In a shared game world, you have the ability to give players the ability to do almost anything they can imagine. There are only two problems with this: you have to give them a hook that makes them feel it's meaningful to do something, and (worse) they have to live in a world in which _everyone else_ can do anything you let them do.
Regarding the first problem - in the real world, why aren't you out living adventures? What makes it an exciting notion to think that someone would have adventures? It's the risk - the notion of putting it all on the line for some reward. Most people are unwilling to put it all on the line, probably because the people who were willing to tended to die before they bred. In the game, the most common way to give meaning to activities to give them an element of risk. Of course, you have to balance that against the things that keep people from having adventures in real life - if you do things that have real risk, eventually you lose whatever you were risking.
The second problem is the bigger one. Some people decide that they don't care about whatever it is that they are risking, they care about affecting other people, usually for the worse. Griefers will log in with a character and needle other people into doing things that get their character killed, or worse.
Anyway, my point is that picking what works in a virtual world is only related to how things work in the real world (or in books) in that one can inspire the other. The real world defines what we think is believable, and what we think is interesting. Books distill what we think is interesting. If you don't consider those things in the context of a massively multiplayer game, though, you're going to build a game that sucks.
Please show a way in which calculus does not completely describe the results of the Achilles & the tortoise paradox. You can calculate the time by summing a simple limit, likewise the distance. You get the same answer you do when you don't divide things into an infinite number of slices. Sounds pretty complete to me.
When the first thing you do in a thought experiment is postulate an impossibility, you've gone wrong. It would be just as reasonable to say that I have a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors, without loss. Now I wait an infinite amount of time... which direction is the light travelling? Obviously, by contradiction, this implies light can't bounce between mirrors. Wait, you say you don't have an infinite amount of time to wait? I say you don't have an infinite number of mirrors, and can't postulate a way in which it's even theoretically possible to build them.
On the other hand, light does interact in the universe. It makes perfect sense to analyze how light "experiences" the universe.
The link you gave looks to me like a lot of handwaving as to what Zeno's Stadium paradox said - I can find no reference that claims to have a reasonably accurate translation, the most they can get to is that it involves bodies moving towards each other and somehow the velocity equals half the velocity. These sources (including your own) say as much.
How did this get a 5? It's "refuting" a mathematical argument by failing to understand it and ignoring it when it's given. Calculus does in fact completely solve the problem of summing the infinite number of ever-smaller timeslices that Achilles takes to pass the tortoise.
And you have no understanding of relativity if you think that Zeno's Paradox implies relativity. Special relativity is nothing more and nothing less than exploring the complete implications (ignoring acceleration and gravity) of the fact that the speed of light is a constant regardless of your velocity. Zeno didn't know the speed of light was a constant, and without that piece of information there are no grounds to postulate special relativity.
An "infinite number" of mirrors can't exist, so not being able to determine what they would do is not a failing of physics; it's a failing of your thought experiment.
It depends on the manufacturer of your Tivo hardware. I have used Philips and DirecTivo, and they work great. I have a friend who has a Tivo from a different manufacturer, and he's sent his back multiple times, all for modem problems.
Originally I put in little ascii graphics for the diaper. Net result: lameness filter 1, wurp 0. I hope it's understandable without them.
Place the diaper in front of you so that the short side of the rectangle is in front of you (i.e. it looks narrow instead of wide).
Fold the left side of the diaper over so that the left side is on the middle, likewise with the right side. The diaper is now even narrower (you have folded it into thirds) and you have a crease down the middle.
Put the baby on the diaper face up. The top of the baby's bottom should be at the top edge of the diaper.
Pull the strip of the diaper that you just folded over up between the baby's legs.
Fold about a 2-3 " strip (5-7 cm) of the end of the diaper on the top of the baby inwards.
You can now slide the diaper folds under the baby's bottom so that those parts become wide enough to overlap with the folded strip at the front of the baby so you can fasten the diaper pins. On one side of the diaper, put the index & middle finger of your off-hand between the baby's skin and the diaper, and use your thumb to hold the flaps from the back of the diaper against the folded part, with the flaps on the outside. Make a small wrinkle in both parts of the diaper so you can push the pin through all of the layers of cloth. Repeat for the other side of the diaper.
