The question wasn't whether Blizzard has a right to make what they want. The question is why they think they have the right to keep others from doing the same.
Some of you retards need to have some sense beat into you.
No, "bnetd" isn't one of their trademarks. They aren't accusing the bnetd developers of trademark dilution.
Why is it, that everyone that defends them is a complete moron with very little understanding of the actual situation? And it does no good to point this out, because next week, your vapid little brain will have forgotten all this, and you'll latch onto yet another intellectual property term that you're incapable of understanding.
Is Bnetd a trademark violation? No, nor does vivendi claim that... Is Bnetd a copyright violation? No, they didn't copy Blizzard's code... Is Bnetd a patent violation? Again, no, neither the games nor the network protocol are patented. Is Bnetd guilty of contributory copyright infringement? No, it isn't used to disable copy protection or trade games ala a p2p net, and all piracy occurs well before using bnetd Is Bnetd a trade secret? Not any more, and no bnetd authors have worked for Blizzard, this doesn't apply. Is Bnetd a military secret? Well, the pentagon hasn't lodged any complaints, though I sometimes suspect those 2 star generals like to play a quick game of starcraft from time to time. Is Bnetd guilty of pissing off a big corp with nasty lowlife lawyers? Yes. Is Bnetd safe, even though they've broken no laws? No. $$$= laws, $$$=favorable judgements. They might as well bend over, lube up, and spread their cheeks now.
Are stupid fucking dimwits who claim bnetd is a piracy tool actually causing problems for the authors of bnetd? Well, yes, if indirectly. Every time a Sen. Hollings wants to pretend he has support for the latest consumer rape law, he can point to a retard like yourself, jacquio, and claim that he has the support of enlightened citizens. Your stupid voice is much louder, than my halfway intelligent protest.
I remember paying close to top dollar, no bargain bin copies for me. At the time, I remembered thinking it was worth every cent. Hope no belittles me for reconsidering that sentiment.
Also, I find it unlikely that not playing their games will have any effect on their future actions. Not that I will play, just the principle of the thing. But I harbor zero illusions that I can somehow punish them.
I more than just approve of this, I'm almost proud and certainly respectful. I almost wish I had whatever it takes to perform such an action.
I even almost wish it could have some effect. The sad truth is, you're probably doing it to make yourself feel better, because it isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on them.
You can easily and justifiably blame Blizzard. They didn't pass the DMCA, but they are happily using it. If corporations were somehow decent or moral (yeh, I know) and refused to exercise the dubious privileges granted by the DMCA, it would be moot. Hell, it'd even be easier to repeal.
Congress manufactured the gun, but Blizzard/Vivendi had absolutely no qualms about pulling the trigger.
So, for some people that only have TCP/IP set up, or can't get IPX to work, this is a legitimate option. At least until fuckwads like you do your best to see it illegal.
You would bet? Not that it's easy to get statistics on such things, but your "bets" don't count for anything. Nor do mine. And as prejudiced as you seem to be towards this sort of thing, is it any suprise that you'd think it is only ever used for illegitimate purposes?
You're so fucking clueless, I don't know where to begin. Bnetd isn't even contributory... warez dudes can still play single player without this software. They can still run ipxtunnel. We might also ban computers, by your logic, after all, the BSA suspects that as many as 95% of computers worldwide don't have their licenses in order!
News flash for dumbass! By the time someone uses bnetd, they've already committed piracy. Even Vivendi isn't using that attack, because they not only know it isn't true, but because they know it such a laughable position they couldn't take it to court. Now they've got some half-assed argument that we're violating their copyrights by participating in an unauthorized public performance (which might make some sense, if they were playwrights, and Bnetd were a broadway show not paying royalties). Haha, dancing orcs.
The best thing to happen to blizzard? Well, there are people who love their products so much, that they were producing complimentary products. In software, this is a GOOD thing. When people write complimentary products, there is that much more reason to buy your product, because there is more that can be done with it. When people design extra levels, or addons... they still have to buy your product first, and yet there is more incentive to buy it too. Quite possibly, they might not have bought it, if such an addon hadn't existed, but there is no reason to ever think that they'll refuse to buy it because of the existence of the addon. The same holds true for bnetd. No longer do you have to worry about battle.net being overcrowded with cheating assholes, if it's that much of a problem, you have alternatives short of not playing/buying the game. Also, bnetd is open source. Should these people come up with a really cool design/feature... Blizzard would be welcome to use it on the official server. Not to mention that it is rare for a studio to have so many enthusiastic fans. If nothing else, bnetd should be evidence of that. Lord knows there are any number of studios out there, that would kill for such. Some might even have the sense to not kick such fans in the teeth.
Funny, I didn't realize that you're allowed to imagine some hypothetical sale, then search for someone that makes such imaginary sales unlikely and call it "stealing".
The Appeals Court doesn't "think". It simpls follows the instructions that were recieved with the bribe money.
How is it barbaric or inhumane? The poster actually implies he wish those people didn't die, and that corrupt public officials would... what is wrong with that? That he was wrong about the death toll is secondary, and rather "nitpicky" imo.
The shoes on a bank robber's feet are being used to commit crimes too. Kitchen knives, cars... even baseball bats.
Now, if you had an ounce of sense, you'd see just how retarded your post was. Maybe, just maybe, it would make a little sense, if Bnetd could only be used with the pirated versions of games. This isn't the case at all.
And unlike a tool of vandalism, Bnetd *adds value* to Blizzard games. It makes them better, more playable. Would there be a law against baseball bats that magically clean windows and repaint walls when smashed against them?
Bnetd is the friend that Blizzard had, but never appreciated, and now actively hates. The funny thing is, Bnetd *still* adds value to Blizzard games. It can't help but do that.
Bnetd is the best thing to ever happen to Blizzard that they never appreciated. I hope it somehow comes back and bites them in the ass.
