The AI though - I don't at all mean that the guards shouldn't be in varying states of alertness/interest. I love that about stealth games. I just found it to be a little erring on the dumb-guard side, and the friendly characters seemed pretty stupid too.
The best part of the game is that it can be so different to regular FPS. How many FPS give you the option of not killing anyone?
Thanks for your reply Craig, but if you look at my post you'll find that I played Hitman 2. What I failed to mention is that I loved it and indeed the whole "stealth" genre. My problems with Thief were primarily the graphics and feel, and the AI. I'm looking at it in relation to Hitman 2 here.
Thief just felt too linear too, though as I said I played very little of it.
I don't know the lifespan of a panel, but it sounds like you misunderstood my implication. I would guess that panels would generally last longer than their break-even point, but by indicating that there was a break-even point at all, I meant to imply that they do become worthwhile if in use for a sufficiently long period.
I first played Thief 2 after Hitman 2 and wasn't at all impressed. The graphics and feel reminded me of old Quake-era games, and the AI seemed horrible (enemies repeatedly going 'what's that!?' but just standing there outside the doorway).
Admittedly I didn't play for long - was I too quick to judge?
IIRC (though imprecisely) the energy break-even on a solar panel with average domestic usage is many years, somewhere around 10 - 15. May be as low as 7 though.
Why not a little investment in checking out the history of Mandrake Linux? As has been said in the comments multiple times, Mandrake Linux was named after Mandrake the Magician (or they were at least aware of their namesake) - this is shown by their logos over the years, the latest of which clearly bears relation to "magic".
Personally, I think they should be required to change their logo, but not their name. The intention of the naming of a product bears no relation to the potential for customer confusion.
I use a bog standard old PC to play my MP3s of a file server (no weird streaming going on) and I'd just like to say this: setup winamp or your choice of graphical media player on the player, configure font size to 20pt or so, and use a monitor to view/modify the playlists and other stuff. It's far better than the wanky headless-with-LCD option a lot of people building this sort of thing go for. Also, get a cheap IR remote control unit like the Hollywood Reelmagic one (about AU$60) and configure it well.
sy
... the stupidest Ask Slashdot I've even seen, and I've been here a lot longer than my ID would suggest. Just get stuff when you need it, you anal retentive freak.
Most of the parent post is a rehash of your previous arguments. Look, I say that when someone "misuses" a piece of property, that doesn't change the fact that the creative work contained therein is public domain, and is now out in the open. It's like a trade secret - your convoluted contracts seek to protect it from dissemination, but once that occurs, no matter how, it is no longer protected as a trade secret. Sue into oblivion the guy who released it, hang him, whatever - it doesn't change the fact that it's out there.
I have argued that there is plenty of moral ground.
And I that there is none. Yes, a contract can be formed to provide the work, with certain conditions imposed on the recipient, but who cares? That is where the influence of the creator ends. Accidental dissemination where due care has been taken shouldn't be a breach of contract.
[Copyright is] not unnatural, but it is a restriction.
What planet are you living on where copyright is natural?
Exactly. Society are the main beneficiaries of copyright.
Correction: society were the main beneficiaries of copyright. Now copyright has been mutated into the horrific monstrous she-bitch of corporate juggernauts. What was it originally (in the US)? 14 years? What is it now? Life + 70? Society is no longer benefitting. A world of 14 year copyrights seems positively utopian compared to the current situation. I think shorter copyrights, rather than longer, are justified now, with the rapid distribution possible. I can't fathom how such lengthy copyright terms can be justified - the effect is essentially to eliminate the public domain, to make everything property and enforce a world order of artificial scarcity. I'm sure that a significant proportion of the "ignorant slashmorons" (ie, the un-1337) understand the ideas behind copyright, but hate what it has become.
A system like EULAs without any sort of guaranteed fair use provisions would be much worse for society.
The existence of a worse option does not make this one any better.
