... any action that makes things more difficult / inconvenient / annoying / etc. for legitimate users of a piece of software (or anything else - like an audio CD) is an action that should not be taken.
When I am using software that I am a legitimate owner of, the last thing I want to do is jump through a million hoops just to prove I'm legit. For example, I'll be the first to admit that when I BUY a PC game, the first thing I do is go looking for a "no CD crack" to download. Why? Because I own the game and don't WANT to be forced to swap CDs all the time, just to constantly prove that I paid for the damn thing. I shouldn't have to. Honestly, it's insulting.
AFAIK, every form of copy/piracy protection that has ever existed has been cracked, and typically in a relatively short amount of time. The ones doing the pirating don't care - they have come to expect it, and finding out how to crack the software will be widely preferred to forking over the cash anyway. The crackers/warez distributors don't care either - indeed, quite the opposite, as many crackers will love the chance to be the first to crack a new protection scheme. The only ones who care are the legitimate users, because they're the ones who usually suffer.
I mean, I could see the possible uses in gaming, where the programmable combinations are endless. But excellent gamepads and joysticks are already available for a lot less. It might also be interesting if worked into the design of a handheld computer (but as for laptops, I'll take a laptop keyboard over one of these any day).
And for those who think these kind of gadgets are supposed to help prevent RSI, think again. To prevent RSI, it's much more important to focus on things like hand/wrist positioning, posture, and the like. Even something like the amount of pressure you apply to keys is a factor. Breaks help a lot too. I was developing symptoms of RSI 6 years ago but, realizing it, I made changes in my wrist placement and got a much better chair. Now I feel no discomfort, and I do a LOT of work at a keyboard every day. Hell, you could develop RSI using one of these AlphaGrips, if you used it improperly.
With this raising such a big red flag when it comes to privacy concerns, and as these start to become more widespread, I'm sure we will eventually be able to find detailed instructions on the web on how to disable these devices, perhaps even in such a way so that they appear to be broken "by accident", so as not to arouse a lot of suspicion.
Then it's just a matter of figuring out how to install Linux on them.;)
What I was always wondering is if the game would delve into much more demonic/hellish stuff as it goes on. Or does it just stay with the same old "futuristic industrial" type theme the entire way. To me, my favorite levels in Doom 2 were the last 10 or so where you were actually in "hell" (as opposed to just a boring space station or a city), and fighting mostly demonic foes (as opposed to boring zombies).
Most of the screenshots I've seen so far do nothing to reassure me. Then again, most of the screenshots only cover the very early stages... but for me, personally, I doubt this will be as fun as going through Doom 2 was all those years ago.
I didn't bother to get Doom 3 yet, but I will eventually. I know that even if the single player game isn't all that fulfilling, that, as you said, the mods that people come up with will be terrific.
Also, I think the lack of a demo is foolish on id's part.
If explorer is crashing on you all the time, then there is some other problem lurking, because Win 2000 (and XP, and 2003) are remarkably stable in most cases. Much more so than Win 9x. I've been running 2000 on one of my computers for about 3 years now, and only twice in all of that time have I encountered blue screens. Once was when I had some bad memory. The other time was with a game - it was happening repeatedly. But eventually a patch was released for the game and that stopped. As for explorer, I don't ever remember it crashing in all these years of using it, seriously. On Win 98 though, it happened a lot. In fact in Win 9x, just something like deleting large numbers of files at once would cause explorer to lock up. Also, Win 9x got "bogged down" much more easily when you left the computer running for long periods of time, because of poor memory management. 2000/XP really are a big step up from the junk of Win 9x.
The RIAA would have you believe that every single unauthorized download, in all circumstances, is LOST REVENUE. Think about that. They are saying that every single download is something the downloader would have DEFINITELY bought, in every single case. They would never consider scenarios like these:
1. People who download a song and then end up buying the CD of that song. 2. People who download a song, don't buy the CD, but wouldn't have bought it under any circumstance anyway. 3. People who download so many songs that there's no way they could reasonably buy the CDs of each and every one of them. 4. People who download a song that they already own in one format or another (for example: if you download a song to your office computer when you already own the CD at home... this is unauthorized, but it's CERTAINLY NOT lost revenue).
And probably others I'm not thinking of. The point is that the RIAA treats every single download as lost revenue, when some are actually revenue GAINED, and many others make no difference either way.
I will tell you right now that there are no radio stations in my area that play the kind of music I like, nor does MTV or any other available music sources play what I like. In fact, the ONLY ways I hear new artists that I like are through friends (but I don't share similar tastes with many of my friends) or, primarily, through downloaded MP3s. And I buy a LOT of CDs. If it weren't for the downloads though, I would hear very little I like, and buy much less as well. Is everyone like me? Of course not. But everyone is not like the miserable picture that the RIAA paints, either.
