There isn't a way to ban Glider. the fact is, the program is using the same input a human does. This is why they are taking legal action.
Having an AI to play the game for you is not any more unfair then being jobless and playing 20 hours a day.
I cannot put up my own curtains at a rental home/apartment. The reason is that the owner has the right to ensure that the appearance of the house/apartment building conforms to their satisfaction.
You are only the possessor of the World of Warcraft program... it requires extensive interaction with their servers to operate. You have a license that dictates the terms of your use of this service (just like a rental agreement). If they don't want AIs to play the game, then by god, that's their right.
You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game. Blizzard has crafted a meticulous balance to ensure that people will continue paying to play for the game and be happy, and this balance greatly requires that people don't get to use shortcuts which bypasses aspects of the game which Blizzard deems as crucial for balance. For that alone I can understand why Blizzard would want to prevent bots.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal authority of Blizzard to refuse someone to use a bot. Blizzard cannot really deny a bot playing Starcraft. You own the software, you may do with it as you please.
However, World of Warcraft is not like buying a house, it's like renting a house. You even pay a monthly licensing fee.
I was reading through MDY's appeal, and it just reads like kind of a hack job trying to misrepresent the situation... these are not owners these are renters. Their use of the Blizzard gaming service is on Blizzard's terms...
Does this case have much wider implications (as summary hints at) for the software licensing at large? I haven't read the article yet, but it seems so.
It depends on the arguments being made. If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
To have the WoW binaries alone is fairly useless. Most games are not the same way.
I think the difference here between what is before and after is that one doesn't play World of Warcraft on their machine alone. There is a heavy amount of server-side interaction.
I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.
Now, as for Diablo 3, and playing on your own machine (or even connecting to a server for no other reason than copyright protection) there's simply no argument for being a licensee as opposed to an owner.
It can be both the parent's job and the education system's job. There were times when it was, and places where it still is.
"There were times, and place where it still is" ok for parents to arrange a marriage between 12 year old kids.
Your argument is specious. Just because it has been done, and is still done somewhere, doesn't make it right.
It is not the job of the school system to impose culture, because some of that imposition will run contrary to the beliefs of the parents. Christians are already upset that the school system seems to teach children secular culture... imagine the outcry if they were teaching Muslim culture?
Now, that you can imagine it in the other person's shoes, do you really want your school teaching your children culture contrary to your own?
I don't think anybody is disputing that sometimes violence is needed. But attacking people on bikes in timesquare is pretty different. I pray that you understand that as well.
Oh, absolutely agreed.
But you said no one deserves to be beat down. I was pointing out pedantically that some people resisting arrest do deserve it... but only in so far as necessary to restrain and arrest them.
Has SCOTUS upheld that it is legal to record where no expectation of privacy? If so, how can the lower courts consider it "wire tapping" when the recording was made in the open and in a public place? Where is the expectation of privacy?
This is a state law issue, and the Federal courts generally have no jurisdiction to hear any of it.
Federal law also holds that interstate calls only require one-party consent. So, Federal law doesn't even uphold the reasons that the cops are using in the first place.
But again, it's the state's purview to establish which in-state recordings are ok, and which are not.
...the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway.
So it seem one can avoid prosecution (persecution?) by setting up a tripod and a few lights and making it real clear they are recording?
Yes. Making it clear that you're recording someone is always a defense against two-party consent. (In Washington, this can even be a statement of "I'm recording this", then if the person continues with their actions, then they are implied to have consented.)
The other alternative in some cases? Don't record audio, since the two-party recording laws only apply to audio.
In other states, there isn't any two-party consent required, and you can record the police all you want while they are interacting with someone who consents.
What is your position on this issue and what can we do to prevent such onerous laws, such as they have in Massachusetts for example, from becoming law here?
First, which state are you even in? If you're not in a two-party consent state, then all of this is irrelevant. As long as the person interacting with the police is consenting to the recording, the police have no chance of getting it bounced back.
Then some other states apparently are not holding to this interpretation even though they are two-party consent states. The State of Washington being one of these (so far). Think back to the video of the police officer beating the shit out of a person who matched a description saying, "I will beat the mexican out of you boy." (kind of paraphrased)
Nothing happened here, no arrests. However, the recording individual was also a freelance reporter, so they would have to mount an argument for arresting a journalist for an act of journalism, and freedom of the press has been long held to be very important.... on the other hand, that video could potentially be excluded as evidence from any legal actions against the cop due to lack of two-party consent.
Nobody deserves to get beat down by the police. They perhaps deserve to be arrested with the minimal amount of force and violence required to effect the arrest, and then detained in a safe facility (safe from both other detainees and staff) until they are released on bail or finish serving their sentence.
