I don't know enough Quantum Mechanics and Relativity theory to be sure, but regular old gravity that affects you and I on the Newtonian model would "suck" the light back in assuming it was strong enough.
The gravity of a spherical object pulls equally in all directions on all of the internal mass. Once outside the mass all of the force pulls on you, and acts just like a point mass. Assuming the mass of this star is stable, thus probably symmetrical and spherical (possibly slightly eliptical in either direction), gravity should still bend it.
That is the way all central forces work. In reality, the mass at the north pole, and the south pole pull you in different directions, just the symmetry of the mass makes it act like a point mass at the center of the earth. The only way the light would be "free" is if the surface that radiated energy of the star is outside of the "point of no return".
Technically speaking, actually every electron is a black hole, it just so happens that the radius where it is is smaller then has any practical. Hell it is smaller then the radius of the electron itself. Same for the earth. Which is why the density what signifies what they refer to as black holes. However, absorbing the photons when they hit the mass isn't the only way to stop light.
Any old object can have more mass then a black hole, there isn't a critical mass where you "become" a black hole. There is a density where you become a black hole. It just happens that once you get a certain amount of mass you end up collapsing into a blackhole because the mass on the outside has no opposite force to oppose the internal collapsing in which I am guessing your average nuclear forces would keep that from happening to most regular objects.
Kirby
Re:I know a great way to manage "prima dona"s
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 1
Okay, time for a star wars reference...
Please consider my perspective. While a true 'stien could do the work of 50 men and leap tall buildings with a single bound. What do I do if he decides to leave?
Do like the Sith Lords. Always make sure there are two. A master, and an apprentice. One can always replace the other while you begin the training process again. Worked for the Sith Lords for thousands of years, so it is a tested truth of management...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
In truth in large companies, you have a 'stien or two, and an entire backup crew that could replace him. Literally, that is what I have seen in my brief tenures at large companies. One guy doing all the work, with a bunch of people who play along in case something happens. In small companies, A 'stien is the nearly the only way to stay in business. Can't afford a large crew. Can't get enough down with one regular guy.
Most of the problems you listed are probems anyways, just distributed over a larger group of people. Documentation and ECO's are always an issue on large projects. Unfortuantly, the solutions to them drive 'Stien's crazy and get them to leave. So as you prepare to deal with the problem, the problem happens before your prepared... Fun, fun. Saw that happen once. In a lot of ways, you need a good secretary to deal with mundane details for the 'Stien, but then everybody would want their own secretary...
Interesting thoughts. I might have to pick up the book to read what is has to say.
Re:I know a great way to manage "prima dona"s
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You had "prima dona"s, not Einstiens. There is a difference. I'm not an Einstien, but I have worked with some of them. I worked with a couple of guys briefly in the past. They worked odd hours, and they worked a ton.
At times they were unpleasent to be around, but they could get the work done. They told customers the God's honest truth every last time. So they didn't get to work with customers any more. The two guys formed the core of a 30 person company. Pretty much everybody else there was to support the business of collecting the money and organizing requests for new development. That was it.
They worked 90 hours a week when needed. They didn't miss deadlines. They made star trek jokes, and weird references to esoteric math problems.
There is a difference between somebody who has jacked with technology, and a small crew of people who can get the work done on time everytime. The reason they were so incredibly valuable, was they avoided the single largest time consumer of developers. Communication, go read the mythical man month by Fred Brooks.
Working alone is a huge boon. Working with people who are highly focused and like to work along is quite a trick. Once you get good at it is extremely efficient. The couple of guys I saw working together would divide up the work and run off and work without much in the way of communication for a week at a time. They agreed on the fundamental interactions between the seperate parts, met that interface, the rest were details. They work alone because they don't need to communicate.
Most work is actually done alone, with infrequent reports. If communication skills are a problem, there is a problem. Your spending too much time communicating, more then likely. Great technical people don't communicate much inside the technical group because they shouldn't have to in a good group. They don't communicate with people outside the group because they consider the rest of us boring. Getting together in a big meeting to discuss progress is a waste of time. Having a manager who walks around and discusses individual progress is the way that is done. Having a meeting if they aren't getting it done to regroup in relatively dire situation is a good idea.
Having discussions with poeple who are lying about progress is a good idea. Firing people who continue to lie about performance, yep should do that. The best technical people never ever lie, no need to, they have valuable skills and understand that lying is a cardnial sin that will hurt thier professional reputation. All you have to do is ask, are you making progress. You'll have your answer, if they lie, fire them on the spot. If they don't make work on the assigned tasks, fire them, they aren't professionals.
Motivate them by giving them projects interesting projects. Give the multiple projects to work switch between if they are all boring, just to get a change of pace. Meet infrequently to discuss high level goals. Ensure the techincal lead is somebody who can bridge the gaps between the Engineering side, and the rest of the group. Make sure the lead does bi-weekly rounds, and keeps you informed of problems. The internals of a good Engineering department isn't something most people would like if they saw it. Just like I wouldn't eat sausage ever again if I saw how it got made.
Sounds like you had some bad employees who thought very highly of themselves. You probably had a couple of Einstien's and didn't know it. Not all of them are incapable of communicating. Quirky people who work odd hours aren't bad if they make progress and do the work.
The rest of them are slackers trying to pass themselves off as hard workers... Uhh, welcome to management. You get that if you work in an IT department all the way down to your local fast food place. Prima Dona's are a dime a dozen, Einstien's are a diamond in the rough. Keep the valuable stones return the high matiences low volume employess.
If you're secretary is a slacker, probably not much of a deal. If the guy who watches the database that is the heart of your company, is a slacker you have problems.
See, here section 2.3. The describe the original drive for classes. From what I can gather in a quick reading. A class can be a something that isn't a legal set. That is fine, in fact they have a special name, proper class. So you can have classes that behave badely, but the sets constructed from them behave well. If only human offspring worked that way...
Uhh, that should be:
( rpm -q -a && cat/path/to/blackList ) | sort | uniq -d
Sorry, didn't think long enough about it long enough. That will work on a RedHat machine.
Gotta have access to the RPM database though.
would list ever package on the black list. Now all a person would have to do is make sure the list is kept up to date. You could do the same with a white list, but it would be a bit more difficult then. Both have upsides and downsides. For remote attacks, a simple script that does the attack would probably do the job. A lot like a Satan does, or netsaint. I haven't kept up with either of those to know if they are still any good. It would be easy for RedHat and/or Debian to create a tool that will allow you to check outdated versions of a tool yourself.
For custom done scripts, use file, see if the it is an ELF binary, do a MD5SUM of it, then check a known list of MD5SUM's that are bad binaries. Okay, that really screws anybody who compiles there own and the tool puts in the name of the machine or __DATE__/__TIME__ or some such.
However, if you had a trusted source for binaries, it would work out quite well. Naturally most security oriented people compile their own. But then again they don't have these problems, they keep up to date.
And we are incredibly off topic, but it is interesting...
B=P\S is currently a statement in logic. The english description of it, formerly was a "set".
