The problem with that argument is that tracks that can be used by a train going 60MPH cannot be used by a train that goes 200MPH. They have to have much more gradual turns, for one thing (or preferably no turns at all, relying on bridges and tunnels). The electrical pickup doohickey on a normal train would be destroyed at 200MPH. The bullet train and TGV can go at those speeds because they were designed to do so since before the first track was laid; converting an existing system over to those sort of speeds would be a massive engineering effort comparable to building an entirely new rail infrastructure.
We already have the "speeding bullet" standard, but there's only been one documented case of an object exceeding this, and it was powerful than a locomotive anyway.
What's more important here is that those P2P programs use the fact that they are hotbeds of infringment as enticements in their advertising. BitTorrent does not, only the various tracker sites.
I'd prefer to interpret this as the court's realization/declaration that there is nothing to weasel out of. It would not be correct to issue a blanket "P2P is good" or "P2P is bad" but rather to decide each case on its own merits, and doing so is not "weaseling" but rather recognizing that the term "P2P" covers a very wide field of technology and behavior.
Since you seem to know about these things- Why does it have to be continuous flow? If we can make an artificial heart that runs constantly, why can't we make one that turns on and off once every second or so?
You're paying for the wire leading from your house to the local exchange and a small share of the gateway router at the other end of it. Once you're out onto the net itself, you aren't riding on that $39.95 any more.
Dual booting is a tremendous pain in the ass. I don't know why more people don't see this. Given a choice between "double-click the app" and "wait a minute or two, have every single thing about your computer change completely, then double-click the app", most people would pick the former every time.
If you really don't see a problem with a game strategy that results in every single player being bored out of their minds for 45 minutes, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and hope that we never end up in the same game.
How many times does it have to be said? These machines do not represent the final products Apple will put up for sale to the public. These are a quick hack to get developers working on the Intel platform, nothing more. The real Intel Macs will use 2006-era processors and chipsets, will be legacy-free, and will almost certainly not use BIOS (the best possibility is EFI), and will probably feature some custom Apple logic on the motherboard somewhere to head off all the problems you're predicting.
Those government programs get cancelled because they are tremendously egregious wastes of money. Even governments can't subsidize forever; the bar is lower than it is for a for-profit business but even cities can go bankrupt if they run at a deficit for long enough.
Face it, free wireless is neither a high priority nor a fundamental necessity of life to the vast majority of people, and that will be true for the foreseeable future. If it's really that important to you, you can get it from a commercial provider (at a cost, but hey, it's really that important, right?).
There's a difference between a strategy that lets you act in ways the other team doesn't expect, and a "strategy" that results in the spirit of the game being broken because it cannot possibly be countered by any non-cheating action on the part of the enemy.
For example, a common event that would fall into this category in Halo 2: Hiding the bomb. In the Assault gametype, one team has to carry a bomb into the enemy base to score a point, and the other team has to stop them. If the game clock ran out while the attackers were in the middle of an attempt to plant the bomb, it would enter "sudden death", and the game wouldn't end until the attackers succeeded or were driven off by the defenders. So, what some bastards would do is take the bomb and simply hide- they would ride an airplane (the only one in the level) to the top of the map and sit there. Eventually - I've seen this go on for 45 minutes or more - the defenders would give up and leave the game, leaving an easy score for the attackers. Are you really saying this is a valid strategy, or the fault of the developers? It's people being assholes, plain and simple.
The problem with that approach is that it turns the game from "who can play the best" to "who can perform the best exploit the fastest", which is a completely different game from the one you may have intended to play when you joined the server.
The ITMS already has a fairly effective means of doing this- you can only buy music from the store corresponding to the country your credit card's billing address is in. And, yes, some people are upset over this, but it's more because of differences in the region-specific catalogues than region-specific pricing.
Don't forget that this is the "green" Batman. Perhaps over the following 20 or 30 years (or however long he's supposed to have been doing it in the comics) he learns the importance (and methods) of real forensics. Who says his training stopped when he put on the cowl?
True, but it's presented in a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek light that glosses over any suffering and injustice it may contain in the quest for really cool action scenes. And the main characters are all total badasses who don't care about the system since it has so little of an effect on them.
Correlation != causation. The reason people are unwilling to leave their homes is that the movies are not compelling, too expensive, and not sufficiently better than the alternatives available at home.
The reason theaters are so insistent on gouging you for food is that that's where they get most of their money. Receipts from tickets are almost entirely funneled back to Hollywood.
Assume we are having an argument about the effect of illegitimate use of a certain class of service on the service as a whole.