The problem is that the replication and the new location has no "life", the spirit isn't made of physical particles so as it can't be "scanned" and duplicated. The creature is constructed into a dead state.
We don't know this for sure, though, because we have such a long way to go before this kind of technology can even be attempted.
But who is to say the "spirit" cannot be duplicated? Our consciousness, our self-awareness, the thoughts that run through our minds, all of it... one can argue that all of that is made up simply of physical things like chemical reactions and electrical impulses. It still seems to me that if the process can be done fast enough (so that the living being's body is in as "frozen" of a state as possible), that the replicated or reconstructed version would indeed be alive. But the kind of speed necessary to do it may not even be possible.
Still, if you were broken down, and then those exact molecules were sent and reconstructed, all in just a few nanoseconds, wouldn't you still be yourself? It's the same physical matter. Why would this process, assuming it could be done fast enough, destroy your individual consciousness?
I don't think it would... but the problem, of course, is that there's no way to test it. Even if the original being that goes through is dead, the version that comes out on the other side is always going to say "Don't worry, it's still me!"
80% say... Monorail, baby! (Note, this is before Slashdotters hit the poll and skew the results...)
Haha, I can see it now. The poll gets/.'d and then by tonight the leading poll result (in a landslide), despite it not even being a choice right now, will be: CowboyNeal.
Far in the future, with nanotechnology, transporters could be something that is actually possible. But I think it would only work for inanimate objects and not living creatures. With inanimate objects, you just break down the object into its individual molecules, recording the data of each one so that you can send the data to the other end of the transporter and build an exact copy of the original object. But with living creatures, this process would effectively kill the original. So you walk in a transporter, and you die, while a copy comes out the other end. The only way to remedy this would be to send the actual molecules down the transporter "line" rather than the data, but this would be much, much more complicated (and not even possible unless there is an incredibly efficient physical link between the two transporter locations).
Remember when you had to BUY a sound card for your PC? What about paying $200 for modem card? NIC? Video card. Now you get the kitchen sink on most motherboards. And the components are pretty decent.
Well, many serious computer users still buy all of these things (with the exception of the NIC perhaps, which is usually "good enough"). That's because onboard sound and onboard video typically pale in comparison to the capabilities of their higher-end counterparts. They're getting better, though, that's true.
However, at least in the case of computer parts, these are things that logically go together. A motherboard needs a video card to work, so why not start integrating the two? It works. But, when did a phone become logically connected with a camera? It's like the commercial where the guy pulls out his phone in a restaurant and uses it as a pepper shaker. The point: enough with the unnecessary integrated functions.
I think people might have liked to see Microsoft get the shaft, but I don't think anyone here approved of the underlying system that did it.
It's like if you're watching a baseball game, you might like it when a ball hit by the opposing side was called a foul ball when it was really a home run. But that doesn't mean that you don't care about the real rules and integrity of the game.
The patent system needs to make some major changes when it comes to software patents. Plain and simple.
But that wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying, if the staff of the bar was rude to you, perhaps saying something insulting to you, or giving you a really hard time when you tried to order something... well, you might be moved to be rude in return to them, and not really care about ordering the minimum 2 drinks. Even if you wouldn't, certainly there are a lot of other people who would.
In the case of web sites, the sites are being rude by popping up windows that must be moved, and flashing bright colors that are distracting. In fact, many ads will do everything they can to take your attention away from the real content of the site so that you will look at the ad instead. By serving up these kinds of ads, the owner of the site has been rude to me. Therefore I am moved to be rude in return, and remove all such distractions from my screen.
Text ads, on the other hand? Those are fine with me. Because they aren't so rude.
Gah. There are a million options for filtering posts here, on new users, long posts, old posts, funny moderated and so on, but not for the one option I'd actually activate - the "same old - again?!" filter.
You know, in Soviet Russia, the posts filter YOU!.......... sorry, but he was asking for it;)
You liken blocking ads to rude behavior, but the reverse is also true. The majority of ads are extremely rude in the way they are delivered, with bright flashing graphics or other gimmicks that detract from the content we are trying to view.
If a site is rude to me, I'll gladly be rude in return. Going back to your example, would you feel as bad about not ordering two drinks from that bar with the two drink miniumum, if the staff treated you rudely from the moment you walked in?
So here's how the so called "FREE" sites (those that are remaining on the net anyway) work. They exist because of advertising.