Prior to the current classes based definitions you could have stated the set of all sets, and other such nasties. The use of classes was to allow to define useful sets that do useful things and have them have known properties. The former formulations of sets allowed things like the set of all sets, the formulations including classes don't. Classes were introduced, specifically to allow you to construct the set in a well defined manner. They allow you to formally state that the set of all sets isn't well defined, and isn't a set. Prior to that, it would have been a legitimate set to use. This avoids lots of issues.
There is one significant difference between my definition of I, and the standard binary tree. The binary tree doesn't refers to unknown parts that aren't based on other parts of itself (actually your definition doesn't explicitly state that, but it would be a graph not a tree then).
Is 4 in I or not? Well yes it is. Is 6, not on the first iteration. Would be on the second. But if 6 is in there, then then 4 shouldn't be ( it isn't prime and you claim 6 is the smallest number not in there). Attempting to apply the definition inductively doesn't make sense. If 6 is in, then 4 shouldn't be.
The definition isn't an infinite intersection where you define I sub k to be I sub k - 1 plus the smallest element not in I sub k - 1. Let I be I sub infinity. I sub 1 is the set of all primes. Okay that is a fine set, and not at all confusing.
Now of course I just moved from informal to formal on you, and then claim you're legitimate observation isn't right. Just not quite what I was getting at. To me the original definition I gave for I is similar to the set of all sets with the nature of problems it provides. While constructing it, it would change a bit on you. I don't like that. It isn't very handy. Now all this might be exactly what you meant by a formal definition. Just attempting to use induction on the original definition doesn't make sense at all to me. This uses recursion in the construction, and so it is fine by me. Splitting a hair, I know, but that is what a lot of mathematics is all about.
It isn't clear to me that if 6 is included that 4 should be with the original definition, it's not a prime, and 6 is supposedly the smallest element not in I. Definitions which move are odd. Which makes it similar to the problems with the barber problem. There is nothing about a tree that has that sort of issue. A tree's definition is independent of it. Just because a 4 is over there in the tree, doesn't induce a 6 in this part of the tree. That is what I find odd.
Interesting discussion. Don't use the math background very often.
Pretty clear you know more set theory then I do. I didn't introduce the assumption B=P\S, that is the definition of the set (I know it isn't a well defined set). I had been taught in the past that this was a simplified form of the problems that forced the construction of classes, and that whole realm of theory about sets. Basically, it was that sort of construction that lead people to figure out the problems with it. Similarly to the fact that essentially
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem revoles around roughtly the statment:
This statement if false.
They use to have a version set theory way back when, and it did not involve classes, and nothing in the definitions said that the barber's paradox wasn't a set. It isn't a paradox now, but it use to be one. It was a set by the former mathematical definitions. It was in fact a set that contained a contradition. You know how contraditions bother mathematicians so they went and constructed a new version of set theory, so it couldn't contain such problems. And there was much rejoicing in the land of the set theory gods. I don't have any books on set theory from the 1800's so I can't really double check that.
I mean self-referential, in the sense, that once you decide the state of an object, that affects the state the object is in. That is a problem with the barbers problem. I suppose recursive-like or some other adjective would have been more appropriate. Essentially there is a feedback loop in all of the definitions. The nature of the problem changes after each iteration of the definition, which is the problem.
I just assumed the definition of Interesting is x is a member of I if x is a member of the primes or x is the smallest number not in I.
Hence self referential. All this is what they taught me in College, Dr. Konvolina vould be proud I remembered all that.
Nope, they invented a whole new kind of object to solve the problem. You refer to classes not to sets when constructing a set. You do not refer to a when constructing a set. Don't make me dig up my Abstract Algebra reference, it always makes my head hurt. It causes mathimatical inconsistancies if you allow self referential sets. So they aren't allowed. If you allow self referential sets, it is easy to prove that you should give me all your money, and that the square root of two should be not only rational but a whole number.
And yes interesting is a very poorly defined term too. That is part of the problem.
KIrby
Re:Nope - The QPL says you can't.
on
Qt For The Console
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Okay here you go:
Big whoop the QPL says that. I can pick the GPL version of the license.
Besides which, I can do it anyways as the copyright holder.
Trolltech is the only company that can come after me for violation of the GPL/QPL, they probably won't if I just got done writing them a check now will they?
1. Did you know I can make local modifications to any GPL'ed program I want, and link in all kinds of proprietary pieces. It isn't until you distribute binaries of it that you are inviolation of the GPL. If the QPL has that extra term in it, and I have to license it under both, I am pretty sure that is an extra term and it isn't allowable under the GPL.
Besides which, most of the dual licenses are an either or case, not a both case. Otherwise the Perl's GPL/Artistic license doesn't make anysense, the GPL is the only license because the Artistic license has a superset of the GPL's rights.
2. I am the original copyright holder of the code. I can re-release any code I wrote under any license I want. With GPL'ed code, I would have to not link to anybody else GPL'ed stuff or I am in violation of their GPL. However, if I wrote all of the original code, I to say lesszilla, my incredibly small 500 line web browser and I link it with Qt using the GPL license. If I try and release lesszilla under a new proprietary license and link with Qt I am in violation if they take me to court. I am still the copyright holder of the original lesszilla code. I can convert the lesszilla code to SPL (Soul-eating public license) which in essense says you owe me your soul if you have one, but you don't owe me any money and I don't owe you the source code. I just can't link the the Qt via the GPL version with the SPL. I could go buy a Qt license and link with that and release it. I am the copyright holder, I can change the license I want to use. I can't force the older GPL'ed version to be non-GPL'ed (I am in violation of the somebody else GPL if I link with GPL'ed code they have the copyright for). I do have to own the copyright for all changes however. So I have to becareful I have all of the documentation to prove I am the copyright holder.
3. Trolltech isn't stupid enough not to take my money. Depending on how the licensing works for them, they will more then likely charge me the current charges, or get me get me to pay for the license for the time during which I was developing it. They aren't stupid, they want my money, and I want to pay it to them, all that is left is deciding on the amount.
If the minutia isn't right, the math is wrong...
See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
There are lots of things that look right in mathematics but aren't. Try doing the integral using rectacular cordniates to figure the area of the circle. Comes out 4 * pi * pi * r * r. If I remember correctly. It doesn't work, because that minutia isn't correct. Ahh, to harken back to the days of my real number analysis.
Not breakable, maybe but that doesn't mean they are secure. RSA doesn't have any breaks with using a 2-bit key either, it just so happens, I have to decrypt 4 times and I will have the original plain text. It just so happens that I can brute force the entire keyspace in very little time, but I didn't find a backdoor. I didn't apply some kind of cipher analysis on it, but I got the plain text all the same. dnetc, isn't attempting to break RC5 by some cryptographic attack. It is instead attempting to brute force the keys by by trying all of them. If you can do the encryption, and more importantly the decryption by hand, a computer can do it probably 5-20 orders of magnitude faster then you can.
I am not familiar with the Solitare algorithm, I haven't ever read up on it. All the encryption schemes I have seen so far have a function D which takes the cipher text, and something other parameter to decrypt. If that other parameter is finite, plain text can be found, it is only a matter of time. I know D, I have cipher text. Bruce Schneier claims you aren't secure if you have to hide D. If you have to hide the cipher text, you might as well send it in the clear. If you use that same parameter repeatedly, like say in Public Key encryption, then I can break it over and over again, paying the time penalty once hence people want to make the penalty incredibly high buy using very large key spaces. If you use a one-time pad, I have to use that pently everytime I want to break your encryption so it is harder.
