I've often been downloading TV series and movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's, things I would never see on today's Television channels
Really? I thought there was at TV stations dedicated to older TV shows (TV Land) and movies (Turner Classic Movies and AMC)... assuming you live in North America that is.
Heck, you can watch Star Trek TOS episodes directly on CBS's site last I checked.
How the fuck are they going to impose their will on the rest of the internet, you know, the parts they don't control?
I'm going to make a wild guess and say that you don't understand why this whole Net Neutrality thing came around.
The primary trouble makers that prompted this whole debate are the US Telecoms, who control the last mile between the rest of the Internet and people houses. Yes, any legislation will be more general than that, just to prevent the backbones (which, through acquisitions, include AT&T and Verizon) from trying to pull the same stunt.
Why shouldn't Google, Fox, CNN, Netflix, etc would pay their fair share by buying higher priority packets?
er... high traffic sites already pay for their fair share of traffic. To their ISPs.
What the telcos want is to double-dip... to charge those companies again for that bandwidth. Some of these telcos have a somewhat valid argument because they own part of the backbone. Others, such as Comcast, don't.
Oh, and you can be sure if the telcos start doing this, then the companies that only control parts of the backbone will start doing the same thing.
So... CNN should pay money to its ISP, Qwest, Verizon Business (formerly UUNet/MCI), Sprint, TeliaSonera, NTT Communications, Tinet, Level 3 Communications (L3), Global Crossing (GBLX), Savvis, AT&T, and Tata Communications? Those are just the world's Tier 1 networks. What about the tier 2 networks? Tier 3 networks? What about Comcast, who doesn't own its own backbone? Where exactly is the line drawn?
Note: I'm not the GP Poster, but that random looking +U0161 he posted at the end? That's the Unicode codepoint for the SarcMark. Which was just mentioned in a story earlier today.
Blizzard's money stream comes from addicts IMHO. Those won't care about cheats, I'd think?
That would be wrong.
The cheaters have a tendency (along with gold farmers) of ruining the game's in-game economy.
This has the net effect of making people who play the game to have to spend more time playing the game to get the virtual money to buy other in-game things.
so, it is a huge waste of time for an 'artist' to put a few copy/pastes in photoshop, to create a printable poster for a missing cat then. the cat, which may be injured, or needing help, or scared somewhere. an entity which is part of a certain family, and a factor of the love in that family in their own home.
Yes. I'm a computer programmer, and even I can fire up Word and create a simple poster for my missing cat.
I thought courts have already ruled that a program residing in memory is a copy, and therefore making that copy without the dongle (which implies limited consent to making said copy in memory) is a violation of copyright. I wouldn't be surprised to see this reversed.
If this were applied as a general rule, it would go against the intent of 117. Given the time this law was written, "essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine" is intended to apply to the copy made in RAM when the program executes.
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer appears to have set a nasty US legal precedent that a person who did not own a computer did not have the rights to run software on it. This prompted 117(c) and (d) to be added by Congress to address the issue of Machine Maintenance or Repair.
MDY v. Blizzard appears to have set a nasty US legal precedent that loading a copy of a program after violating its EULA is a copyright violation.
But did the MDY v Blizzard case actually specify that the copy of the game in RAM was illegal, or that modifying the copy of the game in RAM was illegal?
I thought MS had ended that deal. I notice that they no longer offer the option of Home Premium, though... the previous deal had either Home Premium or Professional as options for students.
Well, the two versions of the retail boxed copy are strange to begin with.
The only apparent difference between the normal retail and Systems Builder editions is that the latter says you can't use it to do an upgrade install... but the thing is, why wouldn't you buy the Upgrade version if you wanted to do an upgrade install?
which would have been a struggle for the average PC of the time as they usually had motherboard graphics only.
There were no "motherboard graphics" for PCs until sometime during the Pentium era. Every video output, including the old 4-color CGA graphics, were a separate card. Even disk I/O was a separate card! Sound wasn't, but considering that the PC speaker was... well... terrible, I wouldn't count that as a plus.
Re:IBM PCs compared extremely poorly with Amigas
on
The Amiga Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Later Amigas had 68040s, a far better chip and chip design than the 386 (to Intel's credit, they're stuck with a horrendous backwards compatibility legacy they can't escape).
According to Wikipedia, the 68040 wasn't released until after the 486 came out, so comparing it to the 386 is rather disingenuous.
Funny thing... when my monitor has no video signal, it shows a blue screen for a bit, then goes black.
My TV does the same thing if I tune to one of the external input channels.
Windows isn't the only device in computers and electronics that produces a blue screen; In fact, Windows is less likely than the other possible reasons*.
* Speaking of which, didn't MS eliminate the BSOD in favor of the RSOD (Red) or BlSOD (Black) in newer Windows versions?
