Indeed. If, say, he'd written bad things about Obama on a blog in Britain, the US government would have extradited him. It's awful that the Thais had to wait for him to actually travel to Thailand.
He said the game engine for STO operates inefficiently. This is evident on any moderate/mid range graphics card (which meets the minimum specs of the game http://www.startrekonline.com/node/494), especially in space situations where there is heavy use of nebulae and other spacial landscapes, such as asteroids or rings and, ironically, on maps where there is almost no background at all -- on computers that can operate most other MMOs just fine.
It's working fine for me at minimum settings. Maybe you're just running it with too high settings.
Speaking of the system requirements I mentioned above, I must seriously ask you what kind of *netbook* you have where STO "runs really decently."
It's an Acer Aspire One 521
CPU: AMD processor V105 (1.2GHz) Memory: 1GiB DDR3 Memory Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200 Series OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit
I also have the over head of Aero, full disk encryption and Avast Internet Security. Windows Experience Index ranks the system as a 2.5 because of "calculations per second".
Maybe you should ask yourself if you've actually played this game before questioning whether others have.
We need more artists who are not afraid to go out of their comfort zone, who are willing to be pioneers of new business models that embrace the internet
Why haven't you brought up the fact that many have tried and plenty have completely and utterly failed?
I'm sure Mr Walt Disney is really enjoying the profit he's getting from his 'still-in-copyright' works, even though he died in '66.
I thought the copyright was owned by the company, not the individual - If that is still the case, I don't see your point as valid. The company is not dead.
1. Copyrights being extended long long long past 'a few years' (Mickey Mouse is still under copyright, since 1928).
I don't see anything wrong with this. Nothing ethically or morally wrong with it at all.
2. Stupid enforcing of copyrights in regions where its not avaliable anyway.
It's the copyright holder's choice to produce copies and if they don't want to produce copies somewhere, I see that as perfectly fine.
3. Copyright as a purely money making process. "Happy Birthday to you" (written in the 1800s) still brings money for the copyright holder. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 - who by the way is not the creator.
That looks to me like that the copyright office had a hard time verifying things and that should be corrected.
An open source ad hoc mesh network would be immune to government censorship.
Not really, government can raid a physical location and shut it down, just like on the current Internet. They can also tell any major providers to block access to certain things, which is entirely plausible that you would have major 'gateways' which would do exactly the same, just like the current Internet.
Well if everybody just signed up for FON we'd be pretty close. We'd still be using the carriers but we'd have WiFi access anywhere a FON subscriber is nearby.
My Internet is usually saturated, I doubt being a FON user would be that helpful. The idea of "Imagine enjoying videos, movies and games at WiFi speeds while you're away from home - for free! " on my already over saturated connection seems a bit unlikely.
I've networked (and I don't mean computer network) across the transatlantic before with only a few watts over short wave. I've done it with both a huge ugly antenna and using a well hidden ground antenna.
Networking over vast distances is possible (hell, Guglielmo Marconi did it in 1900s), but in my uses, bandwidth was extremely limited, I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with something far better.
I feel that due to how fragile shortwave is, that we need to have very responsible people using those frequencies and not just average Joe consumer device.
An idea to investigate, the submarine monitoring networks are capable of hearing ships leaving port across the globe, potentially that technology could be further developed for relaying messages over the sea - I wouldn't know how viable that is.
Sadly, I don't have a concrete answer on this, I didn't do much research on long distance communications.
802.22 requires dedicated 'towers' to be setup, which can really only be done by big money, this does not work with the idea of "creating our own ad hoc internet without relying on expensive cables".
and limit the hogs.
What if the hogs are providing a very useful service? How do you distinguish between a torrent and a game server?
And someday the interference problem will be licked and we will have multiple users on the same frequency;
To be honest, a mesh network could be done far better using frequency-hopping spread spectrum radios, you could build the addressing scheme into the frequency hopping, this would allow software defined radios to listen in on specific broadcast messages, as well as provide a new form of security measures for dealing with secure communications between any single node or to a select many without much of an issue with interception.
802.22 doesn't really seem that developed for a technology for constantly changing mesh network, especially since it seems to expect some kind of dedicated infrastructure setup.
it's a software problem we haven't solved yet, not a physical one.
If it's 802.22, it's both for this specific circumstance of "creating our own ad hoc internet without relying on expensive cables".
Certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think trust is something you'd deal with at the presentation layer. We've dealt with spoofing at lower levels in our existing setup after all.
The problem with talking about the OSI model is that our current networking technology doesn't even respect that model. I will note that I didn't say it wasn't impossible to deal with untrusted nodes, but it's something that we should take into consideration when developing a new networking environment such as this.
