if the US government took just 5% of the huge defence budget (which could be saved by not spending it on crap like "Missile Defence" or the various unnecessary wars and actions that US troops are involved with) and gave it to NASA, NASA could do really great things with it.
What I really ment to say is that it wont execute by default. It will explictly pop up a box saying "this is a potentially very dangerous executable, dont run this unless you trust its source" or something similar then give you the option to run it or save it to disk. You wouldnt be able to specify "run it" as a default and you wouldnt be able to bypass the dialog. Basicly, it would serve as a sanity check for all of us (just about everybody who hasnt come across a bad exe file in the past that, if run, would do things that the person running it didnt want) Running an exe file without asking the user first is bad. So, there should not be any option to do that whatsoever.
As for the popup blocker, what one could do is to have some kind of thingo that is opened somewhere where the cluless n00bs will see it and that explains what the popup blocker is and why one might care to turn it on...
Firstly, the firewall stuff is good. Especially things like "by default, only local machines can talk to the windows network messenger (a.k.a. winpopup), windows file sharing and etc ports". But, its still not a good substitute for a server-based firewall solution (e.g. a linux box with ipchains/iptables) or for a firewall box like the "firewall+DSL modem+router+switch/hub+nat+etc boxes" that are popular with home broadband networks.
Execution Protection is a good feature, I am surprised that intel didnt add support for marking pages as "execuatble" or "not execuatble" way back when with the 386,486, pentium or whatever.
Given the number of Internet Explorer addons in the lists of Spyware programs like Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy, the Add-on Manager is something thats long overdue. This should at least prevent those who are clued up enough to check it once in awhile from being hit with Spyware addons.
As for the Java stuff, I think the best thing would be for MS to modify all future operating systems and service packs to completly remove the MSJVM if it is present and to install the sun Java VM instead (I expect that as long as they were shipping it unmodified and shipping as recent a version as possible, sun would just love this)
The MSJVM is a piece of garbage that should disappear for good, along with any lame-braned sites/content/software designed to work with it and only with it.
Now, the MIME type handling stuff. IMO, the best solution is for IE to completly ignore the file extention and contents if it has a MIME type. Basicly, if it gets a MIME type, it uses that and ignore both the extention and the content. If it doesnt have a MIME type (e.g. local disk file or FTP server, it should use the extention only and ignore the content).
If the MIME type it has is for something like text/plain or image/png or text/html or something else that IE can handle, it should handle it. If the MIME type is one for which a system program has regisered itself (for example, ms word could register itself for application/x-msword-document), it gets handed off to that. Otherwise, windows will display a dialog box asking the user to select from: 1.open with the application registered to handle the extention passed in (for example, if its a.rar file, winrar might be specified, if no applocation is registered to handle this, it wont display this option. Also, anything thats executable e.g. *.bat, *.pif, *.scr, *.exe, *.com wont be allowed to execute and must be saved to disk and/or opened with a seperate application. And, certain things like the program that runs *.vbs scripts would be banned so that they dont appear in this list and you cant say "open with this app by default") 2.open with an application of the users choice. or 3.save to disk With an option to save this as the default action for this file extention (and the case of no mime type) and a way to remove that "save as default" and re-specify later on, this would be the ideal solution. Plus, unlike what the MS proposal says, it would actually force web-servers to do away with the "send text/plain as default for anything we dont understand" features and configuractions. The right response (IMO, I havent read the RFCs or anything) is to send no MIME type at all for files that you dont have a specific MIME type for.
As for pop-up manager, here is what MS should do: 1.turn off any features in HTML that allows the changing of the "z-order" of windows (e.g. to make a window move to the back like with a pop-under) and 2.turn the pop-up blocker on by default
But personally, I think the fault lies with the idiot that invented window.open() in the first place. What legitimate use is there for being able to open a new browser window in this maner? Many web-sites use links that use the TARGET attribute of the tag to create a new window with content in it and thats pefectly fine. The only uses for window.open() that I know of are: 1.popups, popunders
Basicly, you take existing electronic/GPS navigation device (the kind that give you directions on where to go). Then, you modify the map data to record speed limits for each road. Then, you have some facility (radio, sattelite, whatever) that can tell the device where there are roadworks, accidents, traffic snarls and stuff. It would then calculate the most efficent (i.e. fastest) way for you to get from point a to point b. Perhaps that new "send data over FM radio" thingo I heard about could be used.
Is that the american film companies like Miramax and Disney dont want all the great asian films getting to america untouched because they show up just how bad similar american films are (for example, from what I have heard, there are anime films from japan that "out disney" some of the recent disney releases, although I personally havent seen said films)
Therefore, they bring them in and edit them to hell so that people dont see how good they realy are. Or they bring them in and have just enough screenings (with no promotion) so that they can satisfy the licence requirements and then bury it for good never to be seen again.
