Granted, that's not what it was originally *supposed* to be for. And it's also why I consider it largely illegitimate. But they've bought and paid for enough of the various facets of copyright law that I think it's fair to say that it's intended to guarantee them a revenue stream at this point. That's a completely illegitimate goal as far as I'm concerned, true, but I'm afraid that's just about the *only* feature of copyright these days:(
I have fairly good recollections of myself during déjà vu, so I'm not sure if your method of forgetting will work for others. That said, I *do* know another technique that works for me and it does use a recursive thought pattern to erase something.
Think of your thoughts as links--each idea reminds you of other "nearby" ideas. I associate, say, a certain smell with soup, and perhaps I associate soup with the red & white cans of Campbell's soup, winter days, and a thermos, etc. So on some level, each idea is like a web page that has links to it from other ideas, and which (probably) links out to a few other things.
The trick is to make a recursive-nothing thought. That is, some dead-end idea that has only one link--a link to itself. So once an idea links to there, it goes nowhere, because the only link out goes right back to that recursive nothing that it was just at. Then, you search through all the things that make you think of the thing you want to forget, and replace those associations with links to this recursive-nothing thought. Remember, though--the link has to be one way. Like the roach motel, thoughts check in, but they don't check out.
Now, unless it's a very new thought that you want to forget, you probably have a lot of links you've missed. This is normal. You need to link them to the recursive-nothing when you find them. Keep doing this and eventually you can suppress the thought or memory entirely. Or at least, I can. Maybe each person needs to come up with their own method, but I find it interesting that we both end up using some form of recursive thought.
Perhaps that's the key in and of itself? I wonder...
More than once, I've had déjà vu about having déjà vu about, well, let's just say it's recursive and I don't feel like there's an end to it. Good way to make your head spin for a while. Although, maybe I should call what I've felt déjà vecu...:]
> They're morally obligated to obtain someone's medical records before deciding whether to sue?
From my understanding of things, no, they didn't know that at the outset, but they almost certainly know that now.
In other words, any decent person would've dropped the case at this point. Of course, this is the RIAA prosecuting it, so it's pretty clear why they haven't done so. I wonder if there are any good MS advocacy groups out there who would mind protesting this somehow? And instead of protesting it as the "RIAA" doing it, put a face and a name to the key people on the RIAA side.
Might wake those bastards up to get angry Slashdotters calling them at home, calling them heartless bastards. Or not, I dunno.
> I don't think the fact that the accusee (has multiple sclerosis/is a single mom/is vegetarian/worships the FSM) is relevent to the discussion.
In this case, having MS is relevant because the stress from the lawsuit can worsen her disease. You're right that it's not relevant to whether or not she infringed upon their copyright, but it is relevant to how heartless they are in prosecuting the cases of someone who can't afford to defend herself without these pro bono (free as in beer) lawyers who are volunteering their time.
What's worse is that there's some pretty damning evidence being shown that:
A) She's not a file sharer and never was. B) The RIAA has pretty good reason to know this, but is suing her anyway.
In other words, they're willing to terrorize some poor, sick old lady who any idiot with a lawsuit even though they know she's almost certainly innocent. They're pulling every dirty legal trick in the book to punish her for something she didn't do, and they're all but lying [1] to the Court to win instead of dropping the case like any sane person would after considering the evidence.
[1] I'm sure it's not actually "lying" nor anything illegal as far as they're concerned and that they have some complex legal justification that absolves them of any and all liability whatsoever without limitation in perpetuity. In other words, it wouldn't be anything they'd get in trouble for. Maybe it's "pretexting"... I don't know. But I do know that my personal, biased opinion of them is that they're heartless bastards. Of course, that's pretty much what I thought of them before I'd ever heard of this case, so yeah...
> What makes it a good idea? Read what IBM had to say about it. Or Goldman Sachs. It's about interoperability - something Novell built a reputation on starting with the very earliest versions of NetWare.
