Thinking about it more, I think that CoD4 has great 'pace'. There are moments where things are very hectic which are followed by either more hectic moments or moments that are relatively quiet where you can collect your breath. I didn't find that so much in CoD4. Both CoD4 and 5 are linear, but the linearity seemed forced (to me) in CoD5 and it frustrated me a bit. CoD4 is linear as well, but it's not so rigid that it feels linear... there are always a few way to do things. In CoD5 I kept finding myself wanting to go places that I couldn't (this didn't really happen in CoD4... it was a good illusion). Also, the team members in CoD5 are extremely annoying... it seems that every time I go for cover so idiot AI comes and stands behind me so I can't move, or stands there shooting at something other than the enemy directly in front of us... I wanted to kill my AI team a lot in CoD5. CoD5 also has lots of bugs... 'triggers' not being triggered and you're standing there with nothing to do and nowhere to go unless you restart from the last checkpoint (from memory there are 2 bugs like this in the last 3 levels of the game... once when you're outside nazi headqaurters and you snipe 500 dudes and nothing ever happens and only 2 or 3 guys continue to spawn and run out of the building and until you try again and the trigger magically occurs and a column falls. Second, the last few seconds of the game... another trigger bug and you cannot finish (withouth restarting from the last checkpoint).. talk about a way to ruin a climax).
I have to agree. CoD4 is the only game I've ever owned that I played right through the single player campaign more than once. Actually it was 3 times on hardened, 1 time on veteran and 2 times on regular. And, I could pick it up and play again right now (again!) That's kinda crazy. Even the arcarde mode that is unlocked when you complete is great for a quick after work game. The 'secret' level is frenzied and I like it a lot.
CoD4 had lots of 'wow' moments that kept me wanting to play more. The 'wow' moments are still brilliantly executed even now I know they're gonna happen.
MY PERSONAL SPOILER BEGINNING....
I've played CoD5 world at war single player twice. First on hardened and then for fun on regular. I died maybe 3 or 4 times on regular and finished the game in one sitting. I can't think of any real 'wow' moments in the whole game, and unless I am extremely bored I probably won't play the single player again. The bits in CoD5 that were supposed to be 'wow' were either obviously going to happen, or a rip-off of CoD4, and did not wow me at all. I enjoyed the game, but it was not the same experience (for me) as CoD4... of course everyone elses mileage will vary.
You might be right. I may have taken your reply to my comment the wrong way. If so, I apologise. I still stand by my original comment though (I still stand by my reply to you as well... the above apology doesn't mean I retract my comment altogether). It's not a case of me being right and you wrong (heck, I am wrong all the time). It's just that I cannot see any faults in my original comment. Sic vita est.
I am a case in point? Sorry, I don't understand what you're implying. Did I attack you? No. Was I offensive towards you? No. So why aren't you showing me the same respect? I actually never mentioned you at all in my comment except to add context. So I'm not really sure what your reply is meant to mean. Thanks.
Blobs can take many forms. Sometimes, they will be provided in separate files. Other times, they may be incorporated into the source of the driver itselfâ"for example, it could be encoded as a large array of numbers. But no matter how it's encoded, any nonfree firmware needs to be removed from a free system
I think the kernel inclusion of stuff they were getting at was/is something like:
static const unsigned firmwareXXXX[] = {...};
This might be in the "source code", but is obviously not the source code for the firmware; it's embedded chunks of data. I can't say whether the linux kernel does this for any of its drivers... would have to look.
Well, I think the FSF are taking the exact opposite approach to the example you cite in your comment (note that I am not commenting on whether I agree with their definition or not). But that's the key word. Definition. The FSF are trying to define free software; probably to help ensure that things (subjective arguments) like your comment refers to don't occur. Everything in your comment referred to (by example) was, really, about personal opinion--i.e. people arguing semantics. The thing is though, they're aguing about something that is not clearly defined. Clear definitions help rule out subjectivity. An unambiguous definition, whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', states clearly the intended meaning--leaving little room for argument over the definition.
Arguing whether it's right or wrong is a different story.
