W88s are miniaturized fission warheads, so you can fit 8 475 kilotonne warheads onto a single missile. They're not the sort of thing you use to overthrow a government, they're the sort of thing you use when you want to make sure all the people in the country you're launching a first strike on are dead before they realise the war has started.
LANL does work on weapons. It seems like erring on the side of not giving out information will inconvenience some researchers but it might be a good thing for everyone else. And as someone pointed out, most of this information needed Q clearance even before privatization, which most researchers don't have, so the number of people inconvenienced is rather small.
Given the rumours of spies from China getting hold of US secrets like the design of the W88 warhead from LANL, maybe less access is a good thing. Seems to me that now that nuclear weapons tests are rare, it will be hard for other countries to make small warheads like this other than by copying an existing design. So stopping any information coming out of LANL is in the interest of the US.
But dietary laws are subject to mutation. Jews and Muslims still have the objection to pork, but Christians seem to have lost it at some point, despite the fact that they all descend from the same Abrahamic root. It's a bit fanciful, but you could argue that as Christianity spread out of hot countries, the risk of eating pork dropped off and mutations in the doctrine that allowed eating it were allowed to survive.
Not terribly ironic, how did the Abrahamic faiths spread to cover half the world. The rules are quite simple:
1. Take virgin wives, be fruitful and multiple with them 2. If you don't have a child within 10 years, she's infertile, dump her 3. Don't have gay sex (which doesn't create children), but have lots of sex with your wife/wives about 10 days after her menstruation (when she's fertile) 4. Never use birth control, keep having children 5. Preserve and build the community, the community trumps the individual
I wonder how Buddhism and Eastern religions fit into all this. They seem pretty relaxed about sex, and tolerant of homosexuality. Actually I reckon that homosexuality isn't as big a problem as you make out. Historically, most people who had homosexual relationshops when young ended up having heterosexual relationships later.
1. Sex is fun, have it as much as you want as often as you want, preferably for years (the most fertile ones), but make sure to use a condom 2. Marriage is something risky, push it off a while, just keep having sex for recreation first 3. More education is better... Age 16 isn't enough, a high school diploma @ 18 isn't enough, a college degree at 22 isn't really enough, how about some grad school (24-28)... DO NOT GET MARRIED BEFORE YOU FINISH OR WE TAKE YOUR FUNDING AWAY 4. Start your career before starting a family, wait a few more years 5. Don't have more than 2 kids, you're a breeder and sucking up resources... Let's cap every woman at 2 kids, and not wonder what happens when not all women have kids 6. Spoil your children, so they push off real life an extra few years... 7. Oh, and gay sex should be idealized, not stigmatized, and considered an innate behavior 8. Screw the community, individual liberty is all that matters, whatever makes you happy.
I'm very much secular, but I don't agree with 8. 7 is complex - I think it's not something which should be encouraged or discouraged. 5 is probably not a bad thing. Most countries have gone through a phase transition where family sizes drop at a certain level of wealth. If this didn't happen, then the world would be screwed due to overpopulation. Mind you, places like Africa which are far from ever achieving this seem to have other things like Aids which limit population
Perhaps the religious leadership isn't QUITE as ignorant as you think.
Oh, I think they are. The religious leadership didn't invent this stuff or understand it, they just parrot what they learned at a religious school because they think it will make them go to heaven. Natural selection means that the religions which get the formula right to grow quickly will be more common than ones that don't. Possibly there were mutations along the way to - the religion split over some doctrinal difference and then the fork with the more evolutionarily fit beliefs out competed the other.
Richard Dawkins has more or less stated that religion is a nasty parasitic meme in general. And if you look at the religions that are propagating fastest at the moment, they seemed to be the nastiest of all.
k Strategy civilistions have the technology to defend themselves from R strategy ones, the question is whether they actually recognize the threat. If they don't see themselves as being better, and don't see k Strategy values as being worth fighting for, then they will likely be overwhelmed
I have a dream today! That one day all Americans, both individual and corporate may enjoy equality. That they may vote and run for office based on the amount they contribute to lobbyists, regardless of whether they consist of one body or of many. Where a Corporate American can run for the Presidency of the United States and it's subsidiaries can vote for him. Where all you whether you be a he a her or an it can live in equality!
