NEW CD drive to resolve this. I suggested the PUBLISHER not expect me to replace perfectly legal and properly functional hardware (I use this drive to back up my network, incremental backups) that cost more than their GAME did.
Eventually, I believe they either fixed the game or the bug in their implementation. I'll never know, because I wrote that game off permanently.
Publishers need to remember it is NOT the responsibility of people with CD drives, new ones, to worry about a game being compatible. It's the publishers' responsibility to make sure their copy protection doesn't BREAK on current hardware. Nothing less is acceptable. Unless they want to put "WARNING, THIS PRODUCT IS PROTECTED BY (Insert protection scheme here) AND THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE THAT IT WILL NOT WORK WITH YOUR CD DRIVE", coupled with an easy to read list of known incompatible drives, in readable text, on the box (NOT IN IT).
I'm even less inclined to accept legislation that's intended to make the ignorant (soccer moms) feel better than I am legislation intended to allow parents to be lazy.
Legislation like this that achieves both in one fell swoop is something California has perfected, and unfortunately tends to infect the rest of the nation with.
Now legislation that would strip soccer moms of their license for endangering others by yaking on their cell phones and doing other things in their mini-vans and SUVs that interfere with their driving and endanger others... THAT I could support.
Watched an idiotic soccer mom hang her SUV off an overpass because she wasn't paying attention while she was talking, scared herself by getting too close to the vehicle in front of her, and lost control of her vehicle. Luckily she didn't kill anyone (like me). Hopefully she's never allowed to drive anything bigger than a unicycle again.
That's California for you. Parenting by legislation. I mean, my god we can't expect the parents to actually PARENT now, can we?
"a lot of it is at the video store for rent."
And a lot MORE of it, particularly the really GOOD stuff (as opposed to the stuff they WANT to rent you), isn't at the video store, and never will be.
I can definitely see a use for at least a couple tuners. If you're going to go, go all out, I guess.
I'm still stuck archiving to CDR, so what do I know...
"Violent video games may play a part in contributing to violent behaviour in some people, perhaps in those who are also at risk of becoming violent offenders due to additional contributing factors."
/sarcasm That's everyone else's responsibility, after all... /!sarcasm
BFD, so might: low grades, poor parenting, peer persecution at school, poor parenting, organized religion, poor parenting, excessive exposure to "elevator music", idolization of thug-like pro sports figures, diet, the weather, poor parenting, participation in school sporting programs, exclusion from school sporting programs, high grades, certain colors, lack of certain colors, knitting, cross stitch, "my little pony", pre-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, post-natal exposure to Oprah Winfrey, a severe defecit in Sinatra intake, and bad clams. (also bad parenting)
My point? The kind of personalities that are affected by violent (or other) videogames to a degree that they exhibit violent behavior are likely to be triggered by pretty much ANYTHING. Add to that the fact that BAD PARENTING (such as relying on laws and regulations on entertainment and the behavior of others to regulate little Johnny Snot-Nose's intake of "Bad Things") is the chief cause of said behavior, and this whole issue is a non-starter and less than worthy of even Congress' time.
Drugs, underage alchohol, many things are already illegal. It doesn't stop the little hoodlums that exhibit "violent behavior" from getting it anyway and doing whatever they damn well please, because mummy and daddy can't be arsed to actually be PARENTS.
They were actually did this with the Sega Saturn, I believe. Around the time of Windows 95's launch. Nvidia's original card (I can't remember the name, it was pretty bad, driver wise) was an integrated video and sound card, with connectors for Saturn controllers on it. Back then, Gates was pushing windows games that would boot and play off the CD, and they also demo'd some Sega games running on a board.
Now that I think about it, I don't know that any of the Saturn boards shipped, but I had one of the Nvidia boards...
IIRC, noone is really sure about the Calico "third color" gene. It appears to be X recessive, since 99.8% of tricolored cats are Female. Perhaps it is a mutation that's transmitted through some pre-partum vector like a virus or prion.
Pure speculation on my part, of course.
If cc was concieved in vitro and the cat that recieved the implant didn't have the calico gene, perhaps that breaks the cycle somehow... Cats were an interesting choice for this experiment, for reasons like that.
Or perhaps, as you suggest, some elements of coloration are influenced by the same kinds of factors that cause variation in human fingerprints.
"There is also the whole pro-walking thing which lobbied pretty hard against it. They believe this device would cause everyone to get fat.
The price of the device didn't help its case either. Being a liberal city, a $4000 device is seen as a rich man's toy and rich men should be spending their money on social problems such as the homeless problem, not toys. This viewpoint is pretty common here unfortunately."
Just two more examples of what happens when hippies get political power. San Fran just clicked up a notch higher on the "cities I never want to visit for any reason" list.
I very much wish that HomeLife (a former division of Sears, still minority owned by Sears at the time of their bankrupcy, but spun off to avoid tarnishing the Sears name) was subject to French Law, if you are correct.
I was robbed of several thousand dollars by unethical salesweasels who knew full well the company was going down the tubes but happily accepted my check for 7 grand in furniature. I got one piece, and a refund for less than half the remaining amount.
Sears, of course, denies all responsibility "Look, we spun them off, see? our hands arent dirty!"
Sears and whatever Homelife rematerializes into will never see a dime of my or my family's cash, and I wouldn't urinate on former employees of the Homelife store near me if they were on fire (and if they jaywalk in front of me they'd better pray to god that I don't recognize them).
the thought that under French law the principals of Homelife would be broken and destitute, and likely never eat anything more interesting than a CHUNKY peanut butter sandwich appeals to me very much. Too bad it won't happen to them. Oh well, there's always the Karma they've gotten themselves.
Mandrakes another case. It's my distro of choice, and I'm a member of the Club as well.
Oh, I don't know. I prefer the Steel Cage Match for that one.
As a matter of fact, the "Philadelphia Experiment" the alleged cloak/teleport experimentation that was done on a US Naval Vessel (was it during WWII or after?) was actually a test of a degaussing system, apparently, one meant to be used on large ships in dock.
Quite frankly, after the last strike, I hope this puts as many of them out of work as possible. Breaking the Dockworker's Union's grip on a large portion of our economy would be a tremendous boon. Striking right before a holiday... didn't gain them any sympathy from me at all.
I agree. Sadly the lobbiests are doing a decent job of preventing thier back door into the system from being removed.
Eliminating the lobby effect would do a great deal to fix whats wrong with American Government. I only wish there was a way we could actually do it. The people getting the donations seem a bit reluctant to do it...
Ah but if you're not signed with an RIAA affiliated label, they're just as interested in supressing your ability to distribute your music. Doesn't make them any money if you do :/
I dealt with some of this back in the late 80's with a band I played bass for. Back before the days of CD burners, we actually got enough money together to self-publish a single. Had absolutely no luck at all with distribution, because the lead singer (who wrote all the lyrics and about half the music, although he'd tell you he wrote it all...) wouldn't sign his rights over to the record company suits. Little clauses like "if we don't want to publish it, we still get to keep it and you can't do it yourself" tend to stir up mistrust. I think he made the right decision in the long run, because the odds were still against us.
I did sound tracks for a couple local radio commercials and played a couple local bars, but never tried to get in a published band again. I want no part of that business anymore. Now I test software for a living.
Record company executives are some of the lowest scum in the universe.