It seems like you're still playing to a wider audience. There isn't one. The article is 6 days old, everybody else has left (eg. sort comments in reverse chronological order... we're the only ones still commenting).
I'm still here because you're kind of quirky and fascinating sometimes. But you're too predictable now, it's no fun. C'mon, dance.
Wikipedias has more than its share of chicks [1][2][3]. I'm a little surprised that my corporate network hasn't tried to block wikipedia yet, they generally block things that don't seem terribly bad (The Onion, anything with port number other than:80, including things like the Coral proxy).
I'm certain my company doesn't want employees looking at those pages on work computers. Just goes to show you that blocking by server name only isn't a complete solution.
Wow guys. Uncyclopedia is a generally off-the-cuff not-remotely-serious attempt-to-be-funny site. I'm fairly certain that my comment and the GP comment were made along those lines. It might be bad humor, but modding these as "flamebait" seems to be missing the point of the article by a couple lightyears.
Uncyclopedia is for people gifted at humor, to create an "alternate reality" that's only perhipherally related to any realistic wikis (wikipedia, city wikis).
Though I don't quite understand why Uncyclopedia has to be internally consistent. If Oprah Winfrey's page can describe a history that's so far away from reality (yet still funny), why isn't there room for alternate histories of Oprah Winfrey that are similarly humorous?
The "no original research" rule may be applied maybe a little too much, but it definitely has its place. Read the "origin of this policy" section of the rule's page. The rule is one of the better ways to get rid of physics cranks, and applies generally to topics which there ARE experts out there who can validate theories, but which Wikipedia's semi-democracy isn't capable of properly scrutinizing. (on the other hand, pages like the Electric Universe concept are somehow allowed to survive, consisting mainly of many scientific details that have never been published).
Is there a list somewhere on the web that hilights all the crazy quirks of copyright law in each country? It seems to be a very unresolved area of law, with plenty of opportunities for hijinks.
Umm, I personally think it's a cool site (I was going to say that it should be obvious that many people would be interested in it, but Digg only has 6 votes for it currently:( ). Some website promotions are actually of the "hey, this is actually cool, I'll tell my friends about it" kind.
Social bookmarking is a pretty cool concept that should be applied to many more things, obviously. Even though it takes more coding effort (especially to block cheaters), people are still hard at work coding such sites. If that's any indication that social bookmarking sites are cool.
The other option is for one very generous lawyer to take a couple of the cases to court, and get enough motions passed and maybe get a couple cases thrown out, so that the RIAA has to get real, actual, very solid proof of a crime before they take someone to court.
This is the exact option that Ray Beckerman of Beldock Levine & Hoffman is taking. Mrs. Santangelo is said to be paying half rate, but given that she couldn't get a lawyer at all before Ray Beckerman came along, it's possible that the actual rate is lower than that.
The thing is, if you're just one or more individuals, like David Zamos, it's much more likely that the big corporate simply settles once they see they're losing, so as to not establish case law that will make it harder for them to be bullies in the future, and the individuals are likely to accept. Hopefully with an actual lawyer working for low rates, they can take this thing all the way and force the RIAA to do their due deligence investigating before they file a case.
Talk to a security-concious sysadmin of a Linux box. Patching is critically important for ALL software, regardless of its overall security. That's not PR, or fraud, or sedition, or sabotage.
Yes, Windows should be brought to task for its higher rate of problems. But its quality isn't so bad that it's legally actionable.
At the least, it's good you've realized that lower-level patterns like "P.S.=>" are very obvious patterns that differentiate you from... everyone else. But your higher-level thought patterns are also radically different from anyone else. That's not such a problem though. Honestly, it's much greater of a problem that you don't even remotely realize how different your thought patterns are from everyone else, because that is one of the things that makes it makes it almost impossible for you to have a remotely normal relationship (business or otherwise) with other people. (it also makes it difficult for you to post anonymously without detection, but online posts aren't nearly as important as how you get along with your real-life family and peers).
Right... audio simulation is certainly in the purview of gaming.
Visual simulation of what actual players are actually doing is not in the purview of gaming. (eg. even in third-person games, your avatar doens't wiggle its nose when you do)
My point was: there's no point in simulating the player visuals (except maybe for strained PR reasons), so it's probably a real duck, and not a simulated duck.
I still don't see how the gaming argument does anything but confuse the situation more.
Wikipedia page in case anyone wants to contribute to the summary. I'm assuming this will become law in some form or other, since we have a (more or less) unified Republican President and Congress.
And yet, it doesn't seem like they clarify the definition of "VoIP service" in the LEAST bit to clarify whether they in fact intend to include things like NetMeeting conferences, open source authors of SIP software, etc etc. Hopefully that's clarified soon rather than later.
The same comments generally apply to "Video Services" (it's federal-only interstate commerce, blah blah), though they do define it slightly more narrowly:
The term ''video programming package'' means the offering of a package of multiple programs generally considered to be comparable to programs provided by a television broadcast station.
Though that's not really terribly much of a clarification.
I have a feeling they don't know what they're getting into.
Or to put it a different way: does Nintendo really intend for Mario, Kirby, etc. to be played with the 3D positioning part of the controller, or does Nintendo think that many users will fall back to the the D-pad or analog stick for that?
I think the biggest concept I got from the video was: Controllers like this have been half-assed before. If Nintendo produces something that works precisely enough to work for a wide variety of games (Mario, fishing) (eg. something the MAIN system controller should be able to do) and do it cheaply, then this would definitely be different from the powerglove and such of the past.
That's the biggest question I think... how precise is it? If it's very very precise (like FPS precise), and it costs $30-40, then Nintendo has a good chance at winning some hearts and minds. We won't know until we read lots more reviews though.