Hmm, and I thought RC4 did have problems. I'll have to go ask about that.
This is a problem that will simply solve itself. Well, society as a rule will have to solve it, but that will happen naturally. The irony of course being that the quickest way is all the groups people bitch about to get their way.
Right now the rights of the creators are getting stronger and stronger. The rights of the licensee are getting weaker and weaker. Basically, that is the way the pendulem is swinging. At some point, the pendulem will get to a point were people can't stand it anymore. Everybody will get fed up with it and stop funding the damn monster they created.
The largest problems with a lot of the trials to personal/fair use are issues with people not realizing what they are agreeing to. Most people never bother to read the EULA, they just click yes. Most people never read the FBI warning at the beginning of movies.
I got into a fairly touchy situation with my current employer. They wanted me to sign some paperwork that essentially said anything I did was they owned the rights to it.
I refused to sign it, and as I was at the time a completely irreplaceable employee I got my way. All that needs to happen, is for people to decide to become irreplaceable sales. I bet money if half the people on slashdot, decided to go without buying a CD for say 6 months. They specifically went to the store shopped for music they would buy and then didn't. Wrote the both the original artist, the artists agent, the record label, and the RIAA and explained that they lost a sale because the terms of "agreement" were unacceptable, things would change. Do the same things with DVD's. Save the money. Spent it on books. Spend it going the the movies. Spend it at live concerts. Give it to the band playing at the bar. Buy the CD's from the guys selling them out their trunk. Spend it on buying up music you like from independent artists. Donate it to the EFF.
I'll bet money the problems go away. One thing that a lot of groups have lost sight of is that money is power. The people do all the spending. Its not like the RIAA gets all that money in government grants and kickbacks. Their entire income is based on public sales, or licensing out work to other major industries. They would get it because they have to, because they go out of business. People just have to decide to fix the problem in the loudest way possible.
The public has all the leverage in the negociations, but they refuse to use it. It is commical to watch. Listen to the radio, listen to independent artists. For godsakes, don't download it off the net. Make the powers that be realize that even if Congress will give the power, we won't do business with groups who don't grant the rights we want.
Method still one is self referential. Although it is getting closer I suppose. The i'th element in the set moves, because you shift the elements out of it and into the other set as you start to execute the definition of the two. It is precisely the barber problem, on a slightly different twist.
The second one is while not exactly referential, is well useless. The Universial set has a description, which makes the definition of "interesting" pretty much useless. Because all numbers must be in it. This is like the idea that you should be able to do all geometric proves by replacing the words "point", "line" with the words "beer", and "chair". And the proves to work. The problem replace the word "interesting" which isn't very well defined, and replace it with "uninteresting" and the prove works just as well.
Replace it with "not a number" and it works. Sorta like the quote about a "rose by any other name is still a rose".
Among other problems, the definition of "interesting" leaves something to be desired. It literally is meaningless in this context. There is no definition of interesting that isn't self referential yet.
Re:Do you want it to be secure if so, none exist
on
Encryption by Hand?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with Bruce Schiner's assessment. It isn't secure if you're relying the the encryption algorithm to be secret. When I say secure I don't mean in some petty practical sense. I spent entirely too much time in theory based math classes.
The other issue with the "SNaRFt" example, is that well, either there are a finite set of choices that are only in human heads, which makes it nearly impossible to break. It also is a heck of a lot less useful. I can't say do it at 10:30PM unless there is some mechanism to translate SNaRFt into times, or that happens to be one of the finite set that a human can remember. While the mechanism you're talking about is sneaky and sly. Just ask the Germans and the Japanesse about how well sly works. They did both during World War II.
I'd much rather have an algorithm that is inheriently strong. So strong that I can give you plain text and ciphered text sets using the key I plan on using to transmit that I don't want you to read. As many as you'd like. I can give you the algorithm to go from the plain text -> cipher text. Then give you the mathmatical proof that it is strong, and describe all the known variations of the algorithm and the known weakness of the algorithms. Describe the key generation, and describe the set of weak keys. Then I can give you the schematics for hardware based encryption/decryption for it.
After doing all that, I want to be able to still have you have to be lucky to get it early in the keyspace search, otherwise the heat death of the Universe will happen first. Then and only then would I feel secure.
If you want to break those other schemes you describe. Hire a good looking woman or man to be a double agent, to sleep with somebody on the other end. You can find a surprising amount of information out that way. Capture and beat up the guy who knows what the algorithm is. Then the rest is trivial. Hire 10,000 really smart math people to be smarter then either you or I to work on it. I belive that is roughly the US gov't approach with the NSA.
Do you want it to be secure if so, none exist
on
Encryption by Hand?
·
· Score: 1
A one time pad might possibly be an example of the only shot at a secure example. Pretty much any other key based one is doomed. If you can do it in with pen and paper in a reasonable period of time, I can brute force the entire key space in no time flat. This is why they rate security systems in terms of time. If you want it to be secure, it had better be computationally time consuming, or I will just try all the keys and be done with the problem.
A one time pad with or some other secret knowledge where the security isn't in the difficulty of the computations to just brute force everything. However, if you have a secure way to give the ontime pad, it is probably easier to give the message in the first place unless you're sending an agent into the field.
Actually lots of PK methods are "easy" to do by hand with primes that are small (thus small key size). I have done it on pen and paper before with a calculator handy. Not secure, but educational, which is my guess for your desire to use it.
Okay, now I am a complete math geek, I am reply on slashdot to point out a possible flaw in a math joke...
You seem to be using one of the standard proofs for math induction. Or using math induction implicitly. Lets say n is the where the only interesting property it has is that is it is the smallest non-interesting number. Now you move onto m where n
This is a known problem with set theory, and why classes were invented. No I don't know the difference. But basically you have constructed a self referential set, which of is the common source of logical consistance issues. This is very similar to the barber problem. The barber shaves all people who don't shave themselves. Well, if the barber doesn't shave himself implies he shaves himself. ( A implies not A. The pain the horror... cats and dogs living together.... choas and madness). I know there is a resolution to the issue, but I have never read up on it.
And for my next trick I will prove to you it is in your best interest to give me all your money.
IPX: I have a cable modem, and don't do much in the way of Battle.net gaming. Just a personal thing I guess. So neither of those are issues for me. Basically IPX assumes 1-10MB connections with low latency thats the issues okay, I agree.
On the UDP point, I hadn't been paying that close attention. I was lumping UDP and the Diablo II setup into the pick an IP server.
The difference between IPX tunneling/Kali, is one costs money and the other some fairly significant expertise in networking (I couldn't set it up with out several hours worth of work). Not for the faint of heart either way.
I would imagine that setting up a bnetd server allows people out of both issues (unknown, haven't ever used one). I am sure that Blizzard is well aware that essentially if I decide to play the game, I can not much will stop me given enough time and money.
bnetd probably lowers the barrier to entry lower they what the deem safe for the copyright issues. Kali is also a centralized control that Blizzard can interact with. bnetd isn't because somebody can always provide the patch to disable the key checking. Where Kali can either watch for duplicate keys, or revoke accounts after some proding from Blizzard.