You know, I think the religious are onto something. Cultures that breed fast and fight wars to proselytize are likely to overwhelm cultures that breed slowly and keep to themselves.
I'm not suggesting they're better, far from it, just that they may be better from a Darwinian point of view, which is somewhat ironic.
Mind you, slow breeding cultures are likely to be richer and thus have access to higher technology which should even the playing field, assuming they aren't so pacifist that they refuse to defend themselves.
Don't you think that medical science will compensate for this though?
I can imagine stem cells or something might make it possible to stop or reverse aging within the lifetime of most thirtysomethings for example.
Ok, perhaps that's wishful thinking, but I can imagine something more prosaic happening that causes the current trend to an aging population to accelerate. And it doesn't take much to compensate for the low fertility rates in most of Europe. Maybe effective treatments for heart disease and lung cancer could tip the balance, or more immigration, or a mixture of both.
But you can't form a contract regarding illegal acts or services. Thus, pieces of paper agreeing to supply illegal drugs, or commit murder, are pieces of paper with written statements on them, not contracts. To be a contract there needs to be reciprocal compensation. Otherwise it is just a promise, not a contract.
Eh? The third party have their own code it'a not GPLd. They are not a scam. The developer that plagiarised the GPL code is a scammer, but his employer gets obliterated and he gets away scot free. Lets make the example more concrete
My company wants to make a GPS receiver. We want to do the application but we don't want to do the hardware, OS, protocol stack etc, so we buy a software/hardware platform from a third party which does most of what I want but lets me add my own UI on top and call their functions for the real work. Their code is not GPL, they developed it themselves. They developed the hardware themselves too, and patented parts of it. They supply me source code (flat fee), hardware ($10 per box), and a patent license for any devices I resell for ($1 per device). But they don't want me to redistribute their source code. All this is covered in a contract.
Now I hire a developer to write a UI on top of this hardware/software platform. He uses a big chunk of GPL code but doesn't tell me. Then he moves to one of my competitors and tells them that my company's GPS receiver contains a big chunk of GPL code, and their lawyers decide that users can opt to license it under GPLv3.
So they buy one, thus getting a binary copy of the software, and send my company an email pointing out that under GPLv3 I need to supply them all the code and free patent license to cover them. So to comply with the GPLv3 source code disclosue I needed to break the NDA with the third party platform company and to comply with the royalty free patent license I need to pay $1 for each box my competitor sells, if they need to license the same patents as me. Or maybe not, since the third party might point out that this is not covered by the original contract I signed with them, so I need to pay them $10 or $100 per box my competitor sells.
You're right, but businesses distrust open source for deeper reasons than that. With proprietary software, if it changes in a way which angers paying customers, you know it will change back since the company that sells it will be under pressure. You can't rely on that with free software - the maintainers may decide to change it in a way they feel is better but inconveniences you the user. Now if you're a programmer, you could just fork it. But if you're a manager you're screwed.
With something widely used, most changes will anger other people first, so you don't even need to threaten the vendor, just leave updates on. You also know the upsides and downsides before you use it too, and you can pay someone who's install it in a way that satisfied other customers.
Now I can see Jerry Taylor is the customer from hell, but if he ranted this way to a commercial vendor would they be as rude as this? Would they put the whole conversation on the web?
Come on Paul. We do good stuff, but that doesn't mean that everything is good. Leave the market posturing to the proprietary companies. There's no reason for FOSS to be anything but honest about where we are at present.
Actually, the most annoying thing about FOSS is the people who claim that the way it does everything is perfect. Even weirder, when it changes to work in a completely different way, they claim that "Now that the new version is done in a better way, the FOSS solution is perfect".
I don't get it really. Most people use software as a tool and have no emotional investment in it. There are things that annoy them, but they find workarounds or advice on the net or get a bugfix from the company they bought it from. If they can't they stop using it. Their reaction to the zealots who claim FOSS is perfect in every way at every time and no bugfixes (or even advice other than "RTFM") are necessary will be one of bemusment or even contempt. If they do give advice, it's rarely without some dig at the intelligence of the person asking for it.
