What about the part in the very same book where Hathcock pinned down a battallion of Viet Cong by staying in one vantage point, and offing a few of them? Isn't that more indicative of the tactic that this system is trying to exploit?
Presumably, the case that you cite isn't relevant because it's an assassination and, well, they target is already dead.
Not because I like AOL so much, but because SPF and AOL IM.
I wonder if that's what MS is really after. Buying AOL would remove three thorns in their side by limiting google, trumping SPF with their proprietary crap, and making huge inroads into the IM space.
where I work, we were contacted by the RIAA telling us that one of our IP numbers was hosting music and we were in violation of copyright.
It was in a block of addresses that wasn't routable (no BGP advert). We didn't respond.
I subscribe to the WSJ online, and have for a while. I usually read the WashPost online, but since you can't pay for the online content, I still get a dead tree version. I pay around 28/month to get it delivered.
I still like the dead tree version (of the Post), but I read a lot more of the content online, and would probably go strictly online, if they had a subscription model.
And I do know that I can get the Journal free by swiping a copy from the mail room, and I only have to go to Starbucks to get a free used copy of the Post that someone left lying around, but it's a resource that I value, and I'm willing to support it if I can.
I think it's a bigger deal because of the law enforcement that we have to deter this sort of thing. Even though it's a problem here, it's a problem that our government is working on.
That may not be the case in a foreign country.
Thanks for the reply. But, not aiming your weapon and not having anything to shoot are different things. One could look at that stat, and have it easily explained that most combat is over by the time it takes to run for cover. Running from a mortar shell, ducking from machine gun fire doesn't give you a chance to fire back. I'd be willing to bet that during the American Civil War, the percentage of infantry who fired their weapon was a bit higher, even though there wasn't enough ammo to spend much time shooting at targets (whether bullseye or silhouette shaped).
My larger point is that the percentage of people shooting at a target isn't dependent on the shape of the silhouette they practice on. It just makes it easier to score "hits".
Any newspaper of the last few years, our collective history of warfare in even the latest century should dispell any notion that violence needs to be conditioned into someone. Take a look at Rwanda, Darfur or Serbia over the last ten years and tell me how much you think that person shaped silhouettes made the difference in the amount of people killed.
Do you happen to have a cite for the bullseye line?
I was in the military from 88 - 93, and we did a fair bit of shooting at bullseyes. Except for 500 yard shooting, it was mostly bullseyes.
It's somewhat doubtful to me that most World War I soldiers and Marines were incapable of shooting at live targets due to never shooting at people. If anything, I would expect green troops to have poor fire discipline due to the novelty of trench warfare, but that's about it.
I also don't recall any historical narratives citing any soldiers on a large scale not aiming at anything.
I don't know if this is right... but I think patents started off as a way to be the only one to profit from an invention. Say I invented a stove, rifle, or anything else. That wouldn't stop people from using my techniques to build a stove, or anything, it would just stop them from being able to sell it.
I tend to think the idea of patents got co-opted to where that wasn't the case, and now software patents have become essentially copyrights for works that are too small to qualify for copyrights themselves.
I can't help but see this latest crackdown as an attempt to boost XBOX sales. That might sound weird, but MS doesn't get a cut of PC games that run on pirated PC platforms. It's possible that MS' reasoning is that in order to generate revenue from games, it needs those games to run on XBOX platforms.
Soon, the mainstream gamer's choice will be Linux, PS2/3, or PC. Since the cost of the PC platform just doubled for the hobbyist, XBOX is the next big player.
The reason that the price doubled is that, at least according to a story on the reg, the OEM license can't be transferred. So, instead of paying $89 for Windows, with the purchase of a Mobo, you're now paying $89 everytime you upgrade your proc (or $189 for the retail version).
I personally have licensed versions of 98, 2000, and XP Pro. XP Pro is on a laptop - too slow for most games. 2000 is an OEM version, since invalid because I've upgraded my processor and mobo. 98 is - well, it's turned off. I haven't provided MS any revenue since early 2002.
So, the next time EA launches a game, with the need to have the latest DirectX driver, I'll most likely be unable to play it on my 2000 box, or my laptop.
Personally, I'll do without, but I could easily see someone justifying the purchase of the same game and an XBOX. I think that might be what MS is hoping for - to stop PC games from competing with the XBOX.
Maybe he doesn't get credit for HDTV because he forced the industry into adopting DRM and people here are a bit resentful. Does the broadcast flag ring a bell?
And what the hell does deregulation of the internet mean?
As long as it's still ok to outsource
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I've saved tons of money and time by having my online gaming done via a third party in a foreign country.
Slashdot Mirror
Martian porn takes too long to download.
That pixel is actually a poorly rendered human head.
I'm not sure the EFF is a lobbying group. IPAC is a lobbying group. www.ipaction.org
As long as people continue to post the original content to usenet, I guess I don't have a problem with this.
and an E3 in the other services ain't a corporal either. Corporal is E4.