So, basicly, its about the american movie industry not wanting better quality foreign product to get to america since it will show up how crap the similar american stuff is.
Why should the record companies get money when I buy a CDR and use it to burn anything other than music to which the companies recieving the money have the copyright to? (this may include other material which I dont have permission to copy)
The question I have is, why? Other than the money, is there any reason for the record companies to want to do this?
MP3 players I can sorta understand since they are used to play music only (although again, people will use them to play music that isnt owned by the companies getting the levy money)
I am glad I dont live in a country with this in place. And that the Australian Senate has the power to block such a law if it was introduced. And also that there are enough people in the senate who will not just rubber stamp whatever the government wants to do.
Why hasnt anyone considered this idea as a way to get commercial games on linux: 1.get some tallented programmers who want to work on a port of and 2.approach the makers of said game. Basicly, the deal would go like this: We (the programmers doing the port) aggree to: A.Assign all copyrights in our efforts over to the maker of the game B.Sign Non-Disclosure-Aggreements and not publish any source, binaries, data, information or whatever without getting it cleared by the maker of the game C.Port the game (and, once its ported, organize some kind of QA for it in conjunction with the company that makes the game) to Linux with practicly no cost to the game maker D.handle bug-fixes that are discovered and E.handle things like writing documentation and install instructions and stuff
In return, the game maker aggrees to: A.give the programmers access to the complete source code for the game (as well as the source code to things like dedicated servers, level editors etc so that they can be ported as well) B.once the game has been ported and tested by the programmers themselves on their own systems, give approval for it to be playtested in a limited closed beta (to get it tested on as many hardware/software combos as possible) and C.once the game developer is satisfied that its good enough, release it for free to the world as an "unsupported by us", "you need the original version of the game to use this" download
Does anyone know of a reason why this wouldnt work? All the game companies need to do is to draw up some nice NDAs (and its likely that they already have lawyers on retainer who can do that), find the source code, and give it to the people who are doing the port (and who have signed the NDAs). Then, they are getting an (almost) free-to-them port of their hit game.
If this was fesable, I can think of a fair few games that this could be done for: Tiberian Sun + Firestorm & Red Alert 2 + Yuris Revenge (both are based on the same core engine) C&C Renegade (already has a dedicated server port to linux) Warcraft III + Frozen Throne (dont know if thats still in active development with patches and stuff or not since I dont play it) Diablo II (with the 1.10 patch finally out, its probobly as good as finished with now) Rollercoaster Tycoon and/or Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 (great simulation, linux needs more simulation games) possibly other simulation games (I cant think of any others that are no longer in active development and that would be worth porting)
For example, try to find a combination of GPU and drivers that is good enough to play linux games like Neverwinter and Unreal or emulated games through WINE that is 100% open.
You cant. I suspect that even if you were able to completly Reverse Engineer (through disassembly or otherwise) the windows or linux Binary-Only drivers and/or the interface and hardware APIs for and from that, make an open source driver, you would probobly be violating several patents or other IP thingos and would have your ass sued by the makers of . Also, the makers of would probobly state that using the code means you get no tech support, no warranty, no nothing. Plus, the makers of would get some kind of court order to state that since the open source driver violates the patents etc that distributing, using or working with it is illegal and have all the copies in existance removed.
Also, 802.11* wireless network cards. I dont know of any 802.11* wireless network cards that have 100% open source drivers for linux except for 1 or 2 that have been Reverse Engineered by someone. For those, you dont get technical support, you may not get warranty service and the manufacturers would probobly shut down the Open Source driver projects if they had a way to do it.
Personally, I love Open Source and Open Specifications (i.e. Open file formats, Open APIs, Open network protocols, Open hardware interfaces etc) and push for such things wherever I can. (I was involved in a push to get Electronic Arts to release stuff connected with the gameplay scripts for Command & Conquer Renegade. They didnt release it. But in the end, I wrote my own DLL that sits between the game exe and the official DLL and allows one to implement ones own scripts but its still nowhere near as good as having the official stuff would have been)
Because I check my transactions very frequently (for budget and other purposes), I would notice immediatly if something was wrong and there was a transaction that I didnt make. Then, I would report it to the bank.
But unfortunatly, the majority of the telecomunications infasrtucture (including the copper to everyones homes) is owned bt Telstra. And Telstra charge $$$. So, everyone has to charge $$$.
