Sony's infrastructure is basically open. Yes, it has some commonalities between programs, but in the end it is the game developer that has control of the network for their game. Ms took the opposite route and went with a closed network where they control almost everything. So, unless they make a special deal (ala what's been done with Final Fantasy XI), cross platform isn't allowed. For example, Live has it's own user account with all the capabilities to talk, block, etc with other live users. However, there really is nothing in place to deal with a non-live user which is obviously a necessity if you want to actually play with them.
That is just plain moronic. You do NOT ask for people's passwords ever. That's bloody ridiculous. You'll get a total of two types, liars who give you nothing or fakes, or idiots you actually give you this info.
It won't be the US that falls into a totalitarian regime masking itself as a democracy. Not for lack of trying, but the UK has a lead on them they'll never catch up.
I honestly don't believe that any contributor posts with a neutral point of view actually. That a person gets paid, just makes their biases more obvious. However, again, it ultimately comes down to whether he's obeying the rules or not, not his lack of neutrality.
If it complies with all the rules, then even with the CoS behind the guy, I have no issues. It's when it doesn't comply with the rules that I have issues with it.
I have no doubts at all that code reviews are highly useful. They can discover coding errors that are insanely hard to discover other ways. In anything that was critical, I would advocate them without the slightest hesitation. However, since this about non-critical stuff, then it is far more questionable. I think you should still use them, but on more limit basis. There will always be the tasks that are highly technical internally that need a good thorough looking through the code as well as UI test, but generally it becomes much less useful in more simplistic tasks, and UI testing will quite often (still not always, but most often) reveal the same errors. A good random inspection might be a decent replacement under these circumstances.
You can't really easily compare construction to programming. The best way to show why is image if in building a bridge you had to make sure that every last millimeter or every last component was perfect. Beyond that, if even one of these components had even a slight flaw, the entire bridge would collapse, and no amount of overbuilding, or securing the bridge could prevent this. However, the up side of programming is typically (and I stress typically, there certainly are exceptions and these are much more scrutinized as is) when the program crashes, people don't die, and you simply run it again. Bridges, not so much.
That's good for the end gambler, but what about the ISP? They are sort of in a gray zone between the two. Obviously they aren't making direct benefit from the gambling, but I'm sure someone could make an argument that they are acting as a facilitator (whether that argument would actually hold up, I doubt it).
It is still a stupid idea. People won't wait. Many will go across province to one of their neighbours and pick it up there. Others will turn to the likes of amazon.ca and such to just order it in. In general, it will just hurt Quebec retailers, and have no real impact on language.
There are a lot up there that certainly deserve to be there, but there is near equal number that aren't really 'influential' games, but rather games that people simply liked. Bioshock for instance, while a great game, I can't think of much in the way of influence it has had. As others have mentioned, there is some seriously huge omissions of games that certainly had huge impacts like Dune 2.
As far as I'm aware, there is no choice of objectives given. You are always on just 1 objective, but as each one is completed, or times out, another is given out at random. So, there never is the potential for a team to ignore objective X in favor of the easier objective Y.
And it's completely the police's choice that they implemented reactive control. There is nothing preventing them from watching every person in the city 24/7...
There is no practical way to do what they do with pre-screening, any more than there is any practical way for the police to police a city pre-actively. This is an open hosting service where users can post literally tens of thousands of videos in a day easily, amounting to more content than Google could ever possibly police. What they surround it is for, 'gasp', making the money to offer the service! You might impress me if that surroundings was the illegal bit, but all that was perfectly legal. They didn't have any knowing involvement in the content that a user posted. When they were made aware of it, they perfectly properly removed it.
Other countries have had the brains to realize that holding a service like this responsible for what users post is not only beyond impractical, but also counterproductive as it the very open nature of these services allows them to function. To decide otherwise means every message board service, video service, places with user reviews, etc, etc, would suddenly have to essentially shut down or at least remove all user inputs as they couldn't possible afford the overhead to pre-screen all the content they receive. Even slash dot here could not function under that kind of law. And your version is even worse as web providers don't do so for free. They either brand what the user provides with banner ads or whatever, or the user pays them directly, so under your idea that would mean the end to all of the free webspace providers as they all can't risk it anymore either.
I don't really get your argument. In fact, I think you yourself defeated your own argument in the last paragraph, you just didn't realize it. Google (like any other ISP) doesn't pre-edit content. Print Magazines do, hence why they get dinged if they publish junk. Google (hell, no organization) could monitor the level of content that is posted onto a site as huge as Youtube in any reasonable fashion, hence why the laws say they aren't expected to.
And no, they don't have COMPLETE or TOTAL control over the content. They have reactionary control, but that's a world apart from complete control.
