You avoided the question. That is really, neither here nor there.
A character's sexual orientation has no bearing on gameplay. If you choose to orient your online character as gay, that's fine, even though your character can't really get it on with another character (though, "cybering" might be the exception here). What they wish to prevent, I assure you, is becoming liable for not properly policing hate issues towards the people BEHIND the personas. Which is where a GLBT guild would certainly lead.
I'm sure they'd have no problems with guilds built around in-game character differences. You could have a dwarves guild or a magic-users guild. The moment you start involving anything from the outside world into the game, you're going to have to begin dealing with hate issues. A male-only guild, a gay-friendly guild, a pro-choice guild (hey, you can RP it, right?) has no place in the game.
On the other hand, "gay" and "fag" in public chat conversations should probably be limited. It adds nothing to the ability to communicate, and is breaking the RL/game boundary. And say Blizzard doesn't implement that, if you wanted to enforce that for a guild, you simply set up a policy, whereby players in the guild who do use language you deem inappropriate are warned/removed from the guild.
I'm siding with Blizzard on this one, though their response seems a bit weird.
You are not the target market. The GIMP does not serve this market.
Honestly, whenever anything Photoshop is posted, people go on and on about the GIMP and how it does so much and is free. Well, yeah, peachy keen and all, but it doesn't do everything, and regardless of how you feel about interfaces, it doesn't do everything like people (that is, people who have the need and finances to get that extra 15% of functionality) expect.
This is a product aimed, almost exclusively, at the pro-photo market (which you rule yourself out of in your post). This is for people who know how to take photos, take lots of them, and want a unified, clean system to adjust (fine control over hue/saturation/color balance/white balance, the lkie) the raw input files from their cameras and keep everything organized. That, apparently, is not you. What purpose does your comment serve?
It's twelve star-wars sets at $600,000, from some stores other than Target. "Only" $200,000 was from Target stores. Who knows the rest? ("Records of the Lego collector's Web site, Bricklink.Com, show that Swanberg has sold nearly $600,000 worth of Legos since 2002, said Dolyniuk.")
By the way. Portland represent!
Re:Good read so far
on
Ajax in Action
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, if you're running web applications, a good bit of IP is in the code, which is client visible. I suspect the best way around all of this is to develop a strongly typed language which compiles down into javascript. Javascript then becomes the intermediate language rather than first-crack. Additionally, the compiler can name variables and functions things that have no relation to the underlying logic of the code, making it much more painful to reverse engineer. (Much like reverse engineering a.NET program, except skipping the translation into human readability.)
Additionally, you could compile with optimizations to meet the capabilities of different browsers. Hell, toss in a little bit of encapsulation in the language "libraries" to avoid all of those layer/div issues. Etc, etc.
Javascript is good at what it does, it just wasn't meant to do quite that much.
Also, anyone wonder why there isn't a "valid CSS" to "IE broken CSS box model" translator? Maybe I ought to write that...
That's a good question, but I can't help but wonder if this is the miracle of capitalism at work. Right now we're in the eeeearly stages of this sort of thing, and the copyright laws, the mechanics, et al are still rather unexplored. Besides, I have to think -- the scanned images themselves are probably copyrighted by those who scanned, but chances are the plaintext isn't (considering they're copying it already, and not reinterpreting it). So the more people who want to scan whatever, the better, even if they overlap. Consider it error checking.
The real test and business opportunity comes in the distribution phase. The first person to have a huge library of old books, and contracts with publishing houses for new books (with "purchases" by the end users, and DRM encumbered, of course) is the person who will win the market and define the (capitalistic) best way to scan and distribute.
And come the semantic web, things get really interesting. Already we have tons of sites that do cross-referencing between academic papers -- at least, the citations, as well as categorization by topic. When we can start doing this for books based not only on genre, but topic or specific references to persons, or general concepts ("Book X mentions technology Y on page Z. Click here for link!")... well, things will become far more informative. I suspect that in this field, the information -- the texts -- may become free, but the computerized (and human-assisted) analyzation, linking, value-added stuff will be the new commodity. He who has the best algorithm wins.
I guess information has always wanted to be free, but the analysis of said information lies firmly in the realm of economics.
No. You failed to RTFA. They are only scanning books pre-1923 -- out of the copyright domain -- and those that they are specifically allowed to scan by the publishers. This has the backing of a lot of big corporations (Microsoft, HP, etc), and I don't think they'd like to be caught on the wrong side of copyright law, considering their position on the whole issue.
