I can think of two different scenarios regarding this, a good one and a bad one.
Firstly, in Doom.99, in a deathmatch we figured out pretty quick that if someone was about to kill you, RUN FOR THE LAVA! Kill yourself and deprive them of the point. This was amended in later versions of the game so that you would be deducted one kill if you killed yourself.
Second, I don't think the Quake developers anticipated the concept of rocket jumping or bunny hopping. However, these are now integral parts of (almost?) all FPS.
In other words, if an exploit is actually bad, it should be eliminated by the developers. Otherwise, the meta-rules of the game are as correct as actual rules.
Personally, I hate all snipers in games, I don't think they enhance the fun of a game for anyone but snipers. Once upon a time, people sniped by increasing their mouse sensitivity and narrowing their Field Of Vision settings of the game engine. That was even lamer. I do accept that this is an opinion, and I respect that people disagree, but I despise snipers.
This asshole thinks using a keyboard and a mouse is cheating.
Other gamers give themselves an edge by using a mouse and/or keyboard with today's USB-friendly consoles, which increases accuracy and cuts response time--it can be an insurmountable advantage. But, as one anonymous cheater explains, "It's not illegal--it's just using the best equipment available. Anyone can do it."
People who have been playing games since Wolfenstein 3D know what the best FPS controller is, and it's the keyboard and the mouse. If no console manufacturer chose to pay attention to what PC gamers have known for over 10 F-ing years now, tough shit.
As I've read in a review of Quake for the Dreamcast, which online could pit computer players against console players: "Playing with a controller versus people playing with a keyboard and mouse is a soul-destroying experience."
It's not my fault people want to use a shitty controller.
If Cohen can't figure out where MS got the idea that BT was still tit-for-tat, he should read his own FAQ on his own web page, or his own design documentation on his own web page. If he's not going to keep that information current, he should just take it down or quit criticising people for the misperceptions he is helping foster. Professionals don't say that the source code is the documentation, that's just lame.
Anyway, MS has been developing a semi-P2P protocol for a while now called BITS, I'm suprised no one has mentioned it yet.
Self-assessment is only the first step. That has to be done in conjunction with a scheduled security audit done by an outside auditing firm. If you lie on your self-assessment, you'll be found out pretty quickly.
I'm not sure why Visa says it's been mandated since 2001. PCI was announced a year ago, with a one-year compliance window. Before a year ago, I never heard anything about CISP. Maybe they decided to actually start checking compliance as of last year.
Well, that's kind of true and kind of not. The credit card companies are a few days from requiring vendor compliance with a strict standard for credit card information processing and storage. Basically, if you are not implementing this security standard, you will not be able to use credit cards in your place of business. (this is for online businesses and Point of Sale service providors, not like restaurants and stuff.)
If data in a vendor's system is compromised, Visa and Mastercard will charge fines upward of a hundred thousand dollars per violation, and by the time a third violation occurs, your place of business may be denied use of credit card services permanently.
That's a good thing for everyone, but when crap like this happens it pisses me off. Credit Card companies are (correctly) requiring the strictest standards for storing cardholder data by vendors, but at the same time they themselves are losing 40 million cardnumbers, losing unencrypted backup tapes in shipping, etc. What pisses me off is that if I screw up and lose a credit card number into the wild, I get fined 100K. If they lose 40 million cards, what are they gonna do, fine themselves?
Some of the services they offer are to install antivirus, antispyware, and how to use all the crap, regardless of if the computer is new or not.
I saw an ad for the "Geek Squad" (I hate that name, and all it insinuates), and the cost was so high that for an additional 150 dollars, you could buy a damn Mac Mini and never have to worry about that shit again.
This says two things to me. Firstly, that if you are buying a new computer,you are going to need all that stuff with a Windows machine anyway, so just buck up and buy the Mac and save yourself a lot of trouble.
Secondly, If you have to spend upwards of 300 dollars to get someone to personally come into your house to install software and teach you how to use it JUST so that Outlook express can't fuck your computer, that speaks to just how sad Microsoft Windows has become.
The original point was, you are almost spending the full price of the computer itself again just to work around all the problems that come with the PC. That is totally ridiculous when you could apply that money to just buy a computer that doesn't have all those problems. You'll spend more time, but you're not throwing your money down a hole.
