No, I just don't memorise every single thread I read. When I read a reply, I can't see the whole thread you're replying to unless I click on all the links.
Well it's said that it was unusual that a really intelligent man couldn't remember his phone number. But who can actually remember their phone number anyway?
Intelligent use of NAT can get a lot of users into one IP
Why do that when you can have more IP addresses? Can you give me a SINGLE REASON why the maximum bits that are given for an IP address are 32? Come on, one reason. Why not 64? Why not 128? Is your bandwidth that small?
Why put 20 people into a 5-peron car when you can have 4 cars instead?
9 out of ten surfers only need outgoing-initialed connections (web surfing, email, instant messaging, IP-based broadcasting and legal music download software).
Of course, you yourself don't do that. You want to your own IP address, a full connection, but everyone else can fuck off behind NAT.
Well, fuck you. If you can get a full connection, then so can everyone else. If we have to go behind NAT, then so can you. If we can't have any static addresses, then neither can you. You're not special.
The Internet should not be held back just because the priveledged don't want to extend those priviledges to the rest of us.
Security wise, there's nothing NAT can't do that a properly-configured operating system can't do.
I really wish people would stop quoting more address space as a feature.
Yeah, because actually being able to have an address so people can connect to you over the Internet is a terrible thing... Better to have NAT where the Internet is only one-way, you can't provide anything, just be a mindless consumer of websites. And forget p2p, ftp, and all that crap. Oh and forget about the fact that corporations and universities in America each have as many addresses as the whole of Africa. As long as rich Americans have proper IP addresses, fuck everyone else.
First off, have you ever tried to enter an IP over a noisy phone connection? Now try it with eight 4-digit groups!
What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you should get a better phone. I see no reason why we should put up with sub-standard Internet just so your tech-support job is slightly more convenient.
Second, Do you have any idea how many dark/8s there are? Do you have any idea how many people have/8s that shouldn't? There is no IP shortage problem for now.
With 128 bits, everyone could have millions of IP addresses. Every household could give every computer its own address, every corporation would have enough to go round. Not having to pay through the nose to ISPs just for single extra IP addresses. No shitty dynamic IP addresses. No shitty NAT. What about the people who have/24s who don't deserve them?
Actually you may have a point. With American corporations/governments in control of the Internet, it will always be fucked up, with all the power and luxuries given to the rich American corporations, and everyone else getting shafted.
Between NAT, dynamic DNS, and application level protocols to negotiate ports, we don't have merely 4 billion IP addresses, we have 28147 trillion,
So please explain: if me and someone I'm trying to contact are both behind NAT, what number do I try to connect to if I want to directly connect to this computer, i.e. the whole damn point of the Internet?
Like has been said before, the people who think NAT is acceptable all want or have their own real IP addresses.
That thing about the phone number is bollocks. Even I can't remember my phone number. Anyone who wants to ring me already has my number in their phone, and I don't need to phone myself.
But then you end up with no reward for effort and achievement, so people don't bother playing the game as much. Then you end up with a game that's just another Quake.
As someone who pays an extortionate rate of £20/month for shitty 31k dialup because my phoneline is maintained by shitheads, then I am glad of this tax. It's about time those priviledged people were punished for having things better than me, and about time something actually went my way rather than against me, like 99.999999% of everything that's happened in my entire life..
Maybe now websites will not mean 150kb of download for 15kb of information (which is 90% fluff and filler).
Now excuse me I'm going to the toilet, that bottle of wine is working its way through. I'll have to get some beer tomorrow to last me the week. I hope they still have those 8 tins for £5. I can get 32 for £20, lasts me two weeks which is good value for money. I might even throw in a bottle of baileys as a treat for being so damn amazing at everything.
No, I am surprised that they outlawed an activity that everybody does. Downloading copyrighted works freely is not illegal if you have permission, like with indie music, freeware software, etc. IT IS WITHOUT PERMISSION that is illegal, and the fact that the decision seemed broad is troubling to me.
If you actually READ THE ARTICLE (yes I know this is Slashdot and therefore on average you're likely to be of below average intelligence), but this applies to UNAUTHORISED downloading. You can download freeware software. Most of this outrage is because slashdotters are stupid idiots who never think about anything. Also just because someone does something doesn't mean it's OK. People used to own slaves and take heroin.