Either way, Blizzard is acting pretty much in their own best interest. They are attempting to protect there legally copyrighted works. I want them to do that. Not sure the DMCA is the way to do it however.
Finally, your claim that "Blizzard develops good games" so we should let them do bad things is bogus. Even if I agreed with you, Viviendi is freaking large, and just because a few programmers and artists that work there happen to be talented is no reason to allow a bunch of scummy lawyers to ride roughshod all over the rights of some independent software engineers.
No, be pissed at the laywers. I am all for it. Don't be pissed at Blizzard because you can't do what you want to do. Blizzard is providing for TCP/IP based game play without using the Battle.net servers at least for StarCraft (I haven't done much with Diablo II). Be pissed about the laws, but a lot of people are just pissed they can't play the way they want to. Blizzard actually listened and put out the tools to allow people to play they way they want to. Unlike the bastards at say the RIAA who go nope, no uncopy protected CD's for you. All CD will be copy protected, just be cause you want to use it in a reasonable way, we won't provide that unless we make more money off of it. Blizzard put out the patches for a 4 year old game for goodness sake. They are trying to "do the right thing" and protect their copyrights. I don't like the legal instrument.
They put out good games, and they want people to enjoy them. For goodness sake they are providing patches 4 years later for StarCraft. They are well within there rights to do what they are doing (Note I don't like that they have the rights, I want that changed. However they are within their rights or at least enough so to file a suit). Fix the root of the problems, not the symptoms was more my attempted message. Go after the DMCA, because it is a stupid law. Make sure you kill that, not Blizzard (actually if you kill the DMCA and Blizzard that is somewhat justifiable). Just be damn sure you get the law in the whole deal. You know what if everybody decides to boycott Blizzard and it puts them out of business, and the DMCA is still on the books all you have accomplished was to put a lot of talented hard working people out of a job. Even if it scares everybody for the next 10 years and nobody ever wants to enforce the DMCA for 10 years, it is still on the books and some fool could start this whole process over again.
I was unaware of any good arguments for the reverse engineering piece. I am pretty sure the law reads that if you reverse engineer and don't break any of the other rules it is legal. My only point was that I am not sure that would let bnetd off the hook.
For the record, I am planning to contribute to the EFF, and I am planning on writing my congressmen. I would like things to change, I just want to be sure I fix the right problems.
The CD Key is precisely an access control. You have to have one to play the damn game. I'll bet money that two people the the same CD key can't connect to the Battle.net site, or if they do consistantly that CD key gets shut off from internet play. I don't run windows, I do happen to own 3-4 official licensed copies of Starcraft so I can't check it out for sure. The fact that they allow a LAN play with the same CD is because they are being nice. I am fairly sure that is true of the Diablo II games also.
It still isn't a mitigating issue, they can't possibly give out the code for the CD Keys. Just be cause your willing, and unable to do something doesn't make it okay. Willing and doing would make it legal. Blizzard isn't required to divulge the secrets of their copy protection. The have centralized control with Battle.net of CD Keys, I know of keys that have been disabled on Battle.net. It IS a technology used to control access to content. It does control rampant copyright violations. It significantly limits a lot of the fun of the game if they decide to cut you off. They decided to be nice and allow piracy on a small scale and just let it go. Look at the spawning down in the original starcraft (not brood wars). It is getting around a copy protection technique. It is copyright that makes it illegal to do what you want with their content. Copy right isn't just the right to copy anymore, see the GPL... Copyright is what allows me to dictate terms to you about your usage, Copyright is the legal foundation of the GPL and is a nice legal lever.
It's not precisely niave. If I could force everybody who didn't vote to vote for the person I wanted, I could make micky mouse president by a landslide. You can't buy an election. Let me state that again, loudly and clearly. You can't buy an election. People vote for the guy with the best advertising, and the best PR. That costs money, but shit Forbes and Pero have more money then God and they couldn't get elected. They did try to buy the damn thing. The public thinks the guy with the best suit who shook there hand will do what they like. Having lots of money helps win an election. But it is appearing the right image that wins elections, which can cost money.
You can buy the right to have a Bill introduced into legislation. Elections are decided by people who vote. Last time I checked, paying them was illegal. It can be fixed, but people don't do it. Shit I have never voted personally, but I starting to realize I don't like a lot of the crap that is going on, and I'll be sure to vote next time.
I don't need any politicions to pay any attention to me, if you never re-elected the encumbant again until one of them did do what was in the best interest of those he represented the people in power would pay a bit more attention to the public. The problem is that the public goes along with whatever the guys at in charge say, and then forget that the guy in charge is only there becase we let him be there.
As to you're advice. I am not sure we are quite to the revolutionary stage just yet. The system has well known methods for fixing the problem. The issue at hand is that the public needs to start flexing it's political muscle. Remember, that America is the land of the sleeping giants. The American public can handily solve lots of the problems with the laws and politics by just doing what the founding fathers fought for. I'm not going to go breaking any laws, that's stupid. We setup a political system that doesn't need to use such stupid tatics as the first assult. We might have to finish that way.
When the American public decides to fix the problem, it will be happen. I'm just as cynical then you, but even I believe it can be fixed, I'm just not motivated yet. I'll be ready and at the voting booth next time. For gods sakes, for all the people who want to fix the problem. For my piece, I'll contribute to the EFF. I'll write a letter to my Congressman.
Buy the way, congressman can be bought for $10K on most topics it is just the incredibly stupid ones that cost millions. The real irony is that the American public is the ones who fund all of the bullshit operations that are attempting to take all our freedoms away. Don't buy any CD's for a year, I'll bet money the RIAA dries up and blows away. Don't go to any rent or buy any movies, and the MPAA will dry up and go away too! We want to be entertained so we fund groups that entertain us, and then won't give up the entertainment when they try and buy bills in Congress.
My guess is that they (c)(3) is covered by (b)(1)(b). Specifically, that given the current status, bnetd is allowing the bypassing of the CD Key check to allow TCP/IP network play. That is the technological measure that is being bypassed.
If you don't like that you can't play over the internet without Battle.net, return the game, and write a polite letter to the company explaining to them you will happily purchase the game as soon as it can play over a TCP/IP network that doesn't involve Battle.net.
I would imagine that (3)(f) is unimportant, given that I don't believe they are arguing that bnetd reverse engineered anything. I believe the specific problem is the CD Key check is not done.
The fact that Bnetd offered to put the check in if there was an explaination isn't really a mitigating factor. VUD or Blizzard isn't required to provide such information. If they did, some clever person would just turn it off. If Blizzard doesn't license you to play TCP/IP based games without using Battle.net well geez, you don't have that right. I don't have the EULA handy so I can't check it out. Especially given the patches and new functionality added to Starcraft, there is no reason (with respect to StarCraft) to use the bnetd server EXCEPT to avoid the keycheck. I am unaware of any other such events on any other games.