If it's a work for hire, you are correct. However, it is not a work for hire without the explicit agreement of the photographer. The rights default to the photographer unless contract states otherwise.
Well, you're right, I don't have any idea how much child pornography is out there. That said, if what you say is true then I concede your point. However, the original point was backward, trying to prove that reality was somehow wrong because it didn't conform to theory.
Since child pornography continues to be made and sold over the internet, since people get arrested for it, I can safely assume that somehow this is driven by consumer demand.
You really need to learn what the fuck you are talking about. Unless the photographer cosigns a document stating the photos were made as a work for hire, it's NOT A WORK FOR HIRE.
Here is a news article (pdf) that states why California has not had E-Filing in the past, and the lobbyists' reasons that they feel E-filing is a bad idea for the public. Because of course, Intuit and H&R Block's lobbyists represent the public, as opposed to say, tax preparation businesses.
Come one, that's obviously wrong. By that logic, a popular web site would never have to update it's content because the current content never gets "used up." That's demonstrably false.
You have a finite amount of content on a site, and a finite number of visitors. Even if the content isn't "used up" for real, the consumption of the same content by a visitor has a diminishing return, and the visitor demands new content or they leave. You can run a site without adding content as long as you have a steady flow of new users, but it's not sustainable. If you want people to come back, you add new content.
Either the perv is paying for the site, and if there's no new content he stops paying, or if it's a free site, the advertizer stops paying. Either way, the site owner needs to find some way for people to keep paying, and that way is by adding new content, which in this case is pictures of children being molested.
That's the exception, not the rule. If it wouldn't cost MS licensing fees that would jack up the price of Windows by thirty dollars, it would have a DVD player with it.
On the original question of whether an OS is the kernel or the kernel + other crap, it's really irrelevant towards Windows because Microsoft has never sold _just_ the kernel. One might as well argue that the GUI should be split off from Windows because it unfairly competes with commercial X server vendors.
I clicked through and tried to read the blogspot article, but every link on the blogspot article defining important terms like "countermeasure" for example, that would help me understand precisely what they are talking about, NONE of those links work. I can't tell what exactly they are talking about doing to prevent DDoS etc, except that it will involve a "network" of volunteers.
What IS the difference between windows media player and realplayer and winamp player and quicktime player? Yeah.they are different programs, but the do the exact same damn thing, play media.
Sure, people know that there are 20 different programs for playing media, but about 90% of them don't understand why quicktime player won't play WMVs, Reaplayer won't play quicktime, and Windows Media Player won't play RealMedia. In fact, it pisses them off. They think a media player ought to play fucking media, and when they click on something, they just want it to play.
Which is exactly what the parent poster was talking about. The fact of the matter is, that a media player can't play any type of media file is contrary to the stated functionality of a so-called media player. The fact that the players can't is a feature crafted for the benefit of the company and NOT the consumer, and the consumer is looking at the product from the standpoint of "What features does this product provide to me", and not "what features does this product provide to the product provider?", which is completely understandable. Why should I the consumer care about what''s good for anyone but me when I use a product? It's like when DVD players advertise macrovision as a "feature".
I just noticed that you got modded into oblivion. I don't necessarily agree with you, but a lot of people are thinking it, so I wish your post was still above zero...:-(
How do you break up Microsoft? You can't break it up into regional offices like what was done to the phone company, because that doesn't make sense. But how do you break up Microsoft in a way that's not utterly arbitrary?
I mean, everyone around here see Microsoft as selling an OS and bundling a bunch of extra apps with it like a media player and a web browser. The distinction being that they are providing both a platform as well as apps that run on that platform, and a breakup would be between the OS developers and the application developers. But that's not the only way to look at it, and not even necessarily the best way.
If you look at Microsoft, they have purchased webTV and created the XBox, and have split off their OS into a consumer and a professional edition. It's pretty obvious that they are heavily pushing their wares as an "appliance", where people just want it to work. In that context, it's not unreasonable that they sell a complete working system with a web browser and a media player. The OS is secondary to the goal of providing functionality to the user. It's dumb to break off the media player and the browser, because that's what they are trying to sell to the public, a solution and not an OS.
