Thanks, Ifandbut; if they accuse the game industry of endorsing cannibalism, they're certifiably nuts. That answers my question:)
Completely OT:
They forget to mention that AO games would not be sold in stores by any major retailer. If a game can not be sold then it will not be made.
Aww, shucks:( I was hoping for Guitar Hero 3, Adult-Only edition, where
In "Belly of the Shark", we replace silence with "ucking" in a few places.
"Sunshine of your Love" is replace by "Cocaine". It's all Clapton, the first four notes are the same, but SoyL is just... 100% Not Cocaine
I mean, fuck. Are infant-heads going to explode if they hear the word "fuck"? Someone's gotta fuck to produce them; it's not like they don't ask about fucking and shit on their own...
And yeah, if you hear the word "Cocaine" in a song, your first move is to go out and do it. Yeah. I believe that.
or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software
So? The (first) goal of the FSF is not to eradicate all proprietary software, "only" to make it obsolete.
That is to say, they want to make it so that everything you need to get done with a computer, you can get done using only free software.
A second goal might be to convince everyone to value their freedom, but again the existence of proprietary software doesn't make this impossible, it only means there is an obstacle.
Without copyright, all software would be public domain, which is FSF-approved Free Software. The problems with public domain is the same as with BSD/MIT/X11 licenses: proprietary derivatives _can_ exist.
The FSF doesn't need copyright law. It helps them, though.
I call it "copyright", because controlling distribution in this way is neither novel nor unintended. It's just artists limiting distribution of their works in exchange for money
Changed that for you. The thinking behind copyright is this (using just music as an example):
Music is good; good music even more so
The more your practice, the better you get
If you have a Day Job, you have less time to practice
If we let you and only you sell your music (both on disks and performed live), you can make music your job
So: copyright exists to move money towards musicians by limiting who can sell their music, such that they can afford to practice eight hours per day, such that we all can have better music.
Allowing everyone to distribute, while not putting yourself in a good position to earn money from it, seems to go counter to that.
(In other words: copyright is an employment program:D)
Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood the FSF's goals.
I don't think you have.
I fail to see how that ensures that end users will always have access to the source of the programs they use in order to update them.
The world has three possible states: failure ensured, success ensured, both possible.
The GPL is a license that attempts to be "success ensured", at least for software covered by it.
Non-copyleft free software licenses, especially the very permissive ones (MIT/BSD/X11, and public domain*) are "success possible" territory: it's possible for you to get the source code and all the freedoms. It's also possible for someone else to extend the software and give you only a binary blob and fewer freedoms (that would be a failure, from FSF's viewpoint).
The non-free licenses are a "failure ensured" scenario: you don't have the freedoms and you can't gain them.
Now, the '*' next to public domain needs explanation: public domain is not a license, but the absence of the need for a license. The practical upshot is that you have pretty much every imaginable freedom to use a public domain work (much like a permissive license), including the freedom to relicense under a more restrictive license.
So! If there were no copyright law and everything was effectively public domain (but without the option of relicense), it would essentially be the same as if everything was BSD/MIT/X11-licensed:
everyone is free to do whatever they want with the code
no one is compelled to give anyone any source code
Instead of having the ability to enforce copyright law, the FSF would have to do something else to make people share source code.
My grades sucked and there were no addictive computer games in my youth.
So based on a sample size of one, you conclude the exact opposite of the study presented?
Pardon me for not being convinced; you do get that the study doesn't say "every single kid in the room will be hopelessly addicted to games and get the worst grades possible if there's as much as a single game available", right?
A single data point which disagrees with the study doesn't disprove its conclusion. A healthy lump of data points, from a reasonable sample size, might. Emphasis: might.
I'm no statistics whiz-kid, but with n=1 you get a confidence in your conclusion that's very low.
"The study, conducted by Douglas Gentile, director of the National Institute on Media and the Family at Iowa State University"
Ya, that is a totally impartial source when it comes to video games.
How do you infer bias? Because it has the word "Family" in the name? Suppose they came out with a study showing that watching movies with your kids and discussing them afterwards strengthened their attachment to you and vice versa; or suppose they came out with a study showing that playing computar gamez with your kids does the same thing.
Would you then accuse them of bias? I think the kind of studies that could (potentially) show those conclusions could very well fall under the heading "Media and the Family".
Or am I missing the unwritten rule that "and the Family" means "Think of the children!!1!eleventybang!"? Or do they have a history of misrepresenting facts in their studies (i.e. committing scientific fraud)? Or do they historically have a selection bias in what kind of thing they study (i.e. only "is there a negative effect of [media behavior]")?
