Controlled flight in a wing suit is almost as important as landing.
If you can't achieve stability and/or proper speed at deployment the chance of your chute malfunctioning go up dramatically. That makes landing a little more exciting.
Re:64 years late!
on
Flying Humans
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Perfectly good airplane?!
Have you seen jump planes? No seats and there's a huge hole in the wall.
I can honestly say without caveat that of the hundreds of rides I've taken on Twin Otters not once have I safely landed in one.
It was an exact quote from the legal document. Don't bother. This whole piece is border line for this forum. It seems to be that this is one only a law geek could love.
Ripping a CD and putting the files in the Kaaza folder is not copyright infringement until someone copies them. They seem to be saying that putting rips in folder a is legal but putting them in folder b is not. Pointing a loaded gun at someone is not murder. It's not copyright infringement unless they can prove they were shared.
Because different things require different treatment. That makes my point not yours.
Here's a simple one for you - everything illegal is a crime, so let's just make one law for all crime! Nice straw man. Should keep the crows away but it's not good for much else.
Lets not change the word. Theft does imply the deprivation of something, but stealing does not. Let's play the dictionary game! It's fun! You claim copying is stealing. Stealing from the link you provided is taking something that doesn't belong to you. From the dictionary you used take means to kill fish or game. Since copying a CD has nothing to do with killing fish or game that doesn't belong to you it can't possible be stealing.
For those in the audience that don't like to waste time with pointless semantic games can you please explain how you can take, seize, or move secretly without deprivation?
Maybe you should get your facts straight before trying to act high and mighty. I'm not being all high and mighty. I'm simply right. So far you've answered my questions with a question, used a fallacy, and argued semantics. How ever at no point did you address any of the historical facts. Copy right started as a concept in the 1500s with the invention of the printing press. In the 1600s the Britain enacted the first copy right law. Late 1800s nations started to unify copy right.
For thousands of years lawyers and politicians had laws against stealing. However they chose to enact new separate laws to deal with copy right once a method of cheap copying became available (the printing press, player piano rolls, computers). There has never been a single case of any copy right infringer being convicted under a law regarding theft and/or stealing. Rather than use existing stealing or theft laws the RIAA is trying to have new legislation written up.
It may be illegal but it's not theft and it's not stealing. I wish it was stealing because then the penalty would be lower than it currently is.
If what you say is true then why is there a whole group of law that concerns copyright infringement? Why not simply use the theft laws already on the books?
Theft is taking a physical object. Copyright infringement is copying something that you are not allowed to copy. Look I'm not going to debate this because it isn't my opinion. It's fact. Copyright goes back to the 1500s. It was originally created to stop the flow of information after the invention of the printing press. It was originally a censorship tool. Only later was it used in a commercial manner. Look it up.
There must be loss with theft but there may or may not be loss with copyright infringement.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like stealing (or the less wieldly intellectual property infringement if you prefer), and it's bad. You really shouldn't gloss over it like that. Stealing and copy right infringement are fundamentally different and need to be treated as such. One must involve deprivation. One may or may not involve deprivation. That's what makes things so touchy. It's a crime but how do you assess penalty when there is no loss?
Calling it stealing is simply propaganda and it's working.
Your post ignored insurance and patents. Both are direct causes for high health care.
Insurance companies, in the USoA, are against damage caps on lawsuits. If lawsuit payouts keep getting larger they can keep raising premiums. If lawsuits are capped then that is a cap to what they can charge for premiums. Remember your doctors, clinics, hospitals, and likely your insurance company, mine does to cover huge payouts, all buy insurance.
Patents make what would be cheap drugs more expensive. I'm not going to debate the need for patents but I feel some refinement is in order especially with health care. Look at the Anthrax/Bayer/Canada situation from a few years ago.
None of this addresses the, original point of this fork, fact that you cannot trust the client. If you trust the client you will have cheating. If there is cheating the game fails.
It's not free but that doesn't detract from it's validity as an idea.
You can never trust the client. It is in the hands of the enemy.