Ya might want to do a little research on color spaces if you believe that 8 bits per channel is okie-dokie. Maybe if this were stored in a highgamutcolor space, instead of we'd have something to really wag our tongues about. But just to give you an idea of what a standard CRT, displaying images using sRGB (not RGB! RGB has no standardized mapping to actual color wavelengths! (16.7 miiillion) colors can represent versus the full spectrum of human vision, check this out.
Also, for those wondering about the resolution of the human eye, Google comes to the rescue here. I found this excerpt particularly colorful (ha):
Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be 90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels). At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see 120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels. The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.
Additionally (and on that page), in any given light level (the human eye adjusts, you know), we have a contrast ratio of 10,000:1. The full spectrum of what we can see 10 million to one.
So, no, 24 bits is not enough. Give me 12 bits, at least, and floating point at that.
Look at the pixels on the keys -- they're large, large things. Toss in a big screen behind the whole of the keyboard, (and at those large of pixels, manufacturing defects wouldn't be that much of a concern), and fit the keys as thick plexi-glass so as to raise the image to the top of the keys.
The hard part becomes how to detect the press of a key. Perhaps the depression mechanism could be featured at the edges of the key (so as not to obscure the image, or even better, you could use lenses to magnify a small image, or an offset image and bring it front and center, the size of the key's face.
As for manufacturing:
Let's just assume that magnification is the only way to go and still include a depression mechanism of some kind. This means we need screens considerably smaller than the keys themselves. Let's say we take an average computer screen LCD at 72dpi. A standard key is what, half an inch or so? Let's give each key a 20x20 pixel display. That means that the display would be roughly a quarter inch square.
Now, if we're using 72dpi, manufacturing defects across the whole keyboard (stuck pixels, etc) become a problem. So, instead, let's assume that we have 104 20x20 pixel screens (some differences for the return/shift/etc oddly sized keys) connected as one large screen via sufficiently fine copper wiring between each screen. In this way, pixels 0-19 in any given row would refer to the first key, and pixels 20-39 would refer to the second key and so forth.
Rows would be handled the same way, so what you'd get, essentially, is something like a 440 pixel (22 key) wide, 120 pixel (6 key) tall display that's physically broken up to align under the keys.
I don't think costs would be too prohibitive for this type of manufacturing, but I'm not sure. Timing for signaling the "broken up" LCD might also be tricky, but it's nothing that a little math can't overcome.
I'm using LCDs as the base idea here, because you could easily backlight the keyboard (using the same tech as normal LCD monitors use, or even some kind of fiber optics like the PowerBooks). OLEDs and pricing and lifetime is another concern, but overall, I'd certainly say this is doable.
Well, the government had either lift the regulation or start subsidizing these sets somehow. Oh wait, that comes out of our taxpayer money... For the people by the people my ass if this goes through without some kind of recompense. The market simply isn't ready for it...
But on the bright side, what a way to get your average Joe to take a look at the government and the way it operates than to turn off his idiot tube. Not that this regulation was all bad -- it was to spur on development. Would that they'd do away wth IP patents in the same way.
We'll see. In this case, the revolution may really NOT be televised.
I think you overestimate the general population of browser users. Most of those who have not switched don't even know what a browser is, let alone that there are viable alternatives any more.
And if the product is acceptable, why not use it? It may not be exceptional, but if it gets the job done and isn't full of security holes, and if they kowtow to the web dev's whims... hey, good times for all..?
Like many defense arguments amounting to semantics, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on for this. If P2P networks, are, as they claim, only used to transfer illegal files anyway, the moment they "set up shop" on a P2P network, there's implied consent. They are advertising the presence of their files.
This is the same as the RIAA having links to their audio files on a website, for the public to see, saying "click here to download!" (With not so much as an click-through license.)
They are offering the files in what amounts to an opt-in, free-for-all network. When a file is requested, they give it. This isn't cybercrime, and it isn't misusing the offer of the file.
I've worked as a software tester on a large product where, for the duration, they've been moving dev and testing operations over to India.
Due in a large part to the transition to India, the project is now about 10 months behind, and it was slated to be released on the cusp of the new technology in February. It's really a large disappointment.
Most people there are also of the mind that even though Indian devs are cheaper, once their economy begins to match ours, we'll then merely have a 12 hour challenge-response delay. It's insanely hard to get things done when your HW devs are in the US, your SW devs are in Bangalore, and your testers are split between both.