Back to your original comment, I think dealing with it in the presentation layer is a bit too high in my opinion, as it would require reworking essentially every application to offer some form of encryption. There wouldn't be a clear way to ensure that every application developer even ensures there is encryption. I would suggest producing something similar to IPsec which sits in the 'network' layer of the OSI model, where by user applications would need little knowledge of what network they're operating over to function and ensure some form of security by default.
The issue however is having some sort of global authority system that hands out registered assignments to devices to ensure no spoofing. An authority system like this would likely cause a new slew of problems however, mainly the faults of having to deal with a centralized system.
Dealing with this sort of system with issues such as a netsplit (where the authority is on the otherside of the split and new devices are added to the side you're on, unable to get assignments ends up being rather a complicated matter.
With wireless technology developing as it is, is there any chance that some day we can create our own ad hoc internet without relying on expensive cables and thus expensive carriers?
Not without a decent spectrum allocated for it. The 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz band at our current power restrictions don't allow for very good distances, unless you have a very clunky antenna that you wouldn't find on a mobile device.
Developing an ad-hoc mesh network has many issues to take into consideration, including dealing with the fact that there will be people who are using an unfair amount of resources and no single transmitter can be trusted to keep any information secure or even 'truthful' about who it is.
Your first amendment is the right of free speech. But you have the FCC and they can ban you if you show someone that says words like fuck on the TV. How can a government agency ban a private company if they try and use their most important right as in the Constitution?
You didn't research this too hard, did you? It's free speech against the government. Not freedom to be vulgar on any matter.
This is such a waste of time. Why can't talented programmers spend their efforts on more productive activities. Write the next great game, etc.
Have you considered the fact that reverse engineering ability doesn't equate to game writing ability?
As these individuals probably get more press and interest doing this than reverse engineering how a complex virus like Stuxnet works. Are you sure this is less productive? Seems like a good way to get yourself known out there.
Also, IE9 is not an automatically deployed update, you need to select to install it.
Many WSUS setups are in 'auto approve' setup, the big OEMs even setup Windows Update to not only update recommended updates but optional ones too - This is where IE ends up being automatically installed without prompting.
This is so much a problem that Microsoft provides a toolkit to disable it.
Oh btw. I've rolled IE9 to over 30 machines without issue.
This doesn't make it any less anecdotal than the previous information - I should also say that I've rolled far more IE9 installations through WSUS. While usually nothing breaks, when something does break, it usually breaks parts of the OS too, not just the browser.
Your machine is broken.
I isolated the cause on the machine as a single library file that wasn't updated properly, once I knew the cause, it didn't take long to fix it, so actually, the machine is not "broken" currently. But nice use of terminology, I'm sure laymen appreciate talking to you in this form, I don't care for vague statements however.
Anyway, back on subject. I'm disputing the fact that when IE breaks, various Windows components break too, there by making IE a potentially dangerous browser to update. Compared to any other browser, this is usually the worst one for dealing with when it comes to update breakage issues, since it breaks various bits of your OS if it does break.
Thankfully, I don't tend to run into many issues with IE (or any other browser). But IE happens to be the worst when I run into one.
In 15 years of dealing with internet explorer, i've never seen an IE update break a windows install that wasn't seriously broken already.
I have. Experienced it myself with IE9, where it didn't update shdocvw.dll, so explorer was all screwy in behaviour, control panel widgets were borked and so forth. This was on a brand new Windows installation too, so fairly little chance of being tampered with.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be new here.
The Google-foo is weak with this one.
What if he just linked like he did originally?
An acronym.
It's working fine for me at minimum settings. Maybe you're just running it with too high settings.
It's an Acer Aspire One 521
CPU: AMD processor V105 (1.2GHz)
Memory: 1GiB DDR3 Memory
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200 Series
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit
I also have the over head of Aero, full disk encryption and Avast Internet Security. Windows Experience Index ranks the system as a 2.5 because of "calculations per second".
Here is my main character in STO:
http://aschen.weststar.name/
Why haven't you brought up the fact that many have tried and plenty have completely and utterly failed?
I thought the copyright was owned by the company, not the individual - If that is still the case, I don't see your point as valid. The company is not dead.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Nothing ethically or morally wrong with it at all.
It's the copyright holder's choice to produce copies and if they don't want to produce copies somewhere, I see that as perfectly fine.
That looks to me like that the copyright office had a hard time verifying things and that should be corrected.
They look at it from the point of view that you deprived them from a legitimate sale.
Not really, government can raid a physical location and shut it down, just like on the current Internet. They can also tell any major providers to block access to certain things, which is entirely plausible that you would have major 'gateways' which would do exactly the same, just like the current Internet.
My Internet is usually saturated, I doubt being a FON user would be that helpful. The idea of "Imagine enjoying videos, movies and games at WiFi speeds while you're away from home - for free! " on my already over saturated connection seems a bit unlikely.
