A lot of the fun of a game is getting better at the game (like I'm good at Super Monkey Ball) - where you are able to do things you just couldn't do before. Levelling is one way to have that happen, but it's artificial and ultimately unsatisfying - especially in a competitive setting where the winner is determined primarily by time/luck/cheating (rather than skill/focus).
If progress was based on progressing the skill of the player, imagine how much more satisfying it would be. Ever wonder why the first month of an MMORPG is satisfying? Because that's when YOU are gaining the skill to play,instead of your character.
That was the most insightful thing I've read in this whole discussion!
Games like Street Fighter, and old fashioned pinball games demanded that you as a person learned to play better. But with near turn-based MMORPGs, they've removed all the physical challenge of playing, so that it's only game knowledge and calculations. That's right, they've managed to take what little physical benefit video games had and removed it.
But not all games suffer this demise, where only people with OCD are around after a few months. Look at Diablo II/x. So many folks still play that game, as it has some magical formula that allows a whole variety of characters that were equally fun to play. I think the key was that the barrier to entry was not so high that you'd feel like you could never turn back or try a new character. While it takes 1-2 months to max out a character in SWG (and a TON of repetitive boring tasks -- ask any elite artisan what % he spent grinding), you could max out a D2x char in just a few nights, if you played hard enough. Or you could take as long as you liked, and you'd still have a fulfilling variety of gameplay to keep you entertained.
95% of the patches tell you that once installed, they can't be removed.
A few are like that (What do you do if that messes up your system, eh?
Cry / go play outside:-). But it hasn't happened to date.
Also, the patch delivery system sucks. It doesn't scan what's on your computer, it only checks the registry.
Well that's good enough for most users, isn't it? For patches, the registry works like a checklist, and windows update trusts the checklist. If your registry's corrupt then you've got bigger problems.
Although if something maliciously breaks the patch but doesn't make a note in the registry, then I guess you'd be unpatched and not know it? But I haven't ehard any cases of this...although it might be a good sneak attack.
I don't manage any servers, but on my personal Windows XP pc, I patch asap. There's nothing critical on there that would be impacted by a lousy patch, and I know enough that I can always unpatch it if need be.
The only patches I hold off on are motherboard bios patches, cause those are such a bitch to debug if something goes wrong:-)
I wish there weren't so many WIndows XP patches, but you have the admit they've got an amazing patch delivery service. It must help for them to have so much practice delivering patches.
Yes, but if you're paying 3-8 dollars per month like he says, that ends up being $36-$96 per year, so it ends up being MORE expensive if you keep the same number for a long period of time.
Like who says? Dada21? Where are those numbers from? What makes you believe that in order to support a relatively simple one-time transfer (Verizon transfers control of number 917-123-4567 to T-Mobile at the customer's request), they'd need to charge every single customer a high, recurring monthly fee?
In your case, paying for two plans at once during a transition is viable, since it's a big part of your business. But the average person won't want to pay an extra $40-$80 when they change plans.
So it's not fair to companies who are trying to use superior service to win away customers of other companies, since there's an artifical negative consequence associated with switching to their product.
I'm glad to see this happen: this legislation removes an artificial negative consequence, in order to keep the market fair. In the end, the better company will win, and the consumers will get better service.
In a time when most legislation is to protect the company, not the consumer, it's nice to see something like this law.
They've essentially had a strange sort of monopoly over you, where if you wanted to keep your number, you were forced to use their service and had no other options. Other than the "keep your number" part, that is a CLEAR example of a monopoly for existing customers. It's kind of interesting, from an economics point of view:-)
I've got a two year contract (bogus!), but I'm happy with Verizon's service (excellent!) and cost/feature balance. In my area, their coverage is second to none. So I won't be switching, as long as Verizon keeps up with features I want eventually (stylish phone choices, camera, push-to-talk, etc.)
So I think allowing you to keep your number will just make companies work harder to keep their customers. No longer will the desire to maintain a consistent phone number be a reason to stay with your provider, so they will need better and more meaningful reasons to hang on to their customers (such as a superior product/service).
In related news, the lawsuit has been settled. Apparently, the lawyers agreed that the school could keep the WiFi network, as long as they provide tinfoil hats to each child. When asked for comment, the art teacher assigned to the construction of the hats simply sighed.
You know something's wrong with an industry/company when they don't listen to their customers, and start using lawsuits to maintain their status quo.