I agree, but a question - what about images on websites and saving the to your computer for personal (non-distribution) use?
They weren't downloaded illegaly where they? No-one could object to that. But if you can't see the difference between that and between starting up your favourite p2p client and downloading MP3s then you're an even bigger idiot than slashdot moderators. Which is saying something because Slashdot moderators are more stupid than Linux Torvalds.
No, that'd put people off playing. If you charge by the minute it's the same problem as when dial-up charged by the minute: all the time you're on you're concious of how much it's costing you. When you know the charges are adding up and you're going to get a large bill, you can't enjoy it. With a one-off cost you can play all you want and your mind's at rest.
It's not even the amount that matters. £20/month for unlimited play means you feel a lot better about staying on for a while so you can enjoy the game more, even if the hourly charge means you pay less per month. It's the psychological aspect more than the financial aspect.
As for making MMORPGs more enjoyable:
1. Make the earlier levels more enjoyable. No-one likes spending weeks doing nothing but killing rabbits over and over again. Make it something interesting. A grind is never fun, it's like being at work only with no monetary reward. Find a new idea, rather than the tired old 'find mob, kill mob, loot, and repeat'. That got stale back in the 80s. Concentrate less on the graphics and more on the gameplay. If the game's fun, exciting and psychologically rewarding enough, you won't notice how good or bad the graphics are, you'll be immersed in the game no matter what. Even text-based MUDs can have more immersion than even the most technologically advanced graphical game.
2. Find a new genre. No, you're not Tolkien. Every single game doesn't need trolls, orcs and dragons. Nor magic spells. Get some new ideas. Every other MMORPG seems to be exactly the same. It's just Diku in graphical form. The ones which stray from the genre tend to be just based on graphics with little gameplay. Eve Online for instance seems to be a game for the purpose of displaying their 'fog' technology.
3. If you're having PK make it reasonable. You don't want high players going round killing every lowbie they find, but if you have a good situation, like a war, where each side is on different sides of the map, and PK is free across the sides but restricted on the same-side, then low level players can spend their time in and around their own cities with little danger, whilst the higher levels can go and wage war against similarly-skilled players. Of course each side can invade the other side's towns now and again, so there's always that distant vague fear that keeps the game exciting.
You can restrict the frequency and effectiveness of the raids with the right balance of defensive mobs which keep out or disrupt small groups of raiders allowing the newbies to get away, but not too high so a large group can get in. In the MUD I used to play, it worked like this: you needed a relatively large group to conquer a town. Of course large groups didn't form very often because you needed a large number of players on one side, and as the game was international it didn't happen very often.
4. Make the game rewarding and exciting. Killing mobs isn't exciting unless it's the first time. PK is always exciting, especially when you're unexpectedly jumped by mobs. Make the good equipment rare enough to be worth getting, so when you loot a corpse it's satisfying. I bet a lot of people can recall that feeling when you're playing a game and suddenly you find a great piece of equipment you hardly ever get. Although it can't just load in a predictable place, you need that feeling that if you get a bit of luck it could fall into your hands, if you get the right kill in the right place. That keeps it interesting, even boring situations can turn into great situations. Of course grinding-games like Everquest with fixed-mobs and fixed-loads will never be that exciting. Equipment can't load consistently, it has to be random. That evil dragon can't load the magic potion every time, it has to be say 1 in 5. And you can't find out 'till it's dead. That's what makes it exciting.
When you gain a level, it has to mean something, even at low levels. Going from level 1 to 2, or 4 to 5 should give you something on top of the number. New exciting skills, powers,
That's over 2% of their cash. Just for a single settlement. Not exactly a good result. It won't kill them, but it's another rusty bolt falling out of the Microsoft machine.
What on earth? A country bans an activity which is illegal practically everywhere else, and you're surprised? The only surprise is that this has taken so long.