Give me a break. I seem to remember an internet that once consisted almost exclusively of "free" sites, and funny, I don't remember seeing any ad banners around back then. Let's face it, almost EVERY site has ads now, including the massive number of sites that have very small audiences, and most DON'T have huge hosting bills. The ads you see on most sites are just there to try to make a quick buck. As for the really big sites that reach a wide audience, it's their perogative to put ads up just as it's my perogative to not have to look at them. Same as I might mute the commercials during a TV show, or quickly skip past the ad pages in a magazine.
I'd much sooner donate to a big site that I really love to help them continue running, rather than un-block ads. This country is already far too commercialized, and frankly, some of us have had enough.
It's the name for the box - the TiVo DVR (digital video recorder) - as well as the service that goes along with it. The advantage of the service is that it is automatically able to do things like keep track of the shows you want to record even if the day/time slots change, or automatically record shows with your favorite actors/actresses, for example.
You CAN use the TiVo box without the service, but you will lose all of the "automatic" functionality.
But the author himself points out how certain styles of games, like RTS and FPS, are great for when you don't have a lot of time. They make it easy to find a game (either against the computer or against real players online), play, and then go do something else. This line of reasoning seems to defeat the original premise of the article. The funny thing is, I was thinking the same thing. When I don't have a lot of time, I might load up Age of Mythology, or UT2004. On the other hand, when I have the time to really get involved in a game, I'll turn to something like Morrowind.
My point is that there is already a huge variety of games, some that you can jump right in and play a few quick games, and some that are much more involved and require some time to really get into and discover everything. Both niches are already filled. Then again, when the guy is saying, "I recently moved into a new apartment. This has literally left me with only a few minutes of gaming per day," I don't know what he expects anyone to tell him. Wait until you have settled in to your new place, I guess. For most, gaming is a hobby like any other. If you can only spare a few minutes out of your day for a hobby, then you're either seriously overworked, mismanaging your time, or have way too many hobbies in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
... any action that makes things more difficult / inconvenient / annoying / etc. for legitimate users of a piece of software (or anything else - like an audio CD) is an action that should not be taken.
When I am using software that I am a legitimate owner of, the last thing I want to do is jump through a million hoops just to prove I'm legit. For example, I'll be the first to admit that when I BUY a PC game, the first thing I do is go looking for a "no CD crack" to download. Why? Because I own the game and don't WANT to be forced to swap CDs all the time, just to constantly prove that I paid for the damn thing. I shouldn't have to. Honestly, it's insulting.
AFAIK, every form of copy/piracy protection that has ever existed has been cracked, and typically in a relatively short amount of time. The ones doing the pirating don't care - they have come to expect it, and finding out how to crack the software will be widely preferred to forking over the cash anyway. The crackers/warez distributors don't care either - indeed, quite the opposite, as many crackers will love the chance to be the first to crack a new protection scheme. The only ones who care are the legitimate users, because they're the ones who usually suffer.
google is not the sum of all human knowledge
You must be new here.
I mean, I could see the possible uses in gaming, where the programmable combinations are endless. But excellent gamepads and joysticks are already available for a lot less. It might also be interesting if worked into the design of a handheld computer (but as for laptops, I'll take a laptop keyboard over one of these any day).
And for those who think these kind of gadgets are supposed to help prevent RSI, think again. To prevent RSI, it's much more important to focus on things like hand/wrist positioning, posture, and the like. Even something like the amount of pressure you apply to keys is a factor. Breaks help a lot too. I was developing symptoms of RSI 6 years ago but, realizing it, I made changes in my wrist placement and got a much better chair. Now I feel no discomfort, and I do a LOT of work at a keyboard every day. Hell, you could develop RSI using one of these AlphaGrips, if you used it improperly.
... the virtual sex machine (http://www.vrinnovations.com/index2.htm).
And actually, it's even better than what you suggested! Or, uh... so I would IMAGINE... er, uh...
With this raising such a big red flag when it comes to privacy concerns, and as these start to become more widespread, I'm sure we will eventually be able to find detailed instructions on the web on how to disable these devices, perhaps even in such a way so that they appear to be broken "by accident", so as not to arouse a lot of suspicion.
;)
Then it's just a matter of figuring out how to install Linux on them.
...and you expect them to have Doom 5 out by 2014?! Try 2041, if we're lucky ;)
What I was always wondering is if the game would delve into much more demonic/hellish stuff as it goes on. Or does it just stay with the same old "futuristic industrial" type theme the entire way. To me, my favorite levels in Doom 2 were the last 10 or so where you were actually in "hell" (as opposed to just a boring space station or a city), and fighting mostly demonic foes (as opposed to boring zombies).
