I've been going to a LAN party once a month for the past 4 months.
We have 6 girls, and 2 girls usually, with everyone is 30 and older. So whoever said "LAN parties are for geeks that can't get chicks" is an idiot.
We play Unreal Tournament for 3 hours straight, Quake 3 for another 2 hours nonstop, then break for supper (usually pizza). Then we restart, playing Rogue Spear for another 3 hours straight, and Revolt for another hour.
LAN Parties aren't just for geeks - they are a way for hard-core gamers to get together, and meet new people "local" in the area, while letting off some of the steam from the daily pressures of the week. (I hosted a Quake party a few years back, and met some cool friends. Had a lot of fun playing online every weekend for the next year with them, and we still keep in touch.)
LAN parties are not for everyone, (dragging a 20" monitor and computer home at 2am sucks,) but they can be an absolute blast. Being in the same room and able to spew curse at each other when your friend frags your ass, and then you doing the same thing to him, hehe, is a good harmless way to let loose with the testrone.
If you're in west side of Mass., send me some email, and I can email forward you the list to who to contact.
They fail to mention that a LOT of people have more then 1 account. So if "vet" player leaves, that is 2 or 3 accounts that no longer provide revenue. Allmost everyone in my guild has 2 accounts.
Now, here is what OSI needs to do to "fix" UO:
Implement the vet rewards!
Look at all the TODO items. Start implementing the easiest ones. This shows people that they are listening to the players.
When a patch gets released, SAY what was fixed/changed!
Read through the stratics forums, looking at all bugs, AND gameplay elements that are frustrating players. Start making changes!
Start adding in a TON of VARIETY for the magic weapons. EQ and Diablo2 have this area down pat. Set items, socketable items, etc. A game must provide lots of "toys" !
Add new spells! Again, MUCH more variety in EQ and D2.
Fix the servers so they do running backups every 15 mins. If I ran servers the way OSI does, I'd be fired in 30 mins. Servers go down hapharzardly (not as bad as b.net) Get the servers with 99.999% uptime.
Take a poll from CURRENT PLAYERS, asking them what they would like to see in the current game. Then DO IT! This is how you keep a community strong.
Moving to a 3D world is irrelevent for sales. Proof: Diablo 2 has sold 2 million copies! Graphics are the "bait" of a game. Gameplay is the "meat" of a game.
*shrugs*
What do I know though, I'm just a vet player and game developer...
>Advocate use of OpenPlay, which is an Apple open source game networking API that runs on Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
I'll pass that onto the network programmer and see if they have heard of it. I know the Mac version uses [Net] Sprockets (which isn't supported on Mac OS X.) Does OpenPlay work on both OS 9 and OS X ?
> I recently decided against buying Majesty because even though it is multi-platform,
That's too bad - you're missing out on a fun game. Especially with the Expansion Pack coming out this Friday. It has a lot of new goodies!
<gameplug>
New Spells, New Buildings, New Monsters, New Quests, and a challenging difficulty.
</gameplug>-)
All joking aside, I have to agree, the " Revolution" has slowed down, BUT it is still going on. One just has to look at all stories about DeCSS, DCMA, etc, on/. to see that some people still care about freedom, and rights.
"Underground movements" allways take a while to succeed. The "Net Revolution" (whatever that is supposed to mean?!) is no different, since there are many issues, with no clear "leader" stepping up to speak/act about them.
No one said the internet *guaranteed* freedom. It just allows for "free" exchange of ideas, whether governments like it or not.
--
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
> You're distributing a number. This is why copyright (and intellectual property) law doesn't make sense with digital data.
Actually they do, but not for the reason you mentioned.
Yes, you're right, ultimately it DOES come down to just a number, BUT, if an author puts time and effort into creating something, I believe, he should have a) the right to limit how his work is spread, and b) the right to be comensated.
We should be free to distribute any sequence of digital data as we want, as long as the number is being "interpreted in the proper usage."
i.e. I need to to send someone a long prime, which also happens to represenet some.mp3. If the number is not being "interpreted" as a song, then no restriction on the transaction should occur.
It seems to me (and correct me if I am wrong) that part of the problem is that anyone can spoof the source location in an IPV4 packet.
Why can't every computer connected to the internet, throttle packets? That way there is no single "choke point". I mean every minute, or 5 minutes do a "throttle check", if too many packets are trying to reach a destination point, then they just get auto-dropped. (It would be nice to check if the "source" is sending too many packets, but source headers can be forged.)
Doesn't IPV6 require a valid source location?
Is there any way to design a protocol to prevent DoS attacks?
Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm a graphics guy, not a networking one;-)
> Forbidding someone to create and share whatever software they choose is precisely like forbidding someone to write down their own thoughts on paper and share them.
Ack! When I initially read that, I took it to mean "forbidding you to share whatever they choose, when someone else created it"
That would not be respecting the rights of the creator of the item, and hence why I said there was a difference.
I see now that both sentences are meant to be the same.
>> It's like trying to ban FTP or HTTP. I agree. Banning tools doesn't make the problem go away, as much as Rosie O'Dumbell would think so.
>> I think of the "war on warez" the same way I view the "war on drugs". NOW these ARE different!
If someone wants to take drugs, that should be THIER choice. It is a victimless crime.
But when someone pirates, that is a "potential" lost sale. Potential, meaning
a) some people might not of paid for it anyways, so no lost sale.
b) Sometimes using a package you haven't paid for, gets you a job where you can use the package. If you tell the company to buy the software, was there a "lost sale" in this scenario?
Note: I am NOT justifying piracy, since it is copying something against the author's wishes.
But this is getting off-topic.
Interesting tidbit. If companies are required to list all sources of income and expenses, then why don't they list "piracy" as lost income? Instead of the SPCA pulling numbers out of it's @$$.
I agree on these "wars" - the money could be better spend elsewhere.
> You seem to believe that an author has the right to restrict what is done with what he writes. Correct. If I write a book, I wouldn't want another company to start printing and selling the book, without paying me a dime. So I agree with the spirit of copyright.
Now, if I was a true artist I would be happy that more people are reading my work;-) but at the same time, a person has to eat.
Note: I'm not a writer. I'm a programmer. But exchange book for commercial software, and same argument.
> Copyright has been becoming more and more powerful over the past decades, I agree. Someone seems to be skipping over that key phrase "for a limited time." Isn't copyright length extended 70+ years from the author's death? So much for "fair use";-(
> If, despite the expansions of copyright, writers still cannot support themselves with only the money from their publishers, perhaps the "professional writer" as such should not exist. That's an interesting assertion! Other professions already do that. Such as ministers.
> Of course, we should still respect the wishes of the author out of plain politeness, but the author shouldn't be able to exert complete control over his "creative property." Yes, thats the crux of the matter! Just where do we draw the line?
e.g.
Extreme freedom: On one hand, restricting people from distributing a certain combination of words seems extreme. If I can copyright a certain combination of words, then what is the minimal # of words that I can "own"?
Extreme license: On the other, people spend time coming up with new ideas (code/books/movies) They need to be be compensated for their time, so they can pay their bills. But it seems a little anal-retentative if I need "permission" to make a parody.
A balance must be reached: in utopia, people would be free to exchange info/bits as much as they want, and the author would be compensated.
The problem is we are no-where close to even achieving something like that. There's a little thing called "greed". Why do companies lobby the government to extend copyright for as long as possible? Because there is money to be made !
One compromise is to have copyright extend 5 to 10 years MAX. If you can't make money off your ideas in that time, then the ideas should "belong" to the public. It becomes "free" as in freedom.
> but no one seems to ever be able to explain exactly how people are supposed to make a living if they're always giving away the stuff they're working on.
That is what I said: "and people learn how to make a living regardless"
It would be nice for the betterment of society, if everyone could just give their ideas away, AND make a living at the same time, but it just isn't [economically] feasible at this time.
Guess that part wasn't clear enough.
> I'll be very curious to know how you pay the rent when mommy and daddy cut the umbilical cord.
The same way everyone else does. Waive your rights to own whatever your create, since you are getting paid by someone to create something for them.
Not quite. Software is implementation of ideas. The source is speech, and could be classified as an idea, in the loosest sense.
> Forbidding someone to create and share whatever software they choose is precisely like forbidding someone to write down their own thoughts on paper and share them.
NO, there IS a difference.
That code just didn't come out of nowhere - someone had to spend time writing it.
If you create something, you have the right to tell people, "please don't distrubite this without compensating me"
Ultimately, it all comes down to ideas and numbers, but until the rest of society gets over the 2-year-old mentality of "THIS IS MINE. YOU CAN'T SHARE UNLESS I SAY" and people learn how to make a living regardless, we're "stuck" respecting other people's distrubition rights (or lack of them.) If you don't like the product, pick one that gives you the freedom to share it.
> No signatures. No "I Agree" buttons to click before I get to hear my music.
You've hit the nail right on the head. Since you didn't waive your rights via a signature, you own the music.
> he added his son to deed, so when the father died there was no "changeover in ownership".