Instead of spouting all this crap about "first person shooters" and "violence" and so on, just do 1 simple bill that gives the ESRB ratings the force of law in california. i.e. games rated EC and E can be bought by anyone. Games rated T can only be bought by older kids or by adults And games rated M and AO would only be purchasable by adults
That would solve all the issues. (and as far as I can tell,
The buggest problem I have with the debate over computer game violence and the laws connected to same is that they seek to circumvent the ESRB ratings system and impose totally new definitions on what is "acceptable". If people dont like how the ESRB has rated a game, they can get together and put pressue on the ESRB to re-examine it. If the governments just legslated ESRB ratings into law like has been done with the MPAA ratings (and more pressure was put on stores to not sell the violent stuff to minors), all these idiots and their "think of the children" arguments would go away.
Remember all the talk about how every kid would have a "smart" desk with a computer built in. And how instead of doing a maths test on pen and paper, it can be done on a computer with the computer doing some of the marking and the teacher being able to write comments then and there.
Didnt happen, despite the great advances in computing.
There is a rule somewhere that says "if you tell someone to do something illegal (and especially if you tell them how), it could be argued that you are at fault. In this case, it could be argued by e.g. the makers of that Dell telling someone to use a spyware removal tool (and therefore violating the EULA on the spyware supported software which may well be illegal) makes Dell in some way liable for the illegal act.
Given the sue-happy society we live in today, this is even more likely.
But what we really need is for the FDA or the government or whoever to require anyone selling medications online using a web-server in.us or a werehouse on.us to have a licence. It may force some people completly overseas but hopefully some of these scum will disappear altogether (along with all the SPAM I get for their services)
Basicly, the idea is that the ads are targeted based on the viewer. For example, geeks are more likely to buy computer gear so they would get more ads for the latest PC gizmos. And housewives are more likely to buy things like cleaners so they would get more ads for cleaners, detergents and such.
Better yet is if the viewer could choose the categories of ads they get (everyone would get the same number of ads but they would get a mixture from whichever categories they picked, perhaps with a requirement to choose at least n categories) Example catetories: Financial services (i.e. credit cards, home loans, bank accounts etc) Electrical (i.e. TV sets, stereos, DVD players etc) Movies (i.e. ads for movies that are in the cinemas or coming out on video) Junk Food (i.e. ads for hamburgers, chicken, subs, ice creams, chips, lollies etc) Health Food (i.e. ads for breakfast cereals & other generally healthy food) Boys Toys (i.e. things like GI Joe, Transformers, Pokemon, Star Wars, Action Man etc) Girls Toys (i.e. things like Barbie, Baby Born etc) Toys (i.e. things that are unisex like LEGO, Pool Toys etc) Music (although I suspect that music would be big enough to warrant a split up into things like Classical Music, Rock & Roll, Rap, Pop, Jazz etc) Technology (i.e. ads for things like MP3 players, Cellular Phones, PDAs, Computer Gear etc)
Some ads might be in more than one category (for example, an ad for a McDonalds Happy Meal featuring Disney Movie toys might appear under Toys, Fast Food and Movies)
The real looser would be those companies that advertize/sell things which you dont want and would never buy were it not for the pursuasive marketing campaign. For example, its doubtfull that many people here would be interested in Credit Cards & would probobly choose not to watch ads for them (I know I wouldnt, I dont have one and dont want one). On the other hand, its a good bet that at least some of the people (not necessarily here but in general) who arent interested in Credit Cards and who would not select to watch ads for them have been convinced by one of those ads to buy a credit card.
Basicly, this problem essentially boils down to the fact that certain kinds of ads wont be selected by enough people (for example, its likely that kids will probobly all want to select "toys" and "video games" and "movies" and probobly "pop music" but who would voluntarily pick "finantial services" unless they were specificly looking for such things.
Not to mention the case of things that you would never have thought of buying in a million years but which you decide to buy after seeing the ad (for example, someone who is not a classical music fan per se might not select "classical music" but at the same time that same person might be likely to consider going to a concert if they saw an ad for it).
Another problem is the case where you already have something (such as a home loan) and have no plans to switch. Therefore, you would probobly not select "home loans" (say) and wouild be less likely to be sucked in by the "you already have this but the one we have is better, buy from us" marketing trick.
Another problem is how to decide which category a given ad falls under. For example, what categories should a 15% off everything at kmart sale fall under?
Plus, what about ads like "anti-drug" ads or whatever, do you really think that a teenage drug-adict is going to want to watch ads designed to help kick him off the habit?
Basicly, pertty much the entire population has: A.a regular phone line or B.a broadband line and 1.a regular PSTN phone or 2.a VOIP phone
Currently, the regulation is applied to phones not to lines.
When you get a phone line or a broadband line, you pay some money each month to the provider (e.g. covad, verizon, SBC, Qwest etc).
Basicly, the solution is that anyone who has a broadband line or a phone line gets the payment added to the monthly fee (i.e. you pay the tax on the line not on the phone or the calls).
Its a good solution since it doesnt matter how the calls are transmitted, the state still gets its tax.
Bascily, do the same thing as for the Movie industry ratings.