The sad thing is that if they were more honest about the shortcomings of their favourite package, and more helpful about how to get around them, they'd be doing it much more of a favour in the long run than behaving the way they do. Imagine if you did support for some commercial software and behaved this way - you'd get fired sooner or later since the customers would hate you.
In many ways, I think that's my objection to the whole FOSS thing. In a commercial company, there's an invisible hand of the market to slap you across the back of your head if you get too rude, or arrogant or fanboyish. Companies that provide solutions which are hard to support will quickly go under too, even if the support people manage to behave in a professional way. If I imagine most of the commercial companies I worked for in a world where there were no paying customers, then I think they'd have much the same problems that seem to plague FOSS projects.
C has the third party source code, but they signed an NDA that means they can only distribute it as binaries to their users.
Their users, including one of their competitors, spot that all of C's code including the third party stuff is covered by the GPL since it is all statically linked together. They demand source code.
C can then either violate the NDA for the third party code or the GPL - they can't abide by both since they are contradictory. The NDA says they can't distribute the third party code, and the GPL says that it covers all the code, including third party stuff, and they must provide all source code to their users if the users request it.
At this point C is screwed, even if the person that borrowed the GPL code has left the company. Or it could be even worse, maybe the developer put some GPL code into C's product and then later moved to the competitor where he tipped them off to C's GPL violation.
No can you see why GPL code in a commercial product is a terrible idea. Most companies have license agreements that stop them releasing at least some of their source code, and the GPL is potentially in conflict with these.
It sounds quite a lot like BSD license which, you know, is a known valid open source license heavily supported by at least some FOSS proponents.
The BSD license means you can do what you want with the source code.
The GPL license actually imposes all sort of duties on you in return for using the source code.
E.g. consider a company, C. They have some of their own code, and some code licensed from a third party. That third party allows them access to the source code, but does not allow them to release it to third parties as they have signed an NDA. Additionally that third party licenses some patents exclusively to them. Now one of the C's developers uses some GPL code in the application without telling his boss. He used GPL2 code but it left in the "or a later version at the user's discretion" clause. It is statically linked with code from C and code from the third party. The code is then widely released. The developer then leaves the company.
Later on, a competitor to C buys a binary of this code and figures out by reverse engineering it contains GPL code and thus it is covered by the GPL and demands all the source code, including the third party stuff since it is all statically linked, and a non exclusive, royalty free patent license since he opts to license it under GPLv3. If the C won't do this, the EFF or the user will sue. But if they do it, the third party will sue them for violating an NDA. They can't license the patents royalty free to their users since the license they have from the third party only applies to their products, not everyone else's. The competitor knows this and has no real interest in the source code, they just want to force C to withdraw a product which competes with them.
Before you say this is artificial, I know of companies who have narrowly avoided this situation. Now they avoid GPL code like the plague, but BSD code is regarded as being fairly safe.
I'm go through a very bad devorce at the moment. I've actually moved back in to my parents basement, but my soon-to-be ex wife still keeps visiting. I've tried various ways to discourage her, including putting up a picture of my new partner, Cletus and I in our matching fursuits, on the cellar door, but none has worked.
But since I put a printout of your post up, she hasn't come around at all.
If women were vampires, your post would be garlic.
It couldn't have been a DMCA "we own the copyright, now take it down" takedown notice, because those only apply to copyrightable works.
What probably happened was Digg got a letter saying, "You have posted a DRM circumvention tool. If you don't remove it, we will sue your testicles into the stratosphere."
It's different from a takedown notice, but it had the same effect.
Is the key copyrightable? It doesn't matter. The AACS-LA takedown letter is not claiming that the key is copyrightable, but rather that it is (or is a component of) a circumvention technology. The DMCA does not require that a circumvention technology be, itself, copyrightable to enjoy protection.effect.
You know it's illegal here to RTFA before posting, right;-)
Seriously, these "takedown notices" seem like prior restraint to me. I can't see how they could survive being examined by the Supreme Court for example and not be found to be unconstitutional.
The most important thing to have for any project is a CHAMPION. So if you aren't ready to champion your own idea then you are wasting everybody's time
Shut your PIEHOLE! A CHAMPION? That's the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard! What the HELL do you mean by that?