Most of the screenshots I've seen so far do nothing to reassure me. Then again, most of the screenshots only cover the very early stages... but for me, personally, I doubt this will be as fun as going through Doom 2 was all those years ago.
I didn't bother to get Doom 3 yet, but I will eventually. I know that even if the single player game isn't all that fulfilling, that, as you said, the mods that people come up with will be terrific.
Also, I think the lack of a demo is foolish on id's part.
If explorer is crashing on you all the time, then there is some other problem lurking, because Win 2000 (and XP, and 2003) are remarkably stable in most cases. Much more so than Win 9x. I've been running 2000 on one of my computers for about 3 years now, and only twice in all of that time have I encountered blue screens. Once was when I had some bad memory. The other time was with a game - it was happening repeatedly. But eventually a patch was released for the game and that stopped. As for explorer, I don't ever remember it crashing in all these years of using it, seriously. On Win 98 though, it happened a lot. In fact in Win 9x, just something like deleting large numbers of files at once would cause explorer to lock up. Also, Win 9x got "bogged down" much more easily when you left the computer running for long periods of time, because of poor memory management. 2000/XP really are a big step up from the junk of Win 9x.
... and I think that's the point of that site.
The RIAA would have you believe that every single unauthorized download, in all circumstances, is LOST REVENUE. Think about that. They are saying that every single download is something the downloader would have DEFINITELY bought, in every single case. They would never consider scenarios like these:
1. People who download a song and then end up buying the CD of that song.
2. People who download a song, don't buy the CD, but wouldn't have bought it under any circumstance anyway.
3. People who download so many songs that there's no way they could reasonably buy the CDs of each and every one of them.
4. People who download a song that they already own in one format or another (for example: if you download a song to your office computer when you already own the CD at home... this is unauthorized, but it's CERTAINLY NOT lost revenue).
And probably others I'm not thinking of. The point is that the RIAA treats every single download as lost revenue, when some are actually revenue GAINED, and many others make no difference either way.
I will tell you right now that there are no radio stations in my area that play the kind of music I like, nor does MTV or any other available music sources play what I like. In fact, the ONLY ways I hear new artists that I like are through friends (but I don't share similar tastes with many of my friends) or, primarily, through downloaded MP3s. And I buy a LOT of CDs. If it weren't for the downloads though, I would hear very little I like, and buy much less as well. Is everyone like me? Of course not. But everyone is not like the miserable picture that the RIAA paints, either.
The problem is that the replication and the new location has no "life", the spirit isn't made of physical particles so as it can't be "scanned" and duplicated. The creature is constructed into a dead state.
We don't know this for sure, though, because we have such a long way to go before this kind of technology can even be attempted.
But who is to say the "spirit" cannot be duplicated? Our consciousness, our self-awareness, the thoughts that run through our minds, all of it... one can argue that all of that is made up simply of physical things like chemical reactions and electrical impulses. It still seems to me that if the process can be done fast enough (so that the living being's body is in as "frozen" of a state as possible), that the replicated or reconstructed version would indeed be alive. But the kind of speed necessary to do it may not even be possible.
"Why didn't anyone tell me my ass was so big?"
Still, if you were broken down, and then those exact molecules were sent and reconstructed, all in just a few nanoseconds, wouldn't you still be yourself? It's the same physical matter. Why would this process, assuming it could be done fast enough, destroy your individual consciousness?
I don't think it would... but the problem, of course, is that there's no way to test it. Even if the original being that goes through is dead, the version that comes out on the other side is always going to say "Don't worry, it's still me!"
80% say... Monorail, baby! (Note, this is before Slashdotters hit the poll and skew the results...)
/.'d and then by tonight the leading poll result (in a landslide), despite it not even being a choice right now, will be: CowboyNeal.
Haha, I can see it now. The poll gets
Far in the future, with nanotechnology, transporters could be something that is actually possible. But I think it would only work for inanimate objects and not living creatures. With inanimate objects, you just break down the object into its individual molecules, recording the data of each one so that you can send the data to the other end of the transporter and build an exact copy of the original object. But with living creatures, this process would effectively kill the original. So you walk in a transporter, and you die, while a copy comes out the other end. The only way to remedy this would be to send the actual molecules down the transporter "line" rather than the data, but this would be much, much more complicated (and not even possible unless there is an incredibly efficient physical link between the two transporter locations).
I mean, will it support Ogg Vorbis???
Remember when you had to BUY a sound card for your PC? What about paying $200 for modem card? NIC? Video card. Now you get the kitchen sink on most motherboards. And the components are pretty decent.