Blizzard isn't a bad company. I want to support them and I want them to produce new and innovative games. Legally, they are doing something that appears legal. Slimy and nasty, but legal. The DMCA is a legal law currently enacted in the United States of America. I think it is a stupid Bullshit law. But it is a law. We are a democracy in this country. If we don't like the laws we have a known procedure for fixing them. Vote the dirty rotten bastards who let it pass out of office. Vote a guy in letting them know that one of the specific reasons you voted for them was to get the repeal of the following list of stupid laws. Then make you're own personal list. Do something to voice you're opinion by getting the stupid law repealled and then you can avoid all these cases in one fell swoop.
IPX doesn't suck. That is foolish nonesense. It is very good at what it is designed for. It works well in a broadcast environment on a Local Ethernet Lan, which is precisely what the intended environment of StarCraft was targeting for. It is much more effecient then a TCP/IP implementation would have been (unless your OS has a crappy IPX stack and a very good TCP/UDP stack), especially given the original release of Starcraft. The game is what 4 years old?
Oh yeah the other problem with UDP is that it isn't broadcast over the internet. The lag is intentional if you're playing over a modem line. Because a modem line specifically doesn't have the appropriate thru put for the overhead of sending updates immediatly, so they batch them up and sent them in a group. Hence lag. Not TCP/UDP/IP or IPX. Nature of the beast on a modem line. It is intentional. Works the same way with Quake, Unreal, StarCraft and every other multiplayer game with real-time characteristics. The performance of the game would suck otherwise.
Starcraft does have a TCP/IP (using UDP) version go grab the latest patch. It came out 3-4 days after the Bnetd lawsuit story broke on slashdot if I remember correctly.
If you really want to people over the internet and the game only supports IPX, look into tunnelling IPX over TCP/IP. I know it can be done with pppd on Linux, but it has been a long time since I have brushed up on my pppd. Yes it might introduce some lag, but if your playing someone over a 33.6K or 56K connection, this shouldn't be surprising. Bitching about that is roughly akin to why morse code doesn't communicate as much emotion as a human voice over a telephone. Limited bandwidth is just that limited
I do understand that people aren't happy with Blizzard about the issue. I don't like the laws they are using to make bnetd go away. However, given a single license of Starcraft and a copy of bnetd there can easily be rampant copyright violations, I understand their desire to limit that possiblity. They have actually provided a reliable replacement for bnetd for starcraft in the 1.09b patch using udp. So nothing you want to legitimately do with Starcraft is limited by not having bnetd around. Okay it might be slightly more inconvenient but that is about it. I agree with you that going after the bnetd project the way they are is kinda slimey, but don't attack it on the grounds that you can't do what you want with the software. For any faults Blizzard has, fixing deficiences in software the bothers users is something that blizzard is very, very good at. It is why the sell so damn many copies and your still playing it 4 years later.
Actually didn't they start out to prove that RC5 was good, and that DES was bad? I was pretty sure that the original goal was to prove to the government that a couple geeky guys could break any encryption that was legal to export at the time it started, and that wanted them to extend from the lower number of bits to a higher number of bits. I know they can do DES in no time flat. I believe they were attempting to prove that a machine that can do DES in a day, can't do RC5 in less they several years, hences lots more secure.
Either way, they the only co-lo I know of in Texas is Rackspace.com. I don't believe they will give out space for free, but you could check.
I have worked several places where that is a fireable offense. The caught a couple of guys at it, and they got fired. Right there in the policy manual.
Slashdot Mirror
The gravity of a spherical object pulls equally in all directions on all of the internal mass. Once outside the mass all of the force pulls on you, and acts just like a point mass. Assuming the mass of this star is stable, thus probably symmetrical and spherical (possibly slightly eliptical in either direction), gravity should still bend it.
That is the way all central forces work. In reality, the mass at the north pole, and the south pole pull you in different directions, just the symmetry of the mass makes it act like a point mass at the center of the earth. The only way the light would be "free" is if the surface that radiated energy of the star is outside of the "point of no return".
Technically speaking, actually every electron is a black hole, it just so happens that the radius where it is is smaller then has any practical. Hell it is smaller then the radius of the electron itself. Same for the earth. Which is why the density what signifies what they refer to as black holes. However, absorbing the photons when they hit the mass isn't the only way to stop light.
Any old object can have more mass then a black hole, there isn't a critical mass where you "become" a black hole. There is a density where you become a black hole. It just happens that once you get a certain amount of mass you end up collapsing into a blackhole because the mass on the outside has no opposite force to oppose the internal collapsing in which I am guessing your average nuclear forces would keep that from happening to most regular objects.
Kirby
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
In truth in large companies, you have a 'stien or two, and an entire backup crew that could replace him. Literally, that is what I have seen in my brief tenures at large companies. One guy doing all the work, with a bunch of people who play along in case something happens. In small companies, A 'stien is the nearly the only way to stay in business. Can't afford a large crew. Can't get enough down with one regular guy.
Most of the problems you listed are probems anyways, just distributed over a larger group of people. Documentation and ECO's are always an issue on large projects. Unfortuantly, the solutions to them drive 'Stien's crazy and get them to leave. So as you prepare to deal with the problem, the problem happens before your prepared... Fun, fun. Saw that happen once. In a lot of ways, you need a good secretary to deal with mundane details for the 'Stien, but then everybody would want their own secretary...
Interesting thoughts. I might have to pick up the book to read what is has to say.
At times they were unpleasent to be around, but they could get the work done. They told customers the God's honest truth every last time. So they didn't get to work with customers any more. The two guys formed the core of a 30 person company. Pretty much everybody else there was to support the business of collecting the money and organizing requests for new development. That was it.
They worked 90 hours a week when needed. They didn't miss deadlines. They made star trek jokes, and weird references to esoteric math problems.
There is a difference between somebody who has jacked with technology, and a small crew of people who can get the work done on time everytime. The reason they were so incredibly valuable, was they avoided the single largest time consumer of developers. Communication, go read the mythical man month by Fred Brooks.
Working alone is a huge boon. Working with people who are highly focused and like to work along is quite a trick. Once you get good at it is extremely efficient. The couple of guys I saw working together would divide up the work and run off and work without much in the way of communication for a week at a time. They agreed on the fundamental interactions between the seperate parts, met that interface, the rest were details. They work alone because they don't need to communicate.
Most work is actually done alone, with infrequent reports. If communication skills are a problem, there is a problem. Your spending too much time communicating, more then likely. Great technical people don't communicate much inside the technical group because they shouldn't have to in a good group. They don't communicate with people outside the group because they consider the rest of us boring. Getting together in a big meeting to discuss progress is a waste of time. Having a manager who walks around and discusses individual progress is the way that is done. Having a meeting if they aren't getting it done to regroup in relatively dire situation is a good idea.
Having discussions with poeple who are lying about progress is a good idea. Firing people who continue to lie about performance, yep should do that. The best technical people never ever lie, no need to, they have valuable skills and understand that lying is a cardnial sin that will hurt thier professional reputation. All you have to do is ask, are you making progress. You'll have your answer, if they lie, fire them on the spot. If they don't make work on the assigned tasks, fire them, they aren't professionals.