I fear, unfortunately, that you'll end up like so many other Microsoft "partners"... left out to dry after they finish using Novell for FUD. Sure, you didn't admit that they have any patents covering anything (good), but we already know that Novell and the FSF are going to end up in a showdown with the GPL v3 forbidding such agreements in the future. And from what we *do* know, it looks like Microsoft can terminate the agreement pretty easily.
> But what really burns me about PJ's posts is that they make the assumption that all of the developers who work for Novell suddenly gave up their OSS scruples
I think that was just one example of how this could spell trouble in theory--legal types need to think about theoretical problems before they become actual ones. Who'd have dreamed up SCO vs. IBM before the fact? I sincerely doubt any of the developers at Novell would do anything like that example, though.
I'll give you credit that it's more likely the management than you, but understand this: that agreement may very well spell trouble for the rest of us. IBM made a great patent pledge to protect Linux. Their Nazgul can easily fend off lesser patent trolls, and real companies have too much to lose. But in SCO vs. IBM, Novell's ability to waive certain of SCO's purported contractual rights was still a big help. I don't blame Novell from not wanting to get squished in a clash between titans (IBM & Microsoft), but I'm worried here because this pretty much signals that they won't be there to stick up for Linux. They probably can't be, with that agreement in place.
Anyhow, give PJ some credit--she has a good idea about what will cause legal trouble in the future, and this agreement is pretty high on the list right now, while SCO is basically dead although we still have to listen to its last tormented screams before its obliterated.
I don't really think you're out to harm Linux. I'm not even convinced your management is. But there are plenty of ways to do that unintentionally, and it's looking like Novell won't go along with GPL v3, they're willing to let Microsoft use them, and I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft was banking on a negative reaction between Novell and the OSS community. Honestly, "trojan code" deliberate or otherwise wouldn't matter any more after this, remember? Novell needs this fork under GPL v2 before GPL v3 arrives and divides us some more... But if there isn't a GPL v3 that's widely used, I'd bet we'll see even more legal trouble in the future.
You either report something that's inaccurate, or you "neglect" to report important things to avoid painting the thing you support in an unfavorable light. If you're going to be that nebulous about your complaints, it indicates that you have no inaccuracies and no proof of anything significant that went unreported or was glossed over to make it appear in a better light. You have to do *something* that's decidedly not objective before it can be considered "bias."
Your version of "bias" therefore appears to be nothing more than "I disagree with PJ." That is not what bias is; you're simply using it as a pejorative word if you do that. Yes, I've seen that a lot with other words, too (hypocrite, for example), but that doesn't make it right.
> There was a comment about PJ spreading FUD, to which she replied that she was guessing because the details of the MS-Novell agreement aren't public so she has to guess. That's all fine and dandy, but then an editorial opinion shouldn't be reported as a fact.
Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.
Anyhow, as someone who has read Groklaw for a few years now (and submitted enough stories from there to Slashdot to prove it), I feel inclined to comment that what she posted on the Microsoft/Novell deal was based on what she does know about the deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a non-public deal with Microsoft at this time seems, well, underhanded at best. True, Novell did let Eben Moglen inspect the deal, but they more or less had to given that Eben is in a position to sue them for breach of the GPL. The FSF has also said that the GPL v3 will not allow any deals like the Microsoft/Novell deal, so even from that we know that it may well comply with the letter of the GPL v2, but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it because it helps Microsoft keep alive the FUD of the threat of patent litigation Microsoft cultivated so clearly with the SCO dealings. And we have statements, under oath, from the people who bankrolled SCO about Microsoft's involvement.
So how to you get off saying she's writing what she did because she doesn't know the whole deal (and who's fault is that that everyone can't see the secret provisions)? Do you not think it's monumentally stupid to have secret dealings with Microsoft after just how quickly they screw over "partners"? Go read that testimony again about how Microsoft left SCO's bankrollers out to try when things turned bad.
Frankly, from everything we know about the Novell deal, Novell was stupid: stupid to allow Microsoft to use them for FUD of a patent threat, stupid to make a deal that goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, and stupid to think that we'd all just go along with this. And that's why Novell will need a forked version: because if they don't keep these things under GPL v2, they won't be able to keep that agreement with Microsoft.
