I don't think the people imposing the message limit on SMS (which is what this whole thing is really about, twitter is used as a codeword for phone) care if the data you're sending will be hidden by the client or not, the limit is on the number of characters sent, not characters displayed.
Not that I use either SMS or twitter, but that's the technical reason behind this whole debate.
Let's start with 160 characters, as they do send your username with the message, it should count. 7 bit characters, at 160 characters per message is
7 * 160 = 1120 bits per message. You want the price in megabytes, so we'll convert to that first.
1120 / 8 / 1024 / 1024 (twice because you're looking for MB, not KB) = 0.000133514 MB max message size.
At $0.15 per message, that works out to 0.15 / 0.00133514 = 1123.48 USD per megabyte. Of course, if you're in England, paying 15 pence (as opposed to cents) per message it becomes 1123.48 GBP.
SMS sucks orders of magnitude more than you though it did...
That's what I was thinking. Why not sell your game on disc and include the source on the disk. Maybe even throw in an open source compiler specific to the target platform, with adequate "tech support does not support compiling issues" warnings of course.
You're not selling the engine, you're selling the game data, and giving the engine away, like you should be. Putting the source on the disk itself (as opposed to the required link to source) might even serve to bring a few smart gamers into the programming fold, as they would likely learn a bit about the language while looking for cheats or strategy advantages. That last bit is probably wishful thinking, but I believe the rest is accurate and legal.
I'm sorry, but your smug (the last paragraph was obnoxious, especially considering your fiat declarations pretending to be facts) assertions that no impropriety took place are shown to be false by the large amount of personal documentation that has been disseminated via the internet.
In other words, I believe the horrors of the personal accounts I read at the time over you. Sorry. People like you are just going to have to get used to the fact that shelling a city because there are guerrilla fighters in the city will make you look like a perpetrator of a massacre, no matter how much easier it is tactically. Telling people beforehand that you're going to shell their city is not now, nor will ever be again, an acceptable excuse for setting fire to civilians in their homes.
It's rather simple when viewed from a human rights point of view instead of a tactical one, and fortunately for society the human rights view is prevalent.
If I understand the situation correctly, this isn't a matter of not making changes fast enough, it's a matter of holding steady the course even as the wheel is turning naturally toward your stated goal. It looks like purposefully missing the easy and gentle turn while offering no more than "I know what I'm doing" by way of explanation.
You cannot just fire blindly into a populated area and then excuse yourself by saying you didn't ACTUALLY target civilians. That is a warcrime. How do you not understand this? A military commander deciding a city needs to be shelled doesn't change that fact at all. Calling the action "preliminary bombardment" adds to the cognitive dissonance involved in war by applying euphemism and thus effecting disassociation, but doesn't change the reality that a military force is indiscriminately targeting civilians.
Ever heard the name Hans Blix? I would wager that you have, seeing how avidly you post on political stories.
The very fact that you know that name gives lie to your second sentence. Many MANY of us were telling everyone who would listen that the people most likely to know for sure said that he DIDN'T have WMD.
If you want to be amazed, be amazed that conservatives still had the balls to call the media "liberal" even after it became perfectly clear that warmongering "pundants" and "experts" were being given far more airtime and credibility than the actual weapons inspectors. In short, just because the (owned by billionaires) media didn't hand out the info on it's silver platter doesn't mean that people weren't using common sense, it just means that we were ignored by people who "knew better". That's what happens when people fear thinking because it might get in the way of faux-patriotic flag waving.
Wait, so killing children from afar makes you tough, NOT wanting to kill children from afar makes you a pussy, and pointing out that someone is killing children from afar makes you a troll?
It's morals like that that are destroying the conservative movement in the U.S. The vast majority of people know that there is something wrong with that line of reasoning, and are turning away from it even though they want to feel like our military is strong.
No matter how strongly you want to feel like you're tough, killing children from afar (or even being an apologist for such cowardice) will never make you actually tough, it just shows how desperately people justify any action that makes them feel better about themselves, no matter how illusory.