[service] can be used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. However, the presence of anyillegitimate use on a subsection of [service] is evidence that the entire subsection is polluted and dangerous to [service] as a whole. The subsection should be disabled and all its users forced to endure downtime until they can prove that they have cleaned up their act and are not longer transmitting illegitimate content.
[service] can be used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. However, the presence of illegitimate use on a subsection of [service] is the price we have to pay for the benefits of [service] as a whole and our obligation to preserve the use of [service] for legitimate users on the same subsection as purveyors of illegitimate content. We should be careful to only act against those individuals who are polluting [service] and minimize collateral damage.
Which conclusions will you pick when [service] is "email"? Now how about when it's "P2P"? Because the situations and starting positions leading to the two conclusions above are pretty much identical.
The article states that Apple COULD do this, not that they will definitely do this. This is a RUMOR. Is it too much to ask that the editors confirm that the summary is consistent with the article next time? We'll have to start checking even the summary for goatse links now.
Don't personify an entity which exists on paper. A corporation does not have traumatic memories or emotions or free-floating anxiety or a mind at all. I'd also bet that not a single one of the people who directly experienced these crises are still working at Disney, if they're even still alive.
Disney is doing what they think leads to the highest profits, as they have done throughout their entire history. We may not like that, or we may prefer that they did something else, but there's no need to try to understand Disney's "motivations" or "character" because those concepts don't apply here.
It's actually a lot harder in Halo 2 than you make it sound- the system is pretty resistant to being gamed, especially after the recent patch. In ranked play, you give up control over what you are playing and who you are playing against- the only choice you make is what category of game you want to play (deathmatch, objective, 1v1, etc). You don't get to choose your opponents either; you can't see who you are playing against until the game has started. If you leave after the game has started, it's counted the same as if you played through but came in last (and the game has "started" once you see the game settings and player list, so there's never a chance to "escape" a tough game). Finally, in response to the specific exploit you mentioned, you're not allowed to change teams during the game.
However, "boosting" had a different meaning in Halo 2 before the patch- it was the exploitation of a real bug in the ranking system (not just "find the best play pattern" like you describe). I never knew how it was done, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that argument is that tracks that can be used by a train going 60MPH cannot be used by a train that goes 200MPH. They have to have much more gradual turns, for one thing (or preferably no turns at all, relying on bridges and tunnels). The electrical pickup doohickey on a normal train would be destroyed at 200MPH. The bullet train and TGV can go at those speeds because they were designed to do so since before the first track was laid; converting an existing system over to those sort of speeds would be a massive engineering effort comparable to building an entirely new rail infrastructure.
We already have the "speeding bullet" standard, but there's only been one documented case of an object exceeding this, and it was powerful than a locomotive anyway.
What's more important here is that those P2P programs use the fact that they are hotbeds of infringment as enticements in their advertising. BitTorrent does not, only the various tracker sites.
I'd prefer to interpret this as the court's realization/declaration that there is nothing to weasel out of. It would not be correct to issue a blanket "P2P is good" or "P2P is bad" but rather to decide each case on its own merits, and doing so is not "weaseling" but rather recognizing that the term "P2P" covers a very wide field of technology and behavior.
With research like this, we could see a real renaissance in Mac gaming!
Since you seem to know about these things- Why does it have to be continuous flow? If we can make an artificial heart that runs constantly, why can't we make one that turns on and off once every second or so?
You're paying for the wire leading from your house to the local exchange and a small share of the gateway router at the other end of it. Once you're out onto the net itself, you aren't riding on that $39.95 any more.
Dual booting is a tremendous pain in the ass. I don't know why more people don't see this. Given a choice between "double-click the app" and "wait a minute or two, have every single thing about your computer change completely, then double-click the app", most people would pick the former every time.
Yes. It's a valid strategy.
If you really don't see a problem with a game strategy that results in every single player being bored out of their minds for 45 minutes, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and hope that we never end up in the same game.
How many times does it have to be said? These machines do not represent the final products Apple will put up for sale to the public. These are a quick hack to get developers working on the Intel platform, nothing more. The real Intel Macs will use 2006-era processors and chipsets, will be legacy-free, and will almost certainly not use BIOS (the best possibility is EFI), and will probably feature some custom Apple logic on the motherboard somewhere to head off all the problems you're predicting.
Those government programs get cancelled because they are tremendously egregious wastes of money. Even governments can't subsidize forever; the bar is lower than it is for a for-profit business but even cities can go bankrupt if they run at a deficit for long enough.
