reads the memory of other applications and whats more, sends it off to blizzard
Not true. This is pure botter FUD.
Even one of the WOWGlider devs, when they wrote up their analysis of Warden, provided zero evidence that Warden sends back to Blizzard anything more than an indication that "this is the known hash key that Warden matched". All the processing is done on the client machine, and zero copyrightable, private, personally-identifying data is sent back to Blizzard as a result of this processing.
This is quite possible the most biased article summary EVAR, unapologetic in its support for activity that is, simply put, cheating. Folks should be reminded of a past case of allegations of wrongdoing against Blizzard, namely the Warden software which is supposed to detect third-party hack programs. The allegations of Warden being spyware were put forth by folks involved with the development of WOWGlider, though the conflict of interest was somewhat concealed behind all the misinformation of what Warden actually did.
Warden temporarily cut off a revenue stream for the Glider developers (note that they've resumed charging $25 for it now), and that revenue stream - and much more - is now at risk with this lawsuit. Take this article with a block of salt because of that. It's in the interest of the Glider developers to engage in an(other) anonymous campaign to sully Blizzard's reputation further in an effort to make Blizzard back off on their lawsuit.
You can also compare it to the case of the Starforce developers, who sold a product proven to be nefarious, and who engaged in a smear campaign against those who exposed their product for what it is.
I'd say that's a false dichotomy. You don't have to side with cheaters in order to oppose expansion of copyright.
There are other legal remedies for dealing with WOWGlider, including tortious contract interference for soliciting people to violate the game's TOS, which results both in lost revenue from banned players as well as lost revenue from players who quit out of disgust with rampant cheating. While the monetary damages from this may not be easily calculable, the real intent would be to get an injunction against the WOWGlider developers to force them to stop distributing the software. Then the developers are staring down the barrel of a contempt charge if they keep doing it.
I was always partial to Thundarr the Barbarian. Thundarr had the Sunsword, possibly the most powerful melee weapon in the post-apocalyptic future, but to prevent kids from trying to kill each other with their own Sunswords, Thundarr was relegated to waving his weapon around ferociously to scare away his enemies. On the few occasions when Thundarr would actually hit something with the Sunsword, said something was always impervious to its effects.
It had cool theme music, though, as 1980s cartoon series went.
The term "virtual world" should not be taken literally. It's not like these people are playing from their apartments on Mars or something. They are in the real world, and where their virtual actions touch real world money, the government has a legitimate interest in recouping its expenses, e.g., law enforcement concerning online fraud. This is what's meant by "commercial"
Where transactions are purely virtual - i.e., the transaction does not touch real money - the transaction has zero value in the real world, and the taxes should also be zero. But if you're talking about RMT, whether it's sanctioned by the game developer (Second Life) or not (most MMOGs), then the transaction is no longer purely virtual.
This isn't exactly what the article author indicates - she believes that if you are dealing in Lindens, then you're essentially engaging in barter with intangible property - but I would argue that Lindens are worthless until there is an interface with a non-virtual good, service, or money, and that's the point at which tax could be assessed.
Whether or not from a public policy perspective it's a good idea or not to tax online transactions is another question entirely (e.g., tax moratoria, etc.).
What's more, by "DVD" he or she actually means three DVDs (or perhaps "over two DVDs") and says nothing of the other 12 DVDs comprising the other three seasons of the show or the Monster Robot Maniac Fun Collection DVD.
Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.
Actually, you don't have to agree to a copyright agreement to be bound by copyright law. The law serves as a sort of default set of rules that you must follow if, for example, you don't agree with the EULA on your newly-purchased software. That's what makes the GPL work, because if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the GPL, then the default - that being copyright law - applies, which forbids you from making copies in most situations.
Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA (rather, the particular record label at issue here) is doing the right thing. In fact, I yearn for the day when artists can make their living off of concerts and give away their recorded music for cheap/free, all without requiring the "services" of the record labels. But they're well within their rights to demand that other folks not create more copies of the music they hold the copyright on outside of fair use.
Compare this to Papa John's, which is running a special on their website which says: Three Medium, Unlimited Toppings (Maximum Five Toppings per pizza)
To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that hword. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Actually, there are situations in the US in which false advertising is a criminal act. In particular, see 18 USC 52-55. The same applies, perhaps even in a broader sense, in some states. In Ohio, for example, it may be a third- or second-degree misdemeanor.
Civil remedies may apply as well, although an individual's damages are likely to be very minimal in this case, probably governed by state law. In Ohio, this would probably amount at most to the prorated monthly service fee, possibly a connection charge by an alternate supplier, and attorney's fees. If you're willing to file in non-small-claims court, you could also ask for an injunction against the offender.
The example of solar cars was a hypothetical meant to address the problem of forming the terms of a contest by measuring environmental impact by "miles per gallon". My acknowledgement of the unlikelihood of a solar car being successful was included when I said, "if somebody actually did develop".
We could always package it up in aluminum cans and export it to those in need.