Or is it just that you find the conclusion uncomfortable and want to argue against it? You know, even if you're biased you can still be telling the truth.
For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
So can I sue BangBros and Kleenex for accesory to murder?
You can schedule an accounting app, because it has a strict function that's determined by an arbitrary set of rules.
I'd think that by the same token, you can schedule an OS. It didn't work too well for Vista, IIRC. In general, what I hear from people in the trenches is that schedules and budgets are almost never met.
Games are works of art, and that makes them special. But regarding the particular management issues, they seem to do as well as everyone else (sadly).
They are required to complete an accreditation process and undergo training to update their 'knowledge on emerging social trends and evolving best practice in social media.'"
So you find the people that are using too much and punish them, or raise prices for everyone.
Or, you charge some positive amount per unit of data transferred, such that the heavy users pay for an upgrade of the pipe which makes them no longer excessive users, just heavy users.
Re:You're playing a dangerous game!
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 1
I was all ready to hate them for not making the new sensor backwards compatible with older games
How should they go about it?
I theorize that the library I've used to program the wiimote with (cwiid) reflects what the wiimote sends over bluetooth. If that is the case:
The games are written to expect a number between 0 and 255 for each of the three accelerometers. How do you backwards-compatibly make the game make use of a wider range of numbers?
You can do fixed-point arithmetic, putting the past-the-dot bits somewhere else in the bluetooth packet and round them off to the nearest eight-byte value. What does that win? So you go to nearest instead of nearest-below. Big whooping deal.
Or, you could monkey-patch the game to make it store a bigger number for the accelerometer data, but that's basically unpossible; how do you pack three 8^H32-bit values into one machine word? How do you monkey-patch a program which tries this? And especially, how do you find out which bytes are just plain old bytes and which are accelerometer data? How do you find out when a byte switches from storing accelerometer data to storing some other byte-valued thing?
Not to mention: you have to monkey-patch all code; if a program generates code dynamically (ewww, but possible), you have to detect it.
Monkey-patching: not gonna' happen. Any other kind of patching?
You could fairly easily (in theory) modify the OS so that whenever it "runs a disc", it checks whether it has any patches stored for the disk, and dynamically applies those (think "Overlay" on the file system layer). You _could_ do it, but then you have to store patches on the (somewhat small) drive; and you have to download them from somewhere. Plus: congratulations! your stick-it-in-and-play console now requires system administration. Isn't the point that you don't want that?
It is because most non-US people are foot-loose and fancy-free with distributing copyrighted material. That is, you are all pirates.
So really, you brought it on yourself by assuming that just because you chose socialism in your country, everybody else has to be force into socialism too.
Thanks, good sir. You made me laugh and smile on an otherwise dull morning:)
A store with 100million songs available. If not even 1 person is willing to seed your music the people have spoken, we don't know who you are
Changed that for you. Whether it's a fix or not depends on the facts of the case, but it's a possibility which should not be overlooked.
In fact, that's OP's point: P2P doesn't create awareness (or desire), it helps desire become fulfilled. I don't want to play Starcraft 2 because I read about it on TPB. I want to play it because I heard about it from other sources.
You might begin to have a case for "you suck" if you argue that the reason no one knows about $BAND is that they haven't gotten airtime and their lack of airtime is because they suck.
I don't necessarily buy that. I get the impression that US radio is controlled more or less solely by Big Radio, who is in it for the money, and so they select only that which sells the most.
You can still be good even if you target a niche audience. Metal played on cellos isn't for everybody, far from it. But it's for somebody, and for those it's good.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, you hate computer games so much you are forced to subconsciously spell it wrong.
I just played StarCraft with a pal for five hours and then watched some StarCraft while working out. I was trying to be funny. I haz a fail :)
You assume
No I don't. I was just unconvinced of my parent's claim, because I didn't knew their history.
don't bother to check either.
True. What, you expect me to read? This is spart^W/. ;-)
Thanks, Ifandbut; if they accuse the game industry of endorsing cannibalism, they're certifiably nuts. That answers my question :)
Completely OT:
They forget to mention that AO games would not be sold in stores by any major retailer. If a game can not be sold then it will not be made.
Aww, shucks :( I was hoping for Guitar Hero 3, Adult-Only edition, where
I mean, fuck. Are infant-heads going to explode if they hear the word "fuck"? Someone's gotta fuck to produce them; it's not like they don't ask about fucking and shit on their own...