I really have to say it, that's a darn tunnel visioned statement. I don't know a single creative work where the resulting work cannot be resold legally, and the original work's creator gets even a dime off that used sale. So, what exactly makes games the special case?
Kbots? Bertha? Let's not confuse SC with TA please, despite the lineage.
Turtling isn't too bad a strategy in vanilla, but will get you stomped good and quick in SC:FA. There is just too much power on each side for even the most over the top defensive lines to be stopped.
But this is frankly one of those cases where I have no sympathy for the woman. With some luck, she'll have huge court costs, have her name thoroughly trashed in the public eye, and generally have her life ruined, but she'll be found innocent.
I think this is automatic when you violate the Terms of Service, which she did by providing false identification when she signed up as this alter ego. Basically, you accessed a system, in this case myspace, which is protect (although minimally) and did so without proper authorization (in the form of your proper identity).
Re:Online gaming sacrificed for greater good
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
He said it WOULDN'T fix it, precisely because everything you just talked about is legally and properly doable in the game by a normal human player. It just let's the computer do it for you. A real life player can do the exact same things, totally within the rules, and therefore no matter how much power you give the servers, and how little you trust the client, you still can't stop it because there is no difference here.
That's different than cheats. Cheats exploit the holes in the server's verifications, things like positioning and timing checks and the like. Because there is only so much server computational power available, certain things it just has to trust the client is doing right, but in fact it could be modified to do wrong, but in the favor of the player (like making you move faster than normal, or ignoring cool downs or the like, whatever the client happens to be trusted with).
Both these may impact other players, but only one (the actual cheating) is theoretically detectable, the other isn't.
The length of the light will definitely enter the equation. Even if you could theoretically stop, if you'd have to slam on the breaks to do so, and can reasonably expect to get through in a normal light duration, then your decision has been effected.
Considering there is physics involved, choice is not a given. If you are approaching a green light, see it turn yellow, and you expect a certain length of time for it to turn red, because that time is legally required, that means you make your choice at that moment. Your vehicle doesn't magically stop faster due to the faster yellow, so your choice is contingent on the light's known length, which they are messing with.
For the copyright portion, they argue it is an infringement because the program copies the WoW client into RAM. I assume they mean from this it copies all the important executable files from the hard drive to a RAM drive. Of course this is a copy, but is it an infringement? The bot program isn't moving this 'copy' to any other user, and I could easily see this same argument used for a HDD backup infringing, which I'm sure wouldn't stand up.
The TOS is a more probable win I think for Blizzard, but this one hinges on did the bot writer infringe, or the individual bot user infringe. Since he had to test this thing during development, I would assume he had to infringe on the TOS, but I don't think that will get them too far either, but as usual IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony's infrastructure is basically open. Yes, it has some commonalities between programs, but in the end it is the game developer that has control of the network for their game. Ms took the opposite route and went with a closed network where they control almost everything. So, unless they make a special deal (ala what's been done with Final Fantasy XI), cross platform isn't allowed. For example, Live has it's own user account with all the capabilities to talk, block, etc with other live users. However, there really is nothing in place to deal with a non-live user which is obviously a necessity if you want to actually play with them.
*quickly goes off to tweak a few things*
Didn't they drop the blob off in Antarctica or something like that? It's finally thawed out! Oh god, we were so foolish!
That is just plain moronic. You do NOT ask for people's passwords ever. That's bloody ridiculous. You'll get a total of two types, liars who give you nothing or fakes, or idiots you actually give you this info.
It won't be the US that falls into a totalitarian regime masking itself as a democracy. Not for lack of trying, but the UK has a lead on them they'll never catch up.
I honestly don't believe that any contributor posts with a neutral point of view actually. That a person gets paid, just makes their biases more obvious. However, again, it ultimately comes down to whether he's obeying the rules or not, not his lack of neutrality.
If it complies with all the rules, then even with the CoS behind the guy, I have no issues. It's when it doesn't comply with the rules that I have issues with it.
I have no doubts at all that code reviews are highly useful. They can discover coding errors that are insanely hard to discover other ways. In anything that was critical, I would advocate them without the slightest hesitation. However, since this about non-critical stuff, then it is far more questionable. I think you should still use them, but on more limit basis. There will always be the tasks that are highly technical internally that need a good thorough looking through the code as well as UI test, but generally it becomes much less useful in more simplistic tasks, and UI testing will quite often (still not always, but most often) reveal the same errors. A good random inspection might be a decent replacement under these circumstances.
You can't really easily compare construction to programming. The best way to show why is image if in building a bridge you had to make sure that every last millimeter or every last component was perfect. Beyond that, if even one of these components had even a slight flaw, the entire bridge would collapse, and no amount of overbuilding, or securing the bridge could prevent this. However, the up side of programming is typically (and I stress typically, there certainly are exceptions and these are much more scrutinized as is) when the program crashes, people don't die, and you simply run it again. Bridges, not so much.