Never asked Blizzard to do it. That's the key: Blizzard thinks they own the stuff other people write. That they should be allowed to restrict what the Bnetd authors do with their own software is just sick. I probably shouldn't be responding to a troll like this, but then again I also had to speak to a lawyer last week too. You're all pretty much the same.
I'm quite able to communicate, just minus the duplicitousness that you and others seem so fond of.
And I'm quite capable of feeling insulted, as in the case now. You've either not read this thread in its entirety, or you have and still agree with duffbeer's assessment that self-learners are unrepentant assholes. Neither he, nor you, have managed to say anything of substance, but are always quick to hurl insults. I feel the greatest pity possible, for anyone that would have to work with either of you, it would be a nightmare come to life.
I'm hardly lazy. I'm going into business for myself, just requires alot of preparation and research. I suspect my honesty will usually trump others' lies and "soft skills" most or all of the time. BTW, if the personal hygiene wasn't a dig, then what was it?
Social skills. That you can't define, but that every single valid example boils down to lying, kissing ass, bullshitting, and "networking".
Your skill acquisitions apparently don't include formal debate, or even learning how to be fair. You have just equated my personal hygiene with social skills. In formal debate, that would be which fallacy? (You're so good at research, it won't take long to look it up.) FYI I do shower once, and sometimes twice a day. I shave, clean under my fingernails, and do my best to make sure I don't have bad breath. I'll always look weird, but it won't be because I don't know how to dress for an interview or work. How you, or anyone else, could somehow conclude that I was anything other than that, is beyond me.
My mommy taught me how to be clean well before kindergarten.
There isn't alot of evidence, I'll admit, but please indulge me. How many dirty/stinky roommate anecdotes have you heard from people in college? Are you suggesting that college is teaching them how not to be like that?
Or that I can't possible have learned good hygiene outside of college, or when I was 4 yrs old?
What "soft skills" truly means, in the context of this thread, is ass kissing, being able to pretend interest in those you'd have believe you were their friend, lying, bullshitting, and all the other behaviors that corporate america has come to expect.
Now, the real question, is why it's like that. It's taken me awhile, but I believe that once the "game" has advanced to this point, where there is a critical mass of people in authority with said traits, that it is in their collective interest to make sure that no one with any intact honesty advances. And that simply with an evolutionary process, none of the weasels (forgive the name-calling please) actually have to be intellectually aware of this. There is no conspiracy, it just happened. If it hurts to see this in your own workplace, look at congress, which is in a much more advanced level, and see if it isn't true.
I need to reply to this again, after giving it some thought.
I did not say I was unable to communicate with people, authority figures or otherwise. That you feel that all communication boils down to the various "soft skills" should trigger warning klaxons in others that read this though.
I said, for all practical purposes, I am unable to lie. I am unable to bullshit, kiss ass, say what people want to hear just so I can get ahead, or actively deciever others with white lies or misdirection. I said, not in so many words, that I am the one person that will give you a straight answer, every single time.
What do you do? Well, you could do lots of things, you could even act as if you don't believe it... I can understand why most would think it unlikely. You, though, you insult me, belittle that, and do everything in your limited power to discourage such behavior... even in those you dont know! Can't you see this?
As for the suggestion that I should seek therapy, I find that laughable. The most bitter of all ironies... the inmates truly do run the asylum, the world over, and you suggest that I need therapy. *So many years* of my life, all I wanted was help. Unlike many in similar situations, I had no trouble literally asking for it, and never getting it. Sometimes therapists, psychologists, once even a psychaitrist, would start talking about things that had nothing to do with my problems. And again, saying things they didn't want to hear, was the surest way to receive more trouble. Other times, they would discuss things that seemed to relate to my problems, on one tangent or another, but again, this was trouble also. They'd refuse to go to the core of the matter, and their understanding of the mind was very dim. Medical science may have finally progressed beyond scaring away the evil spirits, and generously applying leeches, but psychological science was left behind. Finally, I looked at it all, and wondered why I was deluding myself.
And my life got better. I wasn't good at functioning in a world run by lunatics, but once I had accepted it, I was able to pretend to be crazy long enough to have some spending money, discover what type of work it is I like to do, even meet a few others like myself.
But I still believe, that only a very few aren't redeemable. Others, have learned for so long, that not playing this cruel game is a good way to get hurt... and I'm not going to begrudge them their ability to lie.
You, for instance, still have a chance yourself. Just take 15 minutes or so, and reread this thread. Notice that I did give you a "mini-analysis", and that I did tell you that your beliefs were BS. What happens, though? You accuse me of having a bad attitude. You say that soft skills aren't about ass kissing, and then go on to refuse to hear anything that isn't ass kissing. There isn't much of a leap of logic, to take that and conclude that soft skills really are ass kissing... I have no soft skills, I didn't ass kiss, you state my lack of soft skills is a problem, and then have a problem with my lack of ass kissing. Does any of this even sink in, or did I miss my mark in thinking there might be reason to try to enlighten you?
I just did back up myself with quite a bit of reasoning. In person, under your employment, that is the best way to lose a job that I know of. You are prejudiced, make your prejudices known, aand in addition are an intolerant asshole. God help the poor soul who tries to be reasonable around you.
You don't understand. I'm not particularly arrogant... how could I be in a field such as IT? There is so much I don't know... it's something I'll try my entire life just to master. And I don't look down upon people that know less than I, there have been a few that truly wanted to learn... it was always so damn cool to show them a trick, and have their face light up. But it was always the best, because ***they would want to know how it was done***. You could tell they wanted to know, not to impress others (though they probably would, just as I had done) but because there was something special about knowing it. It was, and is, like magic.
This is my arrogance, wanting to do cool tricks, and maybe get paid for it? Or was it wanting to show others how to do such themselves? Unlike the parent post's suggestion, I NEVER had a problem with sharing, showing other's how. I've always been dissappointed when people wouldn't care how.
Soft skills make the world you, and others like you, have built. That you have designed the world to require soft skills doesn't mean that they are necessary for any other reason than you have designed it that way.
