Not MMORPGs specifically, but the idea of providing a service with certain terms of use. I'm not sure that a civil case beyond terminating the contract would be succesfull, though, I should have clarified that.
It's not streaming because it's bi-directional - latency is actually a fairly minimal concern for streaming, assuming you've got enough bandwidth for a big packet. It's a really big deal for VoIP because you need to respond in a reasonable amount of time to what the other person is saying. That's why we don't call VoIP streaming audio - they have different characteristics. P2P works fine for streaming, except that BT (for example) is less efficent when you require parts of a file to come in order.
Re:Need a Dual G% with thier software...
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
I can field this one. It's because there's an underground pool at Sun full of retard-juice, and the entire goddamn marketing team lives in it.
This is the only worthwhile way to do it (and your output doesn't need to be XHTML+CSS, it could be HTML+CSS or even just HTML), because CSS 1+2, especially as currently implemented, is totally broken. You have to add non-semantic hooks (divs and spans) to your markup for pretty much any non-trivial layout. Non-semantic markup is dumb, because it breaks the whole point of semantic markup. If you want semantic markup, store your documents as pure XML and treat XHTML/HTML has a rich text/formatting language used for output.
The argument is something like this: SCO has inherited certain control rights over UNIX code. AIX and Dynix are based on UNIX. We think that IBM donated parts of AIX and Dynix to Linux that they shouldn't have. But because we don't know whats in AIX and Dynix, we need to get the source for all of those to compare to Linux and see what matches. Furthermore, because we already did this and nothing matched, we need to get all the intermediate versions of AIX/Dynix, because some programmer might have written something that never actually was released, and THAT then got copied into Linux.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous. And note that for it to make even the semblance of sense you have to totally ignore all the public claims SCO has made about knowing that there's copied code.
The article doesn't have all the detail - Groklaw has some more precise information. To clarify, SCO already had all the source for all released versions of AIX and Dynix, what they're getting now is (limited) access to intermediate versions of files (changesets between releases) and programmer notes.
Because Blizzard views it's job not only as selling a product but as providing a game. Blizzard doesn't think that a secondary (real-money) market in game characters and items is a good thing for the gameplay of WoW. Think about your basic tabletop RPG and wonder if it would really be better if you could by stuff by slipping the GM a fiver.
There's all sorts of "let me do what I want" people who say they SHOULD be able to do this. That doesn't really matter - Blizzard doesn't think a secondary market is good for WoW gameplay. Simple as that. And since MMORPG EULAs are about as legally viable as they get (straightforward terms of use for a service, tons of legal precedent), I don't think they'll have much of a problem pushing it.
I know I've been busy flaming you in some other threads, but I've got to give you a hats off here. I don't live in New York anymore but I worked there at the time of 9/11 and was there for the attacks. I get pissed off whenever someone on the other side of the country wants to tell me how upset and angry and dismissive of my rights I should be because of 9/11.
If they suspect that you have an adversarial relationship or may seek an opinion or damages from them, don't be surprised if they do not permit you to have a copy.
I can't imagine this is legal. I don't remember all the stuff I signed the last time I got x-rays, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a model release or anything. Surely your own medical records should be available to you, for any reason, whether you're an asshole or not.
It's important to note that the opposite applies as well - talk about this with a hardcore right-winger and all you'll get is rhetoric about Boxer, rather than direct addressing of the issues she raised. I don't think you can win in our current political system, really. Assume for a moment that Boxer isn't acting for her own political interest, but instead that she's genuinely concerned about Rice, and is making a stand based on those concerns and the moral beliefs behind them. How would her actions be different? People assume a political motive and dismiss the arguments because of it. The problem is that people who really care quickly become cynical and stop listening, and the people who are fantically politcal (both right and left wing here) are more intested in scoring points against each other. I don't know how to fix this problem.
Right. You're an idiot. Go to Israel, and be an outspoken supporter of the PLO and Palestinian rights. Don't blow anything up. See just how much you "don't have anything to worry about".