Also see http://webhome.idirect.com/~born2luv/FOLDING.HTML (which I found _after_ I typed all that crap in;)
Aren't you violating copyright if you make a copy of their license without their permission? I would think that even printing the license out would be a violation.
I'm not joking - copyright restrictions seem tight enough now that a company would at least threaten you for copying their license without permission.
More directly related... in Magicosm we're planning to integrate with other services so we can be an MMORPG that allows casual play.
For example, we will run an IRC server that you can contact to log into your guild or town chat group, let you accept/tells over ICQ/AIM/MSN/etc, get in-game letters as email, queue up crafting & merchanting over a web interface, etc. Much of this won't be available at release time due to limited resources, but some will, and it should all come quickly after we start making some money.
By the way, if you know investors who might be interested, please email me at bobbymartinSPAM@FREEpobox.com (after making the obvious change:) We are not in that nebulous "we kinda thought it would be cool to build a game" stage but rather in the "we have a fully working client & server and now we need to get enough content & stability to be fun to play" stage, so we should be a sound investment.
You're the one hung up on a very specific and non-standard meaning of the words "doing a lot for". If I hold a position that your ideology sucks and you're evil for convincing people to think like you, but I build a whole lot of tools that help you fulfill your ideology, then I'm doing a lot for you. That's this exact situation. Yes, we all understand that the FSF sees a huge distinction between open and Free software, and they would probably kill the OSS movement if they could, but that doesn't change the fact that the OSS movement gains a lot from the fruits fo the FS movement.
Uh, do you use gcc? bash? glibc? I thought so. Gnu is just as popular as Linux, because virtually no one has Linux without having more GNU than Linux.
The trademark "GNU" is much less known than the trademark "Linux", but as far as tools go, GNU tools are at least as popular, people just don't know what the hell they're running.
Re-read the constitution. Patents are there to promote progress, not to reward anything.
The question is, would they have done this if it hadn't been patentable? If so, it shouldn't be patentable. If they would have done it anyway, then the patent isn't promoting progress.
If we actually followed the constitutional phrasing "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", I think we would have to get rid of copyrights in modern society.
Copyright does not promote the progress of science or the useful arts. There is plenty of writing, music, and movie entertainment available for free, legally, online. Without copyright law, there would be much more. A lot of the high dollar entertainment would probably go away, but the amount of additional entertainment that would be available completely overwhelms any losses. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an honor system wouldn't generate as much or more income, leaving all of the benefits of a lack of copyright law and none of the restrictions.
However, entertainment is frivolous. The real tragedy of having laws restricting copying of media and designs (patents) is in how they inhibit scientific and technical progress.
How much effort is wasted figuring out if a product violates someone else's copyright or patent? How many products never see the light of day because they would, or might, violate a copyright or patent? How many products never see the light of day because the tools the developer would need to produce them are inaccessible to him? How many people die or become ill because they don't have good medical references? The list of inefficiencies and downright atrocities caused by this mindset that sharing information is bad goes on and on.
The open source & free software movements show the beginnings of what's possible when we forget those limitations. The products we see freely available as a result would be multiplied many, many times over if all scientific information became available for free, all computer software, all technical specifications.
Collaborative bidding as incentive for new products, tip jars & honor systems, and university research projects can easily take up the slack left by removing copyright monopoly money, and meanwhile everyone who wants it gets the benefits of everything produced. The immediate jump in productivity would be a thing of beauty to behold.
Insisting on receiving income for the rest of your life and that of your children from a work you did once at the expense of anyone who could have used it but couldn't afford it, or who could have built on it but couldn't license it, is the height of parasitic greed.
As a side question, I know there are projects that let people bid to get a software product or bug fix done, and when the pot gets high enough someone takes on the job. Can anyone point me at one of the implementations?
Well, Article I of the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Now, I think copyright costs much more to society than any supposed gains (especially given the ease of publication and distribution in modern society), but it's one of the few issues that the fed controls that they actually have a constitutional right to.