If a kid walks into a video store or a movie theater and wants to see a violent/high-rated movie, they cant see it unless they have parents/guardians with them (or a fake ID:)
The right answer is to force the stores to get better at not selling violent games to minors (and, like how video stores keep "mature" type content away from other content, the stores should keep "mature" games away from other games)
Also, parents need to take more notice of the ESRB ratings on the boxes of the games they are buying.
And, people need to trust the ESRB ratings. Instead of all these calls for bans, restrictions etc that are outside those ratings, like in whatever state it was where they wanted to ban games where you shoot cops.
1.give the artists more money. If this is done, the public might be more likely to buy instead of pirate. (since they know that by buying their favorite artist gets more money and is encouraged to make more songs)
2.better music. If those artists with REAL talent (as opposed to those with no tallent that only get support because of their good looks or whatever) got support, people would buy because its good. For example, I recently bought a CD full of Australian songs because the songs are good and the artists are GOOD.
3.cut out the middlemen and lower prices. Particularly, end the monopoly cartells and aggreements that keep CD prices artificially high. If CD prices fell across the board, I would buy more CDs.
The fact is, I wont buy even one CD if that one CD is going to cost $30 (australian that is) or whatever. But if the cost of the CDs I want came down from $30 to $20 or $15 or something, I would probobly buy more than one of the CDs on my want list. I might actually be tempted to buy stuff I have currently got in my "downloaded songs" collection (especially if that stuff was on the same CD as something I havent been able to find:)
4.Forget Copy Protected CDs (which actually have the opposite effect in that people will be more likely to download the songs, so they can have them on their computer and play them in their playlists or so that they can rip them to a portable device or whatever).
Also, forget DRM protected music files. Firstly, any song that is offered for sale on online shops will almost certainly be available on P2P anyhow. Another "anti-copying" measure that could be taken for "legally downloadable" songs is that the files could be watermarked with something like the username or ID of the person buying it. Then, if it shows up on P2P, you know who copied it from the shop to P2P in the first place and you can sue them.
5.better offerings on the physical medium. Surely, making a system where you can buy by the track and then have the tracks you like burned to CD in regular CD audio format (which could then be played on regular CD players) is fesable.
I suspect this would probobly work better having this done by the record company as a mail-order thing than having kiosks in the stores though.
and 6.finally, do what the Computer Games industry (and to some extent the Movie industry does) where music that is less popular or older or whatever is cheaper.
Some suggestions for the PC games industry to help pull itself out of the rut: 1.Modablility Modability Modability. This means releasing Map Editors. And this means releasing 3D modeling tools (e.g. plugins for 3D packages like GMAX) And (depending on the game), it means releasing Source Code for the in-game scripts, Source Code for some parts of the game itself or whatever. For example, C&C Renegade is a good game that could have been top-notch if they had: A.fixed the bugs in the game and the editing tools and B.released the source code to the gameplay scripts.
Look at Unreal, Doom, Quake & Half-Life. Those games wouldnt be as popular if it wasnt for the various source code releases.
2.get over the obsession with Stupid Copy Protection Schemes (Safedisk, Securom et al). They do not work and probobly never will. Finding "no-cd" cracks for any current game is dead simple. Some better ideas to help prevent piracy: 1.CD-Keys/Serial Numbers that are linked to online play (i.e. if you dont have a valid serial number, you cant play online) 2.Have things like patches, updates, extra content, online messageboards and the like linked to the CD key. No valid CD key, no access to the online content.
3.Better testing. Typically, PC publishers tend to have a "ship it out the door as fast as possible and fix bugs through patches" attitude. They need to do more testing (in particular, they need to do testing on older operating systems, testing on older hardware and testing on slow connections).
4.More variety. One idea of a game that I know I would play: A game similar to Diablo II but set in the future with laser guns, starships and so on. Actually, the game I am thinking of would be very much like a cross between Diablo II, Star Trek Away Team and an old game called Future Magic.
and 5.emphasize Gameplay over Graphics. For example, there are too many FPS games where most of the game is about shooting anything that moves. If you want to do a good FPS game, have other elements such as puzzles that need solving, keys to find, new powers to find and acquire and so on. If you want to see what I would consider a good FPS, check out C&C Renegade and TRON 2.0. I consider both of those good FPS's. Or check out the older game Strife. That was also a good FPS.
Slashdot Mirror
if the US government took just 5% of the huge defence budget (which could be saved by not spending it on crap like "Missile Defence" or the various unnecessary wars and actions that US troops are involved with) and gave it to NASA, NASA could do really great things with it.