It usually goes like this:
* I found a bug in the product
* 12 hrs later: we're fairly sure that's a HW issue, check it out
* Checked with hardware, they say it's a FW issue
* 12 hrs later: FW response: We're looking into it...
* 24 hrs later: FW: No, it's software.
Oh, it's like hitting your head against a wall. Meanwhile, they cut the contract support in the testing department, so it could all go overseas.
Okay, IANAL either, however, consider that the law merely states that you must provide your name/email address regardless of the legality of the transfer.
This is much akin to having a driver's license and speeding. Consider it like this -- to send commerical data electronically (drive), you must provide your information (own a driver's license). Now consider sending the data without the owner's consent "speeding".
You can:
A) Drive and obey the laws (get consent for the transfer) B) Drive and speed, yet have a driver's license C) Drive and not speed, yet not have a driver's license or D) Drive and speed, and not have a driver's license.
It's more like two seperate laws rolled into one. I don't see how the law can be interpreted any other way, or how requiring you to present identification (have a driver's license) is in breach of your fifth amendment rights.
It is simply saying that some things are illegal. And then it restricts itself from applying to certain circumstances.
It does not GRANT you the right to anything. And if you read the end, it does not bar the law from preventing prosecution under other laws.
And if you buy EULAs, you cannot install that software on more than one computer, so it's still illegal (by contractual agreement, piracy laws, et al).
People are born with rights. The constitution outlines those rights. The laws restrict those rights. Laws never grant rights. (Correct me if I'm wrong here...)
---
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
---
Emphasis mine. That's probably the point you're talking about. It is pretty clear that it's based on courtroom proceedings. So no, you're wrong.
No, you pay for soda and coffee. A crying shame if you ask me.
Cafeterias are pretty nice though. Best deal is the cup of soup and 6 inch baguette for $2.10. Next up is the pizza for 3.25-4.00 depending on type (they're about 10 inches across).
Slashdot Mirror
For the longest time (when I was young, mind), I thought it was GBLT.
Mmm... BLT...
You avoided the question. That is really, neither here nor there.
A character's sexual orientation has no bearing on gameplay. If you choose to orient your online character as gay, that's fine, even though your character can't really get it on with another character (though, "cybering" might be the exception here). What they wish to prevent, I assure you, is becoming liable for not properly policing hate issues towards the people BEHIND the personas. Which is where a GLBT guild would certainly lead.
I'm sure they'd have no problems with guilds built around in-game character differences. You could have a dwarves guild or a magic-users guild. The moment you start involving anything from the outside world into the game, you're going to have to begin dealing with hate issues. A male-only guild, a gay-friendly guild, a pro-choice guild (hey, you can RP it, right?) has no place in the game.
On the other hand, "gay" and "fag" in public chat conversations should probably be limited. It adds nothing to the ability to communicate, and is breaking the RL/game boundary. And say Blizzard doesn't implement that, if you wanted to enforce that for a guild, you simply set up a policy, whereby players in the guild who do use language you deem inappropriate are warned/removed from the guild.
I'm siding with Blizzard on this one, though their response seems a bit weird.
Damn the Guardian!
Helping out the reds! I knew their color scheme wasn't for nothin'.
Ahahah.
Why was that modded insightful?
Some people need to read up on Chornobyl.
You are not the target market. The GIMP does not serve this market.
Honestly, whenever anything Photoshop is posted, people go on and on about the GIMP and how it does so much and is free. Well, yeah, peachy keen and all, but it doesn't do everything, and regardless of how you feel about interfaces, it doesn't do everything like people (that is, people who have the need and finances to get that extra 15% of functionality) expect.
This is a product aimed, almost exclusively, at the pro-photo market (which you rule yourself out of in your post). This is for people who know how to take photos, take lots of them, and want a unified, clean system to adjust (fine control over hue/saturation/color balance/white balance, the lkie) the raw input files from their cameras and keep everything organized. That, apparently, is not you. What purpose does your comment serve?
Well, the summary was wrong.
It's twelve star-wars sets at $600,000, from some stores other than Target. "Only" $200,000 was from Target stores. Who knows the rest? ("Records of the Lego collector's Web site, Bricklink.Com, show that Swanberg has sold nearly $600,000 worth of Legos since 2002, said Dolyniuk.")
By the way. Portland represent!