Hell, look at the history of the US for even more examples. You've heard of McCarthyism? It's happened before. It's happened here. In fact, it's happened everywhere. It's not some slippery slope argument, it's facing reality. It is an absolute fact that law enforcment in the US abuses it's power. Not on a conspiracy theory institutional scale, mind you, but on small personal levels. All over the US, every day. How many cops do you know that get speeding tickets? There isn't anything special about people in law enforcement, or in government. They're just as much people as you and me and that guy down the street, and they're just as moral or immoral. Power will be abused, period. That's why we have checks and balances, to try to limit the potential for abuse. Except that there's a growing contingent of brainwashed cockmongers who think that the FBI are magical guardian angels with no personal feelings, and no political agenda who should have all the power they think they need without any sort of civilian oversight. Yeah, that worked out really well in Soviet Russia, right?
Re:How about MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL?
on
MySQL CEO Interview
·
· Score: 1
You're missing the point. The people who recieve your product can not, as a practical matter, use it under the terms of the BSD license because it's tied to the GPL via the MySQL libraries. This is the case even if you support multiple back ends. This is exactly what people mean when they talk about the viral aspect of the GPL.
I would presume that the most egregious of the anti-Microsoft crowd (the kind who invariably post stupid crap in any discussion, MS related or not), probably hate Microsoft because it's cool. Jealousy is probably a pretty rare reason to hate Microsoft - this sort of claim is usually used by people to deride their detractors.
If the SQL standard weren't woefully inadequate, inconsistent, unclear, and primitive, then maybe we wouldn't have people fixing it. Open standards are great, but when the standard sucks it's not real usefull. It's not a big step away from database independence because there's never been any to begin with.
Re:How about MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL?
on
MySQL CEO Interview
·
· Score: 1
Well, no. If you write code under the BSD license, and then you merge that code with GPL code (by using the MySQL client libraries), then you can no longer distribute your code under the BSD license. Now, I'm not saying thats unfair or anything. But it's a fact. If you use GPL libraries, then your application will be distributed under the terms of the GPL. This is the viral part of the GPL in action.
Once again, I don't think that's neccesarily bad or anything. But if you want to distribute under a BSD license, then you are, as a practical matter, prevented from using MySQL. It's the same thing if you want to distribute a closed source app too, of course, but I think this matters more to many people because the BSD license is also OSS (and thus "on the same side"), and also because the BSD license is often percieved as being "more free" - and thus, using MySQL with your BSD application would make it "less free".
It's still a pipe dream, at least in my opinion. You can pick off some low hanging fruit like line endings and brace style, but it won't help at all with languages that have different scoping concepts. You can rename keywords, but unless you're able to directly map from one keyword to another, you won't get anywhere. And you won't be able to get back exactly what you wrote - you'll get an approximation generated from the structure. XML-as-programming-syntax wouldn't solve anything.
You know, I've always considerd that a bullshit saying. Every craftsman I know spends a lot of time and effort making sure he has good tools and materials, and won't be held responsible for a less than adequate product if he's not allowed to use the best material. It may be a poor carpenter who blames his tools, but without tools you aren't even a carpenter at all. With great skill and/or labor, you can overcome poor tools or other restrictions (Windows systems with 5 9s of reliability, Egyptian pyramids), but it's hardly the norm.
And yes, anyone who categorically bans OSS products is a frickin' idiot.
Re:How about MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL?
on
MySQL CEO Interview
·
· Score: 1
No, you're thinking in the wrong direction. A BSD app that's linked against GPL libraries can't be redistributed under the BSD license, and thus becomes de facto GPL. The BSD license is GPL-compatible, the GPL is not BSD-compatible.
20?!? Christ. Try like... 2. At least if one of them needs to do an update. JET/Access is a file-backed database, it's not designed for multi user access. It's fine for, say, application level data persistance. It's competition in OSS world would be SQLLite, which is a file-backed embedded database with a simple api. MySQL, while widely used for reasons I don't understand, isn't well suited for that kind of application because of it's client/server model.