Congrats ! You're one of the few people that "truely" own your land.
> Today this also avoids income and inheritance tax since there was neither.
Corporate Sole's are another legal way to avoid the inheritance tax, since they legally exist for perpetuity.;-)
Well, let's run down the checklist of what you "own" when you "buy" something:
1. Land? No. Very hard to get the allodial title. Taxes prove you don't own your land.
2. Cars? No. The dealer submitted the Manufactor's Statement of Origin to the government, which in turn gives you "permission" to "drive." (You just threw away your Right to Travel.)
3. Software? Nope. Most "End User License"s don't give you permission to make copies for your friends.
3. Music? Whew! You "own" it. For now... But if the RIAA has their way, you will license music in the future.
Food for thought:
If you "own" it, then WHY do you need a license to use it as freely as you like??
--
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Back in Nov 99 when I ordered 2 celys 366 for $35 each, I also ordered two of the Alpha 7HO fans from http://www.3dfxcool.com/alpha7ho.htm for around $30 a piece.
You can't go wrong with these fans !
If you need bios settings to O/C your celys, post a follow up here.
"I can't define p0rn, but I know it when I see it."
Now before you moderate this as offtopic, flamebait, or troll, hear me out... and the anology will become clearer:
The general consensus is that Microsoft is a monopoly that "abused" it powers. For the record, I agree that M$ should be broken up, butI can't put my finger on exactly what it did that was wrong.
Can anyone specifically say what Microsoft did was wrong? (Aside from Gates lieing and falsifying evidence. Yeah, that will go over real well with the judge.)
It's funny that Microsoft "dumped" IE onto the market, when Netsacpe was doing the same thing with Navigator (free for non-commercial use.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've been going to a LAN party once a month for the past 4 months.
We have 6 girls, and 2 girls usually, with everyone is 30 and older. So whoever said "LAN parties are for geeks that can't get chicks" is an idiot.
We play Unreal Tournament for 3 hours straight, Quake 3 for another 2 hours nonstop, then break for supper (usually pizza). Then we restart, playing Rogue Spear for another 3 hours straight, and Revolt for another hour.
LAN Parties aren't just for geeks - they are a way for hard-core gamers to get together, and meet new people "local" in the area, while letting off some of the steam from the daily pressures of the week. (I hosted a Quake party a few years back, and met some cool friends. Had a lot of fun playing online every weekend for the next year with them, and we still keep in touch.)
LAN parties are not for everyone, (dragging a 20" monitor and computer home at 2am sucks,) but they can be an absolute blast. Being in the same room and able to spew curse at each other when your friend frags your ass, and then you doing the same thing to him, hehe, is a good harmless way to let loose with the testrone.
If you're in west side of Mass., send me some email, and I can email forward you the list to who to contact.
Now, here is what OSI needs to do to "fix" UO:
Moving to a 3D world is irrelevent for sales. Proof: Diablo 2 has sold 2 million copies! Graphics are the "bait" of a game. Gameplay is the "meat" of a game.
*shrugs*
What do I know though, I'm just a vet player and game developer
>Advocate use of OpenPlay, which is an Apple open source game networking API that runs on Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
;-)
I'll pass that onto the network programmer and see if they have heard of it. I know the Mac version uses [Net] Sprockets (which isn't supported on Mac OS X.) Does OpenPlay work on both OS 9 and OS X ?
> I recently decided against buying Majesty because even though it is multi-platform,
That's too bad - you're missing out on a fun game. Especially with the Expansion Pack coming out this Friday. It has a lot of new goodies!
<gameplug>
New Spells, New Buildings, New Monsters, New Quests, and a challenging difficulty.
</gameplug>
All joking aside, I have to agree, the " Revolution" has slowed down, BUT it is still going on. One just has to look at all stories about DeCSS, DCMA, etc, on /. to see that some people still care about freedom, and rights.
"Underground movements" allways take a while to succeed. The "Net Revolution" (whatever that is supposed to mean?!) is no different, since there are many issues, with no clear "leader" stepping up to speak/act about them.
No one said the internet *guaranteed* freedom. It just allows for "free" exchange of ideas, whether governments like it or not.
--
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
> You're distributing a number. This is why copyright (and intellectual property) law doesn't make sense with digital data.
.mp3. If the number is not being "interpreted" as a song, then no restriction on the transaction should occur.
Actually they do, but not for the reason you mentioned.
Yes, you're right, ultimately it DOES come down to just a number, BUT, if an author puts time and effort into creating something, I believe, he should have a) the right to limit how his work is spread, and b) the right to be comensated.