Judging people is nothing immoral, despite what many say. Only judging them unfairly, or condemning them (punishing them according to your judgement isn't your duty or right). Judging them fairly also means being willing to reconsider when new evidence is presented. I am willing to do that. How I could be a hypocrite, when I both do this, and expect others to do it to me, is a mystery to me. Perhaps you meant another word, other than hypocrisy?
Wrong for them to look at soft skills? Wrong implies that it is immoral to hire based on them... and morally, they can hire anyone they wish to, based on any criteria. But it is a subtle lie, that they suggest skill/talent is important so often, and then to just ignore them... it's hypocritical, and particularly irritating for me. It's also insulting that you would suggest that I'd not respect someone who would be willing to hire me, even though I have no soft skills. If anything, it would earn more than my respect, he'd have my loyalty.
#2 Those that wish to learn enough to climb the ladder, never learn enough to deserve it (though often *just* enough to climb it anyway). Those that wish to learn, for learning's sake, often become what slashdot calls a "guru". (Note: I'm not a guru yet, far from it, I am getting there. Why, so I can become a guru? Hell no, because I get to learn cool tricks along the way!)
If I were attempting to teach someone, you'd probably be suprised at the variety and esoterica, not to mention admonishing them to just code, code, CODE. Nothing beats practice, and nothing beats not being locked into just a single skill or language. If you can't think of 5 different ways to do something, and have it work, you don't really know how to do it. Hell, you can't even know which would be the best way. I've spent the better part of today researching how to write NeXTbus device drivers. What will it teach me, that is applicable to any job I'll ever have? Absolutely nothing. Nothing specific that is, but I'll get more practice (always good), and I'll learn the same old things from a new perspective (always good). Then, I'll go to another interview, and hear that that's all very impressive, but really isn't what they're looking for (zigged when I should have zagged, they were wanting XYZ). Then, I'll go to my second interview, and say that I know XYZ, and be told that that's very nice, but plenty of people know that, and they are looking for someone with some perspective (zagged when I should have zigged). Either way, I'm screwed. They are looking for a certain type of person, who will act a certain way that for many comes naturally, and for me is always forced, if it's even possible. The parent post says as much.
#3 Personal skills, as you describe them, aren't skills at all. This is something you learn at age 3 and 4, not at age 18-22.
#5 Of course it takes more than skill/talent to be worth hiring. "Worth" is subjective, and determined by the person with hiring authority. Obviously, this guy has decided that formal education and "soft skills" are what determines worthiness. It is more or less a fact.
I agree he should go to school. I wish I had, and there is no going back for me. I'm honest enough to know that I would still have hated it as much as I believed I would, but trying as I am now, to earn a living, it would have been worth enduring.
Write clearly, speak intelligently, new and unique solutions. I'm always more comfortable when I'm being modest, but these wouldn't exactly be missing from my hypothetical biography.
They have never served me. I was still in grade school, when I started to suspect that intelligence was overrated, and that one of its hallmarks would be the wishful desire to be, if not stupid, at least more average when it comes to intelligence.
Intellectually, I can understand concepts such as soft skills, and my well-researched opinion is that you may be engaging in strategic re-definition of the "soft skills" term. This often happens, when someone such as myself points out something that the social consciousness, as a collective whole, finds embarrassing.
A self-learner, that *really* learns, would find it difficult to travel that path, and not be able to write clearly, speak intelligently (at least form the words in their head, mind you, they still might be shy) or to come up with unique solutions. Look at that basic facts of this situation, where everyone else is using the non-unique solution to learning (formal education), they are busy finding another just as valid method.
See, this is my "attittude"... I point out things like this, that highlight others' lies.
I'm not down on my luck, though no doubt others would describe my situation in that manner. The truth of the matter, is that I was born, or grew up in such a way, that I simply can't function the way others do. Much like people who learn a language after they are 8 yrs old or so, my brain probably isn't capable of ever learning this either. Things are hardwired differently. Intellectually, these things are apparent to me. For instance, if I was saying this to you, in front of you, I'd be doing it with what passes for a smile with me, in a polite tone, without any of the behaviors you've sub-consciously learned that imply the very type of insincerity we're discussing! This sort of thing is very distressing to some people, it is a set of behaviors that never happen simultaneously except in very rare circumstances. It would be hearing things that should only come out of the mouth of someone with a bad attitude, yet seeing none of the body language to go with it. Weird, huh?
Would I ever, ever *EVER* say something like this in the workplace? Hell no. What would I say, if you discussed hiring procedures with me, conversationally? I'd try to say very little. I'm not capable of convincingly lying that I believe you are right, I know better than to explain why I think you are wrong, and I couldn't even manage the "I don't really care, but since you're the boss I need to kiss up to, I'll agree" lie. You would sub-consciously know that I was lying, if I did manage it, and you wouldn't mind (that is how it all works). The best I could manage, would be the circumlocutions that aren't technically lies, which happen to be less uncomfortable than lying for me. However, this is the very type of lie triggers sub-conscious alerts for people like yourself. Normal people (not I), only do that sort of thing, when there is something they are terrified of not being able to hide (which actually describes me, in this one circumstance).
I wanted to believe that you tried to employ self-learners at first, but got burned with some very unlucky choices. To be sure, there are more than a few people out there that claim they've learned on their own, and are literal nutcases. But the truth of the matter is, you're directly telling me it's not about ass-kissing, and then claiming I have a bad attitude for disagreeing, and presenting my disagreement in such a way that leads credence to my position. I hope that it's self-evident, that you are a hypocrite.
On the bgarcia spectrum of social behavior, there are 2 distinct points, with nothing in between
Good | Synthetic friendliness (damn I can't think of a good way to describe it)
| Nothing here... Bad | Asshole
You see, I don't want to work with assholes, or those people who describe this concept as "soft skills". I may not end up being your friend, but I will be friendly... it's the way you are supposed to treat people. There is no because at the end of that sentence either... it's not a strategy to get ahead, it just IS. I try to be pleasant, polite, and helpful, simply in the hopes that others will too. It sure would be nice to live and work in a world where that were the case. But whatever component of your soul that is missing, that is missing from a great many people in the world, pretty much means I'll have to accept insincere workplace platitudes and all the utterly fake bullshit that goes along with it.