There was some talk about porting OOo to either XUL or to wxWidgets (Qt isn't practical because of the license restrictions on Windows). What I got from the discussion is that a) porting to a new toolkit would be a boatload of work, b) it's boring work that nobody wants to do. and c) writing your own toolkit is intersting and fun. Simply porting VCL to the Mac turned out to be impractical because of basic structural differences (the wxWidgets Mac port runs into many of the same problems). The OOo project suffers from a pretty hardcore case of NIH, in my experience. It's possible that the writing off of a Mac port will spark more interest in a port to a new toolkit, though.
I dunno. Sure, they have a lot less cash than they did last year. But I bet you could get a high schooler to do almost anything for 37 million dollars.
I had exactly the same experience, except I went from 256 to 768 megs. I'll get a minor stutter on the way into IF, but that's all. I'm on a low-pop server, though.
He'd be totally wrong if he said that, too. HT isn't a magical concurrency generator any more than OS threads are. There aren't any magic concurrency generators. This guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, at least with regards to the two technical things he mentioned in the article (compilers and threads).
Slashdot Mirror
Not MMORPGs specifically, but the idea of providing a service with certain terms of use. I'm not sure that a civil case beyond terminating the contract would be succesfull, though, I should have clarified that.
It's not streaming because it's bi-directional - latency is actually a fairly minimal concern for streaming, assuming you've got enough bandwidth for a big packet. It's a really big deal for VoIP because you need to respond in a reasonable amount of time to what the other person is saying. That's why we don't call VoIP streaming audio - they have different characteristics. P2P works fine for streaming, except that BT (for example) is less efficent when you require parts of a file to come in order.
I can field this one. It's because there's an underground pool at Sun full of retard-juice, and the entire goddamn marketing team lives in it.
This is the only worthwhile way to do it (and your output doesn't need to be XHTML+CSS, it could be HTML+CSS or even just HTML), because CSS 1+2, especially as currently implemented, is totally broken. You have to add non-semantic hooks (divs and spans) to your markup for pretty much any non-trivial layout. Non-semantic markup is dumb, because it breaks the whole point of semantic markup. If you want semantic markup, store your documents as pure XML and treat XHTML/HTML has a rich text/formatting language used for output.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous. And note that for it to make even the semblance of sense you have to totally ignore all the public claims SCO has made about knowing that there's copied code.
The article doesn't have all the detail - Groklaw has some more precise information. To clarify, SCO already had all the source for all released versions of AIX and Dynix, what they're getting now is (limited) access to intermediate versions of files (changesets between releases) and programmer notes.
There's all sorts of "let me do what I want" people who say they SHOULD be able to do this. That doesn't really matter - Blizzard doesn't think a secondary market is good for WoW gameplay. Simple as that. And since MMORPG EULAs are about as legally viable as they get (straightforward terms of use for a service, tons of legal precedent), I don't think they'll have much of a problem pushing it.
I know I've been busy flaming you in some other threads, but I've got to give you a hats off here. I don't live in New York anymore but I worked there at the time of 9/11 and was there for the attacks. I get pissed off whenever someone on the other side of the country wants to tell me how upset and angry and dismissive of my rights I should be because of 9/11.
I can't imagine this is legal. I don't remember all the stuff I signed the last time I got x-rays, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a model release or anything. Surely your own medical records should be available to you, for any reason, whether you're an asshole or not.
There's nothing illegal about supporting the PLO. Not even in Israel. Like being a Communist in the USA circa 1947.
It's important to note that the opposite applies as well - talk about this with a hardcore right-winger and all you'll get is rhetoric about Boxer, rather than direct addressing of the issues she raised. I don't think you can win in our current political system, really. Assume for a moment that Boxer isn't acting for her own political interest, but instead that she's genuinely concerned about Rice, and is making a stand based on those concerns and the moral beliefs behind them. How would her actions be different? People assume a political motive and dismiss the arguments because of it. The problem is that people who really care quickly become cynical and stop listening, and the people who are fantically politcal (both right and left wing here) are more intested in scoring points against each other. I don't know how to fix this problem.