What we need is a friendly rootkit that the other rootkits and DRM hook into that makes... umm I dunno what would happen from that point. Maybe the friendly rootkit can recognise the evil rootkit and rootkit the evil rootkit. Hang on. Delete all that. I'd better sleep.
I know exactly how that works.I walk up.I make eye contract
Yes. Forming eye contracts always works wonders. The contract is usually: "I wanna get as drunk as possible". The bar tender usually agrees to this contract.
.I verbally describe the beverage I wish to purchase.I hand over too much money
Well, there is where you're getting it wrong. Never EVER verbally describe the beverage. The bar tender will probably not understand your detailed explanation of yeasts and the molecular structure anyway. Just tell them "I wanna drink to get drunk" and they will understand better. Also, don't hand over your money. Place it on the bar and watch it like a hawk. If anyone tries to steal it (including the bar tender) defend yourself. Take a leaf outa Balmer's book and throw a chair (or bar stool, whichever is handy).
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Do not take this as legal advice. I used to be a lawyer, but I got banned from the bar. (I can't believe I typed that)
I can't be positive, but I am pretty sure that I can type faster than a speech-recognition algorithm (currently) can convert my speech into text. I am also not sure that surfing the web using speech is such a great idea anyway. I like to think about things. Talking to my computer means (for me) that my thoughts would be less in depth (I think). Also, it might give "not safe for work" a whole new meaning, not to mention the "not safe for home". Anyway, what advantage would web browsing using speech bring us (aside from the obvious tremendous benefits to those who're impared and cannot type)? How would links work? How would firefox's awesome bar work? I am not suggesting that these problems are unsolvable. I am suggesting that it would be like trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Typing works fine. I don't need to talk to my monitor--I talk to myself too much as it is.
I'm not missing the point. Detecting a molecule is very different to detecting the molecule. The word "molecule" does not have to be singular. I realise the GP was probably trying to be funny, or over-pedantic, but the semantics of the summary and the Prof quoted in the story do make sense and obviously does not mean a single molecule.
Well, you know how things are. For simplification "the presence of..." or the "signature of" or whatever way you want to phrase it is dropped and implied. It's not incorrect to state something like "we detected the presence of the molecule H2O..." (for example). But you'd not say that, because H2O is a well-known molecule. You'd say something like "we detected H2O". If H2O was not a well-known molecule, then I guess you might say something like "we detected the molecule H2O" to define which molecule you detected.
It really does depend on your definition of northwest. If northwest is rotated slightly to become what is, normally, north or even northeast then towns to the northwest of Perth makes perfect sense.
I am a bit naive in this area also. However, I guess that it's similar to Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). They could do a checksum or generate a hash on the binaries and on the hardware also. Anything that does not "match" could be flagged.
If the mod chip is in the hardware should it not be next to impossible for Microsoft to detect it?
I'm not sure that generating a checksum on hardware is all that different to doing it for software.
I don't have a Wii, but I am guessing (for the purpose of this reasoning) that it connects to the internet and checks 'things'. So, I don't really see it being "impossible" for MS to check for (sit behind a firewall and, yes, maybe...)
Repeat after me, virtual crime is virtual not real.
The guy did not commit a fscking "virtual crime". The crime was real. No matter what way you choose to spin it, the result is the same: the crime was a crime, a REAL crime, and that is that. The guy's crimes are not limited to the Valve/HL2 source episode either, but I do not want to get offtopic.
If you think that what he did was a "virtual crime", then please explain to me how it was virtual and not real. The only slippery slope, in my mind, is your distorted view of reality. How is stealing someone elses data just a "virtual" crime and not a real crime (ignoring all the other criminal activities he engaged in)?
Your stupid mantra that you suggest I repeat is the voice of an idiot. I choose not to follow the advice of the insane, immature or the ill-informed. Thanks for the suggestion though.
By the way, if you feel so strongly about your beliefs then I suggest you register an account and don't post anonomously. Anonymous posts are for those who are not confident at all in their ideas (or, I concede, there are legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous... but your post was not one of them... and I can only assume you're a troll or someone who is not confident enough to assert their beliefs and accept the consequences [either positive or negative]). Thanks
By the way. Many may know that I am an open source advocate (I own and manage two projects on sourceforge for a start, and prefer Linux over Windows, and I believe in free information and applications--especially bioinformatic related software and standards). But I still respect the right of others not to make their source code available. My above comment was in no way condoning the release of the HL2 source code. The source code was Valve's property and it is their right to keep it secret if they choose to do so.
