Nor was it fantasy. The Matrix used a purely technological explanation for the "fantastic" powers its denizens displayed. Further, it posits a scientific background and asks "what if this happened".
There's the rub. Vigilantes or just the Neighbourhood Watch ?
If all the RIAA did was report crimes they observed to the authorities and then let them handle it, then that might sit better with me.
Even the Neighbourhood watch knocks on your door and asks to come in, before they leap to any conclusions.
This whole comparison is, of course, flawed. There isn't an internet equivalent of a front lawn with a big sign on it saying "Pirate MP3's Here". No matter how you wish to make the correlation to prove your point, there is a distinct difference.
While what you said is true, it's not the point he was making.
Perhaps it might be better said as "Music takes time and energy to create. If what is produced has value as entertainment to some people, then that value ought to be recognized through some sort of compensation by those people."
This is more of an ethical statement than a legal one, however.
Privacy issues aside - the people patrolling the neighourhood, the police you say... well they're trained and employed by the government, and accountable to the people.
Roving private gangs bringing their own brand of "justice" to the streets are called vigilantes.
That's true enough for any regular contract. Although its really not relevant to the enforcability of EULAs, which really aren't valid contracts. Whether they're enforcable under any other law or not, they're on pretty shaky ground under regular contract law.
I learned how to take a computer apart and put it back together when I was 2, started programming when I was 3, and built a motorcycle when I was 6. I also started competing with 12-14 year olds in Dressage when I was 7.
"Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'. "
Umm.. yeah. Look, it's like this. Without Copyright, the GPL isn't necessary. But that's not the same as saying code should be in the public domain. The GPL uses copyright law to prevent the middleman scenario, because Copyright is the operating universe of discourse in which it must work to achieve it's aims. If there were no copyright laws, the GPL wouldn't work, but neither would it be necessary, since it would be "anything goes" with regards to copying stuff.
So in essence we're in agreement.
I was just, you know, using my *own* words.:)
But only because of Copyright can the middleman enforce his claim to the proprietary software. If there were no copyright laws, you could reverse engineer the middlemans code and reuse it and he would have no recourse. Or, you could copy it and redistribute it without modification All without fear of legal retribution.
That's the difference between "copyright exists, but software was in public domain" and "copyright doesn't exist"
But this misses the point of cooling the processor in the first place !
The processor is hot as a byproduct of its primary function.
The Stirling engine works on the principle that the heat source will be hot most of the time. If the processor is busy being a heat source, then it's not achieving the peak performance of its primary function. The operation of a Stirling engine isn't the most efficient way of conducting that heat away, and really isn't that that the primary aim here ? Otherwise, you might as well just mount the Engine on the case top, that might be hot enough.
Now if you could conduct the heat away immediately and then use it somewhere else for the Stirling engine, that might be a useful compromise.
You miss the point. The game is the background for social interactions between real people. Without that there would be nothing much to wax philosophical about. the book is about making these kinds of games more fun/successful. In single-player games the experience is entirely about the one person playing it. Some of the same principles still apply, but it is the added dimension of social interaction which distinguishes MMOGs from regular games.
And guess what - when you get a bunch of people together you have to be able to satisfy as many of them at the same time as you can.
That's what MMOG designers need to learn, and that's what this book is mostly about.
Don't forget to add in a really big payoff for the schmucks. This makes the game attractive to the gambling addicts who don't understand probability. They'll keep betting on the long odds because the big payoff seems so lucrative.
Gambling is as much a head game as it is about probabilities. I can "bet" that the house makes as much money on Roulette from those people who walk by and plonk a fifty on Black-13 or Red-9 as those who sit there for an hour and hedge their bets.
Sure - go ahead. Just remember - the contestant picks first. Monty must pick a *different, empty* door.