That's good for the end gambler, but what about the ISP? They are sort of in a gray zone between the two. Obviously they aren't making direct benefit from the gambling, but I'm sure someone could make an argument that they are acting as a facilitator (whether that argument would actually hold up, I doubt it).
It is still a stupid idea. People won't wait. Many will go across province to one of their neighbours and pick it up there. Others will turn to the likes of amazon.ca and such to just order it in. In general, it will just hurt Quebec retailers, and have no real impact on language.
Now that does explain a great deal. Still not the best list, but a heck of a lot better than a list of influential games.
There are a lot up there that certainly deserve to be there, but there is near equal number that aren't really 'influential' games, but rather games that people simply liked. Bioshock for instance, while a great game, I can't think of much in the way of influence it has had. As others have mentioned, there is some seriously huge omissions of games that certainly had huge impacts like Dune 2.
As far as I'm aware, there is no choice of objectives given. You are always on just 1 objective, but as each one is completed, or times out, another is given out at random. So, there never is the potential for a team to ignore objective X in favor of the easier objective Y.
And it's completely the police's choice that they implemented reactive control. There is nothing preventing them from watching every person in the city 24/7...
There is no practical way to do what they do with pre-screening, any more than there is any practical way for the police to police a city pre-actively. This is an open hosting service where users can post literally tens of thousands of videos in a day easily, amounting to more content than Google could ever possibly police. What they surround it is for, 'gasp', making the money to offer the service! You might impress me if that surroundings was the illegal bit, but all that was perfectly legal. They didn't have any knowing involvement in the content that a user posted. When they were made aware of it, they perfectly properly removed it.
Other countries have had the brains to realize that holding a service like this responsible for what users post is not only beyond impractical, but also counterproductive as it the very open nature of these services allows them to function. To decide otherwise means every message board service, video service, places with user reviews, etc, etc, would suddenly have to essentially shut down or at least remove all user inputs as they couldn't possible afford the overhead to pre-screen all the content they receive. Even slash dot here could not function under that kind of law. And your version is even worse as web providers don't do so for free. They either brand what the user provides with banner ads or whatever, or the user pays them directly, so under your idea that would mean the end to all of the free webspace providers as they all can't risk it anymore either.
And no, they don't have COMPLETE or TOTAL control over the content. They have reactionary control, but that's a world apart from complete control.
I really have to say it, that's a darn tunnel visioned statement. I don't know a single creative work where the resulting work cannot be resold legally, and the original work's creator gets even a dime off that used sale. So, what exactly makes games the special case?
Turtling isn't too bad a strategy in vanilla, but will get you stomped good and quick in SC:FA. There is just too much power on each side for even the most over the top defensive lines to be stopped.
But this is frankly one of those cases where I have no sympathy for the woman. With some luck, she'll have huge court costs, have her name thoroughly trashed in the public eye, and generally have her life ruined, but she'll be found innocent.
I think this is automatic when you violate the Terms of Service, which she did by providing false identification when she signed up as this alter ego. Basically, you accessed a system, in this case myspace, which is protect (although minimally) and did so without proper authorization (in the form of your proper identity).
That's different than cheats. Cheats exploit the holes in the server's verifications, things like positioning and timing checks and the like. Because there is only so much server computational power available, certain things it just has to trust the client is doing right, but in fact it could be modified to do wrong, but in the favor of the player (like making you move faster than normal, or ignoring cool downs or the like, whatever the client happens to be trusted with).
Both these may impact other players, but only one (the actual cheating) is theoretically detectable, the other isn't.
Is it really that hard to take X and add 1?!
I swear, these guys are being deliberately incompetent.
The length of the light will definitely enter the equation. Even if you could theoretically stop, if you'd have to slam on the breaks to do so, and can reasonably expect to get through in a normal light duration, then your decision has been effected.
Considering there is physics involved, choice is not a given. If you are approaching a green light, see it turn yellow, and you expect a certain length of time for it to turn red, because that time is legally required, that means you make your choice at that moment. Your vehicle doesn't magically stop faster due to the faster yellow, so your choice is contingent on the light's known length, which they are messing with.
For the copyright portion, they argue it is an infringement because the program copies the WoW client into RAM. I assume they mean from this it copies all the important executable files from the hard drive to a RAM drive. Of course this is a copy, but is it an infringement? The bot program isn't moving this 'copy' to any other user, and I could easily see this same argument used for a HDD backup infringing, which I'm sure wouldn't stand up. The TOS is a more probable win I think for Blizzard, but this one hinges on did the bot writer infringe, or the individual bot user infringe. Since he had to test this thing during development, I would assume he had to infringe on the TOS, but I don't think that will get them too far either, but as usual IANAL.