Well, if you're running web applications, a good bit of IP is in the code, which is client visible. I suspect the best way around all of this is to develop a strongly typed language which compiles down into javascript. Javascript then becomes the intermediate language rather than first-crack. Additionally, the compiler can name variables and functions things that have no relation to the underlying logic of the code, making it much more painful to reverse engineer. (Much like reverse engineering a .NET program, except skipping the translation into human readability.)
Additionally, you could compile with optimizations to meet the capabilities of different browsers. Hell, toss in a little bit of encapsulation in the language "libraries" to avoid all of those layer/div issues. Etc, etc.
Javascript is good at what it does, it just wasn't meant to do quite that much.
Also, anyone wonder why there isn't a "valid CSS" to "IE broken CSS box model" translator? Maybe I ought to write that...
That's a good question, but I can't help but wonder if this is the miracle of capitalism at work. Right now we're in the eeeearly stages of this sort of thing, and the copyright laws, the mechanics, et al are still rather unexplored. Besides, I have to think -- the scanned images themselves are probably copyrighted by those who scanned, but chances are the plaintext isn't (considering they're copying it already, and not reinterpreting it). So the more people who want to scan whatever, the better, even if they overlap. Consider it error checking.
The real test and business opportunity comes in the distribution phase. The first person to have a huge library of old books, and contracts with publishing houses for new books (with "purchases" by the end users, and DRM encumbered, of course) is the person who will win the market and define the (capitalistic) best way to scan and distribute.
And come the semantic web, things get really interesting. Already we have tons of sites that do cross-referencing between academic papers -- at least, the citations, as well as categorization by topic. When we can start doing this for books based not only on genre, but topic or specific references to persons, or general concepts ("Book X mentions technology Y on page Z. Click here for link!")... well, things will become far more informative. I suspect that in this field, the information -- the texts -- may become free, but the computerized (and human-assisted) analyzation, linking, value-added stuff will be the new commodity. He who has the best algorithm wins.
I guess information has always wanted to be free, but the analysis of said information lies firmly in the realm of economics.
No. You failed to RTFA. They are only scanning books pre-1923 -- out of the copyright domain -- and those that they are specifically allowed to scan by the publishers. This has the backing of a lot of big corporations (Microsoft, HP, etc), and I don't think they'd like to be caught on the wrong side of copyright law, considering their position on the whole issue.
... 12 bits per channel. :P
Also, for those wondering about the resolution of the human eye, Google comes to the rescue here. I found this excerpt particularly colorful (ha):
Additionally (and on that page), in any given light level (the human eye adjusts, you know), we have a contrast ratio of 10,000:1. The full spectrum of what we can see 10 million to one.
So, no, 24 bits is not enough. Give me 12 bits, at least, and floating point at that.
What about every move I make?
Every bond I break?
Every step I take?
Wait... Are you stalking me?
Well, that's easy enough.
The puma is the one with the bad jpeg compression.
And this man claims to have been an engineer...
Would it need to be nearly that complex?
Look at the pixels on the keys -- they're large, large things. Toss in a big screen behind the whole of the keyboard, (and at those large of pixels, manufacturing defects wouldn't be that much of a concern), and fit the keys as thick plexi-glass so as to raise the image to the top of the keys.
The hard part becomes how to detect the press of a key. Perhaps the depression mechanism could be featured at the edges of the key (so as not to obscure the image, or even better, you could use lenses to magnify a small image, or an offset image and bring it front and center, the size of the key's face.
As for manufacturing:
Let's just assume that magnification is the only way to go and still include a depression mechanism of some kind. This means we need screens considerably smaller than the keys themselves. Let's say we take an average computer screen LCD at 72dpi. A standard key is what, half an inch or so? Let's give each key a 20x20 pixel display. That means that the display would be roughly a quarter inch square.
Now, if we're using 72dpi, manufacturing defects across the whole keyboard (stuck pixels, etc) become a problem. So, instead, let's assume that we have 104 20x20 pixel screens (some differences for the return/shift/etc oddly sized keys) connected as one large screen via sufficiently fine copper wiring between each screen. In this way, pixels 0-19 in any given row would refer to the first key, and pixels 20-39 would refer to the second key and so forth.
Rows would be handled the same way, so what you'd get, essentially, is something like a 440 pixel (22 key) wide, 120 pixel (6 key) tall display that's physically broken up to align under the keys.
I don't think costs would be too prohibitive for this type of manufacturing, but I'm not sure. Timing for signaling the "broken up" LCD might also be tricky, but it's nothing that a little math can't overcome.