When I saw the article summary, I knew, I just KNEW, that someone on this site would be there to try to make out that this is bad. Somehow, they'll find a way. Any single event in the world which in any way gets in the way of, or even frowns upon complete, unrestricted downloading of all material under any copyright, and someone on Slashdot will crawl out of the woodwork crying about how unfair it is. It's absolutely pathetic. You people just refuse to accept that there is such a thing as copyright law, and that no, you can't just do anything you want just because you're using a computer. For crying out loud, there are stories of people hacking into government computer systems, and Slashdotters are saying they should be rewarded for pointing out holes in the security system rather than punished.
Grow up.
1. If you're downloading it illegally, you're not a consumer. Consumers pay for things. Consumers have jobs.
2. 'Fair use' is something in U.S. copyright law, not Swedish copyright law.
3. Fair use doesn't include downloading it illegally.
People who steal physical things like that go to prison. People who download music just have to pay a fine. The fines need to be high to act as a deterrent. People think that because they commit crime behind a computer, and because it's so convenient, then they can get away with it. That attitude has to stop.
I'd *HATE* it if my ISP NATed me instead of giving me at least one real address.
There we have it folks. He thinks it's fine to put everyone else behind NAT, but he gets his own address. Can you say 'not in my back yard'?
There should be speed limits, but I'd *HATE* it if I was caught for speeding. There should be taxes, but I'd *HATE* it if I lost a huge chunk of my wages through taxes.
Here's a test: if someone says that everyone should have to do something, but he should be excluded, he's a fucking hypocrite.
Can you give ONE SINGLE REASON why it's a good idea to have only four billion IP addresses on a planet with a population of six billion? I mean really, one reason.
There aren't any. Extra bytes in the address field aren't going to bring down the Internet. The only reason we're stuck with this antique system is INERTIA. The Internet is being held back because no-one can be bothered upgrading. If all technology was like this, we'd all be using DOS on 386 computers because they were enough to run word processors, with people saying that GUIs are unnecessary because they just cause bloat and instability.
I'm pretty sure that all the people who say that NAT is acceptable all want real IP addresses themselves. It's just the 'lesser people' who have to go behind NAT. AKA hypocricy. Oh and do you realise that bittorrent and all your favourite peer-to-peer programmes are obstructed by NAT?
Servers? No, blocked. Just be a passive consumer like everyone else, forget actually having your computer play an active role on the Internet. Forget coding and testing your own interesting ideas for Internet server applications, just stick to what the industry provides. Unless of course you want to pay AGAIN to your ISP, even though you wouldn't actually be getting anything more for your money.
Games? You can connect to a central server, but don't expect any close-knit Internet games with your friends: you can't connect to each other. Even though the technology is there, you can't do it because of an arbitrary restriction on addresses. The MMORPG industry has to make money you know?
File transfer? Well, you can't just connect to your friend's computer to send him a file, you have to either e-mail it or use some server to hold it. Both inefficient for their purposes.
Websites? Well, you can pay for someone to host it, or a site with adverts, but forget doing it yourself. Even though the technology is there, the powers that be have too many vested interests in letting you do it.
Imagine NAT applied to phones: You can't actually phone anyone, because only the phone companies and rich people have phone numbers. All you can do is phone central systems and leave and read messages.
The Internet became so successful because of a huge amount of innovation and progress in a very short space of time. In order to progress it needs to grow and improve, not stagnate because it's too inconvenient to change. Perhaps instead of cutting off the analogue TV signal, they should cut off IP 4.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I just don't memorise every single thread I read. When I read a reply, I can't see the whole thread you're replying to unless I click on all the links.
Whatever "number" is assigned to that user for that connection.
But there is no IP address, so how do you connect? Say someone starts his own site, but he's behind NAT. How does he let anyone to connect to it?
I think NAT is acceptable, and I don't want or have my own real IP address.
Would you accept a similar system for phone numbers?
What the hell is that?
Well it's said that it was unusual that a really intelligent man couldn't remember his phone number. But who can actually remember their phone number anyway?
Intelligent use of NAT can get a lot of users into one IP
Why do that when you can have more IP addresses? Can you give me a SINGLE REASON why the maximum bits that are given for an IP address are 32? Come on, one reason. Why not 64? Why not 128? Is your bandwidth that small?