There were all kinds of disparate controllers before... steering wheels, fishing rods, drum sticks. This is potentially all of those combined into one.
The only time the controller is really close to the table is when they're doing the tapping thing. So if it looks like a duck, and it clearly sounds like a duck, why go to the visual and auditory effort if it isn't really a duck?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still here because you're kind of quirky and fascinating sometimes. But you're too predictable now, it's no fun. C'mon, dance.
Oh, c'mon, being sophmoric is no fun. Be entertaining in other ways, puleaze?
I'm certain my company doesn't want employees looking at those pages on work computers. Just goes to show you that blocking by server name only isn't a complete solution.
Wow guys. Uncyclopedia is a generally off-the-cuff not-remotely-serious attempt-to-be-funny site. I'm fairly certain that my comment and the GP comment were made along those lines. It might be bad humor, but modding these as "flamebait" seems to be missing the point of the article by a couple lightyears.
Though I don't quite understand why Uncyclopedia has to be internally consistent. If Oprah Winfrey's page can describe a history that's so far away from reality (yet still funny), why isn't there room for alternate histories of Oprah Winfrey that are similarly humorous?
The "no original research" rule may be applied maybe a little too much, but it definitely has its place. Read the "origin of this policy" section of the rule's page. The rule is one of the better ways to get rid of physics cranks, and applies generally to topics which there ARE experts out there who can validate theories, but which Wikipedia's semi-democracy isn't capable of properly scrutinizing. (on the other hand, pages like the Electric Universe concept are somehow allowed to survive, consisting mainly of many scientific details that have never been published).
Uncyclopedia intends to spread misinformation, confusion, and lies, in an ironic and humorous manner. ...okay, you're right, the RNC is the same.
Is there a list somewhere on the web that hilights all the crazy quirks of copyright law in each country? It seems to be a very unresolved area of law, with plenty of opportunities for hijinks.
Social bookmarking is a pretty cool concept that should be applied to many more things, obviously. Even though it takes more coding effort (especially to block cheaters), people are still hard at work coding such sites. If that's any indication that social bookmarking sites are cool.
This is the exact option that Ray Beckerman of Beldock Levine & Hoffman is taking. Mrs. Santangelo is said to be paying half rate, but given that she couldn't get a lawyer at all before Ray Beckerman came along, it's possible that the actual rate is lower than that.
The thing is, if you're just one or more individuals, like David Zamos, it's much more likely that the big corporate simply settles once they see they're losing, so as to not establish case law that will make it harder for them to be bullies in the future, and the individuals are likely to accept. Hopefully with an actual lawyer working for low rates, they can take this thing all the way and force the RIAA to do their due deligence investigating before they file a case.
Sorry, I guess there was some confusion. I must be talking to the wrong APK.
Yes, Windows should be brought to task for its higher rate of problems. But its quality isn't so bad that it's legally actionable.
At the least, it's good you've realized that lower-level patterns like "P.S.=>" are very obvious patterns that differentiate you from... everyone else. But your higher-level thought patterns are also radically different from anyone else. That's not such a problem though. Honestly, it's much greater of a problem that you don't even remotely realize how different your thought patterns are from everyone else, because that is one of the things that makes it makes it almost impossible for you to have a remotely normal relationship (business or otherwise) with other people. (it also makes it difficult for you to post anonymously without detection, but online posts aren't nearly as important as how you get along with your real-life family and peers).
Don't kid now, APK-supporter. I bet if I called APK's number right now, you'd pick up.
Okay, that doesn't strictly say that they can block port 25, but my bet is that if anybody decided to press the issue, a judge would rule that way
Are you hoping to be modded up +4 on that one too, since that's one of the few ways you have to be happy?
Visual simulation of what actual players are actually doing is not in the purview of gaming. (eg. even in third-person games, your avatar doens't wiggle its nose when you do)
My point was: there's no point in simulating the player visuals (except maybe for strained PR reasons), so it's probably a real duck, and not a simulated duck.
I still don't see how the gaming argument does anything but confuse the situation more.
Wikipedia page in case anyone wants to contribute to the summary. I'm assuming this will become law in some form or other, since we have a (more or less) unified Republican President and Congress.
And yet, it doesn't seem like they clarify the definition of "VoIP service" in the LEAST bit to clarify whether they in fact intend to include things like NetMeeting conferences, open source authors of SIP software, etc etc. Hopefully that's clarified soon rather than later.
The same comments generally apply to "Video Services" (it's federal-only interstate commerce, blah blah), though they do define it slightly more narrowly:
Though that's not really terribly much of a clarification.
I have a feeling they don't know what they're getting into.
One thing to note, does this imply that ANYONE who writes VoIP software has to register with their state before allowing anyone to use it? (see section 202 and the definition of VoIP Service and VoIP provider)
And, yes, it's very disappointing that current FCC says that they want BOTH Cable and DSL to not be subject to LLU.
Actors holding a controller near a table in an advertisement, to simulate tapping, is a good summation of gaming? Huh?
Or to put it a different way: does Nintendo really intend for Mario, Kirby, etc. to be played with the 3D positioning part of the controller, or does Nintendo think that many users will fall back to the the D-pad or analog stick for that?
That's the biggest question I think... how precise is it? If it's very very precise (like FPS precise), and it costs $30-40, then Nintendo has a good chance at winning some hearts and minds. We won't know until we read lots more reviews though.
There were all kinds of disparate controllers before... steering wheels, fishing rods, drum sticks. This is potentially all of those combined into one.
The only time the controller is really close to the table is when they're doing the tapping thing. So if it looks like a duck, and it clearly sounds like a duck, why go to the visual and auditory effort if it isn't really a duck?