So, you could break off their app divisions that aren't related to their media appliance goals, so you'd have MSWindows+IE+mplayer, and maybe another company that does MS Office and the visio+sharepoint infopath stuff. That would make sense, but it wouldn't address the problems that competitors have with Windows as it is now.
What I want to know is, when people say break up microsoft, what do they mean, and defend their position as to why they think it's a good idea.
My peers all make roughly the same amount of money I do, we're all programmers who work for the same company:-| I wasn't trying to say everyone should be like me and not like my friends in all ways. It was an accessible example for me.
As for growth opportunity, when/if you buy a house, you'll find out. You have to learn how to actually manage your life and finances. Taking care of things makes you much more responsible.
By the way, a house is equity. If you look at it from an investment standpoint, it is better than nearly anything else I could put the equivalent money into. I fully intend on having a family. I'll be ready for it when I do. One of the reasons I bought a house now was because interest rates are going to have to go up, and it would literally have cost me thousands more if I had waited even another month.
I meant primarily short snippets. I'm not an expert in classical music, but I listen to a lit of radio shows with commentary, and they are always sure to point out where someone incorporated an aspect of someone else's work into their own. It was never outright plagiarism, but they definitely liked to share.
"Ripping off" has a bad connotation, and I should have used a better term.
It's not as hard as they claim to just paint a keyboard. About 4 years ago I took an old leftover Gateway 2000 keyboard and spray painted it industrial blue, so that I would force myself to not look at my fingers while typing. And to keep my brother off of my computer.
Anyway, it was seriously not that hard, you just pop out all the keys, do about three light coats, dry and pop them back on, making sure you have kept track of which of the three key heights go where.
It did make me a faster typist by the way, but it did not keep me from looking at my fingers. I have abominable hand-eye coordination, so even without the letters, I still needed to know where the keys were. I think that some people will never learn how to type without help from their eyes.
By the way, it's a great way to keep people off your computer. I had my no-letters keyboard and an art tablet instead of a mouse. Even in relative positioning mode, it's impossible to play an FPS with one. One day I was sitting in the living room reading a book, and my brother walked by and just shouted "YOU'RE A REAL ASSHOLE, YOU KNOW THAT???" I was pretty proud of myself.
His wording may have been poor. In a prior life I had several mission trips to central and south america, and on more than one occassion heard similar sentiments from a native female about her own country's males. I personally have had much more success romantically with foreign women, and subsequently have been responsible for helping perpetuate the generalization that american women are spoiled brats. The generalization that he speaks of sounds to me like it might have originated from a Brazilian to begin with.
I agree with you and Lessig on remixing. "remixing" has been the constant through history, the fact that it's frowned upon today is the aberration. Classical composers "ripped off" each other all the time, and apparently it was popular with Shakespearean era playwrights and singers as well. Look at Jazz--I can't describe the type of liberation I felt when I realized that it was OK and good that people mess around with each others' stuff. TV fan fiction, it's usually better than the TV show, which is a win for culture in some small way.
I fucking love the Japanese concept of Doujinshi, where someone else can just make their own comic stories using someone elses characters. Premise is that no one buying the doujinshi instead of the real thing, which is demonstrably true. Japanese society hasn't collapsed, someone should take note of that.
It'll make culture illegal for any of the signatories of the Berne convention, which I guess is most of the first world nations. Transnationals will make sure that there's always copyright "harmonization" between nations, as has been reported in Slashdot recently. It's not even just american companies...plenty of european companies contribute to this nonsense.
This article is filled with non-sequiturs and confusion:
1) so a guy took a bunch of his home movies, mixed them on an iMac and ended up winning an award at the Cannes film festival. Lessig asks "what if he wanted to mix someone else's video with his own? He couldn't". That totally didn't make any sense. You just proved that you don't need to be able to use other people's material freely to get into Cannes. Next time pick an example that had something to do with your point.
2) Proprietary software makes Brazilians software pirates. Yeah, and murder laws make killers criminals. What? If you really want to follow through on this line of reasoning, you have to assume that there are not any suitable alternatives to most proprietary software. He seems to be in Brazil in part to trying to convince people that there are.