Do you think it a good thing that right now, it is illegal in many places (Australia for example) for poor kids to make tapes of their friends' CDs (or tapes)? All they can legally listen to is radio, which in many cases is restricted to crappy commercial pop. Is this situation of artificial scarcity preferable to a world without restriction? Societies without such ideas have had flourishing musical cultures - there is no reason to think that real musicians would just give it up because there was little money in the business. Why not just restrict commercial use of copyrighted works? Wouldn't this be enough? People ignore copyright law for the most part anyway.
My position is that they're only liable for damages if they misuse the product in such a way as to undermine contractual agreements (for example, by uploading it to a public server).
I would like to introduce a very simple example to refute this: in this example, I sign a contract with you stipulating that you are to pay me five (5) dollars in return for me telling you a word I made up in primary school. Don't worry, these are canadian dollars - so it's good value.
Now, any of the following could be true (and likely):
Someone overhears me telling you the word;
Someone already knows the word, because they grew up with me; and
My mother hears about this contract and really doesn't like me (stretch marks), so she broadcasts it on CNN.
All these scenarios undermine my ability to profit from the new word, but in no case has anyone breached the contract. Any third party aware of the word can do whatever they please with it. The word is public domain, as all information or creative work is in nature. There is no reason to believe that anyone using the word isn't entitled to do som, or that they aren't entitled to any benefits such use might bring.
All this guff you're talking about is irrelevant legal bullshit - what exactly are you arguing for/against? Do you remember? Do you think the world would be a better place if every little creative work were licensed by contract to every recipient? Do you think this would have any legal efficacy at all? What I am arguing (or was arguing) is that there is no natural right, really no moral ground, for the creator of a work to exert power over others who have the capacity to perform/redistribute/eat it. The idea that creative works are "property" is one espoused by the laws of modern humankind, and I would posit that nowhere in the Bible, Qur'an, Bhaghavad Gita or whatever your spiritual text of choice, can one find any mention of "intellectual property". Copyright is an unnatural restriction imposed by society on individuals, for the benefit of society, just like speed limits and public nudity laws. Repeat after me: Copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works, copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works, copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works...
They could be held liable for damages that result from unauthorised usage
What damages? The music isn't copyrighted, and the third (CD-borrowing) person having the music doesn't damage anyone. Remember, if it isn't copyrighted, the creator has no specific right to exclusive profit from it.
Your example regarding trade secrets is wholly irrelevant, as the theft itself would most likely constitute trespass etcetera regardless of the method of entry.
IBHT, and this discussion is finished ? Heard that one before (-; HAND.
On that same subject, we all know that computers require cooling and without electricity, cooling is very difficult - particularly when you are in an area that sees 120 degree daytime temps in the summer.
Err, I don't have too much trouble with my computers overheating when I have no electricity...
A better example actually would be the "fell off the back of a truck" example -- suppose the CD literally does fall off the back of the truck and someone finds it.
The answer to this apparent dilemma is that even though they are in possesion of the CD, it is not their CD, so they are not authorised to use it (much like finding someones wallet doesn't give you the right to make use of the priveliges that may come with having some of the ID cards in that wallet)
Please, I appreciate your argument, but it really is periphery to the matter at hand - it doesn't matter if the person is "authorised" to use the CD - what matters is that once they've used it, and gotten the music off it, they're only liable for the unauthorised usage of the CD - they can keep the creative work, since like knowledge, it isn't "property" gained from unlawful conduct. It's just public domain (we're talking about a world without copyright, as you may or may not recall).
Are you steaming off on this tangent on purpose? I'm beginning to think I must be dense, because it is only now, three or four posts in, that I've realised that IHBT... regardless, let's leave further discussion of this to a fresh thread some other time:-)
I just lost my reply to this so this time around it'll be short and to the point. I think you're bogging us down in an irrelevant offshoot to the discussion - regardless of whether one does have a natural right to impose conditions on the recipient of a creative work, how does the right to enforce such conditions manifest? Also, I think that in light of any reasonable contract one might have with the creator of a work, there would be many scenarios where the copy I obtain from them could in turn be obtained by someone else without my breaching the contract (CD left on my desk; unbeknownst to me someone borrows and copies it - regardless of any actions or charges I might bring against the borrower, I haven't breached a simple contract to the effect of "don't redistribute").