Sometimes "minimal force" means being "beat down" by the police. In other words, those who resist arrest deserve to be "beat down", until such time that they stop resisting.
As a European, I never understood the big thing about the US spelling contests. I'm not against them, mind you; but even if you can spell perfectly, you'll still need to know the grammar to support your spelling. Otherwise, you're still going to get it wrong.
Yes, you'll still need too no the grammar too support you're spelling. Otherwise, your still going too get it wrong. My spelling is perfect means not I right English very good.
Think of it like Irish... just spelling the words correctly is pretty freaking crazy amazing all on its own.
A lot of phrases died out in contemporary British English that still survive in India.
I read somewhere (no citation available) that American English actually preserves a lot of Victoria pronunciation that British and Commonwealth English has lost.
I believe perhaps, that if the Indians learned a more annunciated American-like English with their current phrasing they'd probably surpass the world in Victorian English.
This is particularly important in business, where mispelling words can make one appear incompetent.
Fixed that for you. Don't feel bad, the reason they have you draft something 8 billion times in school is so you actually catch this stuff... I think you did a smashing good job on a first draft.
it would be nice to be able to spell "necessary" consistently today without needing a spell checker.
I used to be good at spelling. Really good at spelling.
Problem is, I then learned German, and the consistent spelling and rarity that vowels lose quality means that when attempting to apply the same rules into English, I screw up all the time.
"Separate"? The second vowel has lost all its quality and just become "Sep-uh-rate", so what should the middle vowel be anymore? It takes time and effort to remember a separate pronunciation for every word that indicates the correct spelling. And even then, memory is a fickle thing, and the parallel spelling-pronunciation that one learned long ago has just defenestrated itself, so good luck on the good spelling.
It's definitely something that needs to be practiced, or else you just look ridiculous.
(Yeah, I added the "ridiculous" once I realized I used "separate" and "definitely" in this post already.)
But we have that problem with the existing system, so why not have a simpler legal system that can work for the little guy some of the time, instead of only working for the rich and the lawyers.
Because even if we simplified everything, we would just build up complication in it fairly quickly.
Look at any Nomic... it doesn't take long before rules are in dispute, and you get people specializing in rules lawyering.
I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]
Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.
I actually started a Facebook group to organize with my friends to get off of Facebook in protest.
Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?
Because building a Mosque is a perfectly reasonable, and rational expression of one's faith.
Banning sites for drawings of Mohammad is not. That is irrational behavior.
Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims?
Because we've been "hit" by just as many non-muslim terrorists as muslim terrorists.
Muslims are not the only terrorists, ALL irrational idiots that take terrorism into their fold of acceptable expression need to be dealt with, not just Muslims.
Hell, I could make a case for being against Christians because of the bat-shit irrational beliefs that they express...
So, if you want the right to express your bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology, then don't complain about some other group expressing their bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology.
Note: None of this tolerance for reasonable religious expression makes terrorism OK.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a way to ban Glider. the fact is, the program is using the same input a human does. This is why they are taking legal action.
Having an AI to play the game for you is not any more unfair then being jobless and playing 20 hours a day.
I cannot put up my own curtains at a rental home/apartment. The reason is that the owner has the right to ensure that the appearance of the house/apartment building conforms to their satisfaction.
You are only the possessor of the World of Warcraft program... it requires extensive interaction with their servers to operate. You have a license that dictates the terms of your use of this service (just like a rental agreement). If they don't want AIs to play the game, then by god, that's their right.
You've to realize that this game is a service provided not for a single person, but for everyone who is in one the game. Blizzard has crafted a meticulous balance to ensure that people will continue paying to play for the game and be happy, and this balance greatly requires that people don't get to use shortcuts which bypasses aspects of the game which Blizzard deems as crucial for balance. For that alone I can understand why Blizzard would want to prevent bots.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the legal authority of Blizzard to refuse someone to use a bot. Blizzard cannot really deny a bot playing Starcraft. You own the software, you may do with it as you please.
However, World of Warcraft is not like buying a house, it's like renting a house. You even pay a monthly licensing fee.
I was reading through MDY's appeal, and it just reads like kind of a hack job trying to misrepresent the situation... these are not owners these are renters. Their use of the Blizzard gaming service is on Blizzard's terms...
Does this case have much wider implications (as summary hints at) for the software licensing at large?
I haven't read the article yet, but it seems so.
It depends on the arguments being made. If the only argument is that because World of Warcraft is heavily dependent upon server-side interactions, that there is a leasing of the software to interact with that code.
To have the WoW binaries alone is fairly useless. Most games are not the same way.
I think the difference here between what is before and after is that one doesn't play World of Warcraft on their machine alone. There is a heavy amount of server-side interaction.