Motivate them by giving them projects interesting projects. Give the multiple projects to work switch between if they are all boring, just to get a change of pace. Meet infrequently to discuss high level goals. Ensure the techincal lead is somebody who can bridge the gaps between the Engineering side, and the rest of the group. Make sure the lead does bi-weekly rounds, and keeps you informed of problems. The internals of a good Engineering department isn't something most people would like if they saw it. Just like I wouldn't eat sausage ever again if I saw how it got made.
Sounds like you had some bad employees who thought very highly of themselves. You probably had a couple of Einstien's and didn't know it. Not all of them are incapable of communicating. Quirky people who work odd hours aren't bad if they make progress and do the work.
The rest of them are slackers trying to pass themselves off as hard workers... Uhh, welcome to management. You get that if you work in an IT department all the way down to your local fast food place. Prima Dona's are a dime a dozen, Einstien's are a diamond in the rough. Keep the valuable stones return the high matiences low volume employess.
If you're secretary is a slacker, probably not much of a deal. If the guy who watches the database that is the heart of your company, is a slacker you have problems.
Axiomatic set Theory
Uhh, that should be: ( rpm -q -a && cat /path/to/blackList ) | sort | uniq -d
Sorry, didn't think long enough about it long enough. That will work on a RedHat machine.
Gotta have access to the RPM database though.
( rpm -a -q && cat /path/to/blackList ) | sort | uniq -c | grep -v 2
would list ever package on the black list. Now all a person would have to do is make sure the list is kept up to date. You could do the same with a white list, but it would be a bit more difficult then. Both have upsides and downsides. For remote attacks, a simple script that does the attack would probably do the job. A lot like a Satan does, or netsaint. I haven't kept up with either of those to know if they are still any good. It would be easy for RedHat and/or Debian to create a tool that will allow you to check outdated versions of a tool yourself.
For custom done scripts, use file, see if the it is an ELF binary, do a MD5SUM of it, then check a known list of MD5SUM's that are bad binaries. Okay, that really screws anybody who compiles there own and the tool puts in the name of the machine or __DATE__/__TIME__ or some such.
However, if you had a trusted source for binaries, it would work out quite well. Naturally most security oriented people compile their own. But then again they don't have these problems, they keep up to date.
Kirby
And we are incredibly off topic, but it is interesting...
B=P\S is currently a statement in logic. The english description of it, formerly was a "set". Prior to the current classes based definitions you could have stated the set of all sets, and other such nasties. The use of classes was to allow to define useful sets that do useful things and have them have known properties. The former formulations of sets allowed things like the set of all sets, the formulations including classes don't. Classes were introduced, specifically to allow you to construct the set in a well defined manner. They allow you to formally state that the set of all sets isn't well defined, and isn't a set. Prior to that, it would have been a legitimate set to use. This avoids lots of issues.
There is one significant difference between my definition of I, and the standard binary tree. The binary tree doesn't refers to unknown parts that aren't based on other parts of itself (actually your definition doesn't explicitly state that, but it would be a graph not a tree then).
Is 4 in I or not? Well yes it is. Is 6, not on the first iteration. Would be on the second. But if 6 is in there, then then 4 shouldn't be ( it isn't prime and you claim 6 is the smallest number not in there). Attempting to apply the definition inductively doesn't make sense. If 6 is in, then 4 shouldn't be.
The definition isn't an infinite intersection where you define I sub k to be I sub k - 1 plus the smallest element not in I sub k - 1. Let I be I sub infinity. I sub 1 is the set of all primes. Okay that is a fine set, and not at all confusing.
Now of course I just moved from informal to formal on you, and then claim you're legitimate observation isn't right. Just not quite what I was getting at. To me the original definition I gave for I is similar to the set of all sets with the nature of problems it provides. While constructing it, it would change a bit on you. I don't like that. It isn't very handy. Now all this might be exactly what you meant by a formal definition. Just attempting to use induction on the original definition doesn't make sense at all to me. This uses recursion in the construction, and so it is fine by me. Splitting a hair, I know, but that is what a lot of mathematics is all about.
It isn't clear to me that if 6 is included that 4 should be with the original definition, it's not a prime, and 6 is supposedly the smallest element not in I. Definitions which move are odd. Which makes it similar to the problems with the barber problem. There is nothing about a tree that has that sort of issue. A tree's definition is independent of it. Just because a 4 is over there in the tree, doesn't induce a 6 in this part of the tree. That is what I find odd.
Interesting discussion. Don't use the math background very often.
This statement if false.
They use to have a version set theory way back when, and it did not involve classes, and nothing in the definitions said that the barber's paradox wasn't a set. It isn't a paradox now, but it use to be one. It was a set by the former mathematical definitions. It was in fact a set that contained a contradition. You know how contraditions bother mathematicians so they went and constructed a new version of set theory, so it couldn't contain such problems. And there was much rejoicing in the land of the set theory gods. I don't have any books on set theory from the 1800's so I can't really double check that.
I mean self-referential, in the sense, that once you decide the state of an object, that affects the state the object is in. That is a problem with the barbers problem. I suppose recursive-like or some other adjective would have been more appropriate. Essentially there is a feedback loop in all of the definitions. The nature of the problem changes after each iteration of the definition, which is the problem.
I just assumed the definition of Interesting is x is a member of I if x is a member of the primes or x is the smallest number not in I.
Hence self referential. All this is what they taught me in College, Dr. Konvolina vould be proud I remembered all that.
Kirby
And yes interesting is a very poorly defined term too. That is part of the problem.
KIrby
- Big whoop the QPL says that. I can pick the GPL version of the license.
- Besides which, I can do it anyways as the copyright holder.
- Trolltech is the only company that can come after me for violation of the GPL/QPL, they probably won't if I just got done writing them a check now will they?
1. Did you know I can make local modifications to any GPL'ed program I want, and link in all kinds of proprietary pieces. It isn't until you distribute binaries of it that you are inviolation of the GPL. If the QPL has that extra term in it, and I have to license it under both, I am pretty sure that is an extra term and it isn't allowable under the GPL.Besides which, most of the dual licenses are an either or case, not a both case. Otherwise the Perl's GPL/Artistic license doesn't make anysense, the GPL is the only license because the Artistic license has a superset of the GPL's rights.
2. I am the original copyright holder of the code. I can re-release any code I wrote under any license I want. With GPL'ed code, I would have to not link to anybody else GPL'ed stuff or I am in violation of their GPL. However, if I wrote all of the original code, I to say lesszilla, my incredibly small 500 line web browser and I link it with Qt using the GPL license. If I try and release lesszilla under a new proprietary license and link with Qt I am in violation if they take me to court. I am still the copyright holder of the original lesszilla code. I can convert the lesszilla code to SPL (Soul-eating public license) which in essense says you owe me your soul if you have one, but you don't owe me any money and I don't owe you the source code. I just can't link the the Qt via the GPL version with the SPL. I could go buy a Qt license and link with that and release it. I am the copyright holder, I can change the license I want to use. I can't force the older GPL'ed version to be non-GPL'ed (I am in violation of the somebody else GPL if I link with GPL'ed code they have the copyright for). I do have to own the copyright for all changes however. So I have to becareful I have all of the documentation to prove I am the copyright holder.