As for the rainbow-coloured thing, it's because it's running full-screen at 256 colours; You need to specify that mode in the compatibility options (and maybe Win98SE mode; Can't remember now).
I would say "Yeah" but this worked fine for StarCraft 1.14 and earlier on Vista/7 (and yes, I mentioned that). 1.15 or 1.15.1 broke this.
> the main menu to look like rainbow-colored puke. > It also requires you to run it as Administrator to play online, including a UAC prompt if you didn't disable them.
Huh, did it turn into malware in recent versions? Why should a game nowadays need admin rights to play?
I can understand needing admin rights if you are going to install it for all users on the computer. But if you aren't doing that, I see no good reason.
I don't know exactly why. Single player (and presumably) LAN work fine without it, but unless you're running as Administrator, the game fails when you try to connect to Battle.NET.
No, they obsolete faster. A 5 year old PC is not going to run all the new games. A 5 year old console does.
That depends on how you classify "all the new games."
The PS2 is still being sold. I could buy it and play "all the new [PS2] games," but that's like saying I can drink all the water in a desert... there may be some there, but extremely little. Prior to this generation, a console's lifetime was 5-6 years before it was considered obsolete and its manufacturer released a new system.
New consoles are generally considered new platforms. They may play games for older systems, but it's not guaranteed (Sony, this means you). Windows, on the other hand, will play a good deal of older games, even if they were released 15 years ago. This is slowly changing; 64-bit Windows won't run 16-bit Windows programs. Even then, I can set up VMWare with an older Windows installation and continue playing older games... something you can't do on consoles.
Old games can still be played on today's pc's (starcraft comes to mind).
It does vary from title to title. Starcraft is obviously well written but it does beg the question as to whether or not it would be worth Blizzard updating the engine a little so it can support higher screen resolutions - although I already own the game and the expansion, I would certainly pay, say. £5-£10 for an updated version that did this.
Playing StarCraft on Windows Vista/7 requires you to turn on a bunch of compatibility settings if you don't want the main menu to look like rainbow-colored puke. This doesn't occur in versions prior to 1.14 iirc, so this is something Blizzard screwed up after Vista launched.
It also requires you to run it as Administrator to play online, including a UAC prompt if you didn't disable them.
A few I have seldom played, but don't feel bad because they only cost $10.
I can't access steamcommunity.com here, but I know I have more than 100 games on my Steam account. A lot were bought through various sales, some in packs with other games. Quite a few I wouldn't have bought otherwise.
Heck I can think of one game I've bought twice: Overlord... once standalone, once as part of the Overlord Complete Pack after the Raising Hell expansion was released on Steam. After I priced it out, it was cheaper to buy the complete pack than to buy Overlord: Raising Hell and Overlord II separately.
The kicker here is: I've never finished Overlord. I've never even started Overlord II.
I've probably played half the games on my Steam list once or never.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I thought there was at TV stations dedicated to older TV shows (TV Land) and movies (Turner Classic Movies and AMC)... assuming you live in North America that is.
Heck, you can watch Star Trek TOS episodes directly on CBS's site last I checked.
I'm going to make a wild guess and say that you don't understand why this whole Net Neutrality thing came around.
The primary trouble makers that prompted this whole debate are the US Telecoms, who control the last mile between the rest of the Internet and people houses. Yes, any legislation will be more general than that, just to prevent the backbones (which, through acquisitions, include AT&T and Verizon) from trying to pull the same stunt.
er... high traffic sites already pay for their fair share of traffic. To their ISPs.
What the telcos want is to double-dip... to charge those companies again for that bandwidth. Some of these telcos have a somewhat valid argument because they own part of the backbone. Others, such as Comcast, don't.
Oh, and you can be sure if the telcos start doing this, then the companies that only control parts of the backbone will start doing the same thing.
So... CNN should pay money to its ISP, Qwest, Verizon Business (formerly UUNet/MCI), Sprint, TeliaSonera, NTT Communications, Tinet, Level 3 Communications (L3),
Global Crossing (GBLX), Savvis, AT&T, and Tata Communications? Those are just the world's Tier 1 networks. What about the tier 2 networks? Tier 3 networks? What about Comcast, who doesn't own its own backbone? Where exactly is the line drawn?
Note: I'm not the GP Poster, but that random looking +U0161 he posted at the end? That's the Unicode codepoint for the SarcMark. Which was just mentioned in a story earlier today.
That would be wrong.
The cheaters have a tendency (along with gold farmers) of ruining the game's in-game economy.
This has the net effect of making people who play the game to have to spend more time playing the game to get the virtual money to buy other in-game things.
Yes. I'm a computer programmer, and even I can fire up Word and create a simple poster for my missing cat.