We should be free to distribute any sequence of digital data as we want, as long as the number is being "interpreted in the proper usage."
i.e. I need to to send someone a long prime, which also happens to represenet some
Intellectual property rights are neither.
Some of us don't ;-)
;-)
IRS stands for internal revenue scam*, so the trick is figuring out how to be legally external
Gotta love how certain countries don't tax foreign income
--
* Social (in)security is the greatest ponzi scheme ever pulled.
This space intentionaly left blank.
Whoops, was a typo.
;-)
You're right, that it is not the fastest car, but what is special about the McLaren F1 is that it is the fastest production car.
The ultimate dream car:o tos.html
p ecs.htm
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/8837/ph
And the specs to go along with it:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/7389/s
It seems to me (and correct me if I am wrong) that part of the problem is that anyone can spoof the source location in an IPV4 packet.
;-)
Why can't every computer connected to the internet, throttle packets? That way there is no single "choke point". I mean every minute, or 5 minutes do a "throttle check", if too many packets are trying to reach a destination point, then they just get auto-dropped. (It would be nice to check if the "source" is sending too many packets, but source headers can be forged.)
Doesn't IPV6 require a valid source location?
Is there any way to design a protocol to prevent DoS attacks?
Sorry for the newbie questions, but I'm a graphics guy, not a networking one
Except that it doesn't scale up ! Ask Carmack about how he feels about having everything on the server.
MMPRG's are stuck between two bad extremes
> Forbidding someone to create and share whatever software they choose is precisely like forbidding someone to write down their own thoughts on paper and share them.
Ack! When I initially read that, I took it to mean "forbidding you to share whatever they choose, when someone else created it"
That would not be respecting the rights of the creator of the item, and hence why I said there was a difference.
I see now that both sentences are meant to be the same.
>> It's like trying to ban FTP or HTTP.
I agree. Banning tools doesn't make the problem go away, as much as Rosie O'Dumbell would think so.
>> I think of the "war on warez" the same way I view the "war on drugs".
NOW these ARE different!
If someone wants to take drugs, that should be THIER choice. It is a victimless crime.
But when someone pirates, that is a "potential" lost sale. Potential, meaning
a) some people might not of paid for it anyways, so no lost sale.
b) Sometimes using a package you haven't paid for, gets you a job where you can use the package. If you tell the company to buy the software, was there a "lost sale" in this scenario?
Note: I am NOT justifying piracy, since it is copying something against the author's wishes.
But this is getting off-topic.
Interesting tidbit. If companies are required to list all sources of income and expenses, then why don't they list "piracy" as lost income? Instead of the SPCA pulling numbers out of it's @$$.
I agree on these "wars" - the money could be better spend elsewhere.
> You seem to believe that an author has the right to restrict what is done with what he writes.
;-) but at the same time, a person has to eat.
;-(
...
Correct. If I write a book, I wouldn't want another company to start printing and selling the book, without paying me a dime. So I agree with the spirit of copyright.
Now, if I was a true artist I would be happy that more people are reading my work
Note: I'm not a writer. I'm a programmer. But exchange book for commercial software, and same argument.
> Copyright has been becoming more and more powerful over the past decades,
I agree. Someone seems to be skipping over that key phrase "for a limited time." Isn't copyright length extended 70+ years from the author's death? So much for "fair use"
> If, despite the expansions of copyright, writers still cannot support themselves with only the money from their publishers, perhaps the "professional writer" as such should not exist.
That's an interesting assertion! Other professions already do that. Such as ministers.
> Of course, we should still respect the wishes of the author out of plain politeness, but the author shouldn't be able to exert complete control over his "creative property."
Yes, thats the crux of the matter! Just where do we draw the line?
e.g.
Extreme freedom: On one hand, restricting people from distributing a certain combination of words seems extreme. If I can copyright a certain combination of words, then what is the minimal # of words that I can "own"?
Extreme license: On the other, people spend time coming up with new ideas (code/books/movies) They need to be be compensated for their time, so they can pay their bills. But it seems a little anal-retentative if I need "permission" to make a parody.
A balance must be reached: in utopia, people would be free to exchange info/bits as much as they want, and the author would be compensated.
The problem is we are no-where close to even achieving something like that. There's a little thing called "greed". Why do companies lobby the government to extend copyright for as long as possible? Because there is money to be made !
One compromise is to have copyright extend 5 to 10 years MAX. If you can't make money off your ideas in that time, then the ideas should "belong" to the public. It becomes "free" as in freedom.
