Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.)
I only know what TFA told me:
Blizzard detected and banned a lot of players who used Glider. They then sued MDY for all the subscription fees they lost from the banned player (plus a ton of other cash).
Blizzard detected and banned a lot of players who used Glider. They then sued MDY for all the subscription fees they lost from the banned player (plus a ton of other cash).
I'm not saying Blizzard is wrong in banning them, I'm just saying it's a bit silly to complain about the revenue they lost due to the banning of players they didn't want anyway.
But as a solution to make everybody happy, why not make a special server where bots are legal? Move all botting players to that server where they can still pay for not playing the game together with other level 80 newbies.
I seem to recall, in the days before Firefox, that Internet Explorer 4 (or was it 5? It's been a while) was actually one of the least bad browsers in common usage.
You mean the days of Netscape 4? Yeah, that was awful. It's not hard to be a better browser than Netscape 4. IE wasn't exactly a good browser, but it was miles ahead of Netscape. It's the days when standards were used as toilet paper.
I don't think the issue here is whether Blizzard should or should not work to prevent bots. The question is the tactic they're using to achieve that end. And, more to the point, the legal ramifications of those tactics being successful.
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
Glider may be a programmer, but that programming is both unauthorized, and counterproductive for the satisfaction of the network as a whole, and counterproductive for generating profit (from subscription payers) as a result.
How so? Blizzard is hurting their own bottom line by choosing to ban players. The players are perfectly willing to pay Blizzard for a game that they're going to have a bot play for them. The players are willing to pay MDY for a bot to play the game for them. Everybody is happy and making a profit here.
It's Blizzard's decision to ban people that's hurting them. Of course they're allowed to ban people if they want to. It's their servers, after all. But it's stupid of them to blame someone else for their own decisions. Glider is just providing a service for there is a demand, apparently.
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
My only disappointment is that he used "special pieces." At least, I think a felt-tip and a rubber-band count as those.
Rubber bands are legal as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think there an official Lego pen yet, so you can't get out of the felt-tip either. But the home-made electronics made me wonder how essential the Lego really is in this printer.
It's still awesome, though. I especially like the little touches with the minifigs (though they may have been added to make it look like there's more Lego in it).
Quite often, Google's bicycle directions suck. In my area (which has millions of bikes), Google seems completely unaware of any of the thousands of bicycle paths. The pedestrian route isn't much better. Open Streetmap is far superior.
Actually, who wins will be quite relevant. Even if Google spends $1M winning this case, they will have precedent that they do not need an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. This will keep other morons from suing them for similar mental failures.
They have an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. If they win, they'll have precedent that that warning is good enough.
Is that so uncommon where you live? There are some courses (usually those with only a small number of attendants) where you're expected to turn in homework, or where your performance during discussions matters, but especially for big courses, it's generally all about the exam.
The difference is obviously that science has never claimed to be right. No scientists (worth his salt) has ever said "Now I've described this phenomenon perfectly. There is no more left to learn here".
How wrong you are. At the end of the 19th century, most scientists did think everything worth discovering had been discovered. And yes, some of them did say so. They were wrong of course. It's been a big lesson in humility.
The entire thing just says "evolution is clearly happening, so we should reinterpret the bible to say that God just got he ball rolling." It is an exercise in altering religious views to conform to modern science, not an exercise in scientific thought.
I haven't read the article, so maybe you're right. On the other hand, wouldn't it be a very sane, humble, and well, religious approach to religion, to accept that if God created the universe, we can understand a bit more of God's creation by studying this universe? And wouldn't the acceptance of truths discovered through the study of his creation basically mean you're incorporating scientific discoveries in your religious understanding?
Clinging to your dated interpretation and elevating it to irrefutable truth sounds like extreme arrogance, and not exactly a very christian thing to do. Admitting your interpretation is wrong is not the same thing as adapting your religion or making it a "God of the gaps".
3. Bible said god created all living beings (Darwin)
This is in the bible. The literalists insist it is direct creation, the remainder take the story as metaphor.
I think the common view on this (outside the loony parts of the US), is that God created all living beings through evolution. At least that's the obvious conclusion if you believe that God created the entire universe, including its laws and processes (which includes the process of evolution).
Ever since Copernicus science has been knocking down bits of Christianity.
Copernicus was a priest. And nothing he did knocked down christianity in any way. He did knock down views held by many christians (and non-christians, for that matter) at that time, but that's not the same thing. Nothing in the bible is at odds with a Copernican world view unless you take it very far out of context (which is what biblical literalists tend to do).
Sounds like not just an atheist, but someone hostile to religion, no?
From these quotes? Not really. Some of these quotes are very spiritual. As christian, I agree wholeheartedly with several of his points, and I think many christians would. The first two in particular would make a very good foundation of any christian outlook.
As far as I can tell from these quotes, Sagan is against small-mindedness, arrogance and excessive traditionalism. A viewpoint that goes very well with christian faith. Look at the kind of things Jesus Christ himself said, and I'm inclined to say that Carl Sagan was on the right track.