Don't misunderstand, I can see what's in it for Novell--a fat sack of cash, an opportunity to be the Microsoft-blessed Linux company, and a bit of FUD to both help Microsoft hurt Linux adoption while driving anyone who won't go to Microsoft over to Novell. But I don't see why anyone should go along with it, and I don't see ANY reason to think that the non-public parts of the agreement would change one iota of this analysis.
Then again, you work for Novell. Care to tell me what private parts of the contract I'm not taking into consideration? Just what clause is in there that makes their agreement something other than a sell-out of the Linux community? What part of it wasn't intended to be used by Microsoft for software patent FUD? Even if it doesn't violate the GPL v2, what about it makes it a good idea?
> You'd think that Novell could have filed this lawsuit a year or three ago instead of waiting till right before SCO vs IBM goes to trial (in a few months).
Novell waived SCO's "breach" of contract concerning IBM ages ago. They've also been sued by SCO for a long time now (originally for "slander of title" but I believe that's changed a few times).
In other words, this is just the latest motion of something that's been brewing for a long time now--it's not something Novell just came up with yesterday.
No, I'm a NOPK type--I leave the PK to people who actually like it. I don't do PK at all, so have I ever played Warcraft, etc. But I do know a thing or two about game balance.
What I wonder is what they'll do to avoid the tipping problem? That is, if one side is thought to be stronger than the other, more people will sign up on that side until such time as it IS stronger--very much so.
At that point, well, I can see lots of slaughtering and such, but won't one side end up being the poor oft-ganked loser team? Until such point as it's essentially hopeless to play on that side? Or will they try to balance things out by assigning carrots (or penalties) when one side becomes too superior to the other?
What boggles me is why they need a blacklist? Surely it would be far more effective to simply shut down the site and put the operator(s) in jail?
I mean, why would you allow a site with child pornography (which is illegal almost everywhere) to remain up when you could contact the relevant authorities. Well, unless you really wanted a blacklist for unrelated things that aren't illegal...:-/
If they did any such thing to prevent people from downloading the ROMs, quite frankly, it would be a complete and utter waste of time.
As anyone should know by now, you can download ROMs and emulators for nearly any system you want online. It's not even hard. The Pirate Bay even has nice, huge, torrents with practically every ROM ever (including tons of bad dumps I have no idea why anyone would ever want).
So really, they shouldn't even bother. It would be a total waste of their time and money. Heck, if they're getting it from the store, at least people are paying for the ROM. So they can laugh about "hacking" the Wii store all they want, but if they're paying Nintendo instead of downloading it for free from any of the hundreds of ROM sites, well, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to discourage that, I'd think.
They're not allowed to distribute tools at all. They were very clear that they could not grant any such exemptions if you read the FAQ they put up when they requested comments. So you can still bypass the access controls, but they can't do a damn thing if you run afoul of the prohibition on "trafficking" in such tools, even if your intended use of the tools falls under one of these narrow exceptions.
They're not that good. In my rejected submission of this story, I mentioned that the rootkit exception (which would allow you to break a Sony-style rootkit) only applies to CDs, not even to DVDs, let alone any other media.
Still, it's nice to see that they're at least granting some. And yet I tend to agree with the EFF that the whole DMCA should be repealed because they lack the statutory authority to remove enough of the DMCA's restrictions to be worthwhile, even if they were willing to do so.
> P.S. speaking of failed Nintendo add-on controllers, I don't hear many people mention whatever the hell they called that ridiculous light-bazooka for the SNES. Seriously, it was the size of a small shoulder-fired rocket launcher and was intended to be held the same way. I don't know what the hell that was about. A relative accidentally bought me a game that needed it, so I never played it, making it only a slightly better gift than Donkey Kong 3 was.
