The idea is called "Loser Pays" and it has been proposed many times as a solution to frivolous litigation. MANY states have considered bills in the legislature that propose implementing some sort of "Loser Pays" system, but it has stiff opposition because lawyers don't like tort reform limiting their income, especially if they are also individually liable for damages as some plans propose.
Google should help you find out all it.
BTW, politically, such proposals almost always come from the Republicans and are opposed by Democrats since attorneys tend to donate and lean to the left. That's not important information, but I think it's fun to point it out and tweak the many leftists here on the/. [*tweak!*]
Feh, this is Mr. Dissenting Opinion here, and I have to disagree a little. I think marketing, lobbying, cash and even quality have a LOT less to do with success than other uncomplicated factors such as simply meeting a need people want (and quickly). I mean, where's the freakin' N-Gage? AOL grew up connecting groups of chatters together. Beta was better but VHS had a head start and was good *enough*. Microsoft should be a much larger player in the Database, HTTP and SMTP server markets for as much money as they spend on promotion. Linux is able to meet needs largely because it is robust, flexible and has convenient licensing that lends itself to experimentation. [I don't have to throw $500K and two years into licensing and development just to find out that my application isn't going to work as I expected.]
Pardon my ignorance, but what's an ABI? Specifically, I mean. I know what an API is, and Google can find usenet postings from programmers referring to ABIs going back as far as ten years at least (so I know their lawyers didn't make it up), but it's an obscure enough term that whatis.com and webopedia.com don't list it in their uberglossaries.
So, can someone explain/define "Application Binary Interface" as SCO is using the term?
IIRC, some manufacturers already have those, but I think the limit is 95MPH or 110MPH or so. My Ford won't rev over 4000RPM because of an arrestor, but that's when it's not in gear and I believe it's to prevent damage to the engine.
After sleeping on it, you're right. I probably got emotional and unfairly mixed two distinctly separate issues out of pent-up frustration.
I'm sorry.
The sniper issue is, indeed, separate from cheater issue. In fact, there are some people who just enjoy cheater games more because it's a different challenge to play cheats with other cheaters because it's more fun (like one-shot-kill UT) - that's fine. As long as everyone on the map is playing the same rules, that's an entirely valid way to play and I don't have any problem with snipers or aimbots or wallhacks or any of it. What I have a problem with is I'm trying to learn how to use a flashbang or a sniper rifle, and I never get a chance because I'm dumped in with 14 year olds who don't have jobs and play this thing 16 hours a day.
It just isn't any fun, but maybe that's my real complaint: it's difficult to find appropriate opponents and game rules.
I think that multi-player game designers need to put a little more effort into making it easier to find appropriate opponents to match up against. Cheats and extreme rules should be allowed (and even built into the official game engine) but managed so that hacks don't have to be developed to give players an unfair advantage.
Perhaps certain maps and servers could implement a player skill handicapping/rating system: You earn points by killing players ranked higher than you, earning commendations and completing objectives. (maybe games like BF1942 could use a army rank model, where you work your way from "Private" up to "5* General".) The skill points give you access to better weapons, information and bonuses on objective maps, but handicap you against weaker opponents on public free-for-all maps.
You should also be able to search the server list for cheat servers, no-cheat servers, no-sniper servers, realistic servers, extreme game servers and so on. Subspace/Continuum does a good job of letting different servers run different rules, so it's easy to tell you're entering a one-shot-kill game, but then the bullets in ss/c move a lot slower, too.
I don't think it's a lack of skill with the controls. I've been through all three of the HL single player games (Half Life, Opposing Force and Blue Shift) start to finish at least three or four times each, so I know my way around the engine and the combat controls (I even tweaked 'em to make them significantly more usable) and that's why this is so frustrating: I understand there's a learning curve, and I even expect to be bad at it for a while, but I shouldn't just die immediately like my bullets (even when they hit) have been reduced to 25% effectiveness, and his are quadrupled!
Heck, I was bad at Half-Life when I started playing that. I spent four hours one night driving a stock unmodified Nissan 280ZX around a test track at low speed in Gran Turismo to learn how to turn corners without spinning out. Madden? Don't ask -- at first, I couldn't even complete a pass on normal skill levels.