So, as long as you're studying social interactions online, can you prove or disprove the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory?
In other words, stop playing WoW?
Blizzard loses money in that case. You seriously expect them not to protect a multi-hundred million dollar per month enterprise?
If this were applied as a general rule, it would go against the intent of 117. Given the time this law was written, "essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine" is intended to apply to the copy made in RAM when the program executes.
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer appears to have set a nasty US legal precedent that a person who did not own a computer did not have the rights to run software on it. This prompted 117(c) and (d) to be added by Congress to address the issue of Machine Maintenance or Repair.
MDY v. Blizzard appears to have set a nasty US legal precedent that loading a copy of a program after violating its EULA is a copyright violation.
But did the MDY v Blizzard case actually specify that the copy of the game in RAM was illegal, or that modifying the copy of the game in RAM was illegal?
I thought MS had ended that deal. I notice that they no longer offer the option of Home Premium, though... the previous deal had either Home Premium or Professional as options for students.
Well, the two versions of the retail boxed copy are strange to begin with.
The only apparent difference between the normal retail and Systems Builder editions is that the latter says you can't use it to do an upgrade install... but the thing is, why wouldn't you buy the Upgrade version if you wanted to do an upgrade install?
There were no "motherboard graphics" for PCs until sometime during the Pentium era. Every video output, including the old 4-color CGA graphics, were a separate card. Even disk I/O was a separate card! Sound wasn't, but considering that the PC speaker was... well... terrible, I wouldn't count that as a plus.
According to Wikipedia, the 68040 wasn't released until after the 486 came out, so comparing it to the 386 is rather disingenuous.
Funny thing... when my monitor has no video signal, it shows a blue screen for a bit, then goes black.
My TV does the same thing if I tune to one of the external input channels.
Windows isn't the only device in computers and electronics that produces a blue screen; In fact, Windows is less likely than the other possible reasons*.
* Speaking of which, didn't MS eliminate the BSOD in favor of the RSOD (Red) or BlSOD (Black) in newer Windows versions?
I would say "Yeah" but this worked fine for StarCraft 1.14 and earlier on Vista/7 (and yes, I mentioned that). 1.15 or 1.15.1 broke this.
I don't know exactly why. Single player (and presumably) LAN work fine without it, but unless you're running as Administrator, the game fails when you try to connect to Battle.NET.
That depends on how you classify "all the new games."
The PS2 is still being sold. I could buy it and play "all the new [PS2] games," but that's like saying I can drink all the water in a desert... there may be some there, but extremely little. Prior to this generation, a console's lifetime was 5-6 years before it was considered obsolete and its manufacturer released a new system.
New consoles are generally considered new platforms. They may play games for older systems, but it's not guaranteed (Sony, this means you). Windows, on the other hand, will play a good deal of older games, even if they were released 15 years ago. This is slowly changing; 64-bit Windows won't run 16-bit Windows programs. Even then, I can set up VMWare with an older Windows installation and continue playing older games... something you can't do on consoles.
XP Mode has no OpenGL/Direct3D support. You're going to need VMWare or VirtualBox (with some extra setup, and is limited to DX8/9) for that.
Don't underestimate the ability to install your Steam games on different machines.
I have different parts of my Steam library installed on my real computer, the XP VM I keep around for old games, and my laptop.
The catch is that I can only be logged on to one of them at a time.
Playing StarCraft on Windows Vista/7 requires you to turn on a bunch of compatibility settings if you don't want the main menu to look like rainbow-colored puke. This doesn't occur in versions prior to 1.14 iirc, so this is something Blizzard screwed up after Vista launched.
It also requires you to run it as Administrator to play online, including a UAC prompt if you didn't disable them.
I wouldn't exactly call it well written.
I hope you remembered to pull out the PC sales figures for this game, since they wouldn't be part of this total.
I can't access steamcommunity.com here, but I know I have more than 100 games on my Steam account. A lot were bought through various sales, some in packs with other games. Quite a few I wouldn't have bought otherwise.
Heck I can think of one game I've bought twice: Overlord... once standalone, once as part of the Overlord Complete Pack after the Raising Hell expansion was released on Steam. After I priced it out, it was cheaper to buy the complete pack than to buy Overlord: Raising Hell and Overlord II separately.
The kicker here is: I've never finished Overlord. I've never even started Overlord II.
I've probably played half the games on my Steam list once or never.
They've done what they've set out to do, then?
Or did you mean to throw in that they didn't want to be like IBM.
24.7% in the US according to Gartner; the world-wide stats weren't in the top 6, so I can't see them without buying Gartner's research paper.
However, in the same time period, the entire market across all vendors increased by 16%.
[Citation needed]