I've networked (and I don't mean computer network) across the transatlantic before with only a few watts over short wave. I've done it with both a huge ugly antenna and using a well hidden ground antenna.
Networking over vast distances is possible (hell, Guglielmo Marconi did it in 1900s), but in my uses, bandwidth was extremely limited, I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with something far better.
I feel that due to how fragile shortwave is, that we need to have very responsible people using those frequencies and not just average Joe consumer device.
An idea to investigate, the submarine monitoring networks are capable of hearing ships leaving port across the globe, potentially that technology could be further developed for relaying messages over the sea - I wouldn't know how viable that is.
Sadly, I don't have a concrete answer on this, I didn't do much research on long distance communications.
802.22 requires dedicated 'towers' to be setup, which can really only be done by big money, this does not work with the idea of "creating our own ad hoc internet without relying on expensive cables".
What if the hogs are providing a very useful service? How do you distinguish between a torrent and a game server?
To be honest, a mesh network could be done far better using frequency-hopping spread spectrum radios, you could build the addressing scheme into the frequency hopping, this would allow software defined radios to listen in on specific broadcast messages, as well as provide a new form of security measures for dealing with secure communications between any single node or to a select many without much of an issue with interception.
802.22 doesn't really seem that developed for a technology for constantly changing mesh network, especially since it seems to expect some kind of dedicated infrastructure setup.
If it's 802.22, it's both for this specific circumstance of "creating our own ad hoc internet without relying on expensive cables".
He started his sentence with:
The problem with talking about the OSI model is that our current networking technology doesn't even respect that model. I will note that I didn't say it wasn't impossible to deal with untrusted nodes, but it's something that we should take into consideration when developing a new networking environment such as this.
Back to your original comment, I think dealing with it in the presentation layer is a bit too high in my opinion, as it would require reworking essentially every application to offer some form of encryption. There wouldn't be a clear way to ensure that every application developer even ensures there is encryption. I would suggest producing something similar to IPsec which sits in the 'network' layer of the OSI model, where by user applications would need little knowledge of what network they're operating over to function and ensure some form of security by default.
The issue however is having some sort of global authority system that hands out registered assignments to devices to ensure no spoofing. An authority system like this would likely cause a new slew of problems however, mainly the faults of having to deal with a centralized system.
Dealing with this sort of system with issues such as a netsplit (where the authority is on the otherside of the split and new devices are added to the side you're on, unable to get assignments ends up being rather a complicated matter.
Not without a decent spectrum allocated for it. The 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz band at our current power restrictions don't allow for very good distances, unless you have a very clunky antenna that you wouldn't find on a mobile device.
Developing an ad-hoc mesh network has many issues to take into consideration, including dealing with the fact that there will be people who are using an unfair amount of resources and no single transmitter can be trusted to keep any information secure or even 'truthful' about who it is.
You didn't research this too hard, did you? It's free speech against the government. Not freedom to be vulgar on any matter.
--Also a non-American.
You got an e-mail if you were registered on the forums.
Woha, this Minecraft shit looks like I'm running some complicated webserver thing. No thanks.
It's dumb, that's what it is.
You have your answer, now leave and never return.
Have you considered the fact that reverse engineering ability doesn't equate to game writing ability?
As these individuals probably get more press and interest doing this than reverse engineering how a complex virus like Stuxnet works. Are you sure this is less productive? Seems like a good way to get yourself known out there.
Many WSUS setups are in 'auto approve' setup, the big OEMs even setup Windows Update to not only update recommended updates but optional ones too - This is where IE ends up being automatically installed without prompting.
This is so much a problem that Microsoft provides a toolkit to disable it.
This doesn't make it any less anecdotal than the previous information - I should also say that I've rolled far more IE9 installations through WSUS. While usually nothing breaks, when something does break, it usually breaks parts of the OS too, not just the browser.
I isolated the cause on the machine as a single library file that wasn't updated properly, once I knew the cause, it didn't take long to fix it, so actually, the machine is not "broken" currently. But nice use of terminology, I'm sure laymen appreciate talking to you in this form, I don't care for vague statements however.
Anyway, back on subject. I'm disputing the fact that when IE breaks, various Windows components break too, there by making IE a potentially dangerous browser to update. Compared to any other browser, this is usually the worst one for dealing with when it comes to update breakage issues, since it breaks various bits of your OS if it does break.
Thankfully, I don't tend to run into many issues with IE (or any other browser). But IE happens to be the worst when I run into one.
I have. Experienced it myself with IE9, where it didn't update shdocvw.dll, so explorer was all screwy in behaviour, control panel widgets were borked and so forth. This was on a brand new Windows installation too, so fairly little chance of being tampered with.
Here is the answer.
bryan1945, you can't murder anyone.