But that's the thing, if I'm bad at it, fine, but I *should* get better as I play, and I'm not. As far as I can tell, skill has nothing to do with it because the opponents are so effective I can't believe they're not cheating. If I do something stupid and walk into an ambush and five guys (or even 1 guy) shoots me into hamburger because I don't know the map is one thing, but "*bip* you're dead" with not even a chance at defending yourself? Random death just isn't any fun.
Besides, if you need to learn your way around playing the SP versions, how do you justify even selling a retail version of CS since it's a multi-player only game? Where are you *supposed* to learn? (Sure, you can create your own server and walk around the maps by yourself, but where's the fun in that?!)
Maybe the solution is for multi-player FPSs to incorporate a skill level system with gameplay and gameplay-rules preferences. That way us noobs can find a beginners-only no-sniper low damage game to develop our skills in with similarly skilled opponents that won't frustrate everyone, ourselves included.
What I know about snipers comes primarily from experimenting with Half-Life/CS. Snipers (and especially cheaters) make the game is unplayable because I cannot survive long enough to learn how to play.
First round, I walk out of a building and BAM! I'm dead -- one shot from about 200m away.
I wait until next round, walk out of the start zone and BAM! I'm dead again. This time I got to return fire before dropping.
Next round, I actually saw him first and hit him three times including a head shot (hey, I'm getting the hang of this!) but he doesn't fall. He spins, looks at me funny and BAM! I die again.
So, I don't play anymore. The lousy, cheating wannabe jerks can have their stupid game. I'm just glad I didn't pay for it.(*) (if I had, I'd have returned it with extreme predjudice.)
[(*) Just to clarify: by "didn't pay for it", I mean that I **PURCHASED** Half-Life single-player and **DOWNLOADED** CS for free instead of paying for the CS retail version. I don't want anyone mad at me!]
And now, from the "demented conspiracy" section of *my* *brain*, comes the following twisted-beyond-repair illogic:
1) SCO has, so far, *threatened* lawsuits against US users, but hasn't actually followed through yet because (I surmise) they know they'll lose.
2) (Lawyer, please!) If SCO files a suit in a US court against an entity who fails to show up to defend themselves (like, say, some dude from the UK where US law does not apply and who, therefore, doesn't give a rat's ass about paying to put high-priced attorneys on a plane to Utah), then SCO wins, right?
------------
3) Therefore, SCO's strategy is to get some quick default wins in court against defendants who won't show up to get some quick PR validation so they can move forward with the sale of the company and assets.
Is this stretching it maybe?...a bit?...anyone think there's anything to this idea?
I pity people who think democracy is supposed to be easy and painless. It's not. It's an argument, and even though it does get ugly once in a while, it teaches us to maintain our civility. What do you think of the Florida 2000 election now? At least we had chads to argue about.
In Windows Explorer, it undoes the last file operation....
...well, it undoes SOME file operations, but not others, as I found out the hard way:
I was at a client's site a few years ago moving some data files around on their NT server and archiving old things that weren't needed anymore. As a part of this, I renamed a "particularly named" folder and hit [ENTER] just as the thought occurred to me that I needed the exact spelling of the original folder name before I changed it. So, without thinking I hit [CTRL]+[Z] to change the name back figuring I could just copy the name to the clipboard and rename it again. HOWEVER, instead of un-doing the recent "folder rename" operation, it undid a much earlier "folder COPY" without telling me which folder or where it was located!
Luckly, I was able to retrace my steps and figure it out well enough to put everything right, but NO MORE HAVE I *EVER* [CTRL]+[Z]'d in Explorer again!
Why is this new "anti-Linux" guy Taylor trying all the same "anti-Linux" PR campaign tactics that didn't work before? I'd even swear that some of these were the same white papers MS released last year.
New campaign,
Old campaign,
Still sounds the same,
BURMA SHAVE.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is called "Loser Pays" and it has been proposed many times as a solution to frivolous litigation. MANY states have considered bills in the legislature that propose implementing some sort of "Loser Pays" system, but it has stiff opposition because lawyers don't like tort reform limiting their income, especially if they are also individually liable for damages as some plans propose.
Google should help you find out all it.