Apart from the HL2 source code being realease into the wild (which I agree was a big thing), the stuff this guy did to get the source code is probably a bigger deal. He compromised Valve's machines. He broke into their network. He installed keyloggers. He hijacked email accounts. He (maybe) initiated DoS attacks on their servers. Even if he did not steal and release the HL2 source code (trade secrets) what he did was pretty damn wrong... and illegal in most places of the world. The FBI, in my opinion, has every right to chase this guy (no, I do not live in the US). Chase the guy, catch him and let him rot in jail. Summary: the HL2 source code release, at this point in time, is not the big deal; it's all the other laws he broke.
I actually have the opposite experience. I have no trouble picking up any of the latest FPS shooters and immediately know what each of the 85 key combinations do. I don't know why or how I know this--perhaps I just press keys randomly. Perhaps it's because every key ont the keyboard has a function. But I always seem to know which keys to press to allow me to duck while throwing a grenade and snipering the dude standing on the jeep before I die.
Microsoft is not high on my list of companies that I regard in good stead. But the Australian Government "persuad[ing] Microsoft to add it [forged certs] as a "critical automatic update" targetted at AU users only seems a bit far-fetched--even to me.
Hi Quantum,
What makes you so sure that a bad solution will be "thrown out in the first few months of use"? The real issue is not that "censorship is wrong" (using your words). The real issue is that a serious attempt is being made to provide a "clean" internet feed--despite the overwhelming technical issues that implies. A blacklist is one thing (and, yes, trivial to implement). This isn't what the government is proposing though. They are proposing some kind of algorithm that will detect dodgy content on the fly. That means that every bit and byte and packet passing through Australin ISPs will get routed through the censoring algorithm. It has nothing to do with DNS.
The real question si not to know if you're right, it is to decide if you are ready to spend 10 years of your short life and risk your marriage and home for that.
Yes, there is that risk. On the other hand if I try to live under a rock and not stand up for what I believe in, then it'd be a pretty boring life IMO. So, yes, I would risk it because the alternative (depending on your view) is being a prisoner anyway. Life is short, I agree. If you choose to live the "safe" life and you're happy, then great. I choose to defend my beliefs. The "cost" will definately involve losing something. The point is that whatever path you take you will lose something... it's a matter of what you value and what you're willing to lose. Your "loss"/"risk" probably differs from mine (which is OK). The opposite is what you will gain. These have to be balanced based on your personal beliefs.
You raise a valid argument. Would I be willing to lose my home? Probably not. Would I be willing to risk my home? Yes. As you mentioned, life is short. My assertion is that because life is so short I will stand up for what I believe; because at the end of the day when I am in a nursing home, I can sit back and say that I stood up for what I believe. That is what will make *me* happy. When I die I will do so knowing that I did the best I could and stood by my beliefs. I will not make myself my own prisoner. Your mileage will probably vary.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I seriously annoyed. If a game company EVER rings me up and alludes or accuses me of being a pirate then they can kiss my arse and I will do *everything* I can, in court or whatever, to make them look as bad as possible. I have done nothing wrong and I bet a lot of these other accused people have done nothing wrong. It's not a matter of winning or losing, it's an ETHICAL matter. I am a loyal customer. Some of those accused (I bet) are/were loyal customers. Treating customers as criminals has to stop. No offence to the people involved (it's unfornunate), but I hope that one of them has the balls (and, unfortunately, money) to take these extortionists to court and drag them through the mud. Hang them up for a public flogging. And, then, hopefully this shameful practice of treating paying customers will stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking about it more, I think that CoD4 has great 'pace'. There are moments where things are very hectic which are followed by either more hectic moments or moments that are relatively quiet where you can collect your breath. I didn't find that so much in CoD4. Both CoD4 and 5 are linear, but the linearity seemed forced (to me) in CoD5 and it frustrated me a bit. CoD4 is linear as well, but it's not so rigid that it feels linear... there are always a few way to do things. In CoD5 I kept finding myself wanting to go places that I couldn't (this didn't really happen in CoD4... it was a good illusion). Also, the team members in CoD5 are extremely annoying... it seems that every time I go for cover so idiot AI comes and stands behind me so I can't move, or stands there shooting at something other than the enemy directly in front of us... I wanted to kill my AI team a lot in CoD5. CoD5 also has lots of bugs... 'triggers' not being triggered and you're standing there with nothing to do and nowhere to go unless you restart from the last checkpoint (from memory there are 2 bugs like this in the last 3 levels of the game... once when you're outside nazi headqaurters and you snipe 500 dudes and nothing ever happens and only 2 or 3 guys continue to spawn and run out of the building and until you try again and the trigger magically occurs and a column falls. Second, the last few seconds of the game... another trigger bug and you cannot finish (withouth restarting from the last checkpoint).. talk about a way to ruin a climax).
