Yes but the article used proprietary in a way that resembles "I have a head therefore I am smarter than most poeple". Since everything you can compare Bluray to is proprietary as well it makes no sense to point that out as a reason for its higher price.
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
[...]
Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)
(1) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
This is interpreted by the courts to apply to Nazi propaganda or other speech that is meant to raise aggression against a minority or majority. Preaching that it is just to kill infidels falls under this.
Also, trial and error works -- look at eBay's generally good feedback system. I believe a free market will bring many different feedback companies that you could reference before making a purchase.
That'd still be flow of information with a singular entity in control. Corruption spreads fast and how long would it take for such a system to be corrupted? We're already seeing people who specialize in corrupting public data (link farms, blog spamming, viral marketing, etc) so this system could easily be rendered useless. If all flow of information is controlled by corporations it would be hard to communicate a company's wrongdoings to others if the tyrants that hold the information gateways won't let you.
Effectively a corporation is like a despotic government. Unless corporations become democratic in more senses than just "you can vote with your wallet" (because that creates an uneven distribution of voting power) I wouldn't want them to hold any real power. I don't trust the government but I trust companies even less. At least the government is accountable to the people (to a certain degree).
The most concrete example is news: I'd rather trust the government news agencies than the private ones. Partially because the govt outlets don't compete for viewers and as such aren't as sensationalist and partially because it still has less of an agenda than the privately owned news outlets. A govt channel may have a party alignment but a corporate channel has both a party alignment (with the party that the corp likes the most) AND a corporate alignment.
There are NUMEROUS independent auto makers in the country right now. They can not sell their cars directly due to government regulations created by the large automakers that require certain government testing of vehicles to call them "safe." The only people who should "regulate" the safety of cars should be insurance companies.
Regulation is what stops some rich fuck from deciding that an M1A2 makes a nice car and taking it on the road.
Insurances can only create financial incentives but there are people who can shrug those off and endanger the lives of others through their selfish behaviour.
But if their pollution spreads across to someone elses land then they are liable.
Yes but that doesn't seem to stop them. If there's more money in exploitation than the fines for damaging your neighbors cost you they'll do it. Considering how low fines usually end up being that wouldn't be a high threshold.
Additionally, if they are insured, the insurance company will give lower rates to companies that they know they can trust not to destroy the property.
That requires the insurance to be a separate entity. Who says they're not just going to buy an insurance company and list that as their insurance?
It's also a natural fact that you can stab a random person on the street to death. That's why we got laws, because natural order isn't sufficient to make society exist.
The analogy is appropriate but you are focussing on the wrong elements: The house is equivalent to the CD the software ships on, the manufacturer gets paid for each CD only once. The house's plans are equivalent to the software itself and the architect can indeed draft the plans up once and license them out to people who need a plan to build a house. The architect DOES get paid multiple times for the same plans in that situation. Such mass-used plans could be licensed at a lower cost since the architect would not have to cover his expenses with one sale and the buyers would be happy that they can get plans for a house cheaper than hiring an architect to make unique plans would be.
In the same vein, software is sold for much less than it'd cost if you'd hire a development team to make that piece of software specifically for you. In both architecture and software development bsinesses often hire their own for unique products but the average user will be happy to license a copy for cheap.
Photomanip apps come cheap. Dirt cheap. I've seen some included with photo printing paper almost for free. And then there's the Gimp. If just its interface wasn't composed of so many floating windows...
Remember that the judical definition of damage is VERY broad. Theoretically you could slap an ad banner on your download page and sue infringing mirrors for lost ad revenue.
If regenerating health takes so long a Gameboy may be a worthwile investment. Only problem I had with it was that the Gameboy game tends to become more interesting than the MMORPG and I forget to stand up and fight the next mob.
Bullshit! The Nazi's killed 6,000,000 Jews, men; women, and children. Of course, this does not include the atrocities in Russia, Poland and other conquered countries. Denying due process to one person, while incredibly wrong, puts at about... 6,000,000 murders short of being Nazi's.
Those things didn't happen the day Hitler got elected, they took time.
Of course in Germany too any soldier has the right to resist, when he receives an illegal order (but OTOH they're not supposed to think, but to follow order...).
Interestingly they always told us we're supposed to think. Probably just "upholding the image" but they probably wouldn't tell their soldiers to think if they didn't want them to.
I'm thinking more of keys embedded in the hardware or software. You could decrypt the traffic from the server but you could neither tamper with it (probably not much of a problem, though) nor influence the traffic that goes towards the server.
A peer-to-peer system is impossible, desyncs way too easily. Think of this situation: Player A and B both have very little health left and carry a shotgun. They are close together and aiming at each other so the next shot would kill the other player. Both pull the trigger at the same time. On their system, their opponent dies. The message that their opponent has pulled the trigger reaches them only after their console has already resolved the situation and declared that opponent dead. It has to discard the shot.