So the chance you're right between two doors is 1/2, provided Monty doesn't give anything away by eliminating a door... But did he give anything away ? He did, because he always has to open a losing door: one losing door is always eliminated. The probabilities of your initial choice being correct, and the remaining choices have to sum to equal one. Therefore, the probability of the remaining choices have to sum to equal one minus the probability of your initial choice. In this case (with three doors), they have to sum to equal 2/3. Say a door isn't opened. Then, you would have two to switch to (if you choose to switch - this would be like "changing your mind"), and your chance of picking the correct door would be 1/2 * 2/3. Well, that's 1/3, just like your initial choice. But if Monty has to open a door, then you'll only have one door to switch to. In this case (which is the Monty Hall problem), you'll pick the remaining door - so that'd be 1 * 2/3. And that's a probability of 2/3.
... Imagine that there were a million doors. Also, after you have chosen your door; Monty opens all but one of the remaining doors, showing you that they are "losers." It's obvious that your first choice is wildly unlikely to have been right. And isn't it obvious that of the other 999,999 doors that you didn't choose; the one that he didn't open is wildly likely to be the one with the prize?
This is the best way of thinking about this problem. What everyone seems to have missed is the *initial chance* at picking the *wrong* door.
The key is this : If you initially pick the wrong door, you MUST win if you switch, since Monty ONLY EVER SHOWS YOU AN EMPTY DOOR, and the only other choice is the winner.
Therefore the chance of a win (if switching) is identical to your chance of picking a loser initially (2/3).
If you never switch, your chance of winning is only 1/3 - since you never change your mind from your initial pure chance guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor was it fantasy.
The Matrix used a purely technological explanation for the "fantastic" powers its denizens displayed.
Further, it posits a scientific background and asks "what if this happened".
Why does it have to be "hard" sci-fi to count?
Well if we could travel at 2c we'd make it there a lot faster.
Bah - All you poor little kiddies whining about IDE's.
...AND THEY LIKE IT !
Real programmers use vi...
1. Turn off the CD player.
2. Engage them in distracting conversation so that they don't notice 1.
3. ???
4. Profit!!
There's the rub.
Vigilantes or just the Neighbourhood Watch ?
If all the RIAA did was report crimes they observed to the authorities and then let them handle it, then that might sit better with me.
Even the Neighbourhood watch knocks on your door and asks to come in, before they leap to any conclusions.
This whole comparison is, of course, flawed. There isn't an internet equivalent of a front lawn with a big sign on it saying "Pirate MP3's Here". No matter how you wish to make the correlation to prove your point, there is a distinct difference.
While what you said is true, it's not the point he was making.
Perhaps it might be better said as "Music takes time and energy to create. If what is produced has value as entertainment to some people, then that value ought to be recognized through some sort of compensation by those people."
This is more of an ethical statement than a legal one, however.
Privacy issues aside - the people patrolling the neighourhood, the police you say... well they're trained and employed by the government, and accountable to the people.
Roving private gangs bringing their own brand of "justice" to the streets are called vigilantes.
This is the whole thing ?
Really - this isn't an article... it's a list. A short one.
I expected a little more for my time, from TIME.
Unless you're in that 1.4 percent.
That's true enough for any regular contract. Although its really not relevant to the enforcability of EULAs, which really aren't valid contracts.
Whether they're enforcable under any other law or not, they're on pretty shaky ground under regular contract law.
After all - he invented the "rocket jump" in Quake ! He's had years to perfect it
I learned how to take a computer apart and put it back together when I was 2, started programming when I was 3, and built a motorcycle when I was 6. I also started competing with 12-14 year olds in Dressage when I was 7.
"Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'. "
Umm .. yeah.
:)
Look, it's like this. Without Copyright, the GPL isn't necessary. But that's not the same as saying code should be in the public domain.
The GPL uses copyright law to prevent the middleman scenario, because Copyright is the operating universe of discourse in which it must work to achieve it's aims.
If there were no copyright laws, the GPL wouldn't work, but neither would it be necessary, since it would be "anything goes" with regards to copying stuff.
So in essence we're in agreement.
I was just, you know, using my *own* words.
But only because of Copyright can the middleman enforce his claim to the proprietary software.