I had that. I forget what game I played with it, but it was something where your giant robot shot other giant robots for some reason. I also had the power pad & zapper at one point, for that matter. Honestly, the zapper was pretty good (wish I'd had more games than just Duck Hunt), the power pad was lame (we figured out how to cheat at Track & Field in about 5 minutes... was there ANY other game that ever used that thing?), but the bazooka was *awesome*:] Really made me feel like I was blasting giant robots with a powerful weapon. You should have played a game using it, the notion that you were firing some kind of giant laser cannon was exactly what it was supposed to convey... Granted, I never saw any *other* games that used the thing, but...
> They absolutely need to agree to a license (not sign a contract) to use the software.
No! With the GPL, they need the license to *distribute* the software. Not merely to use it. Guess you didn't read the preamble where it explains this:]
> Yeah, like how he never talks about, for example, GPL3. Oh wait.
I thought I had referenced that implicitly, but what I meant is that he's right to keep quiet *here* As I mentioned, he has, of course, talked about the GPL v3. I disagree with him, of course--I'm more worried about long-term freedom than short-term practicality, given how determined some businesses are to undermine our freedom, but that's just me.
He's a coder, not a lawyer. Which is why I'm glad to listen to him on technical matters, but why I don't really care what he thinks about legal matters like the GPL v3, etc. No offense intended, but I'll get my legal advice from lawyers and my technical advice from technical people. In other words, I think he's right to keep quiet.
That said, hopefully he'll see this as a time to reconsider his stance on the GPL v3. Granted, Linux would have a difficult time converting due to the cut-off he put in Linux by removing the "or later" clause (from what's published, he may not even understand how it works), but this is exactly the sort of loophole v3 is meant to prevent, and Microsoft is obviously looking for a way to take advantage of that. You can't really expect them to pass up any way to screw up the competition, and Linux pretty much _is_ Microsoft's competition.
You don't have to like it, but it takes lawyers to stop lawyers.
It works just fine in Firefox for me. Maybe an extension problem? Mind you, some of the MIDIs have a really horrible sound at the start, but I don't think that's Firefox's fault.
> Because there is no practical way to differentiate between "something we don't understand yet", and "something we cannot understand". There isn't anything you can point to and say "that's forever incomprehensible". They used to say that about life and now we have molecular biology, for example.
If you need an example, we might never understand exactly which things we are incapable of ever understanding...
But especially when very high energy physics (e.g. Big Bang type cosmology) is so poorly understood (or, to be more exact, we're unable to properly observe & test some cases because we don't have enough energy), we might never have enough available energy to do the experiements required to prove exactly what happened--there might not be that much in all the universe, and Shannon's law ensures that our past is being slowly erased with every passing second (due to entropy, the universe is incapable of containing full information on its own past). Actually, that use of Shannon's law alone is good enough to prove there are unknowable things...
In other words, whatever faith you have in there being nothing we cannot ever understand, it's badly misplaced, and not supported by any known science. Moreover, we do not have an infinite amount of time--we're bounded by entropy, you know (it will inevitably kill us all, albeit not for a very long time)--and there are surely an infinite number of knowable things, yet there can never be an infinite number of people. Using the pigeon hole principle there, we'll never be able to fill all the holes.
Would you like me to think up other reasons, all based on known science, why your theory is irrational?
This is _Forbes_ running this piece. They had Dan Lyons who thought that SCO would win. Based on, what? Well it sure as hell wasn't research and it read suspiciously like they were reprinting SCO press releases in lieu of doing actual investigative work.
In other words, they're trolling again because they want more people to read the insipid article. But don't worry, you're _not_ missing anything. You'll never miss anything by not reading them. They're clueless halfwits who regurgitate press releases and attempt to stir controversy just to get noticed.
So move along, there's nothing to see here. As usual, Forbes doesn't know what the hell it's talking about so I certainly hope you're not looking to them for investment advice. I'd rather trust monkeys with dartboards than Forbes.
Slashdot Mirror
> Someone point me again to that section in US Code that legislates a guaranteed revenue stream for the recording industry?