It's server-client and it seems that the first player that starts the game is the server, if he leaves another player becomes the server. People exploit being the server with that "lagging out" and standby stuff. A solution would be dedicated servers but apparently MS doesn't want to pay for those.
EA's solution with Battlefield 2 has met many complaints but seems to work: They've got official server providers that allow you to rent a server (usually clans and websites do that) and only those servers can be ranked servers. Of course people complain about EA being greedy there but what else are they going to do to prevent server abuse? The ranked servers follow very tight regulations so there won't be any mods and fairly standard game settings. There are still ways to rank abuse but they are severely limited by this and noone can set up a server, make it put others at a disadvantage and have that improve his rank.
Player run servers in BF2 are possible but they cannot be ranked servers. The server is untrustworthy, therefore the master server cannot trust its reports on client performance.
That combined with encryption and the lower hackability of a console compared to a PC should make cheating hard to pull off in a way that severely hurts the game.
If we ignore the problem of creating genetic monocultures that increase the risk of a pandemic, the biggest issue people have with this genetic selection is the memory of what happened the last time it was implemented. Remember Adolf Hitler's Aryan super-human ideals? People are afraid that enforcement will end up like that. There's also the threat of genetic "beauty standards" where the demands for the genetic makeup of a person change and previously desirable configurations are suddently deemed suboptimal, throwing entire parts of the population away like a used tissue. Our knowledge of how the body works is too small to allow us to judge which genetic makeup is preferrable.
Also I have a feeling that such a selection process will be much more prevalent at the lower end of society whereas noone's going to euthanize Bill Gates because of some genetic problem.
It's kinda like telling a fatty he has to reduce his intake of carbohydrates/fats/whatever to reduce his risk of heart failure. It's not guranteed that he'll suffer heart failure or a stroke if he doesn't stop eating as much, he may even end up having one despite changing his eating habits and it'll definitely impact his lifestyle. Should he continue eating like before or should he listen to the doctor?
Yes. Humans also accept gravity as a fact when it has never been proven.
You cannot prove physics because that would require testing ALL input configurations. Who knows, perhaps if you hold a stone the right way and drop it it'll fall up instead of down. "It's not proven" is a popular claim for nonscientific doubters of a theory but it's utter nonsense when we're talking about physics. You cannot prove ANY "law" of the universe. You can only observe how a system acts after reaching a certain configuration and draw conclusions to form theories but you can never prove your theory.
You know, there can be more than one cause for a given phenomenon. Some parent post already talked about the polar holes being caused by weather so wouldn't it be logical to assume that they are cyclic in expansion/shrinking and therefore not considered for long-time trends?
There's a remake of Mario Bros for the GBA, it's included with all Super Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. I'm not sure if it's much like the battle game but it does feature 4 players vs.
Encrypted packets? I know that may not be feasible in a game that uses 100% of the system performance but with those multi-core next gen consoles it should be feasible to dedicate enough power to encrypting game traffic. The proxy could not read inbound traffic without knowing the console's key (which would probably require some modding to get at) and, more importantly, wouldn't be able to alter the outgoing packets (the console would definitely have to be modded to send the packets unencrypted and then a mod scan could catch that).
Yes but a PC is infinitely more modifyable than a console that has to compare hardware checksums and doesn't run user-defined code. You could intercept the packets of the XBox but you couldn't use OpenGL hacks. You could run a simulation on a separate system that pieces together the gamestate from the traffic and plays the game for you but even that would still have flaws. Since the console controller has a limit on the turn rate your aimbot wouldn't be nearly as effective as a PC aimbot since it couldn't instantly target enemies (plus a game design that doesn't rely on instant hit weapons much can help with aimbots). If the server constrains the packets to only allow actions that the player can actually perform (e.g. no shooting your shotgun every single frame), cheats will not be completely eliminated but reduced in their effectiveness enough to make them less of a problem. Of course, a game design that requires strategy more than reflexes will be the hardest to break since it would require a very intricate AI to reach the strength of a human and a cheater would have to be as good of a strategist as his opponents.
Same as you do in the real world, either you make goods so compelling that people will spend their real money to acquire them or you leave the market. If people aren't buying virtual money that means it isn't worth it in their oppinion, either because they don't want to pay money on a game at all (those aren't your market) or because they don't think the virtual money allows them to get anything that is of equal or greater worth than the real money they are parting with. The latter are your market and as a seller it is your job to convince them that your goods are worth their money.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but the article used proprietary in a way that resembles "I have a head therefore I am smarter than most poeple". Since everything you can compare Bluray to is proprietary as well it makes no sense to point that out as a reason for its higher price.