What I really ment to say is that it wont execute by default. It will explictly pop up a box saying "this is a potentially very dangerous executable, dont run this unless you trust its source" or something similar then give you the option to run it or save it to disk. You wouldnt be able to specify "run it" as a default and you wouldnt be able to bypass the dialog. Basicly, it would serve as a sanity check for all of us (just about everybody who hasnt come across a bad exe file in the past that, if run, would do things that the person running it didnt want)
Running an exe file without asking the user first is bad. So, there should not be any option to do that whatsoever.
As for the popup blocker, what one could do is to have some kind of thingo that is opened somewhere where the cluless n00bs will see it and that explains what the popup blocker is and why one might care to turn it on...
Firstly, the firewall stuff is good.
.rar file, winrar might be specified, if no applocation is registered to handle this, it wont display this option. Also, anything thats executable e.g. *.bat, *.pif, *.scr, *.exe, *.com wont be allowed to execute and must be saved to disk and/or opened with a seperate application. And, certain things like the program that runs *.vbs scripts would be banned so that they dont appear in this list and you cant say "open with this app by default")
Especially things like "by default, only local machines can talk to the windows network messenger (a.k.a. winpopup), windows file sharing and etc ports".
But, its still not a good substitute for a server-based firewall solution (e.g. a linux box with ipchains/iptables) or for a firewall box like the "firewall+DSL modem+router+switch/hub+nat+etc boxes" that are popular with home broadband networks.
Execution Protection is a good feature, I am surprised that intel didnt add support for marking pages as "execuatble" or "not execuatble" way back when with the 386,486, pentium or whatever.
Given the number of Internet Explorer addons in the lists of Spyware programs like Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy, the Add-on Manager is something thats long overdue. This should at least prevent those who are clued up enough to check it once in awhile from being hit with Spyware addons.
As for the Java stuff, I think the best thing would be for MS to modify all future operating systems and service packs to completly remove the MSJVM if it is present and to install the sun Java VM instead (I expect that as long as they were shipping it unmodified and shipping as recent a version as possible, sun would just love this)
The MSJVM is a piece of garbage that should disappear for good, along with any lame-braned sites/content/software designed to work with it and only with it.
Now, the MIME type handling stuff.
IMO, the best solution is for IE to completly ignore the file extention and contents if it has a MIME type.
Basicly, if it gets a MIME type, it uses that and ignore both the extention and the content. If it doesnt have a MIME type (e.g. local disk file or FTP server, it should use the extention only and ignore the content).
If the MIME type it has is for something like text/plain or image/png or text/html or something else that IE can handle, it should handle it.
If the MIME type is one for which a system program has regisered itself (for example, ms word could register itself for application/x-msword-document), it gets handed off to that.
Otherwise, windows will display a dialog box asking the user to select from:
1.open with the application registered to handle the extention passed in (for example, if its a
2.open with an application of the users choice.
or 3.save to disk
With an option to save this as the default action for this file extention (and the case of no mime type) and a way to remove that "save as default" and re-specify later on, this would be the ideal solution. Plus, unlike what the MS proposal says, it would actually force web-servers to do away with the "send text/plain as default for anything we dont understand" features and configuractions. The right response (IMO, I havent read the RFCs or anything) is to send no MIME type at all for files that you dont have a specific MIME type for.
As for pop-up manager, here is what MS should do:
1.turn off any features in HTML that allows the changing of the "z-order" of windows (e.g. to make a window move to the back like with a pop-under)
and 2.turn the pop-up blocker on by default
But personally, I think the fault lies with the idiot that invented window.open() in the first place. What legitimate use is there for being able to open a new browser window in this maner?
Many web-sites use links that use the TARGET attribute of the tag to create a new window with content in it and thats pefectly fine.
The only uses for window.open() that I know of are:
1.popups, popunders
Basicly, you take existing electronic/GPS navigation device (the kind that give you directions on where to go).
Then, you modify the map data to record speed limits for each road.
Then, you have some facility (radio, sattelite, whatever) that can tell the device where there are roadworks, accidents, traffic snarls and stuff. It would then calculate the most efficent (i.e. fastest) way for you to get from point a to point b.
Perhaps that new "send data over FM radio" thingo I heard about could be used.
Is that the american film companies like Miramax and Disney dont want all the great asian films getting to america untouched because they show up just how bad similar american films are (for example, from what I have heard, there are anime films from japan that "out disney" some of the recent disney releases, although I personally havent seen said films)
Therefore, they bring them in and edit them to hell so that people dont see how good they realy are. Or they bring them in and have just enough screenings (with no promotion) so that they can satisfy the licence requirements and then bury it for good never to be seen again.
So, basicly, its about the american movie industry not wanting better quality foreign product to get to america since it will show up how crap the similar american stuff is.
Pretty much any game worth playing will have a no-cd crack on somewhere like gamecopyworld.com.
I believe that ownership only applies to the specific text and images and not the actual proof itself.