Yeah, great minds think alike:-) Although you said it more clearly:
Which brings me to a related topic... all my CD's that I've kept in my car are becoming scratched up from the holder I keep them in. Some are starting to skip. This is very disappointing. I feel like I should be entitled to get an inexpensive replacement from the record companies for any damaged CD's. They're out there trying to push the idea that when you buy a CD you're not entitled to do everything you want with the physical medium you bought the music on. They're saying that you didn't really buy anything physical, but what you really bought was a limited license to listen to the songs on the CD. They just happened to be delivered on a physical medium. But if this were true, I should still have that license even if the disc becomes damaged, and I should be entitled to those songs which I can no longer listen to. I realize that they still need to produce a physical object for the replacement so there should be some fee, but it should be very small.
Take the Louisiana's election for governor several, several years ago. One of the candidates was David Duke. Duke is somewhat infamous for being a high-ranking member of "the Klan" many years ago. He claimed multiple times, publicly, that he made some mistakes in the past and he no longer held those views anymore.
Ok...motives of white supremacists do not matter in spam - I hate spam no matter which races the spammer hates or which organization the spammer belongs to. So I'm guessing the journalist mentioned this guy's affiliation because it is sensational, plus it makes it MUCH easier to hate him, and makes you believe he's capable of anything horrible and deserves what he gets.
But the KKK is a very political group, in that they want to change society (in a bad bad way). As a politician, you have more potential to change society than almost any other profession. So regardless of how much Duke renounces his white supremacist past, as a politician it's still going to follow him forever, and it should. Do you really trust David Duke when he says he's changed all his racist views?
They're not attached to the veins themselves in most cases, as far as I know:) Let us not also forget maggot therapy, in which maggots are introduced into a wound because they will only consume the rotting flesh. Many a person has died in the jungle because they took the maggots out of a wound which then festered and killed them.
you win the "first/. post to make me shudder today" award:-)
Leeches used to be the entire "cure", as opposed to the surgical tools they are used as today.
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Now that sounds more like it! It means that the "you may not circumvent copyright protections" rule does not apply if it affects defenses or fair use. Right?
We never had a right. Instead, we had (and have) a partial defense.
But if what they're protecting is specifically excluded from the copyright rules, then isn't it also excluded from the "circumvention of copyright" rules?
Ok, reading through 17 USC 1201, I got kind of lost, but I found this:
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
And it goes on to say that the Librarian of Congress is sort of in charge of interpreting this rule.
Does that mean that we may circumvent protection technologies if our reason is covered by fair use?
Where did this text come from? Is it on the Anthony Hamilton CD?
I think it was the license agreement for the extra software that came on the CD (the software which, after crippling your PC by installing a special driver that prevents clean rips, allows you to make up to 3 copies of the music).
Like most agreements, you can only read it once you've purchased the CD and opened it.
You bought a physical good that contains copyrighted information. You can use it for whatever you like, just like you can buy a set of Britannicas and use them as the legs on a coffee table if you wish. You have no right to duplicate the copyrighted material. Your error was in trying to force it into an either/or proposition in which you define both of the eithers.
Don't I have the right to take reasonable measures to make sure I'm able to use the product which I purchased? Do I have the right to use the product as I see fit, provided I don't make copies and sell them? I'm allowed to put the CD in a device which converts it to sound an dplays it through speakers; am I allowed to put the CD in a device which converts that sound to a MP3 file so I can listen to it on my iPod? Why or why not?
This circumvention thing confuses me...if we have an established right to do something (namely copy the cd for backup/personal use), and they put in technology to inhibit those rights, isn't that illegal? Isn't that intentionally denying us one of our legal rights?
1.2. Your rights to use the Digital Content are conditioned on your ownership of a license to use and possession of the original Compact Disc (CD) media and are terminated in the event you no longer own or possess the original CD media. (This apparently prohibits using copied tracks as backups in case the original disc is lost, stolen, or destroyed.)
So if the CD fails to remain usable through normal wear and tear, does that put the publisher in breach of contract? They've effectively granted me a license that they are going to renege on should the physical media degrade.
They've got to make up their minds! Is it a physical good, or a digital good? Did I buy a license and the CD was just a nice way for them to fulfill their promise that I'm licensed to use the content? Did I buy a plastic disc (for $15) which I'm free to do with as I please?
Back in 1999 when people were just getting started with modems, a telemarketer called my modem line, which I happened to have a phone plugged into that day. I picked up and said, sounding all shocked, "What are you doing calling this number!!! This is a MODEM line! Do you know what could happen??? Don't ever dial this number again! Jesus christ!!!"
I imagine if a case ever got to court, they'd have some issues. Getting it there is pretty tough, since actually identifying these people essentially requires one to beg the phone company...
Next time, if you want to find out who they are, try claiming they violated your copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the fun of a game is getting better at the game (like I'm good at Super Monkey Ball) - where you are able to do things you just couldn't do before. Levelling is one way to have that happen, but it's artificial and ultimately unsatisfying - especially in a competitive setting where the winner is determined primarily by time/luck/cheating (rather than skill/focus).