If there is one thing that makes this entire planet unbearable, it's people who can see nothing in between the 2 points on my little ascii graph above.
#1 I'd be the first one to say that certifications are a joke. Let me guess, the "driver" was the good NT admin. *grin*.
#2 I take my learning seriously. To the point that it is probably closer to an obsession, rather than just a necessity. If you are suggesting that employee turn-over is correlated to what degree they've earned, show me the statistics. How many BS's and MS's were jumping ship during the dotcom boom? I'm don't have a college degree, and I'd do just about anything to land a job where I wouldn't have to worry about looking for a new one for a few decades.
#3 The telling phrase is "If our best programmer was hit by a bus, we wouldn't lose too much". Of course you wouldn't, your best is undoubtedly mediocre. Your suggestion that self-learners are somehow anti-social is insulting. I miss having someone that I can actually talk to about the things I like/love. To have it be part of my job duty, would kick ass in **so many ways**.
#4 Of course soft skills are important. You have said that you basically refuse to hire those without soft skills. I think you are far from uncommon among managers, in that respect. However, this importance is 100% artificial. Soft skills don't make better work, nor better workers. But as someone whose low level helpdesk contract runs out on May 28th, you can be sure I have no illusions that soft skills are anything but deadly important. My fridge isn't that full as it is, and unless I can fake "soft skills" at least for an hour or so at a time, it will only become emptier. (Note: I'm not very good at faking them, it is a completely alien way of thinking/behaving for me. I would like to believe that most people would rather I be a friend/friendly, than that I would be good at talking smoothly, and knowing how to "network".)
#5 Of course it isn't easy to fake. That's what the committee's and large corporate bureaucracies are for. My apologies if I somehow snubbed them and their abilities to fake success, or understated the efforts they'll go to, in that endeavor.
Wow. At least you've said what I've always suspected. There is a very important lesson here for everyone.
#1 Skills aren't important, and never were. Especially skills beyond "minimally competent".
#2 Managers don't like people that like to learn, they like people with ambition. Ambition (in the form of education) is somehow more worthwhile than knowing your stuff, and corporate america will always strive to foster ambition.
#3 Interpersonal skills is management jargon for "I'll do you a favor now, in the hopes that you'll be able to perform one for me later". People who like to learn, or do exceptional work never seem to find time for this.
#4 The worst of all bad attitudes is thinking that skill or talent are worth anything to those that will hire you. The only thing you can expect from those with this attitude, is that they'll show you up, or expose you for the talentless ladder-climber that you are.
#5 Technical skills are easy to fake with committees and poorly written technical procedure manuals. Sure, this only gets you the bare minimum, but in a society that celebrates mediocrity, why buy more than you need?
PS Please do not mod the parent as Troll, I actually believe he is honest.
Oh I see. The whole problem has always been that we can't *make* OTP's. You're a very subtle and elaborate troll. Can't believe I've been an idiot this long.
Never, and I mean ***NEVER*** has it ever been described to me that OTP's are difficult because of a randomization problem. Sure, many general rand()'s are far from the quality needed for OTP. But this doesn't rule it out. Using wav files of static noise are generally high enough quality, using the hardware rand() in a Pentium 3 is even better. The coin toss problem has been fixed...
It's getting the OTP (one time pad, if I've not explained it yet) to the other person securely that has ***ALWAYS*** been the problem.
So I think it's you that is confused, not I.
QM does allow for safe OTP distribution, but this can still be eavesdropped on. It just makes it obvious to the encrypters that someone is eavesdropping, and that they need to try again before sending the important message. This method has little, or nothing to do with QE, that I am aware of.
And my laymen's explanation of QE is still better than yours, if far from perfectly accurate. The gist of it remains the same. You know, you actually had me for a second, checking to be sure I wasn't brain farting, and using the term QE when I really meant something else. Fucking trolls.
"FTL isn't moot - it's what the original poster said he wanted!"
What, a dozen people in history have been as far away as the moon? Which has a 2000ms ping time. The original poster most certainly doesn't live there, so FTL information transport probably isn't a priority of his.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about any more. OTP's are easy to come by, it's distributing them securely that is a problem. So you buy your little black box that in theory lets you recieve the OTP securely. Big deal
Another device hidden inside, watches the signal as you recieve it. Not in the middle where it collapses. Besides, if QE allows secure OTP transmission, send the message that way, unencrypted.
QE photons and what not are much easier to come by, but not as fun. I've read hints that more docile particles might be subject to QE, in such a way that they could refrain from collapsing even after seperated by any distance. In such cases, it might be possible to send data using these as a transmitter and reciever (for duplex, you'd need 2 pairs). Figuring out a way to do this so that you could send info without collapsing them would be difficult, likely impossible in practice. I've heard stuff to the effect that this may indeed be instantaneous, or still subject to FTL. Either way, who cares? It would still kick ass. Any point on the globe is never farther than what, 8000 miles or so from you? That's an acceptable ping time in my books.
I believe you're referring to using QM to send a signal that can be intercepted, but in doing so betrays the eavesdropping (since the eavesdropper can never make a 2nd fake signal that will match the first). This has been performed with photons over both fiber, and through the air. Cool, but nothing I really care about.
So that others have a clue what we're even talking about, the layman's explanation of QE is tricking 2 or more particles into believing that they are the same particle, at least as far as certain properties are concerned. Push one particle, the other also moves, etc. More than likely, it's science fiction (I think Ender's Game was the first I've read to use this premise). But then what tech isn't scifi before it's invented?
Slashdot Mirror
The question wasn't whether Blizzard has a right to make what they want. The question is why they think they have the right to keep others from doing the same.
Some of you retards need to have some sense beat into you.
Well, the lawyers/orcs will only metaphorically fuck the bnetd authors. So I'm not sure this is a valid question.