If, instead, you're claiming that we DIDN'T kill any children in Fallujah, I'd like to see a link to that info, because I do not think it exists.
You can go ahead an mod me "-1 Information that upsets my delicate sensibilities" if you'd like, but it won't change the factual nature of my post.
Well, I really do agree with the spirit of what you're saying (I should have made that more clear), but my problem is that I have a hard time finding the line that should be drawn. You mention obscenity, but looking at that area of law it seems obvious to me that we should strive to avoid such wishy-washy definitions, as they are far more trouble than they are worth. Remember, we're talking about restricting a person's right to take pictures from a public place, vague definitions are particularly dangerous here, as the potential for abuse is enormous (especially now that seemingly everyone (except me) has a camera on them at all times).
I fully agree that we should be wary of big brother type data collection and cross-reference, but I think curtailing the ability to record events in public places is worse. Keep in mind that government abuses are brought to stronger light if the act is video and/or audio recorded, rather than just a piece of paper proving a database query exists.
In short, I fully believe that losing the ability to record public places is worse than a large organization ALWAYS (which isn't even the case with Google) watching those same public places.
Not that it matters, but just to clear the air, my example was 100% hypothetical, as there isn't even a water cooler in my place of business (my home).:-D
I understand your position though, and apologize for the slip up.
Where is the line drawn? You seem to be implying that PARTIAL information is okay but complete information is not. At what point does partial turn into complete, for your purposes? And why the difference? Is a massive photo correlation project that is 1% complete better or worse than one that is 10% complete? Now how about 99%? 80%? 50%?
The line is nearly impossible to define accurately (resolution should be included in any good definition, as should time since the picture was taken), let alone compare against when dealing with massive user-generated databases (like Flickr, not Google).
I'm sorry you don't feel that the answer is helpful, but I myself cannot see any other acceptable answer, as "I don't like that, I know it's legal but quit it" is unacceptable to me, for what should be obvious reasons. I also think it is unacceptably restricting to disallow photos of people's houses from public viewpoints.
Should it honestly be illegal to stitch a bunch of legally taken photos together? I know algorithms have been made illegal in the past, but that is a trend I would seriously like to curtail.
I honestly believe that the only real answer to this question is "don't do things in public that you would like to keep private". That seems to be a good rule to live by in general.
I have a question about this that you may be able to shed some light on. Does the educational allowance of Fair Use include cultural education?
Let's say that I'm by the watercooler and some coworkers are discussing the new singer, show or movie, and I'm completely out of the loop, never having experienced the work in question. Can I download said song, episode or movie in order to educate myself on the cultural phenomenon and be able to participate in popular culture properly?
Title 17 Section 107 seems to imply (to me, a layman) that such a use WOULD be covered under Fair Use, but I don't have lawyer eyes that can read between lines.:-D
I pretty much agree with that (I refer to it as the George Carlin Theory of Environmentalism), but I think that we humans ARE special. Not for any of the reasons most people would offer, but simply because of the amount of entropy we displace on a grand scale. We shift information around and organize it like nothing else on our scale has even come close to doing.
I don't know what that means from a universal perspective, but it seems to me that imposing that much order on the universe seems 'special', somehow.
...but not in real life, cause you'd get your ass beaten, wouldn't ya pussies?
Yeah, better to hide behind a screen and keyboard when proving you're a toughguy who isn't afraid of the consequences of his actions. You're so pathetic as to not even use your login name.
That's why you troglodytes are irrelevant, and that's why you're going to feel more and more 'oppressed' as white privilege dissolves into equality. The best part of it is, racism is being selected against in our population (by mixed-race children becoming far more common), so you're not only irrelevant, you're obsolete.
Now be good little monkeys and keep your shit-slinging and masturbation over in your corner where it belongs.
And you're BOTH FUCKING RIGHT! Now stop arguing about stupid shit and get people to realize that Jack Johnson and John Jackson go eat and laugh it up at the same fundraising dinners after they pretend to hate each other on TV.
Your (our, as I'm here too) country is "represented" by people who've been bought by the biggest industries. "Both" (as if there can be only 2) parties. Until we end THAT, all other political bickering is moot.