:(
USC 17 (Copyright)
Granted, that's not what it was originally *supposed* to be for. And it's also why I consider it largely illegitimate. But they've bought and paid for enough of the various facets of copyright law that I think it's fair to say that it's intended to guarantee them a revenue stream at this point. That's a completely illegitimate goal as far as I'm concerned, true, but I'm afraid that's just about the *only* feature of copyright these days
I have fairly good recollections of myself during déjà vu, so I'm not sure if your method of forgetting will work for others. That said, I *do* know another technique that works for me and it does use a recursive thought pattern to erase something.
Think of your thoughts as links--each idea reminds you of other "nearby" ideas. I associate, say, a certain smell with soup, and perhaps I associate soup with the red & white cans of Campbell's soup, winter days, and a thermos, etc. So on some level, each idea is like a web page that has links to it from other ideas, and which (probably) links out to a few other things.
The trick is to make a recursive-nothing thought. That is, some dead-end idea that has only one link--a link to itself. So once an idea links to there, it goes nowhere, because the only link out goes right back to that recursive nothing that it was just at. Then, you search through all the things that make you think of the thing you want to forget, and replace those associations with links to this recursive-nothing thought. Remember, though--the link has to be one way. Like the roach motel, thoughts check in, but they don't check out.
Now, unless it's a very new thought that you want to forget, you probably have a lot of links you've missed. This is normal. You need to link them to the recursive-nothing when you find them. Keep doing this and eventually you can suppress the thought or memory entirely. Or at least, I can. Maybe each person needs to come up with their own method, but I find it interesting that we both end up using some form of recursive thought.
Perhaps that's the key in and of itself? I wonder...
More than once, I've had déjà vu about having déjà vu about, well, let's just say it's recursive and I don't feel like there's an end to it. Good way to make your head spin for a while. Although, maybe I should call what I've felt déjà vecu ... :]
> They're morally obligated to obtain someone's medical records before deciding whether to sue?
From my understanding of things, no, they didn't know that at the outset, but they almost certainly know that now.
In other words, any decent person would've dropped the case at this point. Of course, this is the RIAA prosecuting it, so it's pretty clear why they haven't done so. I wonder if there are any good MS advocacy groups out there who would mind protesting this somehow? And instead of protesting it as the "RIAA" doing it, put a face and a name to the key people on the RIAA side.
Might wake those bastards up to get angry Slashdotters calling them at home, calling them heartless bastards. Or not, I dunno.
> I don't think the fact that the accusee (has multiple sclerosis/is a single mom/is vegetarian/worships the FSM) is relevent to the discussion.
... I don't know. But I do know that my personal, biased opinion of them is that they're heartless bastards. Of course, that's pretty much what I thought of them before I'd ever heard of this case, so yeah...
In this case, having MS is relevant because the stress from the lawsuit can worsen her disease. You're right that it's not relevant to whether or not she infringed upon their copyright, but it is relevant to how heartless they are in prosecuting the cases of someone who can't afford to defend herself without these pro bono (free as in beer) lawyers who are volunteering their time.
What's worse is that there's some pretty damning evidence being shown that:
A) She's not a file sharer and never was.
B) The RIAA has pretty good reason to know this, but is suing her anyway.
In other words, they're willing to terrorize some poor, sick old lady who any idiot with a lawsuit even though they know she's almost certainly innocent. They're pulling every dirty legal trick in the book to punish her for something she didn't do, and they're all but lying [1] to the Court to win instead of dropping the case like any sane person would after considering the evidence.
[1] I'm sure it's not actually "lying" nor anything illegal as far as they're concerned and that they have some complex legal justification that absolves them of any and all liability whatsoever without limitation in perpetuity. In other words, it wouldn't be anything they'd get in trouble for. Maybe it's "pretexting"
> What makes it a good idea? Read what IBM had to say about it. Or Goldman Sachs. It's about interoperability - something Novell built a reputation on starting with the very earliest versions of NetWare.
... left out to dry after they finish using Novell for FUD. Sure, you didn't admit that they have any patents covering anything (good), but we already know that Novell and the FSF are going to end up in a showdown with the GPL v3 forbidding such agreements in the future. And from what we *do* know, it looks like Microsoft can terminate the agreement pretty easily.