No, "bnetd" isn't one of their trademarks. They aren't accusing the bnetd developers of trademark dilution.
Why is it, that everyone that defends them is a complete moron with very little understanding of the actual situation? And it does no good to point this out, because next week, your vapid little brain will have forgotten all this, and you'll latch onto yet another intellectual property term that you're incapable of understanding.
Is Bnetd a trademark violation? No, nor does vivendi claim that...
Is Bnetd a copyright violation? No, they didn't copy Blizzard's code...
Is Bnetd a patent violation? Again, no, neither the games nor the network protocol are patented.
Is Bnetd guilty of contributory copyright infringement? No, it isn't used to disable copy protection or trade games ala a p2p net, and all piracy occurs well before using bnetd
Is Bnetd a trade secret? Not any more, and no bnetd authors have worked for Blizzard, this doesn't apply.
Is Bnetd a military secret? Well, the pentagon hasn't lodged any complaints, though I sometimes suspect those 2 star generals like to play a quick game of starcraft from time to time.
Is Bnetd guilty of pissing off a big corp with nasty lowlife lawyers? Yes.
Is Bnetd safe, even though they've broken no laws? No. $$$= laws, $$$=favorable judgements. They might as well bend over, lube up, and spread their cheeks now.
Are stupid fucking dimwits who claim bnetd is a piracy tool actually causing problems for the authors of bnetd? Well, yes, if indirectly. Every time a Sen. Hollings wants to pretend he has support for the latest consumer rape law, he can point to a retard like yourself, jacquio, and claim that he has the support of enlightened citizens. Your stupid voice is much louder, than my halfway intelligent protest.
WarCraft II Battle Chest, $60.
Diablo, $55.
Diablo expansion pack, $25
Starcraft, $45
I remember paying close to top dollar, no bargain bin copies for me. At the time, I remembered thinking it was worth every cent. Hope no belittles me for reconsidering that sentiment.
Also, I find it unlikely that not playing their games will have any effect on their future actions. Not that I will play, just the principle of the thing. But I harbor zero illusions that I can somehow punish them.
I more than just approve of this, I'm almost proud and certainly respectful. I almost wish I had whatever it takes to perform such an action.
I even almost wish it could have some effect. The sad truth is, you're probably doing it to make yourself feel better, because it isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on them.
No. Don't ever fall for that trick.
You can easily and justifiably blame Blizzard. They didn't pass the DMCA, but they are happily using it. If corporations were somehow decent or moral (yeh, I know) and refused to exercise the dubious privileges granted by the DMCA, it would be moot. Hell, it'd even be easier to repeal.
Congress manufactured the gun, but Blizzard/Vivendi had absolutely no qualms about pulling the trigger.
No, you've been able to play ipx games.
Not "lan games".
IPX.
So, for some people that only have TCP/IP set up, or can't get IPX to work, this is a legitimate option. At least until fuckwads like you do your best to see it illegal.
You would bet? Not that it's easy to get statistics on such things, but your "bets" don't count for anything. Nor do mine. And as prejudiced as you seem to be towards this sort of thing, is it any suprise that you'd think it is only ever used for illegitimate purposes?
You're so fucking clueless, I don't know where to begin. Bnetd isn't even contributory... warez dudes can still play single player without this software. They can still run ipxtunnel. We might also ban computers, by your logic, after all, the BSA suspects that as many as 95% of computers worldwide don't have their licenses in order!
News flash for dumbass! By the time someone uses bnetd, they've already committed piracy. Even Vivendi isn't using that attack, because they not only know it isn't true, but because they know it such a laughable position they couldn't take it to court. Now they've got some half-assed argument that we're violating their copyrights by participating in an unauthorized public performance (which might make some sense, if they were playwrights, and Bnetd were a broadway show not paying royalties). Haha, dancing orcs.
The best thing to happen to blizzard? Well, there are people who love their products so much, that they were producing complimentary products. In software, this is a GOOD thing. When people write complimentary products, there is that much more reason to buy your product, because there is more that can be done with it. When people design extra levels, or addons... they still have to buy your product first, and yet there is more incentive to buy it too. Quite possibly, they might not have bought it, if such an addon hadn't existed, but there is no reason to ever think that they'll refuse to buy it because of the existence of the addon. The same holds true for bnetd. No longer do you have to worry about battle.net being overcrowded with cheating assholes, if it's that much of a problem, you have alternatives short of not playing/buying the game. Also, bnetd is open source. Should these people come up with a really cool design/feature... Blizzard would be welcome to use it on the official server. Not to mention that it is rare for a studio to have so many enthusiastic fans. If nothing else, bnetd should be evidence of that. Lord knows there are any number of studios out there, that would kill for such. Some might even have the sense to not kick such fans in the teeth.
Well, since this is a somewhat useful behavior, I believe I am correct when I say that this rules out hidden M$ software completely.
Funny, I didn't realize that you're allowed to imagine some hypothetical sale, then search for someone that makes such imaginary sales unlikely and call it "stealing".
The Appeals Court doesn't "think". It simpls follows the instructions that were recieved with the bribe money.
How is it barbaric or inhumane? The poster actually implies he wish those people didn't die, and that corrupt public officials would... what is wrong with that? That he was wrong about the death toll is secondary, and rather "nitpicky" imo.
The shoes on a bank robber's feet are being used to commit crimes too. Kitchen knives, cars... even baseball bats.
Now, if you had an ounce of sense, you'd see just how retarded your post was. Maybe, just maybe, it would make a little sense, if Bnetd could only be used with the pirated versions of games. This isn't the case at all.
And unlike a tool of vandalism, Bnetd *adds value* to Blizzard games. It makes them better, more playable. Would there be a law against baseball bats that magically clean windows and repaint walls when smashed against them?
Bnetd is the friend that Blizzard had, but never appreciated, and now actively hates. The funny thing is, Bnetd *still* adds value to Blizzard games. It can't help but do that.