No, we don't pay for courses. In fact in Bremen you don't even sign up for them until halfway through the semester.
I think you need to find another word in English to express what you mean here. A "course" is a class, a series of lectures - i.e., what specific things you'll study in a semester. Are you saying that students at Bremen go through half of a semester without even committing to what they will be studying? How on earth can they actually learn anything if they've skipped half the semester?
My guess is that there's no need to sign up for the lectures, only for the exam.
It was that way at my university. You can go to pretty much any lecture you like. Attendance was not required or registered in any way (with some exceptions of course), and only your performance at the exam really mattered.
Although I'm sure I'm not the most empathic person in the world, social injustice, poverty and that sort of stuff does upset me. I'm way over on the left side, want to change the world so nobody has to suffer and all that sort of stuff. And yet I scored lower than 70% of the apparently increasingly unempathic student population.
Am I really that much less empathic? Or could it be that I'm more honest in my answers? Or, most likely, I'm too modest in my answers: I have a strong tendency not to give extreme answers. That means I can score at most 80%, and the slightest bit of doubt or self-reflection puts me below that.
All in all, I'm not terribly impressed by this test.
My first thought was actually that college students are more honest now than they were last time this was tested.
Exactly. The socially desirable answers are incredibly obvious. What the test is really measuring is how honest people are versus how eager they are to give the socially desirable answer. Well, that mixed with how empathic people are. It's a muddy test.
If it were not that I were residing on the very same planet, I would find it unthinkable that such a planet could exist. Things with low probabilities do happen, especially during billions of years and as yet uncountable floating rocks.
This is one of those cases where the Anthropic Principle is very relevant: had such a planet been impossible, there wouldn't be anyone around to consider such a planet would be unthinkable. The only universe that can be observed is one where such a planet is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it'd be:
"The Earth is six thousand years old." -- Some medieval monk
If you go quoting, quote accurately. Don't make stuff up.
What about the billions that I didn't earn? I think lawmakers should do something about that.
I love that it's informative and not insightful (which means little more than "funny, but in a good way").
Blizzard didn't sue them for lost revenue (as I was able to see.)
I only know what TFA told me:
Blizzard detected and banned a lot of players who used Glider. They then sued MDY for all the subscription fees they lost from the banned player (plus a ton of other cash).
But TFA might well be wrong.
TFA claims they did:
Blizzard detected and banned a lot of players who used Glider. They then sued MDY for all the subscription fees they lost from the banned player (plus a ton of other cash).
I'm not saying Blizzard is wrong in banning them, I'm just saying it's a bit silly to complain about the revenue they lost due to the banning of players they didn't want anyway.
But as a solution to make everybody happy, why not make a special server where bots are legal? Move all botting players to that server where they can still pay for not playing the game together with other level 80 newbies.
I seem to recall, in the days before Firefox, that Internet Explorer 4 (or was it 5? It's been a while) was actually one of the least bad browsers in common usage.
You mean the days of Netscape 4? Yeah, that was awful. It's not hard to be a better browser than Netscape 4. IE wasn't exactly a good browser, but it was miles ahead of Netscape. It's the days when standards were used as toilet paper.
I don't think the issue here is whether Blizzard should or should not work to prevent bots. The question is the tactic they're using to achieve that end. And, more to the point, the legal ramifications of those tactics being successful.
Exactly. I'm perfectly fine with them banning bots. What's stupid is that they sue another company over the revenue lost because Blizzard chose to ban bots. They didn't have to do that. Their decision.
Glider may be a programmer, but that programming is both unauthorized, and counterproductive for the satisfaction of the network as a whole, and counterproductive for generating profit (from subscription payers) as a result.
How so? Blizzard is hurting their own bottom line by choosing to ban players. The players are perfectly willing to pay Blizzard for a game that they're going to have a bot play for them. The players are willing to pay MDY for a bot to play the game for them. Everybody is happy and making a profit here.
It's Blizzard's decision to ban people that's hurting them. Of course they're allowed to ban people if they want to. It's their servers, after all. But it's stupid of them to blame someone else for their own decisions. Glider is just providing a service for there is a demand, apparently.
The most bizarre thing about this lawsuit is that Blizzard is suing MDY for lost revenue, because Blizzard chose to ban players. Blizzard didn't have to ban those players. They could have taken away their money and levels and allow them to continue playing. Blizzard made a choice. It's completely ridiculous that they blame that choice on someone else.
It might have made sense if MDY was sued by its customers who got themselves banned for using an MDY product. That I would understand. Blizzard suing MDY is completely retarded.
My only disappointment is that he used "special pieces." At least, I think a felt-tip and a rubber-band count as those.
Rubber bands are legal as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think there an official Lego pen yet, so you can't get out of the felt-tip either. But the home-made electronics made me wonder how essential the Lego really is in this printer.
It's still awesome, though. I especially like the little touches with the minifigs (though they may have been added to make it look like there's more Lego in it).