Hell, look at the history of the US for even more examples. You've heard of McCarthyism? It's happened before. It's happened here. In fact, it's happened everywhere. It's not some slippery slope argument, it's facing reality. It is an absolute fact that law enforcment in the US abuses it's power. Not on a conspiracy theory institutional scale, mind you, but on small personal levels. All over the US, every day. How many cops do you know that get speeding tickets? There isn't anything special about people in law enforcement, or in government. They're just as much people as you and me and that guy down the street, and they're just as moral or immoral. Power will be abused, period. That's why we have checks and balances, to try to limit the potential for abuse. Except that there's a growing contingent of brainwashed cockmongers who think that the FBI are magical guardian angels with no personal feelings, and no political agenda who should have all the power they think they need without any sort of civilian oversight. Yeah, that worked out really well in Soviet Russia, right?
You're missing the point. The people who recieve your product can not, as a practical matter, use it under the terms of the BSD license because it's tied to the GPL via the MySQL libraries. This is the case even if you support multiple back ends. This is exactly what people mean when they talk about the viral aspect of the GPL.
I would presume that the most egregious of the anti-Microsoft crowd (the kind who invariably post stupid crap in any discussion, MS related or not), probably hate Microsoft because it's cool. Jealousy is probably a pretty rare reason to hate Microsoft - this sort of claim is usually used by people to deride their detractors.
If the SQL standard weren't woefully inadequate, inconsistent, unclear, and primitive, then maybe we wouldn't have people fixing it. Open standards are great, but when the standard sucks it's not real usefull. It's not a big step away from database independence because there's never been any to begin with.
Once again, I don't think that's neccesarily bad or anything. But if you want to distribute under a BSD license, then you are, as a practical matter, prevented from using MySQL. It's the same thing if you want to distribute a closed source app too, of course, but I think this matters more to many people because the BSD license is also OSS (and thus "on the same side"), and also because the BSD license is often percieved as being "more free" - and thus, using MySQL with your BSD application would make it "less free".
It's still a pipe dream, at least in my opinion. You can pick off some low hanging fruit like line endings and brace style, but it won't help at all with languages that have different scoping concepts. You can rename keywords, but unless you're able to directly map from one keyword to another, you won't get anywhere. And you won't be able to get back exactly what you wrote - you'll get an approximation generated from the structure. XML-as-programming-syntax wouldn't solve anything.
And yes, anyone who categorically bans OSS products is a frickin' idiot.
No, you're thinking in the wrong direction. A BSD app that's linked against GPL libraries can't be redistributed under the BSD license, and thus becomes de facto GPL. The BSD license is GPL-compatible, the GPL is not BSD-compatible.
20?!? Christ. Try like... 2. At least if one of them needs to do an update. JET/Access is a file-backed database, it's not designed for multi user access. It's fine for, say, application level data persistance. It's competition in OSS world would be SQLLite, which is a file-backed embedded database with a simple api. MySQL, while widely used for reasons I don't understand, isn't well suited for that kind of application because of it's client/server model.
Right. If you want an ACID compliant database, don't use MySQL. If you really want an unusually slow filesystem, then go ahead and use it.
There was some talk about porting OOo to either XUL or to wxWidgets (Qt isn't practical because of the license restrictions on Windows). What I got from the discussion is that a) porting to a new toolkit would be a boatload of work, b) it's boring work that nobody wants to do. and c) writing your own toolkit is intersting and fun. Simply porting VCL to the Mac turned out to be impractical because of basic structural differences (the wxWidgets Mac port runs into many of the same problems). The OOo project suffers from a pretty hardcore case of NIH, in my experience. It's possible that the writing off of a Mac port will spark more interest in a port to a new toolkit, though.
I dunno. Sure, they have a lot less cash than they did last year. But I bet you could get a high schooler to do almost anything for 37 million dollars.
I had exactly the same experience, except I went from 256 to 768 megs. I'll get a minor stutter on the way into IF, but that's all. I'm on a low-pop server, though.
He'd be totally wrong if he said that, too. HT isn't a magical concurrency generator any more than OS threads are. There aren't any magic concurrency generators. This guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, at least with regards to the two technical things he mentioned in the article (compilers and threads).