Why should the record companies get money when I buy a CDR and use it to burn anything other than music to which the companies recieving the money have the copyright to? (this may include other material which I dont have permission to copy)
The question I have is, why?
Other than the money, is there any reason for the record companies to want to do this?
MP3 players I can sorta understand since they are used to play music only (although again, people will use them to play music that isnt owned by the companies getting the levy money)
I am glad I dont live in a country with this in place.
And that the Australian Senate has the power to block such a law if it was introduced. And also that there are enough people in the senate who will not just rubber stamp whatever the government wants to do.
No, what I mean is that programmers who want to see on linux would do it on a voulnteer basis (in addition to their regular job for example)
Why hasnt anyone considered this idea as a way to get commercial games on linux:
1.get some tallented programmers who want to work on a port of
and 2.approach the makers of said game.
Basicly, the deal would go like this:
We (the programmers doing the port) aggree to:
A.Assign all copyrights in our efforts over to the maker of the game
B.Sign Non-Disclosure-Aggreements and not publish any source, binaries, data, information or whatever without getting it cleared by the maker of the game
C.Port the game (and, once its ported, organize some kind of QA for it in conjunction with the company that makes the game) to Linux with practicly no cost to the game maker
D.handle bug-fixes that are discovered
and E.handle things like writing documentation and install instructions and stuff
In return, the game maker aggrees to:
A.give the programmers access to the complete source code for the game (as well as the source code to things like dedicated servers, level editors etc so that they can be ported as well)
B.once the game has been ported and tested by the programmers themselves on their own systems, give approval for it to be playtested in a limited closed beta (to get it tested on as many hardware/software combos as possible)
and C.once the game developer is satisfied that its good enough, release it for free to the world as an "unsupported by us", "you need the original version of the game to use this" download
Does anyone know of a reason why this wouldnt work?
All the game companies need to do is to draw up some nice NDAs (and its likely that they already have lawyers on retainer who can do that), find the source code, and give it to the people who are doing the port (and who have signed the NDAs). Then, they are getting an (almost) free-to-them port of their hit game.
If this was fesable, I can think of a fair few games that this could be done for:
Tiberian Sun + Firestorm & Red Alert 2 + Yuris Revenge (both are based on the same core engine)
C&C Renegade (already has a dedicated server port to linux)
Warcraft III + Frozen Throne (dont know if thats still in active development with patches and stuff or not since I dont play it)
Diablo II (with the 1.10 patch finally out, its probobly as good as finished with now)
Rollercoaster Tycoon and/or Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 (great simulation, linux needs more simulation games)
possibly other simulation games (I cant think of any others that are no longer in active development and that would be worth porting)
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows Millenium
all Internet Explorer except the latest
that sometimes there is no other choice.
For example, try to find a combination of GPU and drivers that is good enough to play linux games like Neverwinter and Unreal or emulated games through WINE that is 100% open.
You cant.
I suspect that even if you were able to completly Reverse Engineer (through disassembly or otherwise) the windows or linux Binary-Only drivers and/or the interface and hardware APIs for and from that, make an open source driver, you would probobly be violating several patents or other IP thingos and would have your ass sued by the makers of . Also, the makers of would probobly state that using the code means you get no tech support, no warranty, no nothing. Plus, the makers of would get some kind of court order to state that since the open source driver violates the patents etc that distributing, using or working with it is illegal and have all the copies in existance removed.
Also, 802.11* wireless network cards. I dont know of any 802.11* wireless network cards that have 100% open source drivers for linux except for 1 or 2 that have been Reverse Engineered by someone. For those, you dont get technical support, you may not get warranty service and the manufacturers would probobly shut down the Open Source driver projects if they had a way to do it.
Personally, I love Open Source and Open Specifications (i.e. Open file formats, Open APIs, Open network protocols, Open hardware interfaces etc) and push for such things wherever I can. (I was involved in a push to get Electronic Arts to release stuff connected with the gameplay scripts for Command & Conquer Renegade. They didnt release it. But in the end, I wrote my own DLL that sits between the game exe and the official DLL and allows one to implement ones own scripts but its still nowhere near as good as having the official stuff would have been)
Because I check my transactions very frequently (for budget and other purposes), I would notice immediatly if something was wrong and there was a transaction that I didnt make. Then, I would report it to the bank.
But unfortunatly, the majority of the telecomunications infasrtucture (including the copper to everyones homes) is owned bt Telstra.
And Telstra charge $$$.
So, everyone has to charge $$$.
Instead of spouting all this crap about "first person shooters" and "violence" and so on, just do 1 simple bill that gives the ESRB ratings the force of law in california.
i.e. games rated EC and E can be bought by anyone.