But seriously, the oxygen isn't a problem, because the oxygen is eventually reacted with the fuel cell's hydrogen to form water again. Who knows - it's possible that hydrogen obtained directly from natural gas, coal, or space could have a negative impact on the environment even once it's turned into water, due to oxygen depletion.
Actually, you raise a very good point. As another example, take ethanol-blended gasoline versus straight gasoline. It's known that in terms of miles per gallon, ethanol blends are somewhat less fuel efficient than gasoline-only blends. It's clear, however, that energy utilization per volume isn't the proper metric for fuel, or else farmers would be the only ones touting ethanol blends as a potential 1.5th-generation fuel.
How do you measure the fuel efficiency of a solar-powered car? Measured by volume, its fuel consumption is infinite, since it uses volumeless photons as its fuel. Even measuring it by utilization efficiency (energy out over energy in) confounds the true goal of next-generation fuels, that being to reduce environmental impact, since the impact of solar power is entirely in the manufacture and disposal of the panels. How do you measure that?
And what's more, if somebody actually did develop a solar powered car that had performance characteristics comparable to compact gasoline-powered cars and was in the same ballpark in terms of price (perhaps taking comparable petroleum-based fuel costs into account), wouldn't it be unfair to deny this prize to the car's designers even though they went, ahem, the extra mile to bring the next generation of vehicles to the public?
Electrolysis isn't really that bad a method for producing hydrogen. The electricity used to electrolyze water can be generated via solar, wind, or nuclear power, which means that it's unfair to compare the energy spent electrolyzing water to the energy used burning gasoline in our cars. After all, even if it takes a hundred times as much energy to electrolyze water, what does that matter if we use solar power to do it? Even if we foolishly continue powering our electricity plants with coal, oil, and natural gas, in which case there is a direct comparison to current fossil fuel consumption, at least the carbon dioxide production is centralized and therefore cheaper to sequester.
Of course it's an AI. It isn't researched much in the field of artificial intelligence anymore because the techniques involved aren't very relevant to a deeper understanding to human intelligence as compared to neural networks and other systems based on dynamics in high-dimensional spaces, but it's still an AI.
Sure it's AI. It may not duplicate human intelligence, but it's as much AI as a chess program that does nothing more than search game space for the optimal next move.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=369
That's kind of a vague statement - care to elucidate?
reads the memory of other applications and whats more, sends it off to blizzard
Not true. This is pure botter FUD.
Even one of the WOWGlider devs, when they wrote up their analysis of Warden, provided zero evidence that Warden sends back to Blizzard anything more than an indication that "this is the known hash key that Warden matched". All the processing is done on the client machine, and zero copyrightable, private, personally-identifying data is sent back to Blizzard as a result of this processing.
This is quite possible the most biased article summary EVAR, unapologetic in its support for activity that is, simply put, cheating. Folks should be reminded of a past case of allegations of wrongdoing against Blizzard, namely the Warden software which is supposed to detect third-party hack programs. The allegations of Warden being spyware were put forth by folks involved with the development of WOWGlider, though the conflict of interest was somewhat concealed behind all the misinformation of what Warden actually did.
Warden temporarily cut off a revenue stream for the Glider developers (note that they've resumed charging $25 for it now), and that revenue stream - and much more - is now at risk with this lawsuit. Take this article with a block of salt because of that. It's in the interest of the Glider developers to engage in an(other) anonymous campaign to sully Blizzard's reputation further in an effort to make Blizzard back off on their lawsuit.
You can also compare it to the case of the Starforce developers, who sold a product proven to be nefarious, and who engaged in a smear campaign against those who exposed their product for what it is.
I'd say that's a false dichotomy. You don't have to side with cheaters in order to oppose expansion of copyright.
There are other legal remedies for dealing with WOWGlider, including tortious contract interference for soliciting people to violate the game's TOS, which results both in lost revenue from banned players as well as lost revenue from players who quit out of disgust with rampant cheating. While the monetary damages from this may not be easily calculable, the real intent would be to get an injunction against the WOWGlider developers to force them to stop distributing the software. Then the developers are staring down the barrel of a contempt charge if they keep doing it.
I was always partial to Thundarr the Barbarian. Thundarr had the Sunsword, possibly the most powerful melee weapon in the post-apocalyptic future, but to prevent kids from trying to kill each other with their own Sunswords, Thundarr was relegated to waving his weapon around ferociously to scare away his enemies. On the few occasions when Thundarr would actually hit something with the Sunsword, said something was always impervious to its effects.
It had cool theme music, though, as 1980s cartoon series went.
The term "virtual world" should not be taken literally. It's not like these people are playing from their apartments on Mars or something. They are in the real world, and where their virtual actions touch real world money, the government has a legitimate interest in recouping its expenses, e.g., law enforcement concerning online fraud. This is what's meant by "commercial"
Where transactions are purely virtual - i.e., the transaction does not touch real money - the transaction has zero value in the real world, and the taxes should also be zero. But if you're talking about RMT, whether it's sanctioned by the game developer (Second Life) or not (most MMOGs), then the transaction is no longer purely virtual.