Maybe some day
> but no one seems to ever be able to explain exactly how people are supposed to make a living if they're always giving away the stuff they're working on.
That is what I said: "and people learn how to make a living regardless"
It would be nice for the betterment of society, if everyone could just give their ideas away, AND make a living at the same time, but it just isn't [economically] feasible at this time.
Guess that part wasn't clear enough.
> I'll be very curious to know how you pay the rent when mommy and daddy cut the umbilical cord.
The same way everyone else does. Waive your rights to own whatever your create, since you are getting paid by someone to create something for them.
Dark Blue background
Text = Yellow
Keyword = White
Comment = Green
Number = Purple
String = Cyan
Operator = White
Does anyone know how to change the "standard" colors in Dev Studio? That magenta is next to useless, I would love to assign an arbitray color to it.
I made my own 5x9 font, because Lucida Console didn't look good enough at 7 pt. (on my Windows box @ work)
I still need to convert the bitmap graphics over to a True Type font. Anyone have any tools to recommend?
> Software is ideas.
Not quite. Software is implementation of ideas. The source is speech, and could be classified as an idea, in the loosest sense.
> Forbidding someone to create and share whatever software they choose is precisely like forbidding someone to write down their own thoughts on paper and share them.
NO, there IS a difference.
That code just didn't come out of nowhere - someone had to spend time writing it.
If you create something, you have the right to tell people, "please don't distrubite this without compensating me"
Ultimately, it all comes down to ideas and numbers, but until the rest of society gets over the 2-year-old mentality of "THIS IS MINE. YOU CAN'T SHARE UNLESS I SAY" and people learn how to make a living regardless, we're "stuck" respecting other people's distrubition rights (or lack of them.) If you don't like the product, pick one that gives you the freedom to share it.
> No signatures. No "I Agree" buttons to click before I get to hear my music.
;-)
You've hit the nail right on the head. Since you didn't waive your rights via a signature, you own the music.
> he added his son to deed, so when the father died there was no "changeover in ownership".
Congrats ! You're one of the few people that "truely" own your land.
> Today this also avoids income and inheritance tax since there was neither.
Corporate Sole's are another legal way to avoid the inheritance tax, since they legally exist for perpetuity.
> What's next?
Well, let's run down the checklist of what you "own" when you "buy" something:
1. Land? No. Very hard to get the allodial title. Taxes prove you don't own your land.
2. Cars? No. The dealer submitted the Manufactor's Statement of Origin to the government, which in turn gives you "permission" to "drive." (You just threw away your Right to Travel.)
3. Software? Nope. Most "End User License"s don't give you permission to make copies for your friends.
3. Music? Whew! You "own" it. For now... But if the RIAA has their way, you will license music in the future.
Food for thought:
If you "own" it, then WHY do you need a license to use it as freely as you like??
--
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
This space intentional filled with a useless sentence.
> The fans look very big! Did you have any trouble fittinng them on BP6?
The fitting was a little tight, but it wasn't any trouble getting them to fit.
The idle temps sound about right.
Your busy temp is TOO HIGH !!! You can check your temp here:
http://bp6.gamesquad.net/cooling/
I didn't cool the BX chipset, but you might want to. You can find instructions at:
http://bp6.gamesquad.net/bxcool.phtml
For the record, I run Win2k, Linux, and BeOS.
BeOS boots in literally 3 seconds. Linux 2.4 about 10, and Win2k in about 45 (stupid long @$$ boot time)
Why do you need a new BIOS just to boot Linux faster??
Back in Nov 99 when I ordered 2 celys 366 for $35 each, I also ordered two of the Alpha 7HO fans from http://www.3dfxcool.com/alpha7ho.htm for around $30 a piece.
You can't go wrong with these fans !
If you need bios settings to O/C your celys, post a follow up here.
"I can't define p0rn, but I know it when I see it."
... and the anology will become clearer:
Now before you moderate this as offtopic, flamebait, or troll, hear me out
The general consensus is that Microsoft is a monopoly that "abused" it powers. For the record, I agree that M$ should be broken up, but I can't put my finger on exactly what it did that was wrong.
Can anyone specifically say what Microsoft did was wrong? (Aside from Gates lieing and falsifying evidence. Yeah, that will go over real well with the judge.)
It's funny that Microsoft "dumped" IE onto the market, when Netsacpe was doing the same thing with Navigator (free for non-commercial use.)
W does *not* stand for weight, Tom !
W stands for homogenous coordinates. Pg 204, Computer Graphic Principles, Foley & van Dam)
(PreDX7 had something called "rhw" which stands for "reciprocal homogenous W")