I have to agree. CoD4 is the only game I've ever owned that I played right through the single player campaign more than once. Actually it was 3 times on hardened, 1 time on veteran and 2 times on regular. And, I could pick it up and play again right now (again!) That's kinda crazy. Even the arcarde mode that is unlocked when you complete is great for a quick after work game. The 'secret' level is frenzied and I like it a lot.
CoD4 had lots of 'wow' moments that kept me wanting to play more. The 'wow' moments are still brilliantly executed even now I know they're gonna happen.
MY PERSONAL SPOILER BEGINNING....
I've played CoD5 world at war single player twice. First on hardened and then for fun on regular. I died maybe 3 or 4 times on regular and finished the game in one sitting. I can't think of any real 'wow' moments in the whole game, and unless I am extremely bored I probably won't play the single player again. The bits in CoD5 that were supposed to be 'wow' were either obviously going to happen, or a rip-off of CoD4, and did not wow me at all. I enjoyed the game, but it was not the same experience (for me) as CoD4... of course everyone elses mileage will vary.
END of Subjective SPOILERS
You might be right. I may have taken your reply to my comment the wrong way. If so, I apologise. I still stand by my original comment though (I still stand by my reply to you as well... the above apology doesn't mean I retract my comment altogether). It's not a case of me being right and you wrong (heck, I am wrong all the time). It's just that I cannot see any faults in my original comment. Sic vita est.
I am a case in point? Sorry, I don't understand what you're implying. Did I attack you? No. Was I offensive towards you? No. So why aren't you showing me the same respect? I actually never mentioned you at all in my comment except to add context. So I'm not really sure what your reply is meant to mean. Thanks.
Blobs can take many forms. Sometimes, they will be provided in separate files. Other times, they may be incorporated into the source of the driver itselfâ"for example, it could be encoded as a large array of numbers. But no matter how it's encoded, any nonfree firmware needs to be removed from a free system
I think the kernel inclusion of stuff they were getting at was/is something like:
static const unsigned firmwareXXXX[] = {...};
This might be in the "source code", but is obviously not the source code for the firmware; it's embedded chunks of data. I can't say whether the linux kernel does this for any of its drivers... would have to look.
Well, I think the FSF are taking the exact opposite approach to the example you cite in your comment (note that I am not commenting on whether I agree with their definition or not). But that's the key word. Definition. The FSF are trying to define free software; probably to help ensure that things (subjective arguments) like your comment refers to don't occur. Everything in your comment referred to (by example) was, really, about personal opinion--i.e. people arguing semantics. The thing is though, they're aguing about something that is not clearly defined. Clear definitions help rule out subjectivity. An unambiguous definition, whether it's 'right' or 'wrong', states clearly the intended meaning--leaving little room for argument over the definition.
Arguing whether it's right or wrong is a different story.
What we need is a friendly rootkit that the other rootkits and DRM hook into that makes... umm I dunno what would happen from that point. Maybe the friendly rootkit can recognise the evil rootkit and rootkit the evil rootkit. Hang on. Delete all that. I'd better sleep.