I fear, unfortunately, that you'll end up like so many other Microsoft "partners"
> But what really burns me about PJ's posts is that they make the assumption that all of the developers who work for Novell suddenly gave up their OSS scruples
I think that was just one example of how this could spell trouble in theory--legal types need to think about theoretical problems before they become actual ones. Who'd have dreamed up SCO vs. IBM before the fact? I sincerely doubt any of the developers at Novell would do anything like that example, though.
I'll give you credit that it's more likely the management than you, but understand this: that agreement may very well spell trouble for the rest of us. IBM made a great patent pledge to protect Linux. Their Nazgul can easily fend off lesser patent trolls, and real companies have too much to lose. But in SCO vs. IBM, Novell's ability to waive certain of SCO's purported contractual rights was still a big help. I don't blame Novell from not wanting to get squished in a clash between titans (IBM & Microsoft), but I'm worried here because this pretty much signals that they won't be there to stick up for Linux. They probably can't be, with that agreement in place.
Anyhow, give PJ some credit--she has a good idea about what will cause legal trouble in the future, and this agreement is pretty high on the list right now, while SCO is basically dead although we still have to listen to its last tormented screams before its obliterated.
I don't really think you're out to harm Linux. I'm not even convinced your management is. But there are plenty of ways to do that unintentionally, and it's looking like Novell won't go along with GPL v3, they're willing to let Microsoft use them, and I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft was banking on a negative reaction between Novell and the OSS community. Honestly, "trojan code" deliberate or otherwise wouldn't matter any more after this, remember? Novell needs this fork under GPL v2 before GPL v3 arrives and divides us some more... But if there isn't a GPL v3 that's widely used, I'd bet we'll see even more legal trouble in the future.
> I can see we're going to get nowhere here, so I'm going to leave with a simple "bias doesn't mean reporting incorrect facts."
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You either report something that's inaccurate, or you "neglect" to report important things to avoid painting the thing you support in an unfavorable light. If you're going to be that nebulous about your complaints, it indicates that you have no inaccuracies and no proof of anything significant that went unreported or was glossed over to make it appear in a better light. You have to do *something* that's decidedly not objective before it can be considered "bias."
Your version of "bias" therefore appears to be nothing more than "I disagree with PJ." That is not what bias is; you're simply using it as a pejorative word if you do that. Yes, I've seen that a lot with other words, too (hypocrite, for example), but that doesn't make it right.
> There was a comment about PJ spreading FUD, to which she replied that she was guessing because the details of the MS-Novell agreement aren't public so she has to guess. That's all fine and dandy, but then an editorial opinion shouldn't be reported as a fact.
Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.
Anyhow, as someone who has read Groklaw for a few years now (and submitted enough stories from there to Slashdot to prove it), I feel inclined to comment that what she posted on the Microsoft/Novell deal was based on what she does know about the deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a non-public deal with Microsoft at this time seems, well, underhanded at best. True, Novell did let Eben Moglen inspect the deal, but they more or less had to given that Eben is in a position to sue them for breach of the GPL. The FSF has also said that the GPL v3 will not allow any deals like the Microsoft/Novell deal, so even from that we know that it may well comply with the letter of the GPL v2, but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it because it helps Microsoft keep alive the FUD of the threat of patent litigation Microsoft cultivated so clearly with the SCO dealings. And we have statements, under oath, from the people who bankrolled SCO about Microsoft's involvement.
So how to you get off saying she's writing what she did because she doesn't know the whole deal (and who's fault is that that everyone can't see the secret provisions)? Do you not think it's monumentally stupid to have secret dealings with Microsoft after just how quickly they screw over "partners"? Go read that testimony again about how Microsoft left SCO's bankrollers out to try when things turned bad.
Frankly, from everything we know about the Novell deal, Novell was stupid: stupid to allow Microsoft to use them for FUD of a patent threat, stupid to make a deal that goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, and stupid to think that we'd all just go along with this. And that's why Novell will need a forked version: because if they don't keep these things under GPL v2, they won't be able to keep that agreement with Microsoft.