And yeah, if you hear the word "Cocaine" in a song, your first move is to go out and do it. Yeah. I believe that.
Fuck!
Well I wish computer programming was more accessible to me.
Well, I'm sure you can Ask Slashdot for advice. I can in particular recommend asking which programming language you should be learning as your first.
The discussion will be very constructive. By the way, Visual Basic sucks.
or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software
So? The (first) goal of the FSF is not to eradicate all proprietary software, "only" to make it obsolete.
That is to say, they want to make it so that everything you need to get done with a computer, you can get done using only free software.
A second goal might be to convince everyone to value their freedom, but again the existence of proprietary software doesn't make this impossible, it only means there is an obstacle.
Without copyright, all software would be public domain, which is FSF-approved Free Software. The problems with public domain is the same as with BSD/MIT/X11 licenses: proprietary derivatives _can_ exist.
The FSF doesn't need copyright law. It helps them, though.
I call it "copyright", because controlling distribution in this way is neither novel nor unintended. It's just artists limiting distribution of their works in exchange for money
Changed that for you. The thinking behind copyright is this (using just music as an example):
So: copyright exists to move money towards musicians by limiting who can sell their music, such that they can afford to practice eight hours per day, such that we all can have better music.
Allowing everyone to distribute, while not putting yourself in a good position to earn money from it, seems to go counter to that.
(In other words: copyright is an employment program :D)
Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood the FSF's goals.
I don't think you have.
I fail to see how that ensures that end users will always have access to the source of the programs they use in order to update them.
The world has three possible states: failure ensured, success ensured, both possible.
The GPL is a license that attempts to be "success ensured", at least for software covered by it.
Non-copyleft free software licenses, especially the very permissive ones (MIT/BSD/X11, and public domain*) are "success possible" territory: it's possible for you to get the source code and all the freedoms. It's also possible for someone else to extend the software and give you only a binary blob and fewer freedoms (that would be a failure, from FSF's viewpoint).
The non-free licenses are a "failure ensured" scenario: you don't have the freedoms and you can't gain them.
Now, the '*' next to public domain needs explanation: public domain is not a license, but the absence of the need for a license. The practical upshot is that you have pretty much every imaginable freedom to use a public domain work (much like a permissive license), including the freedom to relicense under a more restrictive license.
So! If there were no copyright law and everything was effectively public domain (but without the option of relicense), it would essentially be the same as if everything was BSD/MIT/X11-licensed:
Instead of having the ability to enforce copyright law, the FSF would have to do something else to make people share source code.
I played video games as a teenager and it never affected me at all HEAD SHOT!!!
Flawless victory^Wargument.
My grades sucked and there were no addictive computer games in my youth.
So based on a sample size of one, you conclude the exact opposite of the study presented?
Pardon me for not being convinced; you do get that the study doesn't say "every single kid in the room will be hopelessly addicted to games and get the worst grades possible if there's as much as a single game available", right?
A single data point which disagrees with the study doesn't disprove its conclusion. A healthy lump of data points, from a reasonable sample size, might. Emphasis: might.
I'm no statistics whiz-kid, but with n=1 you get a confidence in your conclusion that's very low.
"The study, conducted by Douglas Gentile, director of the National Institute on Media and the Family at Iowa State University"
Ya, that is a totally impartial source when it comes to video games.
How do you infer bias? Because it has the word "Family" in the name? Suppose they came out with a study showing that watching movies with your kids and discussing them afterwards strengthened their attachment to you and vice versa; or suppose they came out with a study showing that playing computar gamez with your kids does the same thing.
Would you then accuse them of bias? I think the kind of studies that could (potentially) show those conclusions could very well fall under the heading "Media and the Family".
Or am I missing the unwritten rule that "and the Family" means "Think of the children!!1!eleventybang!"? Or do they have a history of misrepresenting facts in their studies (i.e. committing scientific fraud)? Or do they historically have a selection bias in what kind of thing they study (i.e. only "is there a negative effect of [media behavior]")?
Or is it just that you find the conclusion uncomfortable and want to argue against it? You know, even if you're biased you can still be telling the truth.
Therefore, things that are "unnatural", or break the laws of nature, are evil.
That's why you never see Catholics jumping out of tall buildings and falling up...
For example, at one point in time, it was believed that a sperm contained a fully formed human being, which was just housed by the woman until birth, and so prevention of conception was tantamount to killing an unborn person, which is murder.
So can I sue BangBros and Kleenex for accesory to murder?
But wasn't that the oracle of Delhi (not the oracle of Java)?