Actually, how does the FBI have the right to bust anyone? My country's constitution gives the federal government rights over a very limited set of things: treason, interstate trade, dealings with foreign governments, copyrights & patents (unfortunately). Anything else they arrest people for is strictly illegal (though not at all uncommon).
I'm sorry to say, but illegal copying is one of the few things that the federal government actually has the constitutional right to do something about.
Well, according to Jon Johansen's sworn testimony (and, as far as I know, uncontested), they did in fact create DeCSS to play DVDs on Linux. The first compiled version was for Windows, because they cracked CSS before the code to read the DVD file system software was completed for Linux. They wanted to test the crack, and they couldn't read the DVD contents on Linux, so they had to try it on Windows.
DeCSS was created so people could watch the DVDs they had bought without also having to run Windows or buy a DVD player. I personally think it's unethical for a company (or consortium) to try to force me to buy hardware from their approved vendors before I can use a product I've already paid for.
I absolutely recognize that DeCSS makes file sharing of DVDs and even copying easier. What I take issue with is people claiming that DeCSS makes copying DVDs possible. In fact, I would say in five or ten years it will be completely practical to file share the whole encrypted DVD.
DeCSS is for playing DVDs on Linux. If the MPAA weren't trying to keep us from playing media we legally purchased, DeCSS almost certainly wouldn't exist. CSS is a crime; DeCSS isn't. What pains me is the MPAA trying to turn that on its head.
I've noticed some people seem to use DeCSS when they mean CSS. CSS is the encryption mechanism used on DVDs. DeCSS is the decryption algorithm developed to allow DVD players on Linux.
Are you sure about that? You can pull a vob file without DeCSS. It is certainly possible that I missed a step (I haven't tried to copy a DVD in any way, even one of my own;) but I'm quite sure it doesn't require DeCSS.
The necessity of having DeCSS to allow Linux users to view DVDs is questionable? By whom? On what grounds? What's the alternative? I don't know of any way to play a DVD on Linux that doesn't involve DeCSS.
DeCSS gives people the ability to copy DVDs? What was keeping me from copying them before? Put the DVD in the drive, copy the file(s) to your hard drive. Burn to another DVD if you like. No DeCSS required. The copied DVD plays just fine.
Limiting playback to devices with licensed keys is quite reasonable? As I demonstrated in the last paragraph, it's total bullshit to say that it prevents privacy. All it does is let the MPAA control who can create DVD players and let them obsolesce DVD as a format whenever they want, let them control when videos can be released in different markets, and let them charge the DVD manufacturers for the privilege of making hardware that plays DVDs.
Are you employed by the MPAA or an MPAA affiliated studio? Your responses certainly don't look like those of someone with Joe Public's interests in mind.
The problem with keeping records of who's watching is that you will end up with a p2p application that remembers where people are any time anyone requests their location. Then you can only find out that one or more people are watching you, not who. The "who" will just be an arbitrary person person who was running the p2p app.
False. When the system is effective, it will be well known among criminals. When it is well known, they will drive three miles, swap the plates out with the ones they picked up earlier that day, and be on their way, surely less than five or ten minutes after the theft. It will then be ineffective for any sensible purpose, and only useful for tracking law abiding citizens.
It still sounds pretty cool, though;)
Just wait until we have wearable systems good enough to do facial recognition, though. Everyone you see will have virtual signs over their head telling you what like-minded people around the world thought about them. The return of the small-town mentality - everyone will know about everyone else. It will probably be a good thing if we can build grass-roots systems for making & viewing comments instead of relying on a central authority.
This would be like accusing someone who buys a car, gets home and realizes that the keys don't fit unless they wear special patented gloves they don't own, and then breaks into their own car.
Slashdot Mirror
In a shared game world, you have the ability to give players the ability to do almost anything they can imagine. There are only two problems with this: you have to give them a hook that makes them feel it's meaningful to do something, and (worse) they have to live in a world in which _everyone else_ can do anything you let them do.