3) constant mixing up of two definitions of free in the same context. Brazilian govt. are spending 1bil a year on proprietary software. Free software could solve this. Which free? You can charge for GPL software ya know. Look at the Sveasoft Linksys router firmware. You can use the GPL in software and still make sure you make lots and lots of money off people, if your product is good.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of two different scenarios regarding this, a good one and a bad one.
.99, in a deathmatch we figured out pretty quick that if someone was about to kill you, RUN FOR THE LAVA! Kill yourself and deprive them of the point. This was amended in later versions of the game so that you would be deducted one kill if you killed yourself.
Firstly, in Doom
Second, I don't think the Quake developers anticipated the concept of rocket jumping or bunny hopping. However, these are now integral parts of (almost?) all FPS.
In other words, if an exploit is actually bad, it should be eliminated by the developers. Otherwise, the meta-rules of the game are as correct as actual rules.
Personally, I hate all snipers in games, I don't think they enhance the fun of a game for anyone but snipers. Once upon a time, people sniped by increasing their mouse sensitivity and narrowing their Field Of Vision settings of the game engine. That was even lamer. I do accept that this is an opinion, and I respect that people disagree, but I despise snipers.
Other gamers give themselves an edge by using a mouse and/or keyboard with today's USB-friendly consoles, which increases accuracy and cuts response time--it can be an insurmountable advantage. But, as one anonymous cheater explains, "It's not illegal--it's just using the best equipment available. Anyone can do it."
People who have been playing games since Wolfenstein 3D know what the best FPS controller is, and it's the keyboard and the mouse. If no console manufacturer chose to pay attention to what PC gamers have known for over 10 F-ing years now, tough shit.
As I've read in a review of Quake for the Dreamcast, which online could pit computer players against console players: "Playing with a controller versus people playing with a keyboard and mouse is a soul-destroying experience."
It's not my fault people want to use a shitty controller.
If Cohen can't figure out where MS got the idea that BT was still tit-for-tat, he should read his own FAQ on his own web page, or his own design documentation on his own web page. If he's not going to keep that information current, he should just take it down or quit criticising people for the misperceptions he is helping foster. Professionals don't say that the source code is the documentation, that's just lame.
Anyway, MS has been developing a semi-P2P protocol for a while now called BITS, I'm suprised no one has mentioned it yet.
Self-assessment is only the first step. That has to be done in conjunction with a scheduled security audit done by an outside auditing firm. If you lie on your self-assessment, you'll be found out pretty quickly.
I'm not sure why Visa says it's been mandated since 2001. PCI was announced a year ago, with a one-year compliance window. Before a year ago, I never heard anything about CISP. Maybe they decided to actually start checking compliance as of last year.
CISP and PCI compliance
If data in a vendor's system is compromised, Visa and Mastercard will charge fines upward of a hundred thousand dollars per violation, and by the time a third violation occurs, your place of business may be denied use of credit card services permanently.
That's a good thing for everyone, but when crap like this happens it pisses me off. Credit Card companies are (correctly) requiring the strictest standards for storing cardholder data by vendors, but at the same time they themselves are losing 40 million cardnumbers, losing unencrypted backup tapes in shipping, etc. What pisses me off is that if I screw up and lose a credit card number into the wild, I get fined 100K. If they lose 40 million cards, what are they gonna do, fine themselves?
Some of the services they offer are to install antivirus, antispyware, and how to use all the crap, regardless of if the computer is new or not.
I saw an ad for the "Geek Squad" (I hate that name, and all it insinuates), and the cost was so high that for an additional 150 dollars, you could buy a damn Mac Mini and never have to worry about that shit again.
This says two things to me. Firstly, that if you are buying a new computer,you are going to need all that stuff with a Windows machine anyway, so just buck up and buy the Mac and save yourself a lot of trouble.
Secondly, If you have to spend upwards of 300 dollars to get someone to personally come into your house to install software and teach you how to use it JUST so that Outlook express can't fuck your computer, that speaks to just how sad Microsoft Windows has become.
The original point was, you are almost spending the full price of the computer itself again just to work around all the problems that come with the PC. That is totally ridiculous when you could apply that money to just buy a computer that doesn't have all those problems. You'll spend more time, but you're not throwing your money down a hole.