You can schedule an accounting app, because it has a strict function that's determined by an arbitrary set of rules.
I'd think that by the same token, you can schedule an OS. It didn't work too well for Vista, IIRC. In general, what I hear from people in the trenches is that schedules and budgets are almost never met.
Games are works of art, and that makes them special. But regarding the particular management issues, they seem to do as well as everyone else (sadly).
They are required to complete an accreditation process and undergo training to update their 'knowledge on emerging social trends and evolving best practice in social media.'"
Clearly the Telstra staff doesn't ;)
So you find the people that are using too much and punish them, or raise prices for everyone.
Or, you charge some positive amount per unit of data transferred, such that the heavy users pay for an upgrade of the pipe which makes them no longer excessive users, just heavy users.
Trust me, I know .(
we have a seriously under educated populace.
Your being ironic?
On paper, Rock
Why won't anyone play with scissors? :(
"That kid was hit by a 2-ton truck. That's a lot of iPods!"
If that were metric tonnes, it would weigh the same as ten million songs.
I was all ready to hate them for not making the new sensor backwards compatible with older games
How should they go about it?
I theorize that the library I've used to program the wiimote with (cwiid) reflects what the wiimote sends over bluetooth. If that is the case:
The games are written to expect a number between 0 and 255 for each of the three accelerometers. How do you backwards-compatibly make the game make use of a wider range of numbers?
You can do fixed-point arithmetic, putting the past-the-dot bits somewhere else in the bluetooth packet and round them off to the nearest eight-byte value. What does that win? So you go to nearest instead of nearest-below. Big whooping deal.
Or, you could monkey-patch the game to make it store a bigger number for the accelerometer data, but that's basically unpossible; how do you pack three 8^H32-bit values into one machine word? How do you monkey-patch a program which tries this? And especially, how do you find out which bytes are just plain old bytes and which are accelerometer data? How do you find out when a byte switches from storing accelerometer data to storing some other byte-valued thing?
Not to mention: you have to monkey-patch all code; if a program generates code dynamically (ewww, but possible), you have to detect it.
Monkey-patching: not gonna' happen. Any other kind of patching?
You could fairly easily (in theory) modify the OS so that whenever it "runs a disc", it checks whether it has any patches stored for the disk, and dynamically applies those (think "Overlay" on the file system layer). You _could_ do it, but then you have to store patches on the (somewhat small) drive; and you have to download them from somewhere. Plus: congratulations! your stick-it-in-and-play console now requires system administration. Isn't the point that you don't want that?
If Slashdot only posted agreed-upon facts, then we would all just sit here with our dicks in our hands.
Kirchoff's Current law!
*fap* *fap* *fap*
Germ theory of disease!
*fap* *fap* *fap*
The halting problem is undecidable!
*fap* *fap* *fap*
The cat in the box is alive!
*makes measurement* *fap* *fap* *fap*
ZFC is consistent! (proven within itself)
*fap and non-fap* *fap and non-fap* *fap and non-fap*
Boy, that'd be weird...
It is because most non-US people are foot-loose and fancy-free with distributing copyrighted material. That is, you are all pirates.
So really, you brought it on yourself by assuming that just because you chose socialism in your country, everybody else has to be force into socialism too.
Thanks, good sir. You made me laugh and smile on an otherwise dull morning :)
Here's a ball. Why don't you go bounce it?
A store with 100million songs available. If not even 1 person is willing to seed your music the people have spoken, we don't know who you are
Changed that for you. Whether it's a fix or not depends on the facts of the case, but it's a possibility which should not be overlooked.
In fact, that's OP's point: P2P doesn't create awareness (or desire), it helps desire become fulfilled. I don't want to play Starcraft 2 because I read about it on TPB. I want to play it because I heard about it from other sources.
You might begin to have a case for "you suck" if you argue that the reason no one knows about $BAND is that they haven't gotten airtime and their lack of airtime is because they suck.
I don't necessarily buy that. I get the impression that US radio is controlled more or less solely by Big Radio, who is in it for the money, and so they select only that which sells the most.
You can still be good even if you target a niche audience. Metal played on cellos isn't for everybody, far from it. But it's for somebody, and for those it's good.
I can't see how giving everyone the chance to buy something that doesn't exist in their country is a bad thing.
You're insufficiently blinded by greed and a desire to have control over others.
I don't see why Apple would have a problem with that.
But then the developers wouldn't be drinking their mocca-latte-$COFFEE-$COFFEE-$COFFEE in Cupertino!