3. Trolltech isn't stupid enough not to take my money. Depending on how the licensing works for them, they will more then likely charge me the current charges, or get me get me to pay for the license for the time during which I was developing it. They aren't stupid, they want my money, and I want to pay it to them, all that is left is deciding on the amount.
There are lots of things that look right in mathematics but aren't. Try doing the integral using rectacular cordniates to figure the area of the circle. Comes out 4 * pi * pi * r * r. If I remember correctly. It doesn't work, because that minutia isn't correct. Ahh, to harken back to the days of my real number analysis.
I promise no more replies
I am not familiar with the Solitare algorithm, I haven't ever read up on it. All the encryption schemes I have seen so far have a function D which takes the cipher text, and something other parameter to decrypt. If that other parameter is finite, plain text can be found, it is only a matter of time. I know D, I have cipher text. Bruce Schneier claims you aren't secure if you have to hide D. If you have to hide the cipher text, you might as well send it in the clear. If you use that same parameter repeatedly, like say in Public Key encryption, then I can break it over and over again, paying the time penalty once hence people want to make the penalty incredibly high buy using very large key spaces. If you use a one-time pad, I have to use that pently everytime I want to break your encryption so it is harder.
Hmm, and I thought RC4 did have problems. I'll have to go ask about that.
Right now the rights of the creators are getting stronger and stronger. The rights of the licensee are getting weaker and weaker. Basically, that is the way the pendulem is swinging. At some point, the pendulem will get to a point were people can't stand it anymore. Everybody will get fed up with it and stop funding the damn monster they created.
The largest problems with a lot of the trials to personal/fair use are issues with people not realizing what they are agreeing to. Most people never bother to read the EULA, they just click yes. Most people never read the FBI warning at the beginning of movies.
I got into a fairly touchy situation with my current employer. They wanted me to sign some paperwork that essentially said anything I did was they owned the rights to it.
I refused to sign it, and as I was at the time a completely irreplaceable employee I got my way. All that needs to happen, is for people to decide to become irreplaceable sales. I bet money if half the people on slashdot, decided to go without buying a CD for say 6 months. They specifically went to the store shopped for music they would buy and then didn't. Wrote the both the original artist, the artists agent, the record label, and the RIAA and explained that they lost a sale because the terms of "agreement" were unacceptable, things would change. Do the same things with DVD's. Save the money. Spent it on books. Spend it going the the movies. Spend it at live concerts. Give it to the band playing at the bar. Buy the CD's from the guys selling them out their trunk. Spend it on buying up music you like from independent artists. Donate it to the EFF.
I'll bet money the problems go away. One thing that a lot of groups have lost sight of is that money is power. The people do all the spending. Its not like the RIAA gets all that money in government grants and kickbacks. Their entire income is based on public sales, or licensing out work to other major industries. They would get it because they have to, because they go out of business. People just have to decide to fix the problem in the loudest way possible.
The public has all the leverage in the negociations, but they refuse to use it. It is commical to watch. Listen to the radio, listen to independent artists. For godsakes, don't download it off the net. Make the powers that be realize that even if Congress will give the power, we won't do business with groups who don't grant the rights we want.
The second one is while not exactly referential, is well useless. The Universial set has a description, which makes the definition of "interesting" pretty much useless. Because all numbers must be in it. This is like the idea that you should be able to do all geometric proves by replacing the words "point", "line" with the words "beer", and "chair". And the proves to work. The problem replace the word "interesting" which isn't very well defined, and replace it with "uninteresting" and the prove works just as well. Replace it with "not a number" and it works. Sorta like the quote about a "rose by any other name is still a rose".
Among other problems, the definition of "interesting" leaves something to be desired. It literally is meaningless in this context. There is no definition of interesting that isn't self referential yet.
The other issue with the "SNaRFt" example, is that well, either there are a finite set of choices that are only in human heads, which makes it nearly impossible to break. It also is a heck of a lot less useful. I can't say do it at 10:30PM unless there is some mechanism to translate SNaRFt into times, or that happens to be one of the finite set that a human can remember. While the mechanism you're talking about is sneaky and sly. Just ask the Germans and the Japanesse about how well sly works. They did both during World War II.
I'd much rather have an algorithm that is inheriently strong. So strong that I can give you plain text and ciphered text sets using the key I plan on using to transmit that I don't want you to read. As many as you'd like. I can give you the algorithm to go from the plain text -> cipher text. Then give you the mathmatical proof that it is strong, and describe all the known variations of the algorithm and the known weakness of the algorithms. Describe the key generation, and describe the set of weak keys. Then I can give you the schematics for hardware based encryption/decryption for it.
After doing all that, I want to be able to still have you have to be lucky to get it early in the keyspace search, otherwise the heat death of the Universe will happen first. Then and only then would I feel secure.
If you want to break those other schemes you describe. Hire a good looking woman or man to be a double agent, to sleep with somebody on the other end. You can find a surprising amount of information out that way. Capture and beat up the guy who knows what the algorithm is. Then the rest is trivial. Hire 10,000 really smart math people to be smarter then either you or I to work on it. I belive that is roughly the US gov't approach with the NSA.
A one time pad with or some other secret knowledge where the security isn't in the difficulty of the computations to just brute force everything. However, if you have a secure way to give the ontime pad, it is probably easier to give the message in the first place unless you're sending an agent into the field.
Actually lots of PK methods are "easy" to do by hand with primes that are small (thus small key size). I have done it on pen and paper before with a calculator handy. Not secure, but educational, which is my guess for your desire to use it.
You seem to be using one of the standard proofs for math induction. Or using math induction implicitly. Lets say n is the where the only interesting property it has is that is it is the smallest non-interesting number. Now you move onto m where n This is a known problem with set theory, and why classes were invented. No I don't know the difference. But basically you have constructed a self referential set, which of is the common source of logical consistance issues. This is very similar to the barber problem. The barber shaves all people who don't shave themselves. Well, if the barber doesn't shave himself implies he shaves himself. ( A implies not A. The pain the horror... cats and dogs living together.... choas and madness). I know there is a resolution to the issue, but I have never read up on it.
And for my next trick I will prove to you it is in your best interest to give me all your money.
On the UDP point, I hadn't been paying that close attention. I was lumping UDP and the Diablo II setup into the pick an IP server.
The difference between IPX tunneling/Kali, is one costs money and the other some fairly significant expertise in networking (I couldn't set it up with out several hours worth of work). Not for the faint of heart either way.
I would imagine that setting up a bnetd server allows people out of both issues (unknown, haven't ever used one). I am sure that Blizzard is well aware that essentially if I decide to play the game, I can not much will stop me given enough time and money.
bnetd probably lowers the barrier to entry lower they what the deem safe for the copyright issues. Kali is also a centralized control that Blizzard can interact with. bnetd isn't because somebody can always provide the patch to disable the key checking. Where Kali can either watch for duplicate keys, or revoke accounts after some proding from Blizzard.
Either way, Blizzard is acting pretty much in their own best interest. They are attempting to protect there legally copyrighted works. I want them to do that. Not sure the DMCA is the way to do it however.