Well, many serious computer users still buy all of these things (with the exception of the NIC perhaps, which is usually "good enough"). That's because onboard sound and onboard video typically pale in comparison to the capabilities of their higher-end counterparts. They're getting better, though, that's true.
However, at least in the case of computer parts, these are things that logically go together. A motherboard needs a video card to work, so why not start integrating the two? It works. But, when did a phone become logically connected with a camera? It's like the commercial where the guy pulls out his phone in a restaurant and uses it as a pepper shaker. The point: enough with the unnecessary integrated functions.
I think people might have liked to see Microsoft get the shaft, but I don't think anyone here approved of the underlying system that did it.
It's like if you're watching a baseball game, you might like it when a ball hit by the opposing side was called a foul ball when it was really a home run. But that doesn't mean that you don't care about the real rules and integrity of the game.
The patent system needs to make some major changes when it comes to software patents. Plain and simple.
But that wasn't what I was saying. I'm saying, if the staff of the bar was rude to you, perhaps saying something insulting to you, or giving you a really hard time when you tried to order something... well, you might be moved to be rude in return to them, and not really care about ordering the minimum 2 drinks. Even if you wouldn't, certainly there are a lot of other people who would.
In the case of web sites, the sites are being rude by popping up windows that must be moved, and flashing bright colors that are distracting. In fact, many ads will do everything they can to take your attention away from the real content of the site so that you will look at the ad instead. By serving up these kinds of ads, the owner of the site has been rude to me. Therefore I am moved to be rude in return, and remove all such distractions from my screen.
Text ads, on the other hand? Those are fine with me. Because they aren't so rude.
Gah. There are a million options for filtering posts here, on new users, long posts, old posts, funny moderated and so on, but not for the one option I'd actually activate - the "same old - again?!" filter.
.......... sorry, but he was asking for it ;)
You know, in Soviet Russia, the posts filter YOU!
You liken blocking ads to rude behavior, but the reverse is also true. The majority of ads are extremely rude in the way they are delivered, with bright flashing graphics or other gimmicks that detract from the content we are trying to view.
If a site is rude to me, I'll gladly be rude in return. Going back to your example, would you feel as bad about not ordering two drinks from that bar with the two drink miniumum, if the staff treated you rudely from the moment you walked in?
but doubleclick doesn't give a flying fuck about slashdot.
Ironic, because Slashdot doesn't give a flying fuck about Doubleclick!
So here's how the so called "FREE" sites (those that are remaining on the net anyway) work. They exist because of advertising.
Give me a break. I seem to remember an internet that once consisted almost exclusively of "free" sites, and funny, I don't remember seeing any ad banners around back then. Let's face it, almost EVERY site has ads now, including the massive number of sites that have very small audiences, and most DON'T have huge hosting bills. The ads you see on most sites are just there to try to make a quick buck. As for the really big sites that reach a wide audience, it's their perogative to put ads up just as it's my perogative to not have to look at them. Same as I might mute the commercials during a TV show, or quickly skip past the ad pages in a magazine.
I'd much sooner donate to a big site that I really love to help them continue running, rather than un-block ads. This country is already far too commercialized, and frankly, some of us have had enough.
an old computer (and monitor) that got infected with CIH
It got the monitor too, huh? Wow... I must have missed that particular strain of CIH. Lucky for me! Sorry to hear that, though.
It's the name for the box - the TiVo DVR (digital video recorder) - as well as the service that goes along with it. The advantage of the service is that it is automatically able to do things like keep track of the shows you want to record even if the day/time slots change, or automatically record shows with your favorite actors/actresses, for example.
You CAN use the TiVo box without the service, but you will lose all of the "automatic" functionality.
But the author himself points out how certain styles of games, like RTS and FPS, are great for when you don't have a lot of time. They make it easy to find a game (either against the computer or against real players online), play, and then go do something else. This line of reasoning seems to defeat the original premise of the article. The funny thing is, I was thinking the same thing. When I don't have a lot of time, I might load up Age of Mythology, or UT2004. On the other hand, when I have the time to really get involved in a game, I'll turn to something like Morrowind.
My point is that there is already a huge variety of games, some that you can jump right in and play a few quick games, and some that are much more involved and require some time to really get into and discover everything. Both niches are already filled. Then again, when the guy is saying, "I recently moved into a new apartment. This has literally left me with only a few minutes of gaming per day," I don't know what he expects anyone to tell him. Wait until you have settled in to your new place, I guess. For most, gaming is a hobby like any other. If you can only spare a few minutes out of your day for a hobby, then you're either seriously overworked, mismanaging your time, or have way too many hobbies in the first place.