Oh sorry, I was just wondering if you had the BALLS to STAND UP for your IDEAS. If you don't like it, why don't you take the walk down WASHOUT LANE, CRYING like a little girl.
In Sweden its legal to link, regardless of content. ( which it should be, or you get dangerously close to censorship )
But look at it from the RIAA point of view. If it's legal to link to torrents, then they've lost the battle. Sites like the Pirate Bay would be shielded from prosecution. So they pretty much need to get the law changed to make it illegal.
So if people use their freedom to link in this way, they're essentially making it more likely that organisations representing copyright holders will act to remove that freedom.
I find it entertaining as these reporters are acting like it;s a new thing. It's not. Ever cince the days of Doom this has been observed and documented. Camping, while being a viable attack vector in the real world (called a sniper) is frowned upon so much in game that most all combatants will band together to punish the camper.
There was a paper published about it back in the 90's. I wonder if anyone can find it out there on the internet.
I don't think so. A load of people knew it was coming out, and criticised it heavily on publication, so it's hard to find now.
Actually, even on the new card, a 6800, with all the tweaks I could find, I still had to run in medium quality and it was a bit choppy when anything happened.
But the fact that you need to do all this when contemporary games run ok make it seems that Doom 3 wasn't really that well optimized out of the box. In the end, I got bored with the gameplay and stopped playing.
There's a serious danger with that argument. If linking to copyrighted material is legal, then the RIAA/MPAA can either given up on their battle to against piracy, or lobby to get the law changed.
And I don't know about Sweden, but Torrent search sites have been shutdown elsewhere, so it might not be as clearcut as you want it to be.
Doom3 sucked in terms of performance. I ended up spending $200 for a new video card, even though contemporary games like Half Life 2 managed to work fine with the old card and looked pretty good too.
You have to wonder if that's because the other games were optimized to run on DirectX on one OS whereas Doom3 needed to use OpenGL.
Slashdot Mirror
W88s are miniaturized fission warheads, so you can fit 8 475 kilotonne warheads onto a single missile. They're not the sort of thing you use to overthrow a government, they're the sort of thing you use when you want to make sure all the people in the country you're launching a first strike on are dead before they realise the war has started.
LANL does work on weapons. It seems like erring on the side of not giving out information will inconvenience some researchers but it might be a good thing for everyone else. And as someone pointed out, most of this information needed Q clearance even before privatization, which most researchers don't have, so the number of people inconvenienced is rather small.
Given the rumours of spies from China getting hold of US secrets like the design of the W88 warhead from LANL, maybe less access is a good thing. Seems to me that now that nuclear weapons tests are rare, it will be hard for other countries to make small warheads like this other than by copying an existing design. So stopping any information coming out of LANL is in the interest of the US.
But dietary laws are subject to mutation. Jews and Muslims still have the objection to pork, but Christians seem to have lost it at some point, despite the fact that they all descend from the same Abrahamic root. It's a bit fanciful, but you could argue that as Christianity spread out of hot countries, the risk of eating pork dropped off and mutations in the doctrine that allowed eating it were allowed to survive.
Not terribly ironic, how did the Abrahamic faiths spread to cover half the world. The rules are quite simple:
1. Take virgin wives, be fruitful and multiple with them
2. If you don't have a child within 10 years, she's infertile, dump her
3. Don't have gay sex (which doesn't create children), but have lots of sex with your wife/wives about 10 days after her menstruation (when she's fertile)
4. Never use birth control, keep having children
5. Preserve and build the community, the community trumps the individual
I wonder how Buddhism and Eastern religions fit into all this. They seem pretty relaxed about sex, and tolerant of homosexuality. Actually I reckon that homosexuality isn't as big a problem as you make out. Historically, most people who had homosexual relationshops when young ended up having heterosexual relationships later.