Bnetd is the best thing to ever happen to Blizzard that they never appreciated. I hope it somehow comes back and bites them in the ass.
Never asked Blizzard to do it. That's the key: Blizzard thinks they own the stuff other people write. That they should be allowed to restrict what the Bnetd authors do with their own software is just sick. I probably shouldn't be responding to a troll like this, but then again I also had to speak to a lawyer last week too. You're all pretty much the same.
I don't turn everything into a debate.
I'm quite able to communicate, just minus the duplicitousness that you and others seem so fond of.
And I'm quite capable of feeling insulted, as in the case now. You've either not read this thread in its entirety, or you have and still agree with duffbeer's assessment that self-learners are unrepentant assholes. Neither he, nor you, have managed to say anything of substance, but are always quick to hurl insults. I feel the greatest pity possible, for anyone that would have to work with either of you, it would be a nightmare come to life.
I'm hardly lazy. I'm going into business for myself, just requires alot of preparation and research. I suspect my honesty will usually trump others' lies and "soft skills" most or all of the time. BTW, if the personal hygiene wasn't a dig, then what was it?
Social skills. That you can't define, but that every single valid example boils down to lying, kissing ass, bullshitting, and "networking".
Your skill acquisitions apparently don't include formal debate, or even learning how to be fair. You have just equated my personal hygiene with social skills. In formal debate, that would be which fallacy? (You're so good at research, it won't take long to look it up.) FYI I do shower once, and sometimes twice a day. I shave, clean under my fingernails, and do my best to make sure I don't have bad breath. I'll always look weird, but it won't be because I don't know how to dress for an interview or work. How you, or anyone else, could somehow conclude that I was anything other than that, is beyond me.
My mommy taught me how to be clean well before kindergarten.
There isn't alot of evidence, I'll admit, but please indulge me. How many dirty/stinky roommate anecdotes have you heard from people in college? Are you suggesting that college is teaching them how not to be like that?
Or that I can't possible have learned good hygiene outside of college, or when I was 4 yrs old?
What "soft skills" truly means, in the context of this thread, is ass kissing, being able to pretend interest in those you'd have believe you were their friend, lying, bullshitting, and all the other behaviors that corporate america has come to expect.
Now, the real question, is why it's like that. It's taken me awhile, but I believe that once the "game" has advanced to this point, where there is a critical mass of people in authority with said traits, that it is in their collective interest to make sure that no one with any intact honesty advances. And that simply with an evolutionary process, none of the weasels (forgive the name-calling please) actually have to be intellectually aware of this. There is no conspiracy, it just happened. If it hurts to see this in your own workplace, look at congress, which is in a much more advanced level, and see if it isn't true.
I need to reply to this again, after giving it some thought.
I did not say I was unable to communicate with people, authority figures or otherwise. That you feel that all communication boils down to the various "soft skills" should trigger warning klaxons in others that read this though.
I said, for all practical purposes, I am unable to lie. I am unable to bullshit, kiss ass, say what people want to hear just so I can get ahead, or actively deciever others with white lies or misdirection. I said, not in so many words, that I am the one person that will give you a straight answer, every single time.
What do you do? Well, you could do lots of things, you could even act as if you don't believe it... I can understand why most would think it unlikely. You, though, you insult me, belittle that, and do everything in your limited power to discourage such behavior... even in those you dont know! Can't you see this?
As for the suggestion that I should seek therapy, I find that laughable. The most bitter of all ironies... the inmates truly do run the asylum, the world over, and you suggest that I need therapy. *So many years* of my life, all I wanted was help. Unlike many in similar situations, I had no trouble literally asking for it, and never getting it. Sometimes therapists, psychologists, once even a psychaitrist, would start talking about things that had nothing to do with my problems. And again, saying things they didn't want to hear, was the surest way to receive more trouble. Other times, they would discuss things that seemed to relate to my problems, on one tangent or another, but again, this was trouble also. They'd refuse to go to the core of the matter, and their understanding of the mind was very dim. Medical science may have finally progressed beyond scaring away the evil spirits, and generously applying leeches, but psychological science was left behind. Finally, I looked at it all, and wondered why I was deluding myself.
And my life got better. I wasn't good at functioning in a world run by lunatics, but once I had accepted it, I was able to pretend to be crazy long enough to have some spending money, discover what type of work it is I like to do, even meet a few others like myself.
But I still believe, that only a very few aren't redeemable. Others, have learned for so long, that not playing this cruel game is a good way to get hurt... and I'm not going to begrudge them their ability to lie.
You, for instance, still have a chance yourself. Just take 15 minutes or so, and reread this thread. Notice that I did give you a "mini-analysis", and that I did tell you that your beliefs were BS. What happens, though? You accuse me of having a bad attitude. You say that soft skills aren't about ass kissing, and then go on to refuse to hear anything that isn't ass kissing. There isn't much of a leap of logic, to take that and conclude that soft skills really are ass kissing... I have no soft skills, I didn't ass kiss, you state my lack of soft skills is a problem, and then have a problem with my lack of ass kissing. Does any of this even sink in, or did I miss my mark in thinking there might be reason to try to enlighten you?
I just did back up myself with quite a bit of reasoning. In person, under your employment, that is the best way to lose a job that I know of. You are prejudiced, make your prejudices known, aand in addition are an intolerant asshole. God help the poor soul who tries to be reasonable around you.
You don't understand. I'm not particularly arrogant... how could I be in a field such as IT? There is so much I don't know... it's something I'll try my entire life just to master. And I don't look down upon people that know less than I, there have been a few that truly wanted to learn... it was always so damn cool to show them a trick, and have their face light up. But it was always the best, because ***they would want to know how it was done***. You could tell they wanted to know, not to impress others (though they probably would, just as I had done) but because there was something special about knowing it. It was, and is, like magic.
This is my arrogance, wanting to do cool tricks, and maybe get paid for it? Or was it wanting to show others how to do such themselves? Unlike the parent post's suggestion, I NEVER had a problem with sharing, showing other's how. I've always been dissappointed when people wouldn't care how.