Why put 20 people into a 5-peron car when you can have 4 cars instead?
9 out of ten surfers only need outgoing-initialed connections (web surfing, email, instant messaging, IP-based broadcasting and legal music download software).
Of course, you yourself don't do that. You want to your own IP address, a full connection, but everyone else can fuck off behind NAT.
Well, fuck you. If you can get a full connection, then so can everyone else. If we have to go behind NAT, then so can you. If we can't have any static addresses, then neither can you. You're not special.
The Internet should not be held back just because the priveledged don't want to extend those priviledges to the rest of us.
Security wise, there's nothing NAT can't do that a properly-configured operating system can't do.
I really wish people would stop quoting more address space as a feature.
/8s there are? Do you have any idea how many people have /8s that shouldn't? There is no IP shortage problem for now.
/24s who don't deserve them?
Yeah, because actually being able to have an address so people can connect to you over the Internet is a terrible thing... Better to have NAT where the Internet is only one-way, you can't provide anything, just be a mindless consumer of websites. And forget p2p, ftp, and all that crap. Oh and forget about the fact that corporations and universities in America each have as many addresses as the whole of Africa. As long as rich Americans have proper IP addresses, fuck everyone else.
First off, have you ever tried to enter an IP over a noisy phone connection? Now try it with eight 4-digit groups!
What the hell are you talking about? Perhaps you should get a better phone. I see no reason why we should put up with sub-standard Internet just so your tech-support job is slightly more convenient.
Second, Do you have any idea how many dark
With 128 bits, everyone could have millions of IP addresses. Every household could give every computer its own address, every corporation would have enough to go round. Not having to pay through the nose to ISPs just for single extra IP addresses. No shitty dynamic IP addresses. No shitty NAT. What about the people who have
Actually you may have a point. With American corporations/governments in control of the Internet, it will always be fucked up, with all the power and luxuries given to the rich American corporations, and everyone else getting shafted.
There is no IP shortage problem for now.
I take it you have your own IP address?
Between NAT, dynamic DNS, and application level protocols to negotiate ports, we don't have merely 4 billion IP addresses, we have 28147 trillion,
So please explain: if me and someone I'm trying to contact are both behind NAT, what number do I try to connect to if I want to directly connect to this computer, i.e. the whole damn point of the Internet?
Like has been said before, the people who think NAT is acceptable all want or have their own real IP addresses.
Pi is a ratio between circumference and diameter. An irrational number is just one which can't be expressed as a ratio between two integers.
That thing about the phone number is bollocks. Even I can't remember my phone number. Anyone who wants to ring me already has my number in their phone, and I don't need to phone myself.
I'm afraid that record has been broken.
So how do you make a game both good for raids or PvE encounters, and PvP, without dulling both?
You design it properly from the ground up. If you lack ideas, go and see one of the game where player-killing is done properly.
I'm sure the goal of every MMORPG developer is to make the game crappy and boring.
Given on the mmorpgs I've seen, that does seem to be the case. It's a question of keeping you grinding up the levels to keep paying money.
Christ, you're just an Everquest fanboy.
The companies you described are all computer companies. What percentage of all companies ship computer systesms?
But then you end up with no reward for effort and achievement, so people don't bother playing the game as much. Then you end up with a game that's just another Quake.
As someone who pays an extortionate rate of £20/month for shitty 31k dialup because my phoneline is maintained by shitheads, then I am glad of this tax. It's about time those priviledged people were punished for having things better than me, and about time something actually went my way rather than against me, like 99.999999% of everything that's happened in my entire life..
Maybe now websites will not mean 150kb of download for 15kb of information (which is 90% fluff and filler).
Now excuse me I'm going to the toilet, that bottle of wine is working its way through. I'll have to get some beer tomorrow to last me the week. I hope they still have those 8 tins for £5. I can get 32 for £20, lasts me two weeks which is good value for money. I might even throw in a bottle of baileys as a treat for being so damn amazing at everything.
No, I am surprised that they outlawed an activity that everybody does. Downloading copyrighted works freely is not illegal if you have permission, like with indie music, freeware software, etc. IT IS WITHOUT PERMISSION that is illegal, and the fact that the decision seemed broad is troubling to me.