Please, if you wish to continue this discussion, focus on the effect of such a scenario rather than this stubborn argument that the contract is the be-all and end-all of creative work control.
I would also like to ask - if contract formation is a natural right, how can contracts be subject to the laws of man? What happens if I supply a work to someone on the condition that they kill themself in a week? What if the court ruled the contract null and void? The recipient still has the creative work...
It gives them a right to only make their work available to you conditionally. You do not have a natural right to receive the work.
Of course I don't have a natural right to receive the work - of course a person who has a song locked up in their head or on a tape in their pocket can refuse to share and be right - but that's not the issue. The issue is, if I can get my hands on the work from somewhere (can you say eMule?) I'm not violating the natural rights of anyone else.
On the subject of shrink-wrap licensing, I took you to be referring to the ubiquitous EULA, which is rarely if ever made available pre-purchase (unless one borrows a friend's). Shrink-wrap is real hard to put back on the box;)
Creative works are not ideas. Patents are the closest thing to controlling ideas that are legally recognised.
This discussion always boils down to semantic feces-throwing. Ideas/creative works/whatever - the concept is still the same. The mere fact that someone has recorded a creative work on their dime does not give them a natural right to control what I do with it - they can however bash my face in with a club if desired. I in turn can do the same.
There IS a natural right to make binding contractual agreements, hence it follows that there is also the right to license software/music under a contractual model.
I'm not sure how it is relevant that "There is a natural right to make binding contractual agreements" - how have I in any way a relationship (contractual or otherwise) with Britney Spears? And the fact that you later bring up shrink-wrap licensing wraps up this insane line of reasoning nicely. Shrink-wrap licensing is a myth! It's a non-binding one-way contract revealed only when the screwee has already bought into/signed onto it.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the constitution, bill of rights or US law (or the laws/founding documents of any other country) that guarantees the rights of the general public to take/use/have access to the intellectual property of others.
This statement really reflects the upside-down view of the world drilled into consumers' brains by those with an interest in copyrighted material. Sure, access to the "intellectual property of others" isn't guaranteed by your constitution or laws - rather, the whole concept of "intellectual property" is established therein. There is no natural right to control the use of one's ideas!
Copyright is a time-limited right granted by the government to say when and how and by whom one's creative output can be copied, a right which was supposed to enable the creator to derive some benefit from such work so as to continue to create - for the benefit of society, not for the benefit ofhuge corporation. Copyright infringement isn't immoral, it's illegal.
yeah, you're right, my apologies - but I was firing a volley at what I presumed to be another arrogant ethnocentric yank, not showing off my knowledge feathers.
Slashdot Mirror
The AI though - I don't at all mean that the guards shouldn't be in varying states of alertness/interest. I love that about stealth games. I just found it to be a little erring on the dumb-guard side, and the friendly characters seemed pretty stupid too.
Thief just felt too linear too, though as I said I played very little of it.
I don't know the lifespan of a panel, but it sounds like you misunderstood my implication. I would guess that panels would generally last longer than their break-even point, but by indicating that there was a break-even point at all, I meant to imply that they do become worthwhile if in use for a sufficiently long period.
I first played Thief 2 after Hitman 2 and wasn't at all impressed. The graphics and feel reminded me of old Quake-era games, and the AI seemed horrible (enemies repeatedly going 'what's that!?' but just standing there outside the doorway). Admittedly I didn't play for long - was I too quick to judge?
IIRC (though imprecisely) the energy break-even on a solar panel with average domestic usage is many years, somewhere around 10 - 15. May be as low as 7 though.
Why not a little investment in checking out the history of Mandrake Linux? As has been said in the comments multiple times, Mandrake Linux was named after Mandrake the Magician (or they were at least aware of their namesake) - this is shown by their logos over the years, the latest of which clearly bears relation to "magic". Personally, I think they should be required to change their logo, but not their name. The intention of the naming of a product bears no relation to the potential for customer confusion.