BTW, politically, such proposals almost always come from the Republicans and are opposed by Democrats since attorneys tend to donate and lean to the left. That's not important information, but I think it's fun to point it out and tweak the many leftists here on the
Feh, this is Mr. Dissenting Opinion here, and I have to disagree a little. I think marketing, lobbying, cash and even quality have a LOT less to do with success than other uncomplicated factors such as simply meeting a need people want (and quickly). I mean, where's the freakin' N-Gage? AOL grew up connecting groups of chatters together. Beta was better but VHS had a head start and was good *enough*. Microsoft should be a much larger player in the Database, HTTP and SMTP server markets for as much money as they spend on promotion. Linux is able to meet needs largely because it is robust, flexible and has convenient licensing that lends itself to experimentation. [I don't have to throw $500K and two years into licensing and development just to find out that my application isn't going to work as I expected.]
A lawyer is like a gun: almost entirely harmless until you point it at someone.
How long before price is no longer a barrier to RFID item level tagging?
How long until item-level tagging is a barrier to Asprin-level buying?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's an ABI? Specifically, I mean. I know what an API is, and Google can find usenet postings from programmers referring to ABIs going back as far as ten years at least (so I know their lawyers didn't make it up), but it's an obscure enough term that whatis.com and webopedia.com don't list it in their uberglossaries.
So, can someone explain/define "Application Binary Interface" as SCO is using the term?
TIA!
I'd say it stinks of oligopolistic behavior, but that's a lot of syllables.
I call this time "fermentation". It got me through undergrad *and* grad school.
IIRC, some manufacturers already have those, but I think the limit is 95MPH or 110MPH or so. My Ford won't rev over 4000RPM because of an arrestor, but that's when it's not in gear and I believe it's to prevent damage to the engine.
After sleeping on it, you're right. I probably got emotional and unfairly mixed two distinctly separate issues out of pent-up frustration.
I'm sorry.
The sniper issue is, indeed, separate from cheater issue. In fact, there are some people who just enjoy cheater games more because it's a different challenge to play cheats with other cheaters because it's more fun (like one-shot-kill UT) - that's fine. As long as everyone on the map is playing the same rules, that's an entirely valid way to play and I don't have any problem with snipers or aimbots or wallhacks or any of it. What I have a problem with is I'm trying to learn how to use a flashbang or a sniper rifle, and I never get a chance because I'm dumped in with 14 year olds who don't have jobs and play this thing 16 hours a day. It just isn't any fun, but maybe that's my real complaint: it's difficult to find appropriate opponents and game rules.
I think that multi-player game designers need to put a little more effort into making it easier to find appropriate opponents to match up against. Cheats and extreme rules should be allowed (and even built into the official game engine) but managed so that hacks don't have to be developed to give players an unfair advantage.
Perhaps certain maps and servers could implement a player skill handicapping/rating system: You earn points by killing players ranked higher than you, earning commendations and completing objectives. (maybe games like BF1942 could use a army rank model, where you work your way from "Private" up to "5* General".) The skill points give you access to better weapons, information and bonuses on objective maps, but handicap you against weaker opponents on public free-for-all maps.
You should also be able to search the server list for cheat servers, no-cheat servers, no-sniper servers, realistic servers, extreme game servers and so on. Subspace/Continuum does a good job of letting different servers run different rules, so it's easy to tell you're entering a one-shot-kill game, but then the bullets in ss/c move a lot slower, too.
I figured out that out after looking at it again later, but when I first saw if all four of the ads were for fax-blasters, which paranoided me.
Hey, did you guys check out the "Sponsored links" box on the right side of that page?
Paralell Universe, indeed!
I don't think it's a lack of skill with the controls. I've been through all three of the HL single player games (Half Life, Opposing Force and Blue Shift) start to finish at least three or four times each, so I know my way around the engine and the combat controls (I even tweaked 'em to make them significantly more usable) and that's why this is so frustrating: I understand there's a learning curve, and I even expect to be bad at it for a while, but I shouldn't just die immediately like my bullets (even when they hit) have been reduced to 25% effectiveness, and his are quadrupled!
Heck, I was bad at Half-Life when I started playing that. I spent four hours one night driving a stock unmodified Nissan 280ZX around a test track at low speed in Gran Turismo to learn how to turn corners without spinning out. Madden? Don't ask -- at first, I couldn't even complete a pass on normal skill levels.
But that's the thing, if I'm bad at it, fine, but I *should* get better as I play, and I'm not. As far as I can tell, skill has nothing to do with it because the opponents are so effective I can't believe they're not cheating. If I do something stupid and walk into an ambush and five guys (or even 1 guy) shoots me into hamburger because I don't know the map is one thing, but "*bip* you're dead" with not even a chance at defending yourself? Random death just isn't any fun.