Games rated T can only be bought by older kids or by adults
And games rated M and AO would only be purchasable by adults
That would solve all the issues. (and as far as I can tell,
The buggest problem I have with the debate over computer game violence and the laws connected to same is that they seek to circumvent the ESRB ratings system and impose totally new definitions on what is "acceptable". If people dont like how the ESRB has rated a game, they can get together and put pressue on the ESRB to re-examine it. If the governments just legslated ESRB ratings into law like has been done with the MPAA ratings (and more pressure was put on stores to not sell the violent stuff to minors), all these idiots and their "think of the children" arguments would go away.
Remember all the talk about how every kid would have a "smart" desk with a computer built in. And how instead of doing a maths test on pen and paper, it can be done on a computer with the computer doing some of the marking and the teacher being able to write comments then and there.
Didnt happen, despite the great advances in computing.
There is a rule somewhere that says "if you tell someone to do something illegal (and especially if you tell them how), it could be argued that you are at fault. In this case, it could be argued by e.g. the makers of that Dell telling someone to use a spyware removal tool (and therefore violating the EULA on the spyware supported software which may well be illegal) makes Dell in some way liable for the illegal act.
Given the sue-happy society we live in today, this is even more likely.
But what we really need is for the FDA or the government or whoever to require anyone selling medications online using a web-server in .us or a werehouse on .us to have a licence.
It may force some people completly overseas but hopefully some of these scum will disappear altogether (along with all the SPAM I get for their services)
Too bad the technology isnt there yet for it.
Basicly, the idea is that the ads are targeted based on the viewer. For example, geeks are more likely to buy computer gear so they would get more ads for the latest PC gizmos. And housewives are more likely to buy things like cleaners so they would get more ads for cleaners, detergents and such.
Better yet is if the viewer could choose the categories of ads they get (everyone would get the same number of ads but they would get a mixture from whichever categories they picked, perhaps with a requirement to choose at least n categories)
Example catetories:
Financial services (i.e. credit cards, home loans, bank accounts etc)
Electrical (i.e. TV sets, stereos, DVD players etc)
Movies (i.e. ads for movies that are in the cinemas or coming out on video)
Junk Food (i.e. ads for hamburgers, chicken, subs, ice creams, chips, lollies etc)
Health Food (i.e. ads for breakfast cereals & other generally healthy food)
Boys Toys (i.e. things like GI Joe, Transformers, Pokemon, Star Wars, Action Man etc)
Girls Toys (i.e. things like Barbie, Baby Born etc)
Toys (i.e. things that are unisex like LEGO, Pool Toys etc)
Music (although I suspect that music would be big enough to warrant a split up into things like Classical Music, Rock & Roll, Rap, Pop, Jazz etc)
Technology (i.e. ads for things like MP3 players, Cellular Phones, PDAs, Computer Gear etc)
Some ads might be in more than one category (for example, an ad for a McDonalds Happy Meal featuring Disney Movie toys might appear under Toys, Fast Food and Movies)
The real looser would be those companies that advertize/sell things which you dont want and would never buy were it not for the pursuasive marketing campaign. For example, its doubtfull that many people here would be interested in Credit Cards & would probobly choose not to watch ads for them (I know I wouldnt, I dont have one and dont want one). On the other hand, its a good bet that at least some of the people (not necessarily here but in general) who arent interested in Credit Cards and who would not select to watch ads for them have been convinced by one of those ads to buy a credit card.
Basicly, this problem essentially boils down to the fact that certain kinds of ads wont be selected by enough people (for example, its likely that kids will probobly all want to select "toys" and "video games" and "movies" and probobly "pop music" but who would voluntarily pick "finantial services" unless they were specificly looking for such things.
Not to mention the case of things that you would never have thought of buying in a million years but which you decide to buy after seeing the ad (for example, someone who is not a classical music fan per se might not select "classical music" but at the same time that same person might be likely to consider going to a concert if they saw an ad for it).
Another problem is the case where you already have something (such as a home loan) and have no plans to switch. Therefore, you would probobly not select "home loans" (say) and wouild be less likely to be sucked in by the "you already have this but the one we have is better, buy from us" marketing trick.
Another problem is how to decide which category a given ad falls under. For example, what categories should a 15% off everything at kmart sale fall under?
Plus, what about ads like "anti-drug" ads or whatever, do you really think that a teenage drug-adict is going to want to watch ads designed to help kick him off the habit?
Basicly, pertty much the entire population has:
A.a regular phone line
or B.a broadband line
and 1.a regular PSTN phone
or 2.a VOIP phone
Currently, the regulation is applied to phones not to lines.
When you get a phone line or a broadband line, you pay some money each month to the provider (e.g. covad, verizon, SBC, Qwest etc).
Basicly, the solution is that anyone who has a broadband line or a phone line gets the payment added to the monthly fee (i.e. you pay the tax on the line not on the phone or the calls).
Its a good solution since it doesnt matter how the calls are transmitted, the state still gets its tax.