If you start trusting the client because of the warden then someone is going to cheat by figuring out how to spoof the warden. Then you have the client perform a malicious act with the warden giving everything a clean bill of health.
Can someone please just write a crypto program that changes the key every $timeunit based on something you type in? If you don't type something in it changes the key anyways but you can no longer decrypt it.
Basically the idea is that once you're arrested the key changes and you can prove in a court of law that it is impossible for you to know the key.
Call of Duty 4 came out yesterday. Former game fo the year franchise. People are talking about this iteration as a game of the year.
Yesterday after work I walked in and grabbed it off the shelf. Just now I checked the web pages of some stores. There are copies available at all BB locations and a scattering of some of the other electronic/department stores.
For comparison. Only one of the six gamestops in a 50 mile radius had copies available.
Pre-orders are pointless. Gamestop needs to fix their supply issues/bussiness model. They can't keep, or choose not to, product on the shelves to meet demand. They're compeditors can/do. Gamestop looses sales. This is basic economics. No that's wrong. This is bad logistics.
Preorders are obsolete. Supply is at the point where they are not needed.The big box electronics stores have more than enough copies. It's simply a vendor lock in tool. You go to GS to grab game and they ask you to pre-order. Lather, rinse, repent.
My point is that method is stupid. By short changing the stores it caused me to go else where.
If they don't send copies then I will go somewhere that has copies. This is trivial to understand.
I can't be arsed to keep track of what's coming out when. I used to do that. I find it a waste of time now. Rather then make extra trips to GS to preorder I can just walk into BB, CUSA, CC, Target, Wal-Mart, or whoever else and grab one off the shelf.
Gaming has reached main stream enough that copies are available. Gamestop fucks with supply to move pre-orders. The other stores simple have enough supply that pre-orders are meaningless. BB still had Halo 3 on the shelf when I walked in 5 days after release. They appeared to be from the initial shipment because the still had the do not sell until 9/25, or what ever it was, stickers on them.
I see no reason why they can't have more copies. They're reservation policy is why I haven't shopped there for years.
On release day Gamestop has no copies, except for preorders. Then I go across the street and grab one off the shelf at my choice of stores. Hell I can grab one for in store pickup right now. Oh and those store do preorders too which indicates that they're receiving more total copies.
This just makes Gamestop look amateur. If department stores can have multiple copies of a game then why can't a store with game in their name have enough copies? Amateurs.
The problem with your position is that someone has to fight the RIAA. If you don't fight them on the legal front they can use the legal system to maintain and extend their position.
They win some legal cases. They get some large settlements. They start using the settlements as evidence of lost revenue. Wrong but a good move. They go to congress and buy legislation. They establish a foot hold.
Also your player piano description has a few problems. The main one being that some of the laws created about player piano rolls still apply today to every book, movie, and music made.
Actually yes. Before the flame war starts, remember that bandwidth just like any resource is a commodity with an expense.
The overgrazing of the commons by the few is why fences are being erected to protect the commons from degrading. Now there is still a green patch when I arrive. The other option is per use pricing, or raising the price for all to expand the supply of the commons to meet demand. I live in a capitalistic society. My role is a customer. I pay for 5 Mbit. I'm going to use all 5 Mbit as much as possible. The more I use the more value I receive from their product. It is not my role to help them turn a profit or manage their resources. If they can't make money on me using my 5 Mbit 24/7 then they need to change something. If they change something they need to communicate those changes so I can decide if I continue to want to do business with them. This resetting connections is bullshit and they should suffer a legal response. Until then there is no reason for me not to saturate my pipe.
If everyone demanded and got . . . Yes but they don't so this whole paragraph is irrelevant.
Quote 1 from your post
why don't the movie moguls just go to a smart card based system? Quote 2 from your post
there are multiple ways to beat the system If it can still be broken why bother?
DRM can't work. It's impossible. I'm sure someone with more math skills than I can prove that. Rather than waste resources on a failed business model they should spend those resources to be on the leading edge of a new business model.
Hell if they'd created Napster and simply collected ad revenue I wonder how much they would have made by now.