1. Sex is fun, have it as much as you want as often as you want, preferably for years (the most fertile ones), but make sure to use a condom
2. Marriage is something risky, push it off a while, just keep having sex for recreation first
3. More education is better... Age 16 isn't enough, a high school diploma @ 18 isn't enough, a college degree at 22 isn't really enough, how about some grad school (24-28)... DO NOT GET MARRIED BEFORE YOU FINISH OR WE TAKE YOUR FUNDING AWAY
4. Start your career before starting a family, wait a few more years
5. Don't have more than 2 kids, you're a breeder and sucking up resources... Let's cap every woman at 2 kids, and not wonder what happens when not all women have kids
6. Spoil your children, so they push off real life an extra few years...
7. Oh, and gay sex should be idealized, not stigmatized, and considered an innate behavior
8. Screw the community, individual liberty is all that matters, whatever makes you happy.
I'm very much secular, but I don't agree with 8. 7 is complex - I think it's not something which should be encouraged or discouraged. 5 is probably not a bad thing. Most countries have gone through a phase transition where family sizes drop at a certain level of wealth. If this didn't happen, then the world would be screwed due to overpopulation. Mind you, places like Africa which are far from ever achieving this seem to have other things like Aids which limit population
Perhaps the religious leadership isn't QUITE as ignorant as you think.
Oh, I think they are. The religious leadership didn't invent this stuff or understand it, they just parrot what they learned at a religious school because they think it will make them go to heaven. Natural selection means that the religions which get the formula right to grow quickly will be more common than ones that don't. Possibly there were mutations along the way to - the religion split over some doctrinal difference and then the fork with the more evolutionarily fit beliefs out competed the other.
Richard Dawkins has more or less stated that religion is a nasty parasitic meme in general. And if you look at the religions that are propagating fastest at the moment, they seemed to be the nastiest of all.
That's what I mean about the pacifism point.
k Strategy civilistions have the technology to defend themselves from R strategy ones, the question is whether they actually recognize the threat. If they don't see themselves as being better, and don't see k Strategy values as being worth fighting for, then they will likely be overwhelmed
I have a dream today! That one day all Americans, both individual and corporate may enjoy equality. That they may vote and run for office based on the amount they contribute to lobbyists, regardless of whether they consist of one body or of many. Where a Corporate American can run for the Presidency of the United States and it's subsidiaries can vote for him. Where all you whether you be a he a her or an it can live in equality!
You know, I think the religious are onto something. Cultures that breed fast and fight wars to proselytize are likely to overwhelm cultures that breed slowly and keep to themselves.
I'm not suggesting they're better, far from it, just that they may be better from a Darwinian point of view, which is somewhat ironic.
Mind you, slow breeding cultures are likely to be richer and thus have access to higher technology which should even the playing field, assuming they aren't so pacifist that they refuse to defend themselves.
Don't you think that medical science will compensate for this though?
I can imagine stem cells or something might make it possible to stop or reverse aging within the lifetime of most thirtysomethings for example.
Ok, perhaps that's wishful thinking, but I can imagine something more prosaic happening that causes the current trend to an aging population to accelerate. And it doesn't take much to compensate for the low fertility rates in most of Europe. Maybe effective treatments for heart disease and lung cancer could tip the balance, or more immigration, or a mixture of both.
But you can't form a contract regarding illegal acts or services. Thus, pieces of paper agreeing to supply illegal drugs, or commit murder, are pieces of paper with written statements on them, not contracts. To be a contract there needs to be reciprocal compensation. Otherwise it is just a promise, not a contract.
Eh? The third party have their own code it'a not GPLd. They are not a scam. The developer that plagiarised the GPL code is a scammer, but his employer gets obliterated and he gets away scot free. Lets make the example more concrete
My company wants to make a GPS receiver. We want to do the application but we don't want to do the hardware, OS, protocol stack etc, so we buy a software/hardware platform from a third party which does most of what I want but lets me add my own UI on top and call their functions for the real work. Their code is not GPL, they developed it themselves. They developed the hardware themselves too, and patented parts of it. They supply me source code (flat fee), hardware ($10 per box), and a patent license for any devices I resell for ($1 per device). But they don't want me to redistribute their source code. All this is covered in a contract.
Now I hire a developer to write a UI on top of this hardware/software platform. He uses a big chunk of GPL code but doesn't tell me. Then he moves to one of my competitors and tells them that my company's GPS receiver contains a big chunk of GPL code, and their lawyers decide that users can opt to license it under GPLv3.