I know exactly how that works .I walk up .I make eye contract
Yes. Forming eye contracts always works wonders. The contract is usually: "I wanna get as drunk as possible". The bar tender usually agrees to this contract.
.I verbally describe the beverage I wish to purchase .I hand over too much money
Well, there is where you're getting it wrong. Never EVER verbally describe the beverage. The bar tender will probably not understand your detailed explanation of yeasts and the molecular structure anyway. Just tell them "I wanna drink to get drunk" and they will understand better. Also, don't hand over your money. Place it on the bar and watch it like a hawk. If anyone tries to steal it (including the bar tender) defend yourself. Take a leaf outa Balmer's book and throw a chair (or bar stool, whichever is handy).
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Do not take this as legal advice. I used to be a lawyer, but I got banned from the bar. (I can't believe I typed that)
You will talk to the Web
I can't be positive, but I am pretty sure that I can type faster than a speech-recognition algorithm (currently) can convert my speech into text. I am also not sure that surfing the web using speech is such a great idea anyway. I like to think about things. Talking to my computer means (for me) that my thoughts would be less in depth (I think). Also, it might give "not safe for work" a whole new meaning, not to mention the "not safe for home". Anyway, what advantage would web browsing using speech bring us (aside from the obvious tremendous benefits to those who're impared and cannot type)? How would links work? How would firefox's awesome bar work? I am not suggesting that these problems are unsolvable. I am suggesting that it would be like trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Typing works fine. I don't need to talk to my monitor--I talk to myself too much as it is.
I'm not missing the point. Detecting a molecule is very different to detecting the molecule. The word "molecule" does not have to be singular. I realise the GP was probably trying to be funny, or over-pedantic, but the semantics of the summary and the Prof quoted in the story do make sense and obviously does not mean a single molecule.
Well, you know how things are. For simplification "the presence of..." or the "signature of" or whatever way you want to phrase it is dropped and implied. It's not incorrect to state something like "we detected the presence of the molecule H2O..." (for example). But you'd not say that, because H2O is a well-known molecule. You'd say something like "we detected H2O". If H2O was not a well-known molecule, then I guess you might say something like "we detected the molecule H2O" to define which molecule you detected.
Nice picture. You're totally awesome dude. Or bogus. Whichever. Umm yeah, nice pic :-)
It really does depend on your definition of northwest. If northwest is rotated slightly to become what is, normally, north or even northeast then towns to the northwest of Perth makes perfect sense.
Yep. I agree with you. What does piracy have to do with cheating again?
I am a bit naive in this area also. However, I guess that it's similar to Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA). They could do a checksum or generate a hash on the binaries and on the hardware also. Anything that does not "match" could be flagged.
If the mod chip is in the hardware should it not be next to impossible for Microsoft to detect it?
I'm not sure that generating a checksum on hardware is all that different to doing it for software.
I don't have a Wii, but I am guessing (for the purpose of this reasoning) that it connects to the internet and checks 'things'. So, I don't really see it being "impossible" for MS to check for (sit behind a firewall and, yes, maybe...)
Repeat after me, virtual crime is virtual not real.
The guy did not commit a fscking "virtual crime". The crime was real. No matter what way you choose to spin it, the result is the same: the crime was a crime, a REAL crime, and that is that. The guy's crimes are not limited to the Valve/HL2 source episode either, but I do not want to get offtopic.
If you think that what he did was a "virtual crime", then please explain to me how it was virtual and not real. The only slippery slope, in my mind, is your distorted view of reality. How is stealing someone elses data just a "virtual" crime and not a real crime (ignoring all the other criminal activities he engaged in)?
Your stupid mantra that you suggest I repeat is the voice of an idiot. I choose not to follow the advice of the insane, immature or the ill-informed. Thanks for the suggestion though.
By the way, if you feel so strongly about your beliefs then I suggest you register an account and don't post anonomously. Anonymous posts are for those who are not confident at all in their ideas (or, I concede, there are legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous... but your post was not one of them... and I can only assume you're a troll or someone who is not confident enough to assert their beliefs and accept the consequences [either positive or negative]). Thanks
Yes, I believe he did write that piece of malware (Agobot). The guy seems to be a serial criminal (see also my comments above).