I don't have Comcast. I have a cable modem from a different large company that starts with a C. I can't remember ever seeing this problem. You should switch. My provider's only sins are being expensive. I've never seen any throttling. They still provide access to various binaries groups. The last time I had an outage was when I lost power to the house.
As you describe it card selection is more important than player skill. Any monkey can download a deck manifest, build the deck, and do well. You've just described a completely broken game design.
Yes, assuming what we're talking about is victory percentages. But one of the properties one might want in a CCG is diversity of gameplay. If everyone has access to the same cards then the "everyone's deck is different" aspect is lost. This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Magic has thousands of cards, maybe even tens of thousands. If everyone has access to this large volume and you don't see variety in decks then that means there are only a handful of possible winning combos. With such a large volume of cards there should be many ways to win thus you should many different decks even with access to any card you want.
If people have to resort to random distribution of cards to achieve variety in decks then the game design is broken on a fundamental level.
Slashdot Mirror
Controlled flight in a wing suit is almost as important as landing.
If you can't achieve stability and/or proper speed at deployment the chance of your chute malfunctioning go up dramatically. That makes landing a little more exciting.
Perfectly good airplane?!
Have you seen jump planes? No seats and there's a huge hole in the wall.
I can honestly say without caveat that of the hundreds of rides I've taken on Twin Otters not once have I safely landed in one.
Ripping a CD and putting the files in the Kaaza folder is not copyright infringement until someone copies them. They seem to be saying that putting rips in folder a is legal but putting them in folder b is not. Pointing a loaded gun at someone is not murder. It's not copyright infringement unless they can prove they were shared.
For those in the audience that don't like to waste time with pointless semantic games can you please explain how you can take, seize, or move secretly without deprivation? Maybe you should get your facts straight before trying to act high and mighty. I'm not being all high and mighty. I'm simply right. So far you've answered my questions with a question, used a fallacy, and argued semantics. How ever at no point did you address any of the historical facts. Copy right started as a concept in the 1500s with the invention of the printing press. In the 1600s the Britain enacted the first copy right law. Late 1800s nations started to unify copy right.
For thousands of years lawyers and politicians had laws against stealing. However they chose to enact new separate laws to deal with copy right once a method of cheap copying became available (the printing press, player piano rolls, computers). There has never been a single case of any copy right infringer being convicted under a law regarding theft and/or stealing. Rather than use existing stealing or theft laws the RIAA is trying to have new legislation written up.
It may be illegal but it's not theft and it's not stealing. I wish it was stealing because then the penalty would be lower than it currently is.
You are completely wrong.
If what you say is true then why is there a whole group of law that concerns copyright infringement? Why not simply use the theft laws already on the books?
Theft is taking a physical object. Copyright infringement is copying something that you are not allowed to copy. Look I'm not going to debate this because it isn't my opinion. It's fact. Copyright goes back to the 1500s. It was originally created to stop the flow of information after the invention of the printing press. It was originally a censorship tool. Only later was it used in a commercial manner. Look it up.
There must be loss with theft but there may or may not be loss with copyright infringement.
Calling it stealing is simply propaganda and it's working.
Your post ignored insurance and patents. Both are direct causes for high health care.
Insurance companies, in the USoA, are against damage caps on lawsuits. If lawsuit payouts keep getting larger they can keep raising premiums. If lawsuits are capped then that is a cap to what they can charge for premiums. Remember your doctors, clinics, hospitals, and likely your insurance company, mine does to cover huge payouts, all buy insurance.
Patents make what would be cheap drugs more expensive. I'm not going to debate the need for patents but I feel some refinement is in order especially with health care. Look at the Anthrax/Bayer/Canada situation from a few years ago.
None of this addresses the, original point of this fork, fact that you cannot trust the client. If you trust the client you will have cheating. If there is cheating the game fails.
It's not free but that doesn't detract from it's validity as an idea.
You can never trust the client. It is in the hands of the enemy.
If you start trusting the client because of the warden then someone is going to cheat by figuring out how to spoof the warden. Then you have the client perform a malicious act with the warden giving everything a clean bill of health.
You should record something.