So they buy one, thus getting a binary copy of the software, and send my company an email pointing out that under GPLv3 I need to supply them all the code and free patent license to cover them. So to comply with the GPLv3 source code disclosue I needed to break the NDA with the third party platform company and to comply with the royalty free patent license I need to pay $1 for each box my competitor sells, if they need to license the same patents as me. Or maybe not, since the third party might point out that this is not covered by the original contract I signed with them, so I need to pay them $10 or $100 per box my competitor sells.
You're right, but businesses distrust open source for deeper reasons than that. With proprietary software, if it changes in a way which angers paying customers, you know it will change back since the company that sells it will be under pressure. You can't rely on that with free software - the maintainers may decide to change it in a way they feel is better but inconveniences you the user. Now if you're a programmer, you could just fork it. But if you're a manager you're screwed.
With something widely used, most changes will anger other people first, so you don't even need to threaten the vendor, just leave updates on. You also know the upsides and downsides before you use it too, and you can pay someone who's install it in a way that satisfied other customers.
Free software is different. It changes quickly, and there's no guarantee you'll be able to find someone who will support the new version. Or even the old version. There's free support on the mailing lists and via email, but the culture there may come as a shock if you're the sort of manager that fixes problems by yelling at the vendor until they fix them
Now I can see Jerry Taylor is the customer from hell, but if he ranted this way to a commercial vendor would they be as rude as this? Would they put the whole conversation on the web?
Come on Paul. We do good stuff, but that doesn't mean that everything is good. Leave the market posturing to the proprietary companies. There's no reason for FOSS to be anything but honest about where we are at present.
Actually, the most annoying thing about FOSS is the people who claim that the way it does everything is perfect. Even weirder, when it changes to work in a completely different way, they claim that "Now that the new version is done in a better way, the FOSS solution is perfect".
I don't get it really. Most people use software as a tool and have no emotional investment in it. There are things that annoy them, but they find workarounds or advice on the net or get a bugfix from the company they bought it from. If they can't they stop using it. Their reaction to the zealots who claim FOSS is perfect in every way at every time and no bugfixes (or even advice other than "RTFM") are necessary will be one of bemusment or even contempt. If they do give advice, it's rarely without some dig at the intelligence of the person asking for it.
The sad thing is that if they were more honest about the shortcomings of their favourite package, and more helpful about how to get around them, they'd be doing it much more of a favour in the long run than behaving the way they do. Imagine if you did support for some commercial software and behaved this way - you'd get fired sooner or later since the customers would hate you.
In many ways, I think that's my objection to the whole FOSS thing. In a commercial company, there's an invisible hand of the market to slap you across the back of your head if you get too rude, or arrogant or fanboyish. Companies that provide solutions which are hard to support will quickly go under too, even if the support people manage to behave in a professional way. If I imagine most of the commercial companies I worked for in a world where there were no paying customers, then I think they'd have much the same problems that seem to plague FOSS projects.
C has the third party source code, but they signed an NDA that means they can only distribute it as binaries to their users.
Their users, including one of their competitors, spot that all of C's code including the third party stuff is covered by the GPL since it is all statically linked together. They demand source code.
C can then either violate the NDA for the third party code or the GPL - they can't abide by both since they are contradictory. The NDA says they can't distribute the third party code, and the GPL says that it covers all the code, including third party stuff, and they must provide all source code to their users if the users request it.
At this point C is screwed, even if the person that borrowed the GPL code has left the company. Or it could be even worse, maybe the developer put some GPL code into C's product and then later moved to the competitor where he tipped them off to C's GPL violation.
No can you see why GPL code in a commercial product is a terrible idea. Most companies have license agreements that stop them releasing at least some of their source code, and the GPL is potentially in conflict with these.
It sounds quite a lot like BSD license which, you know, is a known valid open source license heavily supported by at least some FOSS proponents.
The BSD license means you can do what you want with the source code.
The GPL license actually imposes all sort of duties on you in return for using the source code.
E.g. consider a company, C. They have some of their own code, and some code licensed from a third party. That third party allows them access to the source code, but does not allow them to release it to third parties as they have signed an NDA. Additionally that third party licenses some patents exclusively to them. Now one of the C's developers uses some GPL code in the application without telling his boss. He used GPL2 code but it left in the "or a later version at the user's discretion" clause. It is statically linked with code from C and code from the third party. The code is then widely released. The developer then leaves the company.