Regarding the first problem - in the real world, why aren't you out living adventures? What makes it an exciting notion to think that someone would have adventures? It's the risk - the notion of putting it all on the line for some reward. Most people are unwilling to put it all on the line, probably because the people who were willing to tended to die before they bred. In the game, the most common way to give meaning to activities to give them an element of risk. Of course, you have to balance that against the things that keep people from having adventures in real life - if you do things that have real risk, eventually you lose whatever you were risking.
The second problem is the bigger one. Some people decide that they don't care about whatever it is that they are risking, they care about affecting other people, usually for the worse. Griefers will log in with a character and needle other people into doing things that get their character killed, or worse.
Anyway, my point is that picking what works in a virtual world is only related to how things work in the real world (or in books) in that one can inspire the other. The real world defines what we think is believable, and what we think is interesting. Books distill what we think is interesting. If you don't consider those things in the context of a massively multiplayer game, though, you're going to build a game that sucks.
Very true, and I'm sure you realize this, but just to make it explicit ... this supports my argument that the thought experiment is flawed.
Please show a way in which calculus does not completely describe the results of the Achilles & the tortoise paradox. You can calculate the time by summing a simple limit, likewise the distance. You get the same answer you do when you don't divide things into an infinite number of slices. Sounds pretty complete to me.
When the first thing you do in a thought experiment is postulate an impossibility, you've gone wrong. It would be just as reasonable to say that I have a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors, without loss. Now I wait an infinite amount of time... which direction is the light travelling? Obviously, by contradiction, this implies light can't bounce between mirrors. Wait, you say you don't have an infinite amount of time to wait? I say you don't have an infinite number of mirrors, and can't postulate a way in which it's even theoretically possible to build them.
On the other hand, light does interact in the universe. It makes perfect sense to analyze how light "experiences" the universe.
The link you gave looks to me like a lot of handwaving as to what Zeno's Stadium paradox said - I can find no reference that claims to have a reasonably accurate translation, the most they can get to is that it involves bodies moving towards each other and somehow the velocity equals half the velocity. These sources (including your own) say as much.
How did this get a 5? It's "refuting" a mathematical argument by failing to understand it and ignoring it when it's given. Calculus does in fact completely solve the problem of summing the infinite number of ever-smaller timeslices that Achilles takes to pass the tortoise.
And you have no understanding of relativity if you think that Zeno's Paradox implies relativity. Special relativity is nothing more and nothing less than exploring the complete implications (ignoring acceleration and gravity) of the fact that the speed of light is a constant regardless of your velocity. Zeno didn't know the speed of light was a constant, and without that piece of information there are no grounds to postulate special relativity.
An "infinite number" of mirrors can't exist, so not being able to determine what they would do is not a failing of physics; it's a failing of your thought experiment.
Moderators, you can do a better job than this.
It depends on the manufacturer of your Tivo hardware. I have used Philips and DirecTivo, and they work great. I have a friend who has a Tivo from a different manufacturer, and he's sent his back multiple times, all for modem problems.
Originally I put in little ascii graphics for the diaper. Net result: lameness filter 1, wurp 0. I hope it's understandable without them.
;)
Place the diaper in front of you so that the short side of the rectangle is in front of you (i.e. it looks narrow instead of wide).
Fold the left side of the diaper over so that the left side is on the middle, likewise with the right side. The diaper is now even narrower (you have folded it into thirds) and you have a crease down the middle.
Put the baby on the diaper face up. The top of the baby's bottom should be at the top edge of the diaper.
Pull the strip of the diaper that you just folded over up between the baby's legs.
Fold about a 2-3 " strip (5-7 cm) of the end of the diaper on the top of the baby inwards.
You can now slide the diaper folds under the baby's bottom so that those parts become wide enough to overlap with the folded strip at the front of the baby so you can fasten the diaper pins. On one side of the diaper, put the index & middle finger of your off-hand between the baby's skin and the diaper, and use your thumb to hold the flaps from the back of the diaper against the folded part, with the flaps on the outside. Make a small wrinkle in both parts of the diaper so you can push the pin through all of the layers of cloth. Repeat for the other side of the diaper.