Personally, I hope they DO lock the big comic book companies into PG-13 (I'd even like to see PG) ratings.
I've thought about this long and hard, but I cannot escape the conclusion that we're being terribly unfair to our kids by turning the stories WE loved as children (as did the generation before us) into fare for adults, just because we don't want to give our toys up to the younger generations.
Yes, the potential for great stories is immense given the formula of old comics + modern day grittiness + Hollywood production techniques, that's a given. I just can't bring myself to let my kids watch the Dark Knight though, it's too violent-in-mindset (worse than fake blood in my opinion). I -LOVED- the movie, but I cannot shake the feeling that we're robbing the next generation because we don't want to grow up, but we want grownup things.
I truly believe it's a disservice to the future and I hope we can correct it.
Example.com is a reserved domain name, kind of like 192.168.X.X and 10.X.X.X are for ip addresses. The purpose of example.com is exactly what the OP used it for, an unowned domain for use with examples, documentation and specifications where you need a generic domain name to demonstrate a concept.
AFAIK there isn't any content worth speaking of on the site, except an explanation like the one I offered above.
Godwin's Law is the 2nd dumbest bit of conventional internet wisdom I can think of, the first being "never attribute to malice that which can be played off as an accident", or however people want to word its equivalent. They really are quite similar in application; someone who can't be bothered to think about something needs a quick way to dismiss an inconvenient (but usually accurate) analogy, so they whip out some "law".
And, so you know next time, declaring yourself a winner of a conversation is high-level asshattery comparable to public-restroom-shit-porn trolling, most especially if you lean on one of the fake bits of "wisdom" I mentioned above.
Now get back in there an debate on the merits of your argument, dammit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the people imposing the message limit on SMS (which is what this whole thing is really about, twitter is used as a codeword for phone) care if the data you're sending will be hidden by the client or not, the limit is on the number of characters sent, not characters displayed.
Not that I use either SMS or twitter, but that's the technical reason behind this whole debate.
Ahem... Your calculations are off...
Let's start with 160 characters, as they do send your username with the message, it should count. 7 bit characters, at 160 characters per message is
7 * 160 = 1120 bits per message. You want the price in megabytes, so we'll convert to that first.
1120 / 8 / 1024 / 1024 (twice because you're looking for MB, not KB) = 0.000133514 MB max message size.
At $0.15 per message, that works out to
0.15 / 0.00133514 = 1123.48 USD per megabyte. Of course, if you're in England, paying 15 pence (as opposed to cents) per message it becomes 1123.48 GBP.
SMS sucks orders of magnitude more than you though it did...
That's what I was thinking. Why not sell your game on disc and include the source on the disk. Maybe even throw in an open source compiler specific to the target platform, with adequate "tech support does not support compiling issues" warnings of course.
You're not selling the engine, you're selling the game data, and giving the engine away, like you should be. Putting the source on the disk itself (as opposed to the required link to source) might even serve to bring a few smart gamers into the programming fold, as they would likely learn a bit about the language while looking for cheats or strategy advantages. That last bit is probably wishful thinking, but I believe the rest is accurate and legal.
This isn't wiki, and you're asking for something you yourself have not provided.
I'm sorry, but your smug (the last paragraph was obnoxious, especially considering your fiat declarations pretending to be facts) assertions that no impropriety took place are shown to be false by the large amount of personal documentation that has been disseminated via the internet.
In other words, I believe the horrors of the personal accounts I read at the time over you. Sorry. People like you are just going to have to get used to the fact that shelling a city because there are guerrilla fighters in the city will make you look like a perpetrator of a massacre, no matter how much easier it is tactically. Telling people beforehand that you're going to shell their city is not now, nor will ever be again, an acceptable excuse for setting fire to civilians in their homes.
It's rather simple when viewed from a human rights point of view instead of a tactical one, and fortunately for society the human rights view is prevalent.