If progress was based on progressing the skill of the player, imagine how much more satisfying it would be. Ever wonder why the first month of an MMORPG is satisfying? Because that's when YOU are gaining the skill to play,instead of your character.
That was the most insightful thing I've read in this whole discussion!
Games like Street Fighter, and old fashioned pinball games demanded that you as a person learned to play better. But with near turn-based MMORPGs, they've removed all the physical challenge of playing, so that it's only game knowledge and calculations. That's right, they've managed to take what little physical benefit video games had and removed it.
But not all games suffer this demise, where only people with OCD are around after a few months. Look at Diablo II/x. So many folks still play that game, as it has some magical formula that allows a whole variety of characters that were equally fun to play. I think the key was that the barrier to entry was not so high that you'd feel like you could never turn back or try a new character. While it takes 1-2 months to max out a character in SWG (and a TON of repetitive boring tasks -- ask any elite artisan what % he spent grinding), you could max out a D2x char in just a few nights, if you played hard enough. Or you could take as long as you liked, and you'd still have a fulfilling variety of gameplay to keep you entertained.
Well that's the first sensible thing I've heard them do in years.
But if they don't repeal Amazon's "one click shopping" patent, I'm going to demand a patent on "one eye blinking", or "Winking" as I call it.
95% of the patches tell you that once installed, they can't be removed.
:-). But it hasn't happened to date.
A few are like that (What do you do if that messes up your system, eh?
Cry / go play outside
Also, the patch delivery system sucks. It doesn't scan what's on your computer, it only checks the registry.
Well that's good enough for most users, isn't it? For patches, the registry works like a checklist, and windows update trusts the checklist. If your registry's corrupt then you've got bigger problems.
Although if something maliciously breaks the patch but doesn't make a note in the registry, then I guess you'd be unpatched and not know it? But I haven't ehard any cases of this...although it might be a good sneak attack.
When was the last time a patch broke something?
There was a "slow-down-your-system" windows patch in April 2003. Took them a while to release a working version of it, too.
I don't manage any servers, but on my personal Windows XP pc, I patch asap. There's nothing critical on there that would be impacted by a lousy patch, and I know enough that I can always unpatch it if need be.
:-)
The only patches I hold off on are motherboard bios patches, cause those are such a bitch to debug if something goes wrong
I wish there weren't so many WIndows XP patches, but you have the admit they've got an amazing patch delivery service. It must help for them to have so much practice delivering patches.
It is a microchip, it's just not a microprocessor.
Yes, but if you're paying 3-8 dollars per month like he says, that ends up being $36-$96 per year, so it ends up being MORE expensive if you keep the same number for a long period of time.
Like who says? Dada21? Where are those numbers from? What makes you believe that in order to support a relatively simple one-time transfer (Verizon transfers control of number 917-123-4567 to T-Mobile at the customer's request), they'd need to charge every single customer a high, recurring monthly fee?
THANK YOU for writing the response I expected I'd have to write to that misguided "libertarian".
In your case, paying for two plans at once during a transition is viable, since it's a big part of your business. But the average person won't want to pay an extra $40-$80 when they change plans.
So it's not fair to companies who are trying to use superior service to win away customers of other companies, since there's an artifical negative consequence associated with switching to their product.
I'm glad to see this happen: this legislation removes an artificial negative consequence, in order to keep the market fair. In the end, the better company will win, and the consumers will get better service.
In a time when most legislation is to protect the company, not the consumer, it's nice to see something like this law.
:-)
They've essentially had a strange sort of monopoly over you, where if you wanted to keep your number, you were forced to use their service and had no other options. Other than the "keep your number" part, that is a CLEAR example of a monopoly for existing customers. It's kind of interesting, from an economics point of view
I've got a two year contract (bogus!), but I'm happy with Verizon's service (excellent!) and cost/feature balance. In my area, their coverage is second to none. So I won't be switching, as long as Verizon keeps up with features I want eventually (stylish phone choices, camera, push-to-talk, etc.)
So I think allowing you to keep your number will just make companies work harder to keep their customers. No longer will the desire to maintain a consistent phone number be a reason to stay with your provider, so they will need better and more meaningful reasons to hang on to their customers (such as a superior product/service).
In related news, the lawsuit has been settled. Apparently, the lawyers agreed that the school could keep the WiFi network, as long as they provide tinfoil hats to each child. When asked for comment, the art teacher assigned to the construction of the hats simply sighed.
You know something's wrong with an industry/company when they don't listen to their customers, and start using lawsuits to maintain their status quo.