Also see http://webhome.idirect.com/~born2luv/FOLDING.HTML (which I found _after_ I typed all that crap in
Aren't you violating copyright if you make a copy of their license without their permission? I would think that even printing the license out would be a violation.
I'm not joking - copyright restrictions seem tight enough now that a company would at least threaten you for copying their license without permission.
One of the Conan movies; the one with the nasty little thief and a D'Abo.
I think you mean *wayside*, not *weigh site*.
And, as another poster pointed out, Boromir brother of Faramir, sons of Denethor.
More directly related... in Magicosm we're planning to integrate with other services so we can be an MMORPG that allows casual play.
/tells over ICQ/AIM/MSN/etc, get in-game letters as email, queue up crafting & merchanting over a web interface, etc. Much of this won't be available at release time due to limited resources, but some will, and it should all come quickly after we start making some money.
:) We are not in that nebulous "we kinda thought it would be cool to build a game" stage but rather in the "we have a fully working client & server and now we need to get enough content & stability to be fun to play" stage, so we should be a sound investment.
For example, we will run an IRC server that you can contact to log into your guild or town chat group, let you accept
By the way, if you know investors who might be interested, please email me at bobbymartinSPAM@FREEpobox.com (after making the obvious change
You're the one hung up on a very specific and non-standard meaning of the words "doing a lot for". If I hold a position that your ideology sucks and you're evil for convincing people to think like you, but I build a whole lot of tools that help you fulfill your ideology, then I'm doing a lot for you. That's this exact situation. Yes, we all understand that the FSF sees a huge distinction between open and Free software, and they would probably kill the OSS movement if they could, but that doesn't change the fact that the OSS movement gains a lot from the fruits fo the FS movement.
Uh, do you use gcc? bash? glibc? I thought so. Gnu is just as popular as Linux, because virtually no one has Linux without having more GNU than Linux.
The trademark "GNU" is much less known than the trademark "Linux", but as far as tools go, GNU tools are at least as popular, people just don't know what the hell they're running.
Re-read the constitution. Patents are there to promote progress, not to reward anything.
The question is, would they have done this if it hadn't been patentable? If so, it shouldn't be patentable. If they would have done it anyway, then the patent isn't promoting progress.
via a wiki such as twiki. TWiki lets you edit web pages from any web browser, with a slew of features to let you review history and the like.
Illegal, yes. Wrong, no.
If we actually followed the constitutional phrasing "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", I think we would have to get rid of copyrights in modern society.
Copyright does not promote the progress of science or the useful arts. There is plenty of writing, music, and movie entertainment available for free, legally, online. Without copyright law, there would be much more. A lot of the high dollar entertainment would probably go away, but the amount of additional entertainment that would be available completely overwhelms any losses. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an honor system wouldn't generate as much or more income, leaving all of the benefits of a lack of copyright law and none of the restrictions.
However, entertainment is frivolous. The real tragedy of having laws restricting copying of media and designs (patents) is in how they inhibit scientific and technical progress.
How much effort is wasted figuring out if a product violates someone else's copyright or patent? How many products never see the light of day because they would, or might, violate a copyright or patent? How many products never see the light of day because the tools the developer would need to produce them are inaccessible to him? How many people die or become ill because they don't have good medical references? The list of inefficiencies and downright atrocities caused by this mindset that sharing information is bad goes on and on.
The open source & free software movements show the beginnings of what's possible when we forget those limitations. The products we see freely available as a result would be multiplied many, many times over if all scientific information became available for free, all computer software, all technical specifications.
Collaborative bidding as incentive for new products, tip jars & honor systems, and university research projects can easily take up the slack left by removing copyright monopoly money, and meanwhile everyone who wants it gets the benefits of everything produced. The immediate jump in productivity would be a thing of beauty to behold.
Insisting on receiving income for the rest of your life and that of your children from a work you did once at the expense of anyone who could have used it but couldn't afford it, or who could have built on it but couldn't license it, is the height of parasitic greed.
As a side question, I know there are projects that let people bid to get a software product or bug fix done, and when the pot gets high enough someone takes on the job. Can anyone point me at one of the implementations?