If I understand the situation correctly, this isn't a matter of not making changes fast enough, it's a matter of holding steady the course even as the wheel is turning naturally toward your stated goal. It looks like purposefully missing the easy and gentle turn while offering no more than "I know what I'm doing" by way of explanation.
Am I missing something, if so, what?
You cannot just fire blindly into a populated area and then excuse yourself by saying you didn't ACTUALLY target civilians. That is a warcrime. How do you not understand this? A military commander deciding a city needs to be shelled doesn't change that fact at all. Calling the action "preliminary bombardment" adds to the cognitive dissonance involved in war by applying euphemism and thus effecting disassociation, but doesn't change the reality that a military force is indiscriminately targeting civilians.
Ever heard the name Hans Blix? I would wager that you have, seeing how avidly you post on political stories.
The very fact that you know that name gives lie to your second sentence. Many MANY of us were telling everyone who would listen that the people most likely to know for sure said that he DIDN'T have WMD.
If you want to be amazed, be amazed that conservatives still had the balls to call the media "liberal" even after it became perfectly clear that warmongering "pundants" and "experts" were being given far more airtime and credibility than the actual weapons inspectors. In short, just because the (owned by billionaires) media didn't hand out the info on it's silver platter doesn't mean that people weren't using common sense, it just means that we were ignored by people who "knew better". That's what happens when people fear thinking because it might get in the way of faux-patriotic flag waving.
Wait, so killing children from afar makes you tough, NOT wanting to kill children from afar makes you a pussy, and pointing out that someone is killing children from afar makes you a troll?
It's morals like that that are destroying the conservative movement in the U.S. The vast majority of people know that there is something wrong with that line of reasoning, and are turning away from it even though they want to feel like our military is strong.
No matter how strongly you want to feel like you're tough, killing children from afar (or even being an apologist for such cowardice) will never make you actually tough, it just shows how desperately people justify any action that makes them feel better about themselves, no matter how illusory.
If, instead, you're claiming that we DIDN'T kill any children in Fallujah, I'd like to see a link to that info, because I do not think it exists.
You can go ahead an mod me "-1 Information that upsets my delicate sensibilities" if you'd like, but it won't change the factual nature of my post.
Well, I really do agree with the spirit of what you're saying (I should have made that more clear), but my problem is that I have a hard time finding the line that should be drawn. You mention obscenity, but looking at that area of law it seems obvious to me that we should strive to avoid such wishy-washy definitions, as they are far more trouble than they are worth. Remember, we're talking about restricting a person's right to take pictures from a public place, vague definitions are particularly dangerous here, as the potential for abuse is enormous (especially now that seemingly everyone (except me) has a camera on them at all times).
I fully agree that we should be wary of big brother type data collection and cross-reference, but I think curtailing the ability to record events in public places is worse. Keep in mind that government abuses are brought to stronger light if the act is video and/or audio recorded, rather than just a piece of paper proving a database query exists.
In short, I fully believe that losing the ability to record public places is worse than a large organization ALWAYS (which isn't even the case with Google) watching those same public places.
Heh, sorry about that. I withdraw my question.
Not that it matters, but just to clear the air, my example was 100% hypothetical, as there isn't even a water cooler in my place of business (my home). :-D
I understand your position though, and apologize for the slip up.
Where is the line drawn? You seem to be implying that PARTIAL information is okay but complete information is not. At what point does partial turn into complete, for your purposes? And why the difference? Is a massive photo correlation project that is 1% complete better or worse than one that is 10% complete? Now how about 99%? 80%? 50%?
The line is nearly impossible to define accurately (resolution should be included in any good definition, as should time since the picture was taken), let alone compare against when dealing with massive user-generated databases (like Flickr, not Google).
I'm sorry you don't feel that the answer is helpful, but I myself cannot see any other acceptable answer, as "I don't like that, I know it's legal but quit it" is unacceptable to me, for what should be obvious reasons. I also think it is unacceptably restricting to disallow photos of people's houses from public viewpoints.
Should it honestly be illegal to stitch a bunch of legally taken photos together? I know algorithms have been made illegal in the past, but that is a trend I would seriously like to curtail.