Soft skills make the world you, and others like you, have built. That you have designed the world to require soft skills doesn't mean that they are necessary for any other reason than you have designed it that way.
Judging people is nothing immoral, despite what many say. Only judging them unfairly, or condemning them (punishing them according to your judgement isn't your duty or right). Judging them fairly also means being willing to reconsider when new evidence is presented. I am willing to do that. How I could be a hypocrite, when I both do this, and expect others to do it to me, is a mystery to me. Perhaps you meant another word, other than hypocrisy?
Wrong for them to look at soft skills? Wrong implies that it is immoral to hire based on them... and morally, they can hire anyone they wish to, based on any criteria. But it is a subtle lie, that they suggest skill/talent is important so often, and then to just ignore them... it's hypocritical, and particularly irritating for me. It's also insulting that you would suggest that I'd not respect someone who would be willing to hire me, even though I have no soft skills. If anything, it would earn more than my respect, he'd have my loyalty.
#2 Those that wish to learn enough to climb the ladder, never learn enough to deserve it (though often *just* enough to climb it anyway). Those that wish to learn, for learning's sake, often become what slashdot calls a "guru". (Note: I'm not a guru yet, far from it, I am getting there. Why, so I can become a guru? Hell no, because I get to learn cool tricks along the way!)
If I were attempting to teach someone, you'd probably be suprised at the variety and esoterica, not to mention admonishing them to just code, code, CODE. Nothing beats practice, and nothing beats not being locked into just a single skill or language. If you can't think of 5 different ways to do something, and have it work, you don't really know how to do it. Hell, you can't even know which would be the best way. I've spent the better part of today researching how to write NeXTbus device drivers. What will it teach me, that is applicable to any job I'll ever have? Absolutely nothing. Nothing specific that is, but I'll get more practice (always good), and I'll learn the same old things from a new perspective (always good). Then, I'll go to another interview, and hear that that's all very impressive, but really isn't what they're looking for (zigged when I should have zagged, they were wanting XYZ). Then, I'll go to my second interview, and say that I know XYZ, and be told that that's very nice, but plenty of people know that, and they are looking for someone with some perspective (zagged when I should have zigged). Either way, I'm screwed. They are looking for a certain type of person, who will act a certain way that for many comes naturally, and for me is always forced, if it's even possible. The parent post says as much.
#3 Personal skills, as you describe them, aren't skills at all. This is something you learn at age 3 and 4, not at age 18-22.
#5 Of course it takes more than skill/talent to be worth hiring. "Worth" is subjective, and determined by the person with hiring authority. Obviously, this guy has decided that formal education and "soft skills" are what determines worthiness. It is more or less a fact.
I agree he should go to school. I wish I had, and there is no going back for me. I'm honest enough to know that I would still have hated it as much as I believed I would, but trying as I am now, to earn a living, it would have been worth enduring.
Write clearly, speak intelligently, new and unique solutions. I'm always more comfortable when I'm being modest, but these wouldn't exactly be missing from my hypothetical biography.
They have never served me. I was still in grade school, when I started to suspect that intelligence was overrated, and that one of its hallmarks would be the wishful desire to be, if not stupid, at least more average when it comes to intelligence.
Intellectually, I can understand concepts such as soft skills, and my well-researched opinion is that you may be engaging in strategic re-definition of the "soft skills" term. This often happens, when someone such as myself points out something that the social consciousness, as a collective whole, finds embarrassing.
A self-learner, that *really* learns, would find it difficult to travel that path, and not be able to write clearly, speak intelligently (at least form the words in their head, mind you, they still might be shy) or to come up with unique solutions. Look at that basic facts of this situation, where everyone else is using the non-unique solution to learning (formal education), they are busy finding another just as valid method.
See, this is my "attittude"... I point out things like this, that highlight others' lies.
I'm not down on my luck, though no doubt others would describe my situation in that manner. The truth of the matter, is that I was born, or grew up in such a way, that I simply can't function the way others do. Much like people who learn a language after they are 8 yrs old or so, my brain probably isn't capable of ever learning this either. Things are hardwired differently. Intellectually, these things are apparent to me. For instance, if I was saying this to you, in front of you, I'd be doing it with what passes for a smile with me, in a polite tone, without any of the behaviors you've sub-consciously learned that imply the very type of insincerity we're discussing! This sort of thing is very distressing to some people, it is a set of behaviors that never happen simultaneously except in very rare circumstances. It would be hearing things that should only come out of the mouth of someone with a bad attitude, yet seeing none of the body language to go with it. Weird, huh?
Would I ever, ever *EVER* say something like this in the workplace? Hell no. What would I say, if you discussed hiring procedures with me, conversationally? I'd try to say very little. I'm not capable of convincingly lying that I believe you are right, I know better than to explain why I think you are wrong, and I couldn't even manage the "I don't really care, but since you're the boss I need to kiss up to, I'll agree" lie. You would sub-consciously know that I was lying, if I did manage it, and you wouldn't mind (that is how it all works). The best I could manage, would be the circumlocutions that aren't technically lies, which happen to be less uncomfortable than lying for me. However, this is the very type of lie triggers sub-conscious alerts for people like yourself. Normal people (not I), only do that sort of thing, when there is something they are terrified of not being able to hide (which actually describes me, in this one circumstance).
I wanted to believe that you tried to employ self-learners at first, but got burned with some very unlucky choices. To be sure, there are more than a few people out there that claim they've learned on their own, and are literal nutcases. But the truth of the matter is, you're directly telling me it's not about ass-kissing, and then claiming I have a bad attitude for disagreeing, and presenting my disagreement in such a way that leads credence to my position. I hope that it's self-evident, that you are a hypocrite.
Um. So let's see...
On the bgarcia spectrum of social behavior, there are 2 distinct points, with nothing in between
Good | Synthetic friendliness (damn I can't think of a good way to describe it)
| Nothing here...