What about the part in the very same book where Hathcock pinned down a battallion of Viet Cong by staying in one vantage point, and offing a few of them? Isn't that more indicative of the tactic that this system is trying to exploit?
Presumably, the case that you cite isn't relevant because it's an assassination and, well, they target is already dead.
Wouldn't they get sued by the Beatles at that point? I thought they couldn't use the Apple trademark in the recording business.
Not because I like AOL so much, but because SPF and AOL IM. I wonder if that's what MS is really after. Buying AOL would remove three thorns in their side by limiting google, trumping SPF with their proprietary crap, and making huge inroads into the IM space.
where I work, we were contacted by the RIAA telling us that one of our IP numbers was hosting music and we were in violation of copyright. It was in a block of addresses that wasn't routable (no BGP advert). We didn't respond.
In an attempt to further control, Onstar designs and builds a new model, dubbed the "Aztek". Months later, it commits suicide.
That's really odd. I have a MB convertible too, and there's no easy way to plug in an mp3 player. Did he rip out the factory stereo?
You mean Medal of Freedom, right?
This is an unfair, offbase, and needlessly harsh attack. According to Microsoft, the software that is installed is no longer considered to by SpyWare.
And watch the first 4 grand be spent changing the official name to the GNULinuxFund
I subscribe to the WSJ online, and have for a while. I usually read the WashPost online, but since you can't pay for the online content, I still get a dead tree version. I pay around 28/month to get it delivered. I still like the dead tree version (of the Post), but I read a lot more of the content online, and would probably go strictly online, if they had a subscription model. And I do know that I can get the Journal free by swiping a copy from the mail room, and I only have to go to Starbucks to get a free used copy of the Post that someone left lying around, but it's a resource that I value, and I'm willing to support it if I can.
I think it's a bigger deal because of the law enforcement that we have to deter this sort of thing. Even though it's a problem here, it's a problem that our government is working on. That may not be the case in a foreign country.
My larger point is that the percentage of people shooting at a target isn't dependent on the shape of the silhouette they practice on. It just makes it easier to score "hits".
Any newspaper of the last few years, our collective history of warfare in even the latest century should dispell any notion that violence needs to be conditioned into someone. Take a look at Rwanda, Darfur or Serbia over the last ten years and tell me how much you think that person shaped silhouettes made the difference in the amount of people killed.
Do you happen to have a cite for the bullseye line? I was in the military from 88 - 93, and we did a fair bit of shooting at bullseyes. Except for 500 yard shooting, it was mostly bullseyes. It's somewhat doubtful to me that most World War I soldiers and Marines were incapable of shooting at live targets due to never shooting at people. If anything, I would expect green troops to have poor fire discipline due to the novelty of trench warfare, but that's about it. I also don't recall any historical narratives citing any soldiers on a large scale not aiming at anything.
offtopic, but http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/170-1113200 2-137.html
Try ipac. www.ipaction.org
I don't know if this is right... but I think patents started off as a way to be the only one to profit from an invention. Say I invented a stove, rifle, or anything else. That wouldn't stop people from using my techniques to build a stove, or anything, it would just stop them from being able to sell it. I tend to think the idea of patents got co-opted to where that wasn't the case, and now software patents have become essentially copyrights for works that are too small to qualify for copyrights themselves.
Once they're bought, they stay bought.
I can't help but see this latest crackdown as an attempt to boost XBOX sales. That might sound weird, but MS doesn't get a cut of PC games that run on pirated PC platforms. It's possible that MS' reasoning is that in order to generate revenue from games, it needs those games to run on XBOX platforms. Soon, the mainstream gamer's choice will be Linux, PS2/3, or PC. Since the cost of the PC platform just doubled for the hobbyist, XBOX is the next big player. The reason that the price doubled is that, at least according to a story on the reg, the OEM license can't be transferred. So, instead of paying $89 for Windows, with the purchase of a Mobo, you're now paying $89 everytime you upgrade your proc (or $189 for the retail version). I personally have licensed versions of 98, 2000, and XP Pro. XP Pro is on a laptop - too slow for most games. 2000 is an OEM version, since invalid because I've upgraded my processor and mobo. 98 is - well, it's turned off. I haven't provided MS any revenue since early 2002. So, the next time EA launches a game, with the need to have the latest DirectX driver, I'll most likely be unable to play it on my 2000 box, or my laptop. Personally, I'll do without, but I could easily see someone justifying the purchase of the same game and an XBOX. I think that might be what MS is hoping for - to stop PC games from competing with the XBOX.
Maybe he doesn't get credit for HDTV because he forced the industry into adopting DRM and people here are a bit resentful. Does the broadcast flag ring a bell? And what the hell does deregulation of the internet mean?
I've saved tons of money and time by having my online gaming done via a third party in a foreign country.