By the way. Many may know that I am an open source advocate (I own and manage two projects on sourceforge for a start, and prefer Linux over Windows, and I believe in free information and applications--especially bioinformatic related software and standards). But I still respect the right of others not to make their source code available. My above comment was in no way condoning the release of the HL2 source code. The source code was Valve's property and it is their right to keep it secret if they choose to do so.
Apart from the HL2 source code being realease into the wild (which I agree was a big thing), the stuff this guy did to get the source code is probably a bigger deal. He compromised Valve's machines. He broke into their network. He installed keyloggers. He hijacked email accounts. He (maybe) initiated DoS attacks on their servers. Even if he did not steal and release the HL2 source code (trade secrets) what he did was pretty damn wrong... and illegal in most places of the world. The FBI, in my opinion, has every right to chase this guy (no, I do not live in the US). Chase the guy, catch him and let him rot in jail. Summary: the HL2 source code release, at this point in time, is not the big deal; it's all the other laws he broke.
I actually have the opposite experience. I have no trouble picking up any of the latest FPS shooters and immediately know what each of the 85 key combinations do. I don't know why or how I know this--perhaps I just press keys randomly. Perhaps it's because every key ont the keyboard has a function. But I always seem to know which keys to press to allow me to duck while throwing a grenade and snipering the dude standing on the jeep before I die.
Well, they've listed patches for their music DRM system as such critical updates, so it doesn't seem very out of character.
Which countries were targetted for those updates? If it was not targetted on a country-by-country basis, then my argument still stands.
Microsoft is not high on my list of companies that I regard in good stead. But the Australian Government "persuad[ing] Microsoft to add it [forged certs] as a "critical automatic update" targetted at AU users only seems a bit far-fetched--even to me.
Hi Quantum, What makes you so sure that a bad solution will be "thrown out in the first few months of use"? The real issue is not that "censorship is wrong" (using your words). The real issue is that a serious attempt is being made to provide a "clean" internet feed--despite the overwhelming technical issues that implies. A blacklist is one thing (and, yes, trivial to implement). This isn't what the government is proposing though. They are proposing some kind of algorithm that will detect dodgy content on the fly. That means that every bit and byte and packet passing through Australin ISPs will get routed through the censoring algorithm. It has nothing to do with DNS.
The real question si not to know if you're right, it is to decide if you are ready to spend 10 years of your short life and risk your marriage and home for that.
Yes, there is that risk. On the other hand if I try to live under a rock and not stand up for what I believe in, then it'd be a pretty boring life IMO. So, yes, I would risk it because the alternative (depending on your view) is being a prisoner anyway. Life is short, I agree. If you choose to live the "safe" life and you're happy, then great. I choose to defend my beliefs. The "cost" will definately involve losing something. The point is that whatever path you take you will lose something... it's a matter of what you value and what you're willing to lose. Your "loss"/"risk" probably differs from mine (which is OK). The opposite is what you will gain. These have to be balanced based on your personal beliefs.
You raise a valid argument. Would I be willing to lose my home? Probably not. Would I be willing to risk my home? Yes. As you mentioned, life is short. My assertion is that because life is so short I will stand up for what I believe; because at the end of the day when I am in a nursing home, I can sit back and say that I stood up for what I believe. That is what will make *me* happy. When I die I will do so knowing that I did the best I could and stood by my beliefs. I will not make myself my own prisoner. Your mileage will probably vary.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I seriously annoyed. If a game company EVER rings me up and alludes or accuses me of being a pirate then they can kiss my arse and I will do *everything* I can, in court or whatever, to make them look as bad as possible. I have done nothing wrong and I bet a lot of these other accused people have done nothing wrong. It's not a matter of winning or losing, it's an ETHICAL matter. I am a loyal customer. Some of those accused (I bet) are/were loyal customers. Treating customers as criminals has to stop. No offence to the people involved (it's unfornunate), but I hope that one of them has the balls (and, unfortunately, money) to take these extortionists to court and drag them through the mud. Hang them up for a public flogging. And, then, hopefully this shameful practice of treating paying customers will stop.