"Hello?"
"Hello?"
"I'm sorry can you please speak up."
Even if it's 20-30 seconds it will greatly annoy them.
Can someone please just write a crypto program that changes the key every $timeunit based on something you type in? If you don't type something in it changes the key anyways but you can no longer decrypt it.
Basically the idea is that once you're arrested the key changes and you can prove in a court of law that it is impossible for you to know the key.
To further illustrate my point.
Call of Duty 4 came out yesterday. Former game fo the year franchise. People are talking about this iteration as a game of the year.
Yesterday after work I walked in and grabbed it off the shelf. Just now I checked the web pages of some stores. There are copies available at all BB locations and a scattering of some of the other electronic/department stores.
For comparison. Only one of the six gamestops in a 50 mile radius had copies available.
Pre-orders are pointless. Gamestop needs to fix their supply issues/bussiness model. They can't keep, or choose not to, product on the shelves to meet demand. They're compeditors can/do. Gamestop looses sales. This is basic economics. No that's wrong. This is bad logistics.
So rather than stop giving IDs to people here illegally we should add another level of bureaucracy?
It strikes me that it would be easier, cheaper, and fairer to simply stop giving IDs to people here illegally. I mean they are here illegally.
Niche items are an exception. That's what makes them niche items.
Preorders are obsolete. Supply is at the point where they are not needed.The big box electronics stores have more than enough copies. It's simply a vendor lock in tool. You go to GS to grab game and they ask you to pre-order. Lather, rinse, repent.
I haven't pre-ordered a game in over 5 years yet I still get things on launch day. Other places have enough supply to meet demand.
My point is that method is stupid. By short changing the stores it caused me to go else where.
If they don't send copies then I will go somewhere that has copies. This is trivial to understand.
I can't be arsed to keep track of what's coming out when. I used to do that. I find it a waste of time now. Rather then make extra trips to GS to preorder I can just walk into BB, CUSA, CC, Target, Wal-Mart, or whoever else and grab one off the shelf.
Gaming has reached main stream enough that copies are available. Gamestop fucks with supply to move pre-orders. The other stores simple have enough supply that pre-orders are meaningless. BB still had Halo 3 on the shelf when I walked in 5 days after release. They appeared to be from the initial shipment because the still had the do not sell until 9/25, or what ever it was, stickers on them.
I see no reason why they can't have more copies. They're reservation policy is why I haven't shopped there for years.
On release day Gamestop has no copies, except for preorders. Then I go across the street and grab one off the shelf at my choice of stores. Hell I can grab one for in store pickup right now. Oh and those store do preorders too which indicates that they're receiving more total copies.
This just makes Gamestop look amateur. If department stores can have multiple copies of a game then why can't a store with game in their name have enough copies? Amateurs.
You're a living slashdot meme!
1. Do Nothing
2. ???
3. RIAA implodes.
The problem with your position is that someone has to fight the RIAA. If you don't fight them on the legal front they can use the legal system to maintain and extend their position.
They win some legal cases. They get some large settlements. They start using the settlements as evidence of lost revenue. Wrong but a good move. They go to congress and buy legislation. They establish a foot hold.
Also your player piano description has a few problems. The main one being that some of the laws created about player piano rolls still apply today to every book, movie, and music made.
DRM can't work. It's impossible. I'm sure someone with more math skills than I can prove that. Rather than waste resources on a failed business model they should spend those resources to be on the leading edge of a new business model.
Hell if they'd created Napster and simply collected ad revenue I wonder how much they would have made by now.
You should find a new provider.
I don't have Comcast. I have a cable modem from a different large company that starts with a C. I can't remember ever seeing this problem. You should switch. My provider's only sins are being expensive. I've never seen any throttling. They still provide access to various binaries groups. The last time I had an outage was when I lost power to the house.
They're expensive but at least they're not evil.
So?
As you describe it card selection is more important than player skill. Any monkey can download a deck manifest, build the deck, and do well. You've just described a completely broken game design.
If people have to resort to random distribution of cards to achieve variety in decks then the game design is broken on a fundamental level.