This isn't exactly what the article author indicates - she believes that if you are dealing in Lindens, then you're essentially engaging in barter with intangible property - but I would argue that Lindens are worthless until there is an interface with a non-virtual good, service, or money, and that's the point at which tax could be assessed.
Whether or not from a public policy perspective it's a good idea or not to tax online transactions is another question entirely (e.g., tax moratoria, etc.).
Knowing the key in the first place is the exploit.
What's more, by "DVD" he or she actually means three DVDs (or perhaps "over two DVDs") and says nothing of the other 12 DVDs comprising the other three seasons of the show or the Monster Robot Maniac Fun Collection DVD.
Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.
Actually, you don't have to agree to a copyright agreement to be bound by copyright law. The law serves as a sort of default set of rules that you must follow if, for example, you don't agree with the EULA on your newly-purchased software. That's what makes the GPL work, because if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the GPL, then the default - that being copyright law - applies, which forbids you from making copies in most situations.
Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA (rather, the particular record label at issue here) is doing the right thing. In fact, I yearn for the day when artists can make their living off of concerts and give away their recorded music for cheap/free, all without requiring the "services" of the record labels. But they're well within their rights to demand that other folks not create more copies of the music they hold the copyright on outside of fair use.
I wonder if the micro jammer still works.
On everything.
Is that like the Cool Hwip joke from a hwile ago?
Hyes.
No, we wouldn't want a robot that could squeeze through rubble to find survivors of a building collapse. No sirree.
Compare this to Papa John's, which is running a special on their website which says: Three Medium, Unlimited Toppings (Maximum Five Toppings per pizza)
To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that hword. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Actually, there are situations in the US in which false advertising is a criminal act. In particular, see 18 USC 52-55. The same applies, perhaps even in a broader sense, in some states. In Ohio, for example, it may be a third- or second-degree misdemeanor.
Civil remedies may apply as well, although an individual's damages are likely to be very minimal in this case, probably governed by state law. In Ohio, this would probably amount at most to the prorated monthly service fee, possibly a connection charge by an alternate supplier, and attorney's fees. If you're willing to file in non-small-claims court, you could also ask for an injunction against the offender.
(I ANAL, and all that jazz.)
DST was never for the benefit of farmers. I don't know where that urban legend cropped up, but farmers would get up at dawn even if you called it 3pm.
The example of solar cars was a hypothetical meant to address the problem of forming the terms of a contest by measuring environmental impact by "miles per gallon". My acknowledgement of the unlikelihood of a solar car being successful was included when I said, "if somebody actually did develop".
And what do we do with the oxygen, anyway?
We could always package it up in aluminum cans and export it to those in need.
But seriously, the oxygen isn't a problem, because the oxygen is eventually reacted with the fuel cell's hydrogen to form water again. Who knows - it's possible that hydrogen obtained directly from natural gas, coal, or space could have a negative impact on the environment even once it's turned into water, due to oxygen depletion.
Actually, you raise a very good point. As another example, take ethanol-blended gasoline versus straight gasoline. It's known that in terms of miles per gallon, ethanol blends are somewhat less fuel efficient than gasoline-only blends. It's clear, however, that energy utilization per volume isn't the proper metric for fuel, or else farmers would be the only ones touting ethanol blends as a potential 1.5th-generation fuel.
How do you measure the fuel efficiency of a solar-powered car? Measured by volume, its fuel consumption is infinite, since it uses volumeless photons as its fuel. Even measuring it by utilization efficiency (energy out over energy in) confounds the true goal of next-generation fuels, that being to reduce environmental impact, since the impact of solar power is entirely in the manufacture and disposal of the panels. How do you measure that?
And what's more, if somebody actually did develop a solar powered car that had performance characteristics comparable to compact gasoline-powered cars and was in the same ballpark in terms of price (perhaps taking comparable petroleum-based fuel costs into account), wouldn't it be unfair to deny this prize to the car's designers even though they went, ahem, the extra mile to bring the next generation of vehicles to the public?
Electrolysis isn't really that bad a method for producing hydrogen. The electricity used to electrolyze water can be generated via solar, wind, or nuclear power, which means that it's unfair to compare the energy spent electrolyzing water to the energy used burning gasoline in our cars. After all, even if it takes a hundred times as much energy to electrolyze water, what does that matter if we use solar power to do it? Even if we foolishly continue powering our electricity plants with coal, oil, and natural gas, in which case there is a direct comparison to current fossil fuel consumption, at least the carbon dioxide production is centralized and therefore cheaper to sequester.
There doesn't need to be an "operating system", unless you need it to throw up.
Edited for brevity.
See, this is what happens when you put a couple hundred people in an enclosed space with a bunch of programming languages.
Of course it's an AI. It isn't researched much in the field of artificial intelligence anymore because the techniques involved aren't very relevant to a deeper understanding to human intelligence as compared to neural networks and other systems based on dynamics in high-dimensional spaces, but it's still an AI.
...Except the killer bug is called "Vista".
Sure it's AI. It may not duplicate human intelligence, but it's as much AI as a chess program that does nothing more than search game space for the optimal next move.