Bascily, do the same thing as for the Movie industry ratings.
:)
If a kid walks into a video store or a movie theater and wants to see a violent/high-rated movie, they cant see it unless they have parents/guardians with them (or a fake ID
The right answer is to force the stores to get better at not selling violent games to minors (and, like how video stores keep "mature" type content away from other content, the stores should keep "mature" games away from other games)
Also, parents need to take more notice of the ESRB ratings on the boxes of the games they are buying.
And, people need to trust the ESRB ratings. Instead of all these calls for bans, restrictions etc that are outside those ratings, like in whatever state it was where they wanted to ban games where you shoot cops.
1.give the artists more money. If this is done, the public might be more likely to buy instead of pirate. (since they know that by buying their favorite artist gets more money and is encouraged to make more songs)
:)
2.better music. If those artists with REAL talent (as opposed to those with no tallent that only get support because of their good looks or whatever) got support, people would buy because its good. For example, I recently bought a CD full of Australian songs because the songs are good and the artists are GOOD.
3.cut out the middlemen and lower prices. Particularly, end the monopoly cartells and aggreements that keep CD prices artificially high. If CD prices fell across the board, I would buy more CDs.
The fact is, I wont buy even one CD if that one CD is going to cost $30 (australian that is) or whatever. But if the cost of the CDs I want came down from $30 to $20 or $15 or something, I would probobly buy more than one of the CDs on my want list. I might actually be tempted to buy stuff I have currently got in my "downloaded songs" collection (especially if that stuff was on the same CD as something I havent been able to find
4.Forget Copy Protected CDs (which actually have the opposite effect in that people will be more likely to download the songs, so they can have them on their computer and play them in their playlists or so that they can rip them to a portable device or whatever).
Also, forget DRM protected music files. Firstly, any song that is offered for sale on online shops will almost certainly be available on P2P anyhow. Another "anti-copying" measure that could be taken for "legally downloadable" songs is that the files could be watermarked with something like the username or ID of the person buying it. Then, if it shows up on P2P, you know who copied it from the shop to P2P in the first place and you can sue them.
5.better offerings on the physical medium. Surely, making a system where you can buy by the track and then have the tracks you like burned to CD in regular CD audio format (which could then be played on regular CD players) is fesable.
I suspect this would probobly work better having this done by the record company as a mail-order thing than having kiosks in the stores though.
and 6.finally, do what the Computer Games industry (and to some extent the Movie industry does) where music that is less popular or older or whatever is cheaper.
Some suggestions for the PC games industry to help pull itself out of the rut:
1.Modablility Modability Modability.
This means releasing Map Editors.
And this means releasing 3D modeling tools (e.g. plugins for 3D packages like GMAX)
And (depending on the game), it means releasing Source Code for the in-game scripts, Source Code for some parts of the game itself or whatever. For example, C&C Renegade is a good game that could have been top-notch if they had:
A.fixed the bugs in the game and the editing tools
and B.released the source code to the gameplay scripts.
Look at Unreal, Doom, Quake & Half-Life. Those games wouldnt be as popular if it wasnt for the various source code releases.
2.get over the obsession with Stupid Copy Protection Schemes (Safedisk, Securom et al).
They do not work and probobly never will.
Finding "no-cd" cracks for any current game is dead simple.
Some better ideas to help prevent piracy:
1.CD-Keys/Serial Numbers that are linked to online play (i.e. if you dont have a valid serial number, you cant play online)
2.Have things like patches, updates, extra content, online messageboards and the like linked to the CD key. No valid CD key, no access to the online content.
3.Better testing. Typically, PC publishers tend to have a "ship it out the door as fast as possible and fix bugs through patches" attitude. They need to do more testing (in particular, they need to do testing on older operating systems, testing on older hardware and testing on slow connections).
4.More variety.
One idea of a game that I know I would play:
A game similar to Diablo II but set in the future with laser guns, starships and so on. Actually, the game I am thinking of would be very much like a cross between Diablo II, Star Trek Away Team and an old game called Future Magic.
and 5.emphasize Gameplay over Graphics.
For example, there are too many FPS games where most of the game is about shooting anything that moves. If you want to do a good FPS game, have other elements such as puzzles that need solving, keys to find, new powers to find and acquire and so on.
If you want to see what I would consider a good FPS, check out C&C Renegade and TRON 2.0. I consider both of those good FPS's. Or check out the older game Strife. That was also a good FPS.
is where they make ads that show some toy (for example a barbie doll) and have that little text saying "xxx not available".
This happens in australia, dont know about anywhere else.
Is a new law that gives ISPs the same Common Carrier protection as Telephone Companies get.
i.e. basicly "Internet Service Providers are not responsable for content hosted on or passing through their networks".
Would put an end to a lot of this crap.