Bad | Asshole
You see, I don't want to work with assholes, or those people who describe this concept as "soft skills". I may not end up being your friend, but I will be friendly... it's the way you are supposed to treat people. There is no because at the end of that sentence either... it's not a strategy to get ahead, it just IS. I try to be pleasant, polite, and helpful, simply in the hopes that others will too. It sure would be nice to live and work in a world where that were the case. But whatever component of your soul that is missing, that is missing from a great many people in the world, pretty much means I'll have to accept insincere workplace platitudes and all the utterly fake bullshit that goes along with it.
If there is one thing that makes this entire planet unbearable, it's people who can see nothing in between the 2 points on my little ascii graph above.
Rebuttal:
#1 I'd be the first one to say that certifications are a joke. Let me guess, the "driver" was the good NT admin. *grin*.
#2 I take my learning seriously. To the point that it is probably closer to an obsession, rather than just a necessity. If you are suggesting that employee turn-over is correlated to what degree they've earned, show me the statistics. How many BS's and MS's were jumping ship during the dotcom boom? I'm don't have a college degree, and I'd do just about anything to land a job where I wouldn't have to worry about looking for a new one for a few decades.
#3 The telling phrase is "If our best programmer was hit by a bus, we wouldn't lose too much". Of course you wouldn't, your best is undoubtedly mediocre. Your suggestion that self-learners are somehow anti-social is insulting. I miss having someone that I can actually talk to about the things I like/love. To have it be part of my job duty, would kick ass in **so many ways**.
#4 Of course soft skills are important. You have said that you basically refuse to hire those without soft skills. I think you are far from uncommon among managers, in that respect. However, this importance is 100% artificial. Soft skills don't make better work, nor better workers. But as someone whose low level helpdesk contract runs out on May 28th, you can be sure I have no illusions that soft skills are anything but deadly important. My fridge isn't that full as it is, and unless I can fake "soft skills" at least for an hour or so at a time, it will only become emptier. (Note: I'm not very good at faking them, it is a completely alien way of thinking/behaving for me. I would like to believe that most people would rather I be a friend/friendly, than that I would be good at talking smoothly, and knowing how to "network".)
#5 Of course it isn't easy to fake. That's what the committee's and large corporate bureaucracies are for. My apologies if I somehow snubbed them and their abilities to fake success, or understated the efforts they'll go to, in that endeavor.
Wow. At least you've said what I've always suspected. There is a very important lesson here for everyone.
#1 Skills aren't important, and never were. Especially skills beyond "minimally competent".
#2 Managers don't like people that like to learn, they like people with ambition. Ambition (in the form of education) is somehow more worthwhile than knowing your stuff, and corporate america will always strive to foster ambition.
#3 Interpersonal skills is management jargon for "I'll do you a favor now, in the hopes that you'll be able to perform one for me later". People who like to learn, or do exceptional work never seem to find time for this.
#4 The worst of all bad attitudes is thinking that skill or talent are worth anything to those that will hire you. The only thing you can expect from those with this attitude, is that they'll show you up, or expose you for the talentless ladder-climber that you are.
#5 Technical skills are easy to fake with committees and poorly written technical procedure manuals. Sure, this only gets you the bare minimum, but in a society that celebrates mediocrity, why buy more than you need?
PS Please do not mod the parent as Troll, I actually believe he is honest.
Oh I see. The whole problem has always been that we can't *make* OTP's. You're a very subtle and elaborate troll. Can't believe I've been an idiot this long.
Never, and I mean ***NEVER*** has it ever been described to me that OTP's are difficult because of a randomization problem. Sure, many general rand()'s are far from the quality needed for OTP. But this doesn't rule it out. Using wav files of static noise are generally high enough quality, using the hardware rand() in a Pentium 3 is even better. The coin toss problem has been fixed...
It's getting the OTP (one time pad, if I've not explained it yet) to the other person securely that has ***ALWAYS*** been the problem.
So I think it's you that is confused, not I.
QM does allow for safe OTP distribution, but this can still be eavesdropped on. It just makes it obvious to the encrypters that someone is eavesdropping, and that they need to try again before sending the important message. This method has little, or nothing to do with QE, that I am aware of.
And my laymen's explanation of QE is still better than yours, if far from perfectly accurate. The gist of it remains the same. You know, you actually had me for a second, checking to be sure I wasn't brain farting, and using the term QE when I really meant something else. Fucking trolls.
"FTL isn't moot - it's what the original poster said he wanted!"
What, a dozen people in history have been as far away as the moon? Which has a 2000ms ping time. The original poster most certainly doesn't live there, so FTL information transport probably isn't a priority of his.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about any more. OTP's are easy to come by, it's distributing them securely that is a problem. So you buy your little black box that in theory lets you recieve the OTP securely. Big deal
Another device hidden inside, watches the signal as you recieve it. Not in the middle where it collapses. Besides, if QE allows secure OTP transmission, send the message that way, unencrypted.
QE photons and what not are much easier to come by, but not as fun. I've read hints that more docile particles might be subject to QE, in such a way that they could refrain from collapsing even after seperated by any distance. In such cases, it might be possible to send data using these as a transmitter and reciever (for duplex, you'd need 2 pairs). Figuring out a way to do this so that you could send info without collapsing them would be difficult, likely impossible in practice. I've heard stuff to the effect that this may indeed be instantaneous, or still subject to FTL. Either way, who cares? It would still kick ass. Any point on the globe is never farther than what, 8000 miles or so from you? That's an acceptable ping time in my books.
I believe you're referring to using QM to send a signal that can be intercepted, but in doing so betrays the eavesdropping (since the eavesdropper can never make a 2nd fake signal that will match the first). This has been performed with photons over both fiber, and through the air. Cool, but nothing I really care about.
So that others have a clue what we're even talking about, the layman's explanation of QE is tricking 2 or more particles into believing that they are the same particle, at least as far as certain properties are concerned. Push one particle, the other also moves, etc. More than likely, it's science fiction (I think Ender's Game was the first I've read to use this premise). But then what tech isn't scifi before it's invented?