Later on, a competitor to C buys a binary of this code and figures out by reverse engineering it contains GPL code and thus it is covered by the GPL and demands all the source code, including the third party stuff since it is all statically linked, and a non exclusive, royalty free patent license since he opts to license it under GPLv3. If the C won't do this, the EFF or the user will sue. But if they do it, the third party will sue them for violating an NDA. They can't license the patents royalty free to their users since the license they have from the third party only applies to their products, not everyone else's. The competitor knows this and has no real interest in the source code, they just want to force C to withdraw a product which competes with them.
Before you say this is artificial, I know of companies who have narrowly avoided this situation. Now they avoid GPL code like the plague, but BSD code is regarded as being fairly safe.
Stick a Serenity poster on your door, that'll keep them away.
Thank you for this post.
I'm go through a very bad devorce at the moment. I've actually moved back in to my parents basement, but my soon-to-be ex wife still keeps visiting. I've tried various ways to discourage her, including putting up a picture of my new partner, Cletus and I in our matching fursuits, on the cellar door, but none has worked.
But since I put a printout of your post up, she hasn't come around at all.
If women were vampires, your post would be garlic.
Someone made freedom ribbons with The Number encoded as colors here (explanation here)
What probably happened was Digg got a letter saying, "You have posted a DRM circumvention tool. If you don't remove it, we will sue your testicles into the stratosphere."
It's different from a takedown notice, but it had the same effect.
Wow, that's spooky. TFA says
You know it's illegal here to RTFA before posting, right
Seriously, these "takedown notices" seem like prior restraint to me. I can't see how they could survive being examined by the Supreme Court for example and not be found to be unconstitutional.
He has no honour. A true Klingon programmer would have killed the upstart where he stood.
The most important thing to have for any project is a CHAMPION. So if you aren't ready to champion your own idea then you are wasting everybody's time
Shut your PIEHOLE! A CHAMPION? That's the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard! What the HELL do you mean by that?
Oh sorry, I was just wondering if you had the BALLS to STAND UP for your IDEAS. If you don't like it, why don't you take the walk down WASHOUT LANE, CRYING like a little girl.
In Sweden its legal to link, regardless of content. ( which it should be, or you get dangerously close to censorship )
But look at it from the RIAA point of view. If it's legal to link to torrents, then they've lost the battle. Sites like the Pirate Bay would be shielded from prosecution. So they pretty much need to get the law changed to make it illegal.
So if people use their freedom to link in this way, they're essentially making it more likely that organisations representing copyright holders will act to remove that freedom.
I find it entertaining as these reporters are acting like it;s a new thing. It's not. Ever cince the days of Doom this has been observed and documented. Camping, while being a viable attack vector in the real world (called a sniper) is frowned upon so much in game that most all combatants will band together to punish the camper.
There was a paper published about it back in the 90's. I wonder if anyone can find it out there on the internet.
I don't think so. A load of people knew it was coming out, and criticised it heavily on publication, so it's hard to find now.
I tried that. And I heard of a texture tweak
h ighlight=humus+doom+3
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=12732&
Actually, even on the new card, a 6800, with all the tweaks I could find, I still had to run in medium quality and it was a bit choppy when anything happened.
But the fact that you need to do all this when contemporary games run ok make it seems that Doom 3 wasn't really that well optimized out of the box. In the end, I got bored with the gameplay and stopped playing.
So essentially it seems worse because it's better?
There's a serious danger with that argument. If linking to copyrighted material is legal, then the RIAA/MPAA can either given up on their battle to against piracy, or lobby to get the law changed.
And I don't know about Sweden, but Torrent search sites have been shutdown elsewhere, so it might not be as clearcut as you want it to be.
Doom3 sucked in terms of performance. I ended up spending $200 for a new video card, even though contemporary games like Half Life 2 managed to work fine with the old card and looked pretty good too.
You have to wonder if that's because the other games were optimized to run on DirectX on one OS whereas Doom3 needed to use OpenGL.