:-) Although you said it more clearly:
Yeah, great minds think alike
Which brings me to a related topic... all my CD's that I've kept in my car are becoming scratched up from the holder I keep them in. Some are starting to skip. This is very disappointing. I feel like I should be entitled to get an inexpensive replacement from the record companies for any damaged CD's. They're out there trying to push the idea that when you buy a CD you're not entitled to do everything you want with the physical medium you bought the music on. They're saying that you didn't really buy anything physical, but what you really bought was a limited license to listen to the songs on the CD. They just happened to be delivered on a physical medium. But if this were true, I should still have that license even if the disc becomes damaged, and I should be entitled to those songs which I can no longer listen to. I realize that they still need to produce a physical object for the replacement so there should be some fee, but it should be very small.
Take the Louisiana's election for governor several, several years ago. One of the candidates was David Duke. Duke is somewhat infamous for being a high-ranking member of "the Klan" many years ago. He claimed multiple times, publicly, that he made some mistakes in the past and he no longer held those views anymore.
Ok...motives of white supremacists do not matter in spam - I hate spam no matter which races the spammer hates or which organization the spammer belongs to. So I'm guessing the journalist mentioned this guy's affiliation because it is sensational, plus it makes it MUCH easier to hate him, and makes you believe he's capable of anything horrible and deserves what he gets.
But the KKK is a very political group, in that they want to change society (in a bad bad way). As a politician, you have more potential to change society than almost any other profession. So regardless of how much Duke renounces his white supremacist past, as a politician it's still going to follow him forever, and it should. Do you really trust David Duke when he says he's changed all his racist views?
They're not attached to the veins themselves in most cases, as far as I know :) Let us not also forget maggot therapy, in which maggots are introduced into a wound because they will only consume the rotting flesh. Many a person has died in the jungle because they took the maggots out of a wound which then festered and killed them.
/. post to make me shudder today" award :-)
you win the "first
Leeches used to be the entire "cure", as opposed to the surgical tools they are used as today.
How about this?
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Now that sounds more like it! It means that the "you may not circumvent copyright protections" rule does not apply if it affects defenses or fair use. Right?
But if what they're protecting is specifically excluded from the copyright rules, then isn't it also excluded from the "circumvention of copyright" rules?
Ok, reading through 17 USC 1201, I got kind of lost, but I found this:
And it goes on to say that the Librarian of Congress is sort of in charge of interpreting this rule.
Does that mean that we may circumvent protection technologies if our reason is covered by fair use?
Where did this text come from? Is it on the Anthony Hamilton CD?
I think it was the license agreement for the extra software that came on the CD (the software which, after crippling your PC by installing a special driver that prevents clean rips, allows you to make up to 3 copies of the music).
Like most agreements, you can only read it once you've purchased the CD and opened it.
You bought a physical good that contains copyrighted information.
You can use it for whatever you like, just like you can buy a set of Britannicas and use them as the legs on a coffee table if you wish.
You have no right to duplicate the copyrighted material.
Your error was in trying to force it into an either/or proposition in which you define both of the eithers.
Don't I have the right to take reasonable measures to make sure I'm able to use the product which I purchased? Do I have the right to use the product as I see fit, provided I don't make copies and sell them? I'm allowed to put the CD in a device which converts it to sound an dplays it through speakers; am I allowed to put the CD in a device which converts that sound to a MP3 file so I can listen to it on my iPod? Why or why not?
This circumvention thing confuses me...if we have an established right to do something (namely copy the cd for backup/personal use), and they put in technology to inhibit those rights, isn't that illegal? Isn't that intentionally denying us one of our legal rights?
1.2. Your rights to use the Digital Content are conditioned on your ownership of a license to use and possession of the original Compact Disc (CD) media and are terminated in the event you no longer own or possess the original CD media. (This apparently prohibits using copied tracks as backups in case the original disc is lost, stolen, or destroyed.)
So if the CD fails to remain usable through normal wear and tear, does that put the publisher in breach of contract? They've effectively granted me a license that they are going to renege on should the physical media degrade.
They've got to make up their minds! Is it a physical good, or a digital good? Did I buy a license and the CD was just a nice way for them to fulfill their promise that I'm licensed to use the content? Did I buy a plastic disc (for $15) which I'm free to do with as I please?
Back in 1999 when people were just getting started with modems, a telemarketer called my modem line, which I happened to have a phone plugged into that day. I picked up and said, sounding all shocked, "What are you doing calling this number!!! This is a MODEM line! Do you know what could happen??? Don't ever dial this number again! Jesus christ!!!"
:-)
And they never dialed that number again
I imagine if a case ever got to court, they'd have some issues. Getting it there is pretty tough, since actually identifying these people essentially requires one to beg the phone company...
Next time, if you want to find out who they are, try claiming they violated your copyright.
Before you call them, make sure they're not on the Do-Not-Call registry, or you could be facing a hefty fine.
You're probably thinking of this from the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3308/realtimetv.html realtimetv
Yep, that's it; thanks.