Don't misunderstand, I can see what's in it for Novell--a fat sack of cash, an opportunity to be the Microsoft-blessed Linux company, and a bit of FUD to both help Microsoft hurt Linux adoption while driving anyone who won't go to Microsoft over to Novell. But I don't see why anyone should go along with it, and I don't see ANY reason to think that the non-public parts of the agreement would change one iota of this analysis.
Then again, you work for Novell. Care to tell me what private parts of the contract I'm not taking into consideration? Just what clause is in there that makes their agreement something other than a sell-out of the Linux community? What part of it wasn't intended to be used by Microsoft for software patent FUD? Even if it doesn't violate the GPL v2, what about it makes it a good idea?
> You'd think that Novell could have filed this lawsuit a year or three ago instead of waiting till right before SCO vs IBM goes to trial (in a few months).
Novell waived SCO's "breach" of contract concerning IBM ages ago. They've also been sued by SCO for a long time now (originally for "slander of title" but I believe that's changed a few times).
In other words, this is just the latest motion of something that's been brewing for a long time now--it's not something Novell just came up with yesterday.
No, those were opinion then and they're opinion now.
That said, I'm sure we've got a few "truisms" today that are little more than ill-founded supposition.
No, I'm a NOPK type--I leave the PK to people who actually like it. I don't do PK at all, so have I ever played Warcraft, etc. But I do know a thing or two about game balance.
What I wonder is what they'll do to avoid the tipping problem? That is, if one side is thought to be stronger than the other, more people will sign up on that side until such time as it IS stronger--very much so.
At that point, well, I can see lots of slaughtering and such, but won't one side end up being the poor oft-ganked loser team? Until such point as it's essentially hopeless to play on that side? Or will they try to balance things out by assigning carrots (or penalties) when one side becomes too superior to the other?
What boggles me is why they need a blacklist? Surely it would be far more effective to simply shut down the site and put the operator(s) in jail?
:-/
I mean, why would you allow a site with child pornography (which is illegal almost everywhere) to remain up when you could contact the relevant authorities. Well, unless you really wanted a blacklist for unrelated things that aren't illegal...
If they did any such thing to prevent people from downloading the ROMs, quite frankly, it would be a complete and utter waste of time.
As anyone should know by now, you can download ROMs and emulators for nearly any system you want online. It's not even hard. The Pirate Bay even has nice, huge, torrents with practically every ROM ever (including tons of bad dumps I have no idea why anyone would ever want).
So really, they shouldn't even bother. It would be a total waste of their time and money. Heck, if they're getting it from the store, at least people are paying for the ROM. So they can laugh about "hacking" the Wii store all they want, but if they're paying Nintendo instead of downloading it for free from any of the hundreds of ROM sites, well, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to discourage that, I'd think.
Not that they wouldn't do such a thing, but...
They're not allowed to distribute tools at all. They were very clear that they could not grant any such exemptions if you read the FAQ they put up when they requested comments. So you can still bypass the access controls, but they can't do a damn thing if you run afoul of the prohibition on "trafficking" in such tools, even if your intended use of the tools falls under one of these narrow exceptions.
They're not that good. In my rejected submission of this story, I mentioned that the rootkit exception (which would allow you to break a Sony-style rootkit) only applies to CDs, not even to DVDs, let alone any other media.
Still, it's nice to see that they're at least granting some. And yet I tend to agree with the EFF that the whole DMCA should be repealed because they lack the statutory authority to remove enough of the DMCA's restrictions to be worthwhile, even if they were willing to do so.
> P.S. speaking of failed Nintendo add-on controllers, I don't hear many people mention whatever the hell they called that ridiculous light-bazooka for the SNES. Seriously, it was the size of a small shoulder-fired rocket launcher and was intended to be held the same way. I don't know what the hell that was about. A relative accidentally bought me a game that needed it, so I never played it, making it only a slightly better gift than Donkey Kong 3 was.
:] Really made me feel like I was blasting giant robots with a powerful weapon. You should have played a game using it, the notion that you were firing some kind of giant laser cannon was exactly what it was supposed to convey... Granted, I never saw any *other* games that used the thing, but...