Well, Article I of the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
Supporting statutory law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Those would be the federal laws.
Now, I think copyright costs much more to society than any supposed gains (especially given the ease of publication and distribution in modern society), but it's one of the few issues that the fed controls that they actually have a constitutional right to.
Actually, how does the FBI have the right to bust anyone? My country's constitution gives the federal government rights over a very limited set of things: treason, interstate trade, dealings with foreign governments, copyrights & patents (unfortunately). Anything else they arrest people for is strictly illegal (though not at all uncommon).
I'm sorry to say, but illegal copying is one of the few things that the federal government actually has the constitutional right to do something about.
Well, according to Jon Johansen's sworn testimony (and, as far as I know, uncontested), they did in fact create DeCSS to play DVDs on Linux. The first compiled version was for Windows, because they cracked CSS before the code to read the DVD file system software was completed for Linux. They wanted to test the crack, and they couldn't read the DVD contents on Linux, so they had to try it on Windows.
DeCSS was created so people could watch the DVDs they had bought without also having to run Windows or buy a DVD player. I personally think it's unethical for a company (or consortium) to try to force me to buy hardware from their approved vendors before I can use a product I've already paid for.
I absolutely recognize that DeCSS makes file sharing of DVDs and even copying easier. What I take issue with is people claiming that DeCSS makes copying DVDs possible. In fact, I would say in five or ten years it will be completely practical to file share the whole encrypted DVD.
DeCSS is for playing DVDs on Linux. If the MPAA weren't trying to keep us from playing media we legally purchased, DeCSS almost certainly wouldn't exist. CSS is a crime; DeCSS isn't. What pains me is the MPAA trying to turn that on its head.
I've noticed some people seem to use DeCSS when they mean CSS. CSS is the encryption mechanism used on DVDs. DeCSS is the decryption algorithm developed to allow DVD players on Linux.
Are you sure about that? You can pull a vob file without DeCSS. It is certainly possible that I missed a step (I haven't tried to copy a DVD in any way, even one of my own ;) but I'm quite sure it doesn't require DeCSS.
The FUD density is getting pretty high here...
The necessity of having DeCSS to allow Linux users to view DVDs is questionable? By whom? On what grounds? What's the alternative? I don't know of any way to play a DVD on Linux that doesn't involve DeCSS.
DeCSS gives people the ability to copy DVDs? What was keeping me from copying them before? Put the DVD in the drive, copy the file(s) to your hard drive. Burn to another DVD if you like. No DeCSS required. The copied DVD plays just fine.
Limiting playback to devices with licensed keys is quite reasonable? As I demonstrated in the last paragraph, it's total bullshit to say that it prevents privacy. All it does is let the MPAA control who can create DVD players and let them obsolesce DVD as a format whenever they want, let them control when videos can be released in different markets, and let them charge the DVD manufacturers for the privilege of making hardware that plays DVDs.
Are you employed by the MPAA or an MPAA affiliated studio? Your responses certainly don't look like those of someone with Joe Public's interests in mind.
Or are you just a troll?
The problem with keeping records of who's watching is that you will end up with a p2p application that remembers where people are any time anyone requests their location. Then you can only find out that one or more people are watching you, not who. The "who" will just be an arbitrary person person who was running the p2p app.
False. When the system is effective, it will be well known among criminals. When it is well known, they will drive three miles, swap the plates out with the ones they picked up earlier that day, and be on their way, surely less than five or ten minutes after the theft. It will then be ineffective for any sensible purpose, and only useful for tracking law abiding citizens.
;)
It still sounds pretty cool, though
Just wait until we have wearable systems good enough to do facial recognition, though. Everyone you see will have virtual signs over their head telling you what like-minded people around the world thought about them. The return of the small-town mentality - everyone will know about everyone else. It will probably be a good thing if we can build grass-roots systems for making & viewing comments instead of relying on a central authority.
Even more than that, I can copy the encrypted file and then view the encrypted file with any approved player.
This would be like accusing someone who buys a car, gets home and realizes that the keys don't fit unless they wear special patented gloves they don't own, and then breaks into their own car.