Face it, free wireless is neither a high priority nor a fundamental necessity of life to the vast majority of people, and that will be true for the foreseeable future. If it's really that important to you, you can get it from a commercial provider (at a cost, but hey, it's really that important, right?).
There's a difference between a strategy that lets you act in ways the other team doesn't expect, and a "strategy" that results in the spirit of the game being broken because it cannot possibly be countered by any non-cheating action on the part of the enemy.
For example, a common event that would fall into this category in Halo 2: Hiding the bomb. In the Assault gametype, one team has to carry a bomb into the enemy base to score a point, and the other team has to stop them. If the game clock ran out while the attackers were in the middle of an attempt to plant the bomb, it would enter "sudden death", and the game wouldn't end until the attackers succeeded or were driven off by the defenders. So, what some bastards would do is take the bomb and simply hide- they would ride an airplane (the only one in the level) to the top of the map and sit there. Eventually - I've seen this go on for 45 minutes or more - the defenders would give up and leave the game, leaving an easy score for the attackers. Are you really saying this is a valid strategy, or the fault of the developers? It's people being assholes, plain and simple.
The problem with that approach is that it turns the game from "who can play the best" to "who can perform the best exploit the fastest", which is a completely different game from the one you may have intended to play when you joined the server.
That's why it was a megabot march, not a mebibot march.
The ITMS already has a fairly effective means of doing this- you can only buy music from the store corresponding to the country your credit card's billing address is in. And, yes, some people are upset over this, but it's more because of differences in the region-specific catalogues than region-specific pricing.
Don't forget that this is the "green" Batman. Perhaps over the following 20 or 30 years (or however long he's supposed to have been doing it in the comics) he learns the importance (and methods) of real forensics. Who says his training stopped when he put on the cowl?
It's not just RotS, as this classic post illustrates. (I take no credit for this, I just had it bookmarked.)
True, but it's presented in a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek light that glosses over any suffering and injustice it may contain in the quest for really cool action scenes. And the main characters are all total badasses who don't care about the system since it has so little of an effect on them.
Correlation != causation. The reason people are unwilling to leave their homes is that the movies are not compelling, too expensive, and not sufficiently better than the alternatives available at home.
The reason theaters are so insistent on gouging you for food is that that's where they get most of their money. Receipts from tickets are almost entirely funneled back to Hollywood.
If you want to be as paranoid as possible, just for kicks, this is a trial run ;)
Assume we are having an argument about the effect of illegitimate use of a certain class of service on the service as a whole.
[service] can be used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. However, the presence of anyillegitimate use on a subsection of [service] is evidence that the entire subsection is polluted and dangerous to [service] as a whole. The subsection should be disabled and all its users forced to endure downtime until they can prove that they have cleaned up their act and are not longer transmitting illegitimate content.
[service] can be used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. However, the presence of illegitimate use on a subsection of [service] is the price we have to pay for the benefits of [service] as a whole and our obligation to preserve the use of [service] for legitimate users on the same subsection as purveyors of illegitimate content. We should be careful to only act against those individuals who are polluting [service] and minimize collateral damage.
Which conclusions will you pick when [service] is "email"? Now how about when it's "P2P"? Because the situations and starting positions leading to the two conclusions above are pretty much identical.
The article states that Apple COULD do this, not that they will definitely do this. This is a RUMOR. Is it too much to ask that the editors confirm that the summary is consistent with the article next time? We'll have to start checking even the summary for goatse links now.
Don't personify an entity which exists on paper. A corporation does not have traumatic memories or emotions or free-floating anxiety or a mind at all. I'd also bet that not a single one of the people who directly experienced these crises are still working at Disney, if they're even still alive.
Disney is doing what they think leads to the highest profits, as they have done throughout their entire history. We may not like that, or we may prefer that they did something else, but there's no need to try to understand Disney's "motivations" or "character" because those concepts don't apply here.
It's actually a lot harder in Halo 2 than you make it sound- the system is pretty resistant to being gamed, especially after the recent patch. In ranked play, you give up control over what you are playing and who you are playing against- the only choice you make is what category of game you want to play (deathmatch, objective, 1v1, etc). You don't get to choose your opponents either; you can't see who you are playing against until the game has started. If you leave after the game has started, it's counted the same as if you played through but came in last (and the game has "started" once you see the game settings and player list, so there's never a chance to "escape" a tough game). Finally, in response to the specific exploit you mentioned, you're not allowed to change teams during the game.
However, "boosting" had a different meaning in Halo 2 before the patch- it was the exploitation of a real bug in the ranking system (not just "find the best play pattern" like you describe). I never knew how it was done, though.