Pretty much the entire EU.
t ml
From the german constitution:
Article 18 (Forfeiture of basic rights).
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
[...]
Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)
(1) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
This is interpreted by the courts to apply to Nazi propaganda or other speech that is meant to raise aggression against a minority or majority. Preaching that it is just to kill infidels falls under this.
translation taken from http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.h
Also, trial and error works -- look at eBay's generally good feedback system. I believe a free market will bring many different feedback companies that you could reference before making a purchase.
That'd still be flow of information with a singular entity in control. Corruption spreads fast and how long would it take for such a system to be corrupted? We're already seeing people who specialize in corrupting public data (link farms, blog spamming, viral marketing, etc) so this system could easily be rendered useless. If all flow of information is controlled by corporations it would be hard to communicate a company's wrongdoings to others if the tyrants that hold the information gateways won't let you.
Effectively a corporation is like a despotic government. Unless corporations become democratic in more senses than just "you can vote with your wallet" (because that creates an uneven distribution of voting power) I wouldn't want them to hold any real power. I don't trust the government but I trust companies even less. At least the government is accountable to the people (to a certain degree).
The most concrete example is news: I'd rather trust the government news agencies than the private ones. Partially because the govt outlets don't compete for viewers and as such aren't as sensationalist and partially because it still has less of an agenda than the privately owned news outlets. A govt channel may have a party alignment but a corporate channel has both a party alignment (with the party that the corp likes the most) AND a corporate alignment.
There are NUMEROUS independent auto makers in the country right now. They can not sell their cars directly due to government regulations created by the large automakers that require certain government testing of vehicles to call them "safe." The only people who should "regulate" the safety of cars should be insurance companies.
Regulation is what stops some rich fuck from deciding that an M1A2 makes a nice car and taking it on the road.
Insurances can only create financial incentives but there are people who can shrug those off and endanger the lives of others through their selfish behaviour.
But if their pollution spreads across to someone elses land then they are liable.
Yes but that doesn't seem to stop them. If there's more money in exploitation than the fines for damaging your neighbors cost you they'll do it. Considering how low fines usually end up being that wouldn't be a high threshold.
Additionally, if they are insured, the insurance company will give lower rates to companies that they know they can trust not to destroy the property.
That requires the insurance to be a separate entity. Who says they're not just going to buy an insurance company and list that as their insurance?
It's also a natural fact that you can stab a random person on the street to death. That's why we got laws, because natural order isn't sufficient to make society exist.
The analogy is appropriate but you are focussing on the wrong elements: The house is equivalent to the CD the software ships on, the manufacturer gets paid for each CD only once. The house's plans are equivalent to the software itself and the architect can indeed draft the plans up once and license them out to people who need a plan to build a house. The architect DOES get paid multiple times for the same plans in that situation. Such mass-used plans could be licensed at a lower cost since the architect would not have to cover his expenses with one sale and the buyers would be happy that they can get plans for a house cheaper than hiring an architect to make unique plans would be.
In the same vein, software is sold for much less than it'd cost if you'd hire a development team to make that piece of software specifically for you. In both architecture and software development bsinesses often hire their own for unique products but the average user will be happy to license a copy for cheap.
Photomanip apps come cheap. Dirt cheap. I've seen some included with photo printing paper almost for free. And then there's the Gimp. If just its interface wasn't composed of so many floating windows...
Remember that the judical definition of damage is VERY broad. Theoretically you could slap an ad banner on your download page and sue infringing mirrors for lost ad revenue.
If regenerating health takes so long a Gameboy may be a worthwile investment. Only problem I had with it was that the Gameboy game tends to become more interesting than the MMORPG and I forget to stand up and fight the next mob.
Bullshit! The Nazi's killed 6,000,000 Jews, men; women, and children. Of course, this does not include the atrocities in Russia, Poland and other conquered countries. Denying due process to one person, while incredibly wrong, puts at about... 6,000,000 murders short of being Nazi's.
Those things didn't happen the day Hitler got elected, they took time.
Of course in Germany too any soldier has the right to resist, when he receives an illegal order (but OTOH they're not supposed to think, but to follow order...).
Interestingly they always told us we're supposed to think. Probably just "upholding the image" but they probably wouldn't tell their soldiers to think if they didn't want them to.
I'm thinking more of keys embedded in the hardware or software. You could decrypt the traffic from the server but you could neither tamper with it (probably not much of a problem, though) nor influence the traffic that goes towards the server.
A peer-to-peer system is impossible, desyncs way too easily. Think of this situation: Player A and B both have very little health left and carry a shotgun. They are close together and aiming at each other so the next shot would kill the other player. Both pull the trigger at the same time. On their system, their opponent dies. The message that their opponent has pulled the trigger reaches them only after their console has already resolved the situation and declared that opponent dead. It has to discard the shot.