I had that. I forget what game I played with it, but it was something where your giant robot shot other giant robots for some reason. I also had the power pad & zapper at one point, for that matter. Honestly, the zapper was pretty good (wish I'd had more games than just Duck Hunt), the power pad was lame (we figured out how to cheat at Track & Field in about 5 minutes... was there ANY other game that ever used that thing?), but the bazooka was *awesome*
You've so got to stop drinking the Kool-Aid!
What next, you all gather around in a circle to delete your accounts so that you can leave Second Life and start your "real" life?
> They absolutely need to agree to a license (not sign a contract) to use the software.
:]
No! With the GPL, they need the license to *distribute* the software. Not merely to use it.
Guess you didn't read the preamble where it explains this
> Yeah, like how he never talks about, for example, GPL3. Oh wait.
I thought I had referenced that implicitly, but what I meant is that he's right to keep quiet *here* As I mentioned, he has, of course, talked about the GPL v3. I disagree with him, of course--I'm more worried about long-term freedom than short-term practicality, given how determined some businesses are to undermine our freedom, but that's just me.
He's a coder, not a lawyer. Which is why I'm glad to listen to him on technical matters, but why I don't really care what he thinks about legal matters like the GPL v3, etc. No offense intended, but I'll get my legal advice from lawyers and my technical advice from technical people. In other words, I think he's right to keep quiet.
That said, hopefully he'll see this as a time to reconsider his stance on the GPL v3. Granted, Linux would have a difficult time converting due to the cut-off he put in Linux by removing the "or later" clause (from what's published, he may not even understand how it works), but this is exactly the sort of loophole v3 is meant to prevent, and Microsoft is obviously looking for a way to take advantage of that. You can't really expect them to pass up any way to screw up the competition, and Linux pretty much _is_ Microsoft's competition.
You don't have to like it, but it takes lawyers to stop lawyers.
It works just fine in Firefox for me. Maybe an extension problem? Mind you, some of the MIDIs have a really horrible sound at the start, but I don't think that's Firefox's fault.
Try this search to see that Slashdot still maintains its high quality standards :-)
> Because there is no practical way to differentiate between "something we don't understand yet", and "something we cannot understand". There isn't anything you can point to and say "that's forever incomprehensible". They used to say that about life and now we have molecular biology, for example.
If you need an example, we might never understand exactly which things we are incapable of ever understanding...
But especially when very high energy physics (e.g. Big Bang type cosmology) is so poorly understood (or, to be more exact, we're unable to properly observe & test some cases because we don't have enough energy), we might never have enough available energy to do the experiements required to prove exactly what happened--there might not be that much in all the universe, and Shannon's law ensures that our past is being slowly erased with every passing second (due to entropy, the universe is incapable of containing full information on its own past). Actually, that use of Shannon's law alone is good enough to prove there are unknowable things...
In other words, whatever faith you have in there being nothing we cannot ever understand, it's badly misplaced, and not supported by any known science. Moreover, we do not have an infinite amount of time--we're bounded by entropy, you know (it will inevitably kill us all, albeit not for a very long time)--and there are surely an infinite number of knowable things, yet there can never be an infinite number of people. Using the pigeon hole principle there, we'll never be able to fill all the holes.
Would you like me to think up other reasons, all based on known science, why your theory is irrational?
This is _Forbes_ running this piece. They had Dan Lyons who thought that SCO would win. Based on, what? Well it sure as hell wasn't research and it read suspiciously like they were reprinting SCO press releases in lieu of doing actual investigative work.
In other words, they're trolling again because they want more people to read the insipid article. But don't worry, you're _not_ missing anything. You'll never miss anything by not reading them. They're clueless halfwits who regurgitate press releases and attempt to stir controversy just to get noticed.
So move along, there's nothing to see here. As usual, Forbes doesn't know what the hell it's talking about so I certainly hope you're not looking to them for investment advice. I'd rather trust monkeys with dartboards than Forbes.