If it's a work for hire, you are correct. However, it is not a work for hire without the explicit agreement of the photographer. The rights default to the photographer unless contract states otherwise.
Well, you're right, I don't have any idea how much child pornography is out there. That said, if what you say is true then I concede your point. However, the original point was backward, trying to prove that reality was somehow wrong because it didn't conform to theory.
Since child pornography continues to be made and sold over the internet, since people get arrested for it, I can safely assume that somehow this is driven by consumer demand.
Link
Link
Come one, that's obviously wrong. By that logic, a popular web site would never have to update it's content because the current content never gets "used up." That's demonstrably false.
You have a finite amount of content on a site, and a finite number of visitors. Even if the content isn't "used up" for real, the consumption of the same content by a visitor has a diminishing return, and the visitor demands new content or they leave. You can run a site without adding content as long as you have a steady flow of new users, but it's not sustainable. If you want people to come back, you add new content.
Either the perv is paying for the site, and if there's no new content he stops paying, or if it's a free site, the advertizer stops paying. Either way, the site owner needs to find some way for people to keep paying, and that way is by adding new content, which in this case is pictures of children being molested.
That's the exception, not the rule. If it wouldn't cost MS licensing fees that would jack up the price of Windows by thirty dollars, it would have a DVD player with it.
On the original question of whether an OS is the kernel or the kernel + other crap, it's really irrelevant towards Windows because Microsoft has never sold _just_ the kernel. One might as well argue that the GUI should be split off from Windows because it unfairly competes with commercial X server vendors.
I clicked through and tried to read the blogspot article, but every link on the blogspot article defining important terms like "countermeasure" for example, that would help me understand precisely what they are talking about, NONE of those links work. I can't tell what exactly they are talking about doing to prevent DDoS etc, except that it will involve a "network" of volunteers.
What IS the difference between windows media player and realplayer and winamp player and quicktime player? Yeah.they are different programs, but the do the exact same damn thing, play media.
Sure, people know that there are 20 different programs for playing media, but about 90% of them don't understand why quicktime player won't play WMVs, Reaplayer won't play quicktime, and Windows Media Player won't play RealMedia. In fact, it pisses them off. They think a media player ought to play fucking media, and when they click on something, they just want it to play.
Which is exactly what the parent poster was talking about. The fact of the matter is, that a media player can't play any type of media file is contrary to the stated functionality of a so-called media player. The fact that the players can't is a feature crafted for the benefit of the company and NOT the consumer, and the consumer is looking at the product from the standpoint of "What features does this product provide to me", and not "what features does this product provide to the product provider?", which is completely understandable. Why should I the consumer care about what''s good for anyone but me when I use a product? It's like when DVD players advertise macrovision as a "feature".
I just noticed that you got modded into oblivion. I don't necessarily agree with you, but a lot of people are thinking it, so I wish your post was still above zero... :-(
How do you break up Microsoft? You can't break it up into regional offices like what was done to the phone company, because that doesn't make sense. But how do you break up Microsoft in a way that's not utterly arbitrary?
I mean, everyone around here see Microsoft as selling an OS and bundling a bunch of extra apps with it like a media player and a web browser. The distinction being that they are providing both a platform as well as apps that run on that platform, and a breakup would be between the OS developers and the application developers. But that's not the only way to look at it, and not even necessarily the best way.
If you look at Microsoft, they have purchased webTV and created the XBox, and have split off their OS into a consumer and a professional edition. It's pretty obvious that they are heavily pushing their wares as an "appliance", where people just want it to work. In that context, it's not unreasonable that they sell a complete working system with a web browser and a media player. The OS is secondary to the goal of providing functionality to the user. It's dumb to break off the media player and the browser, because that's what they are trying to sell to the public, a solution and not an OS.
So, you could break off their app divisions that aren't related to their media appliance goals, so you'd have MSWindows+IE+mplayer, and maybe another company that does MS Office and the visio+sharepoint infopath stuff. That would make sense, but it wouldn't address the problems that competitors have with Windows as it is now.
What I want to know is, when people say break up microsoft, what do they mean, and defend their position as to why they think it's a good idea.