Besides, if you need to learn your way around playing the SP versions, how do you justify even selling a retail version of CS since it's a multi-player only game? Where are you *supposed* to learn? (Sure, you can create your own server and walk around the maps by yourself, but where's the fun in that?!)
Maybe the solution is for multi-player FPSs to incorporate a skill level system with gameplay and gameplay-rules preferences. That way us noobs can find a beginners-only no-sniper low damage game to develop our skills in with similarly skilled opponents that won't frustrate everyone, ourselves included.
What I know about snipers comes primarily from experimenting with Half-Life/CS. Snipers (and especially cheaters) make the game is unplayable because I cannot survive long enough to learn how to play.
First round, I walk out of a building and BAM! I'm dead -- one shot from about 200m away.
I wait until next round, walk out of the start zone and BAM! I'm dead again. This time I got to return fire before dropping.
Next round, I actually saw him first and hit him three times including a head shot (hey, I'm getting the hang of this!) but he doesn't fall. He spins, looks at me funny and BAM! I die again.
So, I don't play anymore. The lousy, cheating wannabe jerks can have their stupid game. I'm just glad I didn't pay for it.(*) (if I had, I'd have returned it with extreme predjudice.)
[(*) Just to clarify: by "didn't pay for it", I mean that I **PURCHASED** Half-Life single-player and **DOWNLOADED** CS for free instead of paying for the CS retail version. I don't want anyone mad at me!]
Drupal is worth looking at.
Or, if you need a technical support forum, perhaps it would be better to adapt something like Double-Choco-Latte (DCL) to your needs?
Linus is the only person I've ever heard of taking a lawsuit as an opportunity to write some new code. The world needs more Linuses!!!
UGH! For the *last* time, people, it's "one Linus, two Lini"!
[grin]
Yeah, but just think of all the frequent flyer miles you'll rack up!
Sure, and you can use those frequent-flyer miles when you... AW, CRAP!
Only lasted 1E-6 seconds?
Should have used Tupperware(TM)!
And now, from the "demented conspiracy" section of *my* *brain*, comes the following twisted-beyond-repair illogic:
1) SCO has, so far, *threatened* lawsuits against US users, but hasn't actually followed through yet because (I surmise) they know they'll lose.
2) (Lawyer, please!) If SCO files a suit in a US court against an entity who fails to show up to defend themselves (like, say, some dude from the UK where US law does not apply and who, therefore, doesn't give a rat's ass about paying to put high-priced attorneys on a plane to Utah), then SCO wins, right?
------------
3) Therefore, SCO's strategy is to get some quick default wins in court against defendants who won't show up to get some quick PR validation so they can move forward with the sale of the company and assets.
Is this stretching it maybe?
Does SkyOS come with SkyNET?
If so I'll have to pass, but it looks cool, man.... really....
I pity people who think democracy is supposed to be easy and painless. It's not. It's an argument, and even though it does get ugly once in a while, it teaches us to maintain our civility. What do you think of the Florida 2000 election now? At least we had chads to argue about.
You know, [CTRL]+[Z]?
In Windows Explorer, it undoes the last file operation....
I was at a client's site a few years ago moving some data files around on their NT server and archiving old things that weren't needed anymore. As a part of this, I renamed a "particularly named" folder and hit [ENTER] just as the thought occurred to me that I needed the exact spelling of the original folder name before I changed it. So, without thinking I hit [CTRL]+[Z] to change the name back figuring I could just copy the name to the clipboard and rename it again. HOWEVER, instead of un-doing the recent "folder rename" operation, it undid a much earlier "folder COPY" without telling me which folder or where it was located!
Luckly, I was able to retrace my steps and figure it out well enough to put everything right, but NO MORE HAVE I *EVER* [CTRL]+[Z]'d in Explorer again!
IIRC, Doom and Quake had adaptive AI, too.
No, I guess it doesn't really do anything different from a random number generator.
Why is this new "anti-Linux" guy Taylor trying all the same "anti-Linux" PR campaign tactics that didn't work before? I'd even swear that some of these were the same white papers MS released last year.
New campaign,
Old campaign,
Still sounds the same,
BURMA SHAVE.
Feh- You guys are still measuring intake in CUPS?!
What a bunch of sissy posers!
Anything less than six *POTS* of coffee a day is social drinkin'.
"There, your honor, see how Linux is causing us financial hardship?"