If you actually READ THE ARTICLE (yes I know this is Slashdot and therefore on average you're likely to be of below average intelligence), but this applies to UNAUTHORISED downloading. You can download freeware software. Most of this outrage is because slashdotters are stupid idiots who never think about anything. Also just because someone does something doesn't mean it's OK. People used to own slaves and take heroin.
I agree, but a question - what about images on websites and saving the to your computer for personal (non-distribution) use?
They weren't downloaded illegaly where they? No-one could object to that. But if you can't see the difference between that and between starting up your favourite p2p client and downloading MP3s then you're an even bigger idiot than slashdot moderators. Which is saying something because Slashdot moderators are more stupid than Linux Torvalds.
No, that'd put people off playing. If you charge by the minute it's the same problem as when dial-up charged by the minute: all the time you're on you're concious of how much it's costing you. When you know the charges are adding up and you're going to get a large bill, you can't enjoy it. With a one-off cost you can play all you want and your mind's at rest.
It's not even the amount that matters. £20/month for unlimited play means you feel a lot better about staying on for a while so you can enjoy the game more, even if the hourly charge means you pay less per month. It's the psychological aspect more than the financial aspect.
As for making MMORPGs more enjoyable:
1. Make the earlier levels more enjoyable. No-one likes spending weeks doing nothing but killing rabbits over and over again. Make it something interesting. A grind is never fun, it's like being at work only with no monetary reward. Find a new idea, rather than the tired old 'find mob, kill mob, loot, and repeat'. That got stale back in the 80s. Concentrate less on the graphics and more on the gameplay. If the game's fun, exciting and psychologically rewarding enough, you won't notice how good or bad the graphics are, you'll be immersed in the game no matter what. Even text-based MUDs can have more immersion than even the most technologically advanced graphical game.
2. Find a new genre. No, you're not Tolkien. Every single game doesn't need trolls, orcs and dragons. Nor magic spells. Get some new ideas. Every other MMORPG seems to be exactly the same. It's just Diku in graphical form. The ones which stray from the genre tend to be just based on graphics with little gameplay. Eve Online for instance seems to be a game for the purpose of displaying their 'fog' technology.
3. If you're having PK make it reasonable. You don't want high players going round killing every lowbie they find, but if you have a good situation, like a war, where each side is on different sides of the map, and PK is free across the sides but restricted on the same-side, then low level players can spend their time in and around their own cities with little danger, whilst the higher levels can go and wage war against similarly-skilled players. Of course each side can invade the other side's towns now and again, so there's always that distant vague fear that keeps the game exciting.
You can restrict the frequency and effectiveness of the raids with the right balance of defensive mobs which keep out or disrupt small groups of raiders allowing the newbies to get away, but not too high so a large group can get in. In the MUD I used to play, it worked like this: you needed a relatively large group to conquer a town. Of course large groups didn't form very often because you needed a large number of players on one side, and as the game was international it didn't happen very often.
4. Make the game rewarding and exciting. Killing mobs isn't exciting unless it's the first time. PK is always exciting, especially when you're unexpectedly jumped by mobs. Make the good equipment rare enough to be worth getting, so when you loot a corpse it's satisfying. I bet a lot of people can recall that feeling when you're playing a game and suddenly you find a great piece of equipment you hardly ever get. Although it can't just load in a predictable place, you need that feeling that if you get a bit of luck it could fall into your hands, if you get the right kill in the right place. That keeps it interesting, even boring situations can turn into great situations. Of course grinding-games like Everquest with fixed-mobs and fixed-loads will never be that exciting. Equipment can't load consistently, it has to be random. That evil dragon can't load the magic potion every time, it has to be say 1 in 5. And you can't find out 'till it's dead. That's what makes it exciting.
When you gain a level, it has to mean something, even at low levels. Going from level 1 to 2, or 4 to 5 should give you something on top of the number. New exciting skills, powers,
That's over 2% of their cash. Just for a single settlement. Not exactly a good result. It won't kill them, but it's another rusty bolt falling out of the Microsoft machine.