My peers all make roughly the same amount of money I do, we're all programmers who work for the same company :-| I wasn't trying to say everyone should be like me and not like my friends in all ways. It was an accessible example for me.
As for growth opportunity, when/if you buy a house, you'll find out. You have to learn how to actually manage your life and finances. Taking care of things makes you much more responsible.
By the way, a house is equity. If you look at it from an investment standpoint, it is better than nearly anything else I could put the equivalent money into. I fully intend on having a family. I'll be ready for it when I do. One of the reasons I bought a house now was because interest rates are going to have to go up, and it would literally have cost me thousands more if I had waited even another month.
I meant primarily short snippets. I'm not an expert in classical music, but I listen to a lit of radio shows with commentary, and they are always sure to point out where someone incorporated an aspect of someone else's work into their own. It was never outright plagiarism, but they definitely liked to share.
"Ripping off" has a bad connotation, and I should have used a better term.
It's not as hard as they claim to just paint a keyboard. About 4 years ago I took an old leftover Gateway 2000 keyboard and spray painted it industrial blue, so that I would force myself to not look at my fingers while typing. And to keep my brother off of my computer.
Anyway, it was seriously not that hard, you just pop out all the keys, do about three light coats, dry and pop them back on, making sure you have kept track of which of the three key heights go where.
It did make me a faster typist by the way, but it did not keep me from looking at my fingers. I have abominable hand-eye coordination, so even without the letters, I still needed to know where the keys were. I think that some people will never learn how to type without help from their eyes.
By the way, it's a great way to keep people off your computer. I had my no-letters keyboard and an art tablet instead of a mouse. Even in relative positioning mode, it's impossible to play an FPS with one. One day I was sitting in the living room reading a book, and my brother walked by and just shouted "YOU'RE A REAL ASSHOLE, YOU KNOW THAT???" I was pretty proud of myself.
His wording may have been poor. In a prior life I had several mission trips to central and south america, and on more than one occassion heard similar sentiments from a native female about her own country's males. I personally have had much more success romantically with foreign women, and subsequently have been responsible for helping perpetuate the generalization that american women are spoiled brats. The generalization that he speaks of sounds to me like it might have originated from a Brazilian to begin with.
Just asking.
Don't forget Double Dragon, the video game license movie that was so incredibly shitty that society collectively purged it from memory.
I agree with you and Lessig on remixing. "remixing" has been the constant through history, the fact that it's frowned upon today is the aberration. Classical composers "ripped off" each other all the time, and apparently it was popular with Shakespearean era playwrights and singers as well. Look at Jazz--I can't describe the type of liberation I felt when I realized that it was OK and good that people mess around with each others' stuff. TV fan fiction, it's usually better than the TV show, which is a win for culture in some small way.
I fucking love the Japanese concept of Doujinshi, where someone else can just make their own comic stories using someone elses characters. Premise is that no one buying the doujinshi instead of the real thing, which is demonstrably true. Japanese society hasn't collapsed, someone should take note of that.
the ones I get tend to be in the form of campaign promises and credit card offers.
It'll make culture illegal for any of the signatories of the Berne convention, which I guess is most of the first world nations. Transnationals will make sure that there's always copyright "harmonization" between nations, as has been reported in Slashdot recently. It's not even just american companies...plenty of european companies contribute to this nonsense.
This article is filled with non-sequiturs and confusion:
1) so a guy took a bunch of his home movies, mixed them on an iMac and ended up winning an award at the Cannes film festival. Lessig asks "what if he wanted to mix someone else's video with his own? He couldn't". That totally didn't make any sense. You just proved that you don't need to be able to use other people's material freely to get into Cannes. Next time pick an example that had something to do with your point.
2) Proprietary software makes Brazilians software pirates. Yeah, and murder laws make killers criminals. What? If you really want to follow through on this line of reasoning, you have to assume that there are not any suitable alternatives to most proprietary software. He seems to be in Brazil in part to trying to convince people that there are.
3) constant mixing up of two definitions of free in the same context. Brazilian govt. are spending 1bil a year on proprietary software. Free software could solve this. Which free? You can charge for GPL software ya know. Look at the Sveasoft Linksys router firmware. You can use the GPL in software and still make sure you make lots and lots of money off people, if your product is good.
That said, go Brazil.