If there were no copyright laws, you could reverse engineer the middlemans code and reuse it and he would have no recourse. Or, you could copy it and redistribute it without modification
All without fear of legal retribution.
That's the difference between "copyright exists, but software was in public domain" and "copyright doesn't exist"
This is from the same people who bring you the secret connection between Star Wars Episode I and Mars.
don't forget those strange anomalies like animals on the pathfinder mission.
yeah. ok.
But this misses the point of cooling the processor in the first place !
The processor is hot as a byproduct of its primary function.
The Stirling engine works on the principle that the heat source will be hot most of the time. If the processor is busy being a heat source, then it's not achieving the peak performance of its primary function.
The operation of a Stirling engine isn't the most efficient way of conducting that heat away, and really isn't that that the primary aim here ? Otherwise, you might as well just mount the Engine on the case top, that might be hot enough.
Now if you could conduct the heat away immediately and then use it somewhere else for the Stirling engine, that might be a useful compromise.
CapitalOne : "What have you got in your wallet?"
Answer : Uranus
Ouch.
Then there are those of us who simply believe that, by and large, it's simply none of the cops' damn business what we do.
:)
Provided you break no laws, I assume
You miss the point.
The game is the background for social interactions between real people. Without that there would be nothing much to wax philosophical about.
the book is about making these kinds of games more fun/successful. In single-player games the experience is entirely about the one person playing it. Some of the same principles still apply, but it is the added dimension of social interaction which distinguishes MMOGs from regular games.
And guess what - when you get a bunch of people together you have to be able to satisfy as many of them at the same time as you can.
That's what MMOG designers need to learn, and that's what this book is mostly about.
Well.. it's sort of a cross between a bandwagon and a jeep, but I see your point.
As long as you didn't steal any of it from SCO. :)
Don't forget to add in a really big payoff for the schmucks.
This makes the game attractive to the gambling addicts who don't understand probability. They'll keep betting on the long odds because the big payoff seems so lucrative.
Gambling is as much a head game as it is about probabilities. I can "bet" that the house makes as much money on Roulette from those people who walk by and plonk a fifty on Black-13 or Red-9 as those who sit there for an hour and hedge their bets.
Sure - go ahead.
...
Just remember - the contestant picks first. Monty must pick a *different, empty* door.
So the chance you're right between two doors is 1/2, provided Monty doesn't give anything away by eliminating a door... But did he give anything away ?
He did, because he always has to open a losing door: one losing door is always eliminated. The probabilities of your initial choice being correct, and the remaining choices have to sum to equal one. Therefore, the probability of the remaining choices have to sum to equal one minus the probability of your initial choice. In this case (with three doors), they have to sum to equal 2/3. Say a door isn't opened. Then, you would have two to switch to (if you choose to switch - this would be like "changing your mind"), and your chance of picking the correct door would be 1/2 * 2/3. Well, that's 1/3, just like your initial choice. But if Monty has to open a door, then you'll only have one door to switch to. In this case (which is the Monty Hall problem), you'll pick the remaining door - so that'd be 1 * 2/3. And that's a probability of 2/3.
Imagine that there were a million doors. Also, after you have chosen your door; Monty opens all but one of the remaining doors, showing you that they are "losers." It's obvious that your first choice is wildly unlikely to have been right. And isn't it obvious that of the other 999,999 doors that you didn't choose; the one that he didn't open is wildly likely to be the one with the prize?
(quoted without permission from http://www.io.com/~kmellis/monty.html
This is the best way of thinking about this problem.
What everyone seems to have missed is the *initial chance* at picking the *wrong* door.
The key is this : If you initially pick the wrong door, you MUST win if you switch, since Monty ONLY EVER SHOWS YOU AN EMPTY DOOR, and the only other choice is the winner.
Therefore the chance of a win (if switching) is identical to your chance of picking a loser initially (2/3).
If you never switch, your chance of winning is only 1/3 - since you never change your mind from your initial pure chance guess.
I oonilaterally disagree with your oonique position. Ur ooninformed.