If it's that cheap why bother with piracy and risk a $10,000 fine?
What on earth? A country bans an activity which is illegal practically everywhere else, and you're surprised? The only surprise is that this has taken so long.
When I saw the article summary, I knew, I just KNEW, that someone on this site would be there to try to make out that this is bad. Somehow, they'll find a way. Any single event in the world which in any way gets in the way of, or even frowns upon complete, unrestricted downloading of all material under any copyright, and someone on Slashdot will crawl out of the woodwork crying about how unfair it is. It's absolutely pathetic. You people just refuse to accept that there is such a thing as copyright law, and that no, you can't just do anything you want just because you're using a computer. For crying out loud, there are stories of people hacking into government computer systems, and Slashdotters are saying they should be rewarded for pointing out holes in the security system rather than punished.
Grow up.
1. If you're downloading it illegally, you're not a consumer. Consumers pay for things. Consumers have jobs.
2. 'Fair use' is something in U.S. copyright law, not Swedish copyright law.
3. Fair use doesn't include downloading it illegally.
You are wrong. I've seen that raising fines or penalties doesn't lower the crimes.
Tell that to Singapore. Game. Set. Match.
In the words of the Singapore President: "People understand fines."
People who steal physical things like that go to prison. People who download music just have to pay a fine. The fines need to be high to act as a deterrent. People think that because they commit crime behind a computer, and because it's so convenient, then they can get away with it. That attitude has to stop.
Most companies don't ship products based on free software at all, so that doesn't really mean a lot.
I'd *HATE* it if my ISP NATed me instead of giving me at least one real address.
There we have it folks. He thinks it's fine to put everyone else behind NAT, but he gets his own address. Can you say 'not in my back yard'?
There should be speed limits, but I'd *HATE* it if I was caught for speeding.
There should be taxes, but I'd *HATE* it if I lost a huge chunk of my wages through taxes.
Here's a test: if someone says that everyone should have to do something, but he should be excluded, he's a fucking hypocrite.
Can you give ONE SINGLE REASON why it's a good idea to have only four billion IP addresses on a planet with a population of six billion? I mean really, one reason.
There aren't any. Extra bytes in the address field aren't going to bring down the Internet. The only reason we're stuck with this antique system is INERTIA. The Internet is being held back because no-one can be bothered upgrading. If all technology was like this, we'd all be using DOS on 386 computers because they were enough to run word processors, with people saying that GUIs are unnecessary because they just cause bloat and instability.
I'm pretty sure that all the people who say that NAT is acceptable all want real IP addresses themselves. It's just the 'lesser people' who have to go behind NAT. AKA hypocricy. Oh and do you realise that bittorrent and all your favourite peer-to-peer programmes are obstructed by NAT?
Servers? No, blocked. Just be a passive consumer like everyone else, forget actually having your computer play an active role on the Internet. Forget coding and testing your own interesting ideas for Internet server applications, just stick to what the industry provides. Unless of course you want to pay AGAIN to your ISP, even though you wouldn't actually be getting anything more for your money.
Games? You can connect to a central server, but don't expect any close-knit Internet games with your friends: you can't connect to each other. Even though the technology is there, you can't do it because of an arbitrary restriction on addresses. The MMORPG industry has to make money you know?
File transfer? Well, you can't just connect to your friend's computer to send him a file, you have to either e-mail it or use some server to hold it. Both inefficient for their purposes.
Websites? Well, you can pay for someone to host it, or a site with adverts, but forget doing it yourself. Even though the technology is there, the powers that be have too many vested interests in letting you do it.
Imagine NAT applied to phones: You can't actually phone anyone, because only the phone companies and rich people have phone numbers. All you can do is phone central systems and leave and read messages.
The Internet became so successful because of a huge amount of innovation and progress in a very short space of time. In order to progress it needs to grow and improve, not stagnate because it's too inconvenient to change. Perhaps instead of cutting off the analogue TV signal, they should cut off IP 4.
Cancelling the BBC's charter would be absolute political suicide for any party. Not going to happen, no matter how much further the BBC dumbs down.
The BBC should be allowed to offer whatever services they want, as long as they keep the quality higher than commercial alternatives.