I honestly believe that the only real answer to this question is "don't do things in public that you would like to keep private". That seems to be a good rule to live by in general.
I have a question about this that you may be able to shed some light on. Does the educational allowance of Fair Use include cultural education?
Let's say that I'm by the watercooler and some coworkers are discussing the new singer, show or movie, and I'm completely out of the loop, never having experienced the work in question. Can I download said song, episode or movie in order to educate myself on the cultural phenomenon and be able to participate in popular culture properly?
Title 17 Section 107 seems to imply (to me, a layman) that such a use WOULD be covered under Fair Use, but I don't have lawyer eyes that can read between lines. :-D
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I pretty much agree with that (I refer to it as the George Carlin Theory of Environmentalism), but I think that we humans ARE special. Not for any of the reasons most people would offer, but simply because of the amount of entropy we displace on a grand scale. We shift information around and organize it like nothing else on our scale has even come close to doing.
I don't know what that means from a universal perspective, but it seems to me that imposing that much order on the universe seems 'special', somehow.
...but not in real life, cause you'd get your ass beaten, wouldn't ya pussies?
Yeah, better to hide behind a screen and keyboard when proving you're a toughguy who isn't afraid of the consequences of his actions. You're so pathetic as to not even use your login name.
That's why you troglodytes are irrelevant, and that's why you're going to feel more and more 'oppressed' as white privilege dissolves into equality. The best part of it is, racism is being selected against in our population (by mixed-race children becoming far more common), so you're not only irrelevant, you're obsolete.
Now be good little monkeys and keep your shit-slinging and masturbation over in your corner where it belongs.
The nerve of some people.
university-elitist brainwashing...
Most people call that "learning".
And you're BOTH FUCKING RIGHT! Now stop arguing about stupid shit and get people to realize that Jack Johnson and John Jackson go eat and laugh it up at the same fundraising dinners after they pretend to hate each other on TV.
Your (our, as I'm here too) country is "represented" by people who've been bought by the biggest industries. "Both" (as if there can be only 2) parties. Until we end THAT, all other political bickering is moot.
Lessee... Yeah, I think this is appropriate...
In Soviet Russia, religion denies YOU!
I did.
Didja miss that Post Anonymously box there, troll?
You're not really a man until you've accidentally taken a shot in the eye during the "OMG FINALLY, it's been SO LONG" portion of childbirth recovery.
!-D
Personally, I hope they DO lock the big comic book companies into PG-13 (I'd even like to see PG) ratings.
I've thought about this long and hard, but I cannot escape the conclusion that we're being terribly unfair to our kids by turning the stories WE loved as children (as did the generation before us) into fare for adults, just because we don't want to give our toys up to the younger generations.
Yes, the potential for great stories is immense given the formula of old comics + modern day grittiness + Hollywood production techniques, that's a given. I just can't bring myself to let my kids watch the Dark Knight though, it's too violent-in-mindset (worse than fake blood in my opinion). I -LOVED- the movie, but I cannot shake the feeling that we're robbing the next generation because we don't want to grow up, but we want grownup things.
I truly believe it's a disservice to the future and I hope we can correct it.
Example.com is a reserved domain name, kind of like 192.168.X.X and 10.X.X.X are for ip addresses. The purpose of example.com is exactly what the OP used it for, an unowned domain for use with examples, documentation and specifications where you need a generic domain name to demonstrate a concept.
AFAIK there isn't any content worth speaking of on the site, except an explanation like the one I offered above.
Godwin's Law is the 2nd dumbest bit of conventional internet wisdom I can think of, the first being "never attribute to malice that which can be played off as an accident", or however people want to word its equivalent. They really are quite similar in application; someone who can't be bothered to think about something needs a quick way to dismiss an inconvenient (but usually accurate) analogy, so they whip out some "law".
And, so you know next time, declaring yourself a winner of a conversation is high-level asshattery comparable to public-restroom-shit-porn trolling, most especially if you lean on one of the fake bits of "wisdom" I mentioned above.
Now get back in there an debate on the merits of your argument, dammit.