It's server-client and it seems that the first player that starts the game is the server, if he leaves another player becomes the server. People exploit being the server with that "lagging out" and standby stuff. A solution would be dedicated servers but apparently MS doesn't want to pay for those.
EA's solution with Battlefield 2 has met many complaints but seems to work: They've got official server providers that allow you to rent a server (usually clans and websites do that) and only those servers can be ranked servers. Of course people complain about EA being greedy there but what else are they going to do to prevent server abuse? The ranked servers follow very tight regulations so there won't be any mods and fairly standard game settings. There are still ways to rank abuse but they are severely limited by this and noone can set up a server, make it put others at a disadvantage and have that improve his rank.
Player run servers in BF2 are possible but they cannot be ranked servers. The server is untrustworthy, therefore the master server cannot trust its reports on client performance.
That combined with encryption and the lower hackability of a console compared to a PC should make cheating hard to pull off in a way that severely hurts the game.
Or pee on your carpet because your "wife" owes them money?
Amendments take precedence over the unamended version.
Who likes his papers?
If we ignore the problem of creating genetic monocultures that increase the risk of a pandemic, the biggest issue people have with this genetic selection is the memory of what happened the last time it was implemented. Remember Adolf Hitler's Aryan super-human ideals? People are afraid that enforcement will end up like that. There's also the threat of genetic "beauty standards" where the demands for the genetic makeup of a person change and previously desirable configurations are suddently deemed suboptimal, throwing entire parts of the population away like a used tissue. Our knowledge of how the body works is too small to allow us to judge which genetic makeup is preferrable.
Also I have a feeling that such a selection process will be much more prevalent at the lower end of society whereas noone's going to euthanize Bill Gates because of some genetic problem.
It's kinda like telling a fatty he has to reduce his intake of carbohydrates/fats/whatever to reduce his risk of heart failure. It's not guranteed that he'll suffer heart failure or a stroke if he doesn't stop eating as much, he may even end up having one despite changing his eating habits and it'll definitely impact his lifestyle. Should he continue eating like before or should he listen to the doctor?
Yes. Humans also accept gravity as a fact when it has never been proven.
You cannot prove physics because that would require testing ALL input configurations. Who knows, perhaps if you hold a stone the right way and drop it it'll fall up instead of down. "It's not proven" is a popular claim for nonscientific doubters of a theory but it's utter nonsense when we're talking about physics. You cannot prove ANY "law" of the universe. You can only observe how a system acts after reaching a certain configuration and draw conclusions to form theories but you can never prove your theory.
You know, there can be more than one cause for a given phenomenon. Some parent post already talked about the polar holes being caused by weather so wouldn't it be logical to assume that they are cyclic in expansion/shrinking and therefore not considered for long-time trends?
They should stop complaining. It's not like fines are an effective deterrent to corporations, either.
There's a remake of Mario Bros for the GBA, it's included with all Super Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. I'm not sure if it's much like the battle game but it does feature 4 players vs.
Encrypted packets? I know that may not be feasible in a game that uses 100% of the system performance but with those multi-core next gen consoles it should be feasible to dedicate enough power to encrypting game traffic. The proxy could not read inbound traffic without knowing the console's key (which would probably require some modding to get at) and, more importantly, wouldn't be able to alter the outgoing packets (the console would definitely have to be modded to send the packets unencrypted and then a mod scan could catch that).
Yes but a PC is infinitely more modifyable than a console that has to compare hardware checksums and doesn't run user-defined code. You could intercept the packets of the XBox but you couldn't use OpenGL hacks. You could run a simulation on a separate system that pieces together the gamestate from the traffic and plays the game for you but even that would still have flaws. Since the console controller has a limit on the turn rate your aimbot wouldn't be nearly as effective as a PC aimbot since it couldn't instantly target enemies (plus a game design that doesn't rely on instant hit weapons much can help with aimbots). If the server constrains the packets to only allow actions that the player can actually perform (e.g. no shooting your shotgun every single frame), cheats will not be completely eliminated but reduced in their effectiveness enough to make them less of a problem. Of course, a game design that requires strategy more than reflexes will be the hardest to break since it would require a very intricate AI to reach the strength of a human and a cheater would have to be as good of a strategist as his opponents.
Same as you do in the real world, either you make goods so compelling that people will spend their real money to acquire them or you leave the market. If people aren't buying virtual money that means it isn't worth it in their oppinion, either because they don't want to pay money on a game at all (those aren't your market) or because they don't think the virtual money allows them to get anything that is of equal or greater worth than the real money they are parting with. The latter are your market and as a seller it is your job to convince them that your goods are worth their money.