I'm using LCDs as the base idea here, because you could easily backlight the keyboard (using the same tech as normal LCD monitors use, or even some kind of fiber optics like the PowerBooks). OLEDs and pricing and lifetime is another concern, but overall, I'd certainly say this is doable.
Where is this burger flipping college you speak of? Are they accepting applications for fall enrollment?
Well, the government had either lift the regulation or start subsidizing these sets somehow. Oh wait, that comes out of our taxpayer money... For the people by the people my ass if this goes through without some kind of recompense. The market simply isn't ready for it...
But on the bright side, what a way to get your average Joe to take a look at the government and the way it operates than to turn off his idiot tube. Not that this regulation was all bad -- it was to spur on development. Would that they'd do away wth IP patents in the same way.
We'll see. In this case, the revolution may really NOT be televised.
I think you overestimate the general population of browser users. Most of those who have not switched don't even know what a browser is, let alone that there are viable alternatives any more.
And if the product is acceptable, why not use it? It may not be exceptional, but if it gets the job done and isn't full of security holes, and if they kowtow to the web dev's whims... hey, good times for all..?
Ianal.
Like many defense arguments amounting to semantics, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on for this. If P2P networks, are, as they claim, only used to transfer illegal files anyway, the moment they "set up shop" on a P2P network, there's implied consent. They are advertising the presence of their files.
This is the same as the RIAA having links to their audio files on a website, for the public to see, saying "click here to download!" (With not so much as an click-through license.)
They are offering the files in what amounts to an opt-in, free-for-all network. When a file is requested, they give it. This isn't cybercrime, and it isn't misusing the offer of the file.
Hear hear.
I've worked as a software tester on a large product where, for the duration, they've been moving dev and testing operations over to India.
Due in a large part to the transition to India, the project is now about 10 months behind, and it was slated to be released on the cusp of the new technology in February. It's really a large disappointment.
Most people there are also of the mind that even though Indian devs are cheaper, once their economy begins to match ours, we'll then merely have a 12 hour challenge-response delay. It's insanely hard to get things done when your HW devs are in the US, your SW devs are in Bangalore, and your testers are split between both.
It usually goes like this:
* I found a bug in the product
* 12 hrs later: we're fairly sure that's a HW issue, check it out
* Checked with hardware, they say it's a FW issue
* 12 hrs later: FW response: We're looking into it...
* 24 hrs later: FW: No, it's software.
Oh, it's like hitting your head against a wall. Meanwhile, they cut the contract support in the testing department, so it could all go overseas.
I just don't get it.
Okay, IANAL either, however, consider that the law merely states that you must provide your name/email address regardless of the legality of the transfer.
This is much akin to having a driver's license and speeding. Consider it like this -- to send commerical data electronically (drive), you must provide your information (own a driver's license). Now consider sending the data without the owner's consent "speeding".
You can:
A) Drive and obey the laws (get consent for the transfer)
B) Drive and speed, yet have a driver's license
C) Drive and not speed, yet not have a driver's license
or
D) Drive and speed, and not have a driver's license.
It's more like two seperate laws rolled into one. I don't see how the law can be interpreted any other way, or how requiring you to present identification (have a driver's license) is in breach of your fifth amendment rights.
And I'm a dumb ass... That should read:
And if you read the end, the law in question explicilty cannot bar prosecution under other laws.
No, no no. And no.
It is simply saying that some things are illegal. And then it restricts itself from applying to certain circumstances.
It does not GRANT you the right to anything. And if you read the end, it does not bar the law from preventing prosecution under other laws.
And if you buy EULAs, you cannot install that software on more than one computer, so it's still illegal (by contractual agreement, piracy laws, et al).
People are born with rights. The constitution outlines those rights. The laws restrict those rights. Laws never grant rights. (Correct me if I'm wrong here...)
And I quote:
---
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
---
Emphasis mine. That's probably the point you're talking about. It is pretty clear that it's based on courtroom proceedings. So no, you're wrong.
No, you pay for soda and coffee. A crying shame if you ask me.
Cafeterias are pretty nice though. Best deal is the cup of soup and 6 inch baguette for $2.10. Next up is the pizza for 3.25-4.00 depending on type (they're about 10 inches across).
Everything else hovers around $5.
Sims 2 has this. It's a great idea, agreed. Check it out on their web site.
http://thesims2.ea.com/bodyshop.php