I use a bog standard old PC to play my MP3s of a file server (no weird streaming going on) and I'd just like to say this: setup winamp or your choice of graphical media player on the player, configure font size to 20pt or so, and use a monitor to view/modify the playlists and other stuff. It's far better than the wanky headless-with-LCD option a lot of people building this sort of thing go for. Also, get a cheap IR remote control unit like the Hollywood Reelmagic one (about AU$60) and configure it well. sy
Flamebait!? You... pack... of... morons. Now THIS is flamebait.
... the stupidest Ask Slashdot I've even seen, and I've been here a lot longer than my ID would suggest. Just get stuff when you need it, you anal retentive freak.
Most of the parent post is a rehash of your previous arguments. Look, I say that when someone "misuses" a piece of property, that doesn't change the fact that the creative work contained therein is public domain, and is now out in the open. It's like a trade secret - your convoluted contracts seek to protect it from dissemination, but once that occurs, no matter how, it is no longer protected as a trade secret. Sue into oblivion the guy who released it, hang him, whatever - it doesn't change the fact that it's out there.
And I that there is none. Yes, a contract can be formed to provide the work, with certain conditions imposed on the recipient, but who cares? That is where the influence of the creator ends. Accidental dissemination where due care has been taken shouldn't be a breach of contract.
What planet are you living on where copyright is natural?
Correction: society were the main beneficiaries of copyright. Now copyright has been mutated into the horrific monstrous she-bitch of corporate juggernauts. What was it originally (in the US)? 14 years? What is it now? Life + 70? Society is no longer benefitting. A world of 14 year copyrights seems positively utopian compared to the current situation. I think shorter copyrights, rather than longer, are justified now, with the rapid distribution possible. I can't fathom how such lengthy copyright terms can be justified - the effect is essentially to eliminate the public domain, to make everything property and enforce a world order of artificial scarcity. I'm sure that a significant proportion of the "ignorant slashmorons" (ie, the un-1337) understand the ideas behind copyright, but hate what it has become.The existence of a worse option does not make this one any better.
Do you think it a good thing that right now, it is illegal in many places (Australia for example) for poor kids to make tapes of their friends' CDs (or tapes)? All they can legally listen to is radio, which in many cases is restricted to crappy commercial pop. Is this situation of artificial scarcity preferable to a world without restriction? Societies without such ideas have had flourishing musical cultures - there is no reason to think that real musicians would just give it up because there was little money in the business. Why not just restrict commercial use of copyrighted works? Wouldn't this be enough? People ignore copyright law for the most part anyway.
I would like to introduce a very simple example to refute this: in this example, I sign a contract with you stipulating that you are to pay me five (5) dollars in return for me telling you a word I made up in primary school. Don't worry, these are canadian dollars - so it's good value.
Now, any of the following could be true (and likely):
All these scenarios undermine my ability to profit from the new word, but in no case has anyone breached the contract. Any third party aware of the word can do whatever they please with it. The word is public domain, as all information or creative work is in nature. There is no reason to believe that anyone using the word isn't entitled to do som, or that they aren't entitled to any benefits such use might bring.
All this guff you're talking about is irrelevant legal bullshit - what exactly are you arguing for/against? Do you remember? Do you think the world would be a better place if every little creative work were licensed by contract to every recipient? Do you think this would have any legal efficacy at all? What I am arguing (or was arguing) is that there is no natural right, really no moral ground, for the creator of a work to exert power over others who have the capacity to perform/redistribute/eat it. The idea that creative works are "property" is one espoused by the laws of modern humankind, and I would posit that nowhere in the Bible, Qur'an, Bhaghavad Gita or whatever your spiritual text of choice, can one find any mention of "intellectual property". Copyright is an unnatural restriction imposed by society on individuals, for the benefit of society, just like speed limits and public nudity laws. Repeat after me: Copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works, copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works, copyright is not for the benefit of creators of works...