Quite often, Google's bicycle directions suck. In my area (which has millions of bikes), Google seems completely unaware of any of the thousands of bicycle paths. The pedestrian route isn't much better. Open Streetmap is far superior.
Actually, who wins will be quite relevant. Even if Google spends $1M winning this case, they will have precedent that they do not need an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. This will keep other morons from suing them for similar mental failures.
They have an idiot warning at the start of their Google Maps app. If they win, they'll have precedent that that warning is good enough.
Is that so uncommon where you live? There are some courses (usually those with only a small number of attendants) where you're expected to turn in homework, or where your performance during discussions matters, but especially for big courses, it's generally all about the exam.
The *entire point* of religion is to provide an end-all-be-all explanation for our existence.
No it's not. That's only your interpretation of it. But like most interpretations, it's probably wrong.
The difference is obviously that science has never claimed to be right. No scientists (worth his salt) has ever said "Now I've described this phenomenon perfectly. There is no more left to learn here".
How wrong you are. At the end of the 19th century, most scientists did think everything worth discovering had been discovered. And yes, some of them did say so. They were wrong of course. It's been a big lesson in humility.
The entire thing just says "evolution is clearly happening, so we should reinterpret the bible to say that God just got he ball rolling." It is an exercise in altering religious views to conform to modern science, not an exercise in scientific thought.
I haven't read the article, so maybe you're right. On the other hand, wouldn't it be a very sane, humble, and well, religious approach to religion, to accept that if God created the universe, we can understand a bit more of God's creation by studying this universe? And wouldn't the acceptance of truths discovered through the study of his creation basically mean you're incorporating scientific discoveries in your religious understanding?
Clinging to your dated interpretation and elevating it to irrefutable truth sounds like extreme arrogance, and not exactly a very christian thing to do. Admitting your interpretation is wrong is not the same thing as adapting your religion or making it a "God of the gaps".
3. Bible said god created all living beings (Darwin)
This is in the bible. The literalists insist it is direct creation, the remainder take the story as metaphor.
I think the common view on this (outside the loony parts of the US), is that God created all living beings through evolution. At least that's the obvious conclusion if you believe that God created the entire universe, including its laws and processes (which includes the process of evolution).
Ever since Copernicus science has been knocking down bits of Christianity.
Copernicus was a priest. And nothing he did knocked down christianity in any way. He did knock down views held by many christians (and non-christians, for that matter) at that time, but that's not the same thing. Nothing in the bible is at odds with a Copernican world view unless you take it very far out of context (which is what biblical literalists tend to do).
Sounds like not just an atheist, but someone hostile to religion, no?
From these quotes? Not really. Some of these quotes are very spiritual. As christian, I agree wholeheartedly with several of his points, and I think many christians would. The first two in particular would make a very good foundation of any christian outlook.
As far as I can tell from these quotes, Sagan is against small-mindedness, arrogance and excessive traditionalism. A viewpoint that goes very well with christian faith. Look at the kind of things Jesus Christ himself said, and I'm inclined to say that Carl Sagan was on the right track.
I mean, I consider myself highly empathetic and I scored only 49 of 70... what kind of saint-like individual do they expect people to be?
Same here. 45/70, yet I'm not exactly a cold-hearted bastard.
No, we don't pay for courses. In fact in Bremen you don't even sign up for them until halfway through the semester.
I think you need to find another word in English to express what you mean here. A "course" is a class, a series of lectures - i.e., what specific things you'll study in a semester. Are you saying that students at Bremen go through half of a semester without even committing to what they will be studying? How on earth can they actually learn anything if they've skipped half the semester?
My guess is that there's no need to sign up for the lectures, only for the exam.
It was that way at my university. You can go to pretty much any lecture you like. Attendance was not required or registered in any way (with some exceptions of course), and only your performance at the exam really mattered.
Although I'm sure I'm not the most empathic person in the world, social injustice, poverty and that sort of stuff does upset me. I'm way over on the left side, want to change the world so nobody has to suffer and all that sort of stuff. And yet I scored lower than 70% of the apparently increasingly unempathic student population.
Am I really that much less empathic? Or could it be that I'm more honest in my answers? Or, most likely, I'm too modest in my answers: I have a strong tendency not to give extreme answers. That means I can score at most 80%, and the slightest bit of doubt or self-reflection puts me below that.
All in all, I'm not terribly impressed by this test.
My first thought was actually that college students are more honest now than they were last time this was tested.
Exactly. The socially desirable answers are incredibly obvious. What the test is really measuring is how honest people are versus how eager they are to give the socially desirable answer. Well, that mixed with how empathic people are. It's a muddy test.
If it were not that I were residing on the very same planet, I would find it unthinkable that such a planet could exist. Things with low probabilities do happen, especially during billions of years and as yet uncountable floating rocks.
This is one of those cases where the Anthropic Principle is very relevant: had such a planet been impossible, there wouldn't be anyone around to consider such a planet would be unthinkable. The only universe that can be observed is one where such a planet is possible.