They put out good games, and they want people to enjoy them. For goodness sake they are providing patches 4 years later for StarCraft. They are well within there rights to do what they are doing (Note I don't like that they have the rights, I want that changed. However they are within their rights or at least enough so to file a suit). Fix the root of the problems, not the symptoms was more my attempted message. Go after the DMCA, because it is a stupid law. Make sure you kill that, not Blizzard (actually if you kill the DMCA and Blizzard that is somewhat justifiable). Just be damn sure you get the law in the whole deal. You know what if everybody decides to boycott Blizzard and it puts them out of business, and the DMCA is still on the books all you have accomplished was to put a lot of talented hard working people out of a job. Even if it scares everybody for the next 10 years and nobody ever wants to enforce the DMCA for 10 years, it is still on the books and some fool could start this whole process over again.
I was unaware of any good arguments for the reverse engineering piece. I am pretty sure the law reads that if you reverse engineer and don't break any of the other rules it is legal. My only point was that I am not sure that would let bnetd off the hook.
For the record, I am planning to contribute to the EFF, and I am planning on writing my congressmen. I would like things to change, I just want to be sure I fix the right problems.
It still isn't a mitigating issue, they can't possibly give out the code for the CD Keys. Just be cause your willing, and unable to do something doesn't make it okay. Willing and doing would make it legal. Blizzard isn't required to divulge the secrets of their copy protection. The have centralized control with Battle.net of CD Keys, I know of keys that have been disabled on Battle.net. It IS a technology used to control access to content. It does control rampant copyright violations. It significantly limits a lot of the fun of the game if they decide to cut you off. They decided to be nice and allow piracy on a small scale and just let it go. Look at the spawning down in the original starcraft (not brood wars). It is getting around a copy protection technique. It is copyright that makes it illegal to do what you want with their content. Copy right isn't just the right to copy anymore, see the GPL... Copyright is what allows me to dictate terms to you about your usage, Copyright is the legal foundation of the GPL and is a nice legal lever.
You can buy the right to have a Bill introduced into legislation. Elections are decided by people who vote. Last time I checked, paying them was illegal. It can be fixed, but people don't do it. Shit I have never voted personally, but I starting to realize I don't like a lot of the crap that is going on, and I'll be sure to vote next time.
I don't need any politicions to pay any attention to me, if you never re-elected the encumbant again until one of them did do what was in the best interest of those he represented the people in power would pay a bit more attention to the public. The problem is that the public goes along with whatever the guys at in charge say, and then forget that the guy in charge is only there becase we let him be there.
As to you're advice. I am not sure we are quite to the revolutionary stage just yet. The system has well known methods for fixing the problem. The issue at hand is that the public needs to start flexing it's political muscle. Remember, that America is the land of the sleeping giants. The American public can handily solve lots of the problems with the laws and politics by just doing what the founding fathers fought for. I'm not going to go breaking any laws, that's stupid. We setup a political system that doesn't need to use such stupid tatics as the first assult. We might have to finish that way.
When the American public decides to fix the problem, it will be happen. I'm just as cynical then you, but even I believe it can be fixed, I'm just not motivated yet. I'll be ready and at the voting booth next time. For gods sakes, for all the people who want to fix the problem. For my piece, I'll contribute to the EFF. I'll write a letter to my Congressman.
Buy the way, congressman can be bought for $10K on most topics it is just the incredibly stupid ones that cost millions. The real irony is that the American public is the ones who fund all of the bullshit operations that are attempting to take all our freedoms away. Don't buy any CD's for a year, I'll bet money the RIAA dries up and blows away. Don't go to any rent or buy any movies, and the MPAA will dry up and go away too! We want to be entertained so we fund groups that entertain us, and then won't give up the entertainment when they try and buy bills in Congress.
If you don't like that you can't play over the internet without Battle.net, return the game, and write a polite letter to the company explaining to them you will happily purchase the game as soon as it can play over a TCP/IP network that doesn't involve Battle.net.
I would imagine that (3)(f) is unimportant, given that I don't believe they are arguing that bnetd reverse engineered anything. I believe the specific problem is the CD Key check is not done.
The fact that Bnetd offered to put the check in if there was an explaination isn't really a mitigating factor. VUD or Blizzard isn't required to provide such information. If they did, some clever person would just turn it off. If Blizzard doesn't license you to play TCP/IP based games without using Battle.net well geez, you don't have that right. I don't have the EULA handy so I can't check it out. Especially given the patches and new functionality added to Starcraft, there is no reason (with respect to StarCraft) to use the bnetd server EXCEPT to avoid the keycheck. I am unaware of any other such events on any other games.
Blizzard isn't a bad company. I want to support them and I want them to produce new and innovative games. Legally, they are doing something that appears legal. Slimy and nasty, but legal. The DMCA is a legal law currently enacted in the United States of America. I think it is a stupid Bullshit law. But it is a law. We are a democracy in this country. If we don't like the laws we have a known procedure for fixing them. Vote the dirty rotten bastards who let it pass out of office. Vote a guy in letting them know that one of the specific reasons you voted for them was to get the repeal of the following list of stupid laws. Then make you're own personal list. Do something to voice you're opinion by getting the stupid law repealled and then you can avoid all these cases in one fell swoop.
Oh yeah the other problem with UDP is that it isn't broadcast over the internet. The lag is intentional if you're playing over a modem line. Because a modem line specifically doesn't have the appropriate thru put for the overhead of sending updates immediatly, so they batch them up and sent them in a group. Hence lag. Not TCP/UDP/IP or IPX. Nature of the beast on a modem line. It is intentional. Works the same way with Quake, Unreal, StarCraft and every other multiplayer game with real-time characteristics. The performance of the game would suck otherwise.
Starcraft does have a TCP/IP (using UDP) version go grab the latest patch. It came out 3-4 days after the Bnetd lawsuit story broke on slashdot if I remember correctly.
If you really want to people over the internet and the game only supports IPX, look into tunnelling IPX over TCP/IP. I know it can be done with pppd on Linux, but it has been a long time since I have brushed up on my pppd. Yes it might introduce some lag, but if your playing someone over a 33.6K or 56K connection, this shouldn't be surprising. Bitching about that is roughly akin to why morse code doesn't communicate as much emotion as a human voice over a telephone. Limited bandwidth is just that limited
I do understand that people aren't happy with Blizzard about the issue. I don't like the laws they are using to make bnetd go away. However, given a single license of Starcraft and a copy of bnetd there can easily be rampant copyright violations, I understand their desire to limit that possiblity. They have actually provided a reliable replacement for bnetd for starcraft in the 1.09b patch using udp. So nothing you want to legitimately do with Starcraft is limited by not having bnetd around. Okay it might be slightly more inconvenient but that is about it. I agree with you that going after the bnetd project the way they are is kinda slimey, but don't attack it on the grounds that you can't do what you want with the software. For any faults Blizzard has, fixing deficiences in software the bothers users is something that blizzard is very, very good at. It is why the sell so damn many copies and your still playing it 4 years later.
Either way, they the only co-lo I know of in Texas is Rackspace.com. I don't believe they will give out space for free, but you could check.
I have worked several places where that is a fireable offense. The caught a couple of guys at it, and they got fired. Right there in the policy manual.