Your example regarding trade secrets is wholly irrelevant, as the theft itself would most likely constitute trespass etcetera regardless of the method of entry.
You too.Please, I appreciate your argument, but it really is periphery to the matter at hand - it doesn't matter if the person is "authorised" to use the CD - what matters is that once they've used it, and gotten the music off it, they're only liable for the unauthorised usage of the CD - they can keep the creative work, since like knowledge, it isn't "property" gained from unlawful conduct. It's just public domain (we're talking about a world without copyright, as you may or may not recall).
Are you steaming off on this tangent on purpose? I'm beginning to think I must be dense, because it is only now, three or four posts in, that I've realised that IHBT... regardless, let's leave further discussion of this to a fresh thread some other time :-)
I just lost my reply to this so this time around it'll be short and to the point. I think you're bogging us down in an irrelevant offshoot to the discussion - regardless of whether one does have a natural right to impose conditions on the recipient of a creative work, how does the right to enforce such conditions manifest? Also, I think that in light of any reasonable contract one might have with the creator of a work, there would be many scenarios where the copy I obtain from them could in turn be obtained by someone else without my breaching the contract (CD left on my desk; unbeknownst to me someone borrows and copies it - regardless of any actions or charges I might bring against the borrower, I haven't breached a simple contract to the effect of "don't redistribute").
Please, if you wish to continue this discussion, focus on the effect of such a scenario rather than this stubborn argument that the contract is the be-all and end-all of creative work control.
I would also like to ask - if contract formation is a natural right, how can contracts be subject to the laws of man? What happens if I supply a work to someone on the condition that they kill themself in a week? What if the court ruled the contract null and void? The recipient still has the creative work...
Of course I don't have a natural right to receive the work - of course a person who has a song locked up in their head or on a tape in their pocket can refuse to share and be right - but that's not the issue. The issue is, if I can get my hands on the work from somewhere (can you say eMule?) I'm not violating the natural rights of anyone else.
On the subject of shrink-wrap licensing, I took you to be referring to the ubiquitous EULA, which is rarely if ever made available pre-purchase (unless one borrows a friend's). Shrink-wrap is real hard to put back on the box ;)
Creative works are not ideas. Patents are the closest thing to controlling ideas that are legally recognised.
This discussion always boils down to semantic feces-throwing. Ideas/creative works/whatever - the concept is still the same. The mere fact that someone has recorded a creative work on their dime does not give them a natural right to control what I do with it - they can however bash my face in with a club if desired. I in turn can do the same.
There IS a natural right to make binding contractual agreements, hence it follows that there is also the right to license software/music under a contractual model.
I'm not sure how it is relevant that "There is a natural right to make binding contractual agreements" - how have I in any way a relationship (contractual or otherwise) with Britney Spears? And the fact that you later bring up shrink-wrap licensing wraps up this insane line of reasoning nicely. Shrink-wrap licensing is a myth! It's a non-binding one-way contract revealed only when the screwee has already bought into/signed onto it.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the constitution, bill of rights or US law (or the laws/founding documents of any other country) that guarantees the rights of the general public to take/use/have access to the intellectual property of others.
This statement really reflects the upside-down view of the world drilled into consumers' brains by those with an interest in copyrighted material. Sure, access to the "intellectual property of others" isn't guaranteed by your constitution or laws - rather, the whole concept of "intellectual property" is established therein. There is no natural right to control the use of one's ideas!
Copyright is a time-limited right granted by the government to say when and how and by whom one's creative output can be copied, a right which was supposed to enable the creator to derive some benefit from such work so as to continue to create - for the benefit of society, not for the benefit ofhuge corporation. Copyright infringement isn't immoral, it's illegal.
steve
yeah, you're right, my apologies - but I was firing a volley at what I presumed to be another arrogant ethnocentric yank, not showing off my knowledge feathers.
I was referring to the German enigma codes and the Japanese Naval codes that we broke (using the worlds first computers at the time
You better be British and over 80...