I think it is entirely reasonable that World of Warcraft have restrictions on what can be done while you are leasing the allowance to use their servers to play their game.
Now, as for Diablo 3, and playing on your own machine (or even connecting to a server for no other reason than copyright protection) there's simply no argument for being a licensee as opposed to an owner.
...and the other police agencies in Arizona...
The point isn't that we have an issue now. The point is that this seems to be a trend and I don't want it to become an issue.
So... you're from Arizona?
Which is a one-party consent state, and so there isn't the possibility of them dragging this into court anyways.
It can be both the parent's job and the education system's job. There were times when it was, and places where it still is.
"There were times, and place where it still is" ok for parents to arrange a marriage between 12 year old kids.
Your argument is specious. Just because it has been done, and is still done somewhere, doesn't make it right.
It is not the job of the school system to impose culture, because some of that imposition will run contrary to the beliefs of the parents. Christians are already upset that the school system seems to teach children secular culture... imagine the outcry if they were teaching Muslim culture?
Now, that you can imagine it in the other person's shoes, do you really want your school teaching your children culture contrary to your own?
I don't think anybody is disputing that sometimes violence is needed. But attacking people on bikes in timesquare is pretty different. I pray that you understand that as well.
Oh, absolutely agreed.
But you said no one deserves to be beat down. I was pointing out pedantically that some people resisting arrest do deserve it... but only in so far as necessary to restrain and arrest them.
Has SCOTUS upheld that it is legal to record where no expectation of privacy? If so, how can the lower courts consider it "wire tapping" when the recording was made in the open and in a public place? Where is the expectation of privacy?
This is a state law issue, and the Federal courts generally have no jurisdiction to hear any of it.
Federal law also holds that interstate calls only require one-party consent. So, Federal law doesn't even uphold the reasons that the cops are using in the first place.
But again, it's the state's purview to establish which in-state recordings are ok, and which are not.
From TFA:
So it seem one can avoid prosecution (persecution?) by setting up a tripod and a few lights and making it real clear they are recording?
Yes. Making it clear that you're recording someone is always a defense against two-party consent. (In Washington, this can even be a statement of "I'm recording this", then if the person continues with their actions, then they are implied to have consented.)
The other alternative in some cases? Don't record audio, since the two-party recording laws only apply to audio.
In other states, there isn't any two-party consent required, and you can record the police all you want while they are interacting with someone who consents.
What is your position on this issue and what can we do to prevent such onerous laws, such as they have in Massachusetts for example, from becoming law here?
First, which state are you even in? If you're not in a two-party consent state, then all of this is irrelevant. As long as the person interacting with the police is consenting to the recording, the police have no chance of getting it bounced back.
Then some other states apparently are not holding to this interpretation even though they are two-party consent states. The State of Washington being one of these (so far). Think back to the video of the police officer beating the shit out of a person who matched a description saying, "I will beat the mexican out of you boy." (kind of paraphrased)
Nothing happened here, no arrests. However, the recording individual was also a freelance reporter, so they would have to mount an argument for arresting a journalist for an act of journalism, and freedom of the press has been long held to be very important. ... on the other hand, that video could potentially be excluded as evidence from any legal actions against the cop due to lack of two-party consent.
Does that mean you can break in and rob a store - and if there is security footage, whoever owns the camera is going to jail for 4 years?
In some states, if the security footage also recorded audio... potentially, yes.
Nobody deserves to get beat down by the police. They perhaps deserve to be arrested with the minimal amount of force and violence required to effect the arrest, and then detained in a safe facility (safe from both other detainees and staff) until they are released on bail or finish serving their sentence.
Sometimes "minimal force" means being "beat down" by the police. In other words, those who resist arrest deserve to be "beat down", until such time that they stop resisting.
As a European, I never understood the big thing about the US spelling contests. I'm not against them, mind you; but even if you can spell perfectly, you'll still need to know the grammar to support your spelling. Otherwise, you're still going to get it wrong.
Yes, you'll still need too no the grammar too support you're spelling. Otherwise, your still going too get it wrong. My spelling is perfect means not I right English very good.
Think of it like Irish... just spelling the words correctly is pretty freaking crazy amazing all on its own.
A lot of phrases died out in contemporary British English that still survive in India.
I read somewhere (no citation available) that American English actually preserves a lot of Victoria pronunciation that British and Commonwealth English has lost.
I believe perhaps, that if the Indians learned a more annunciated American-like English with their current phrasing they'd probably surpass the world in Victorian English.
This is particularly important in business, where mispelling words can make one appear incompetent.
Fixed that for you. Don't feel bad, the reason they have you draft something 8 billion times in school is so you actually catch this stuff... I think you did a smashing good job on a first draft.
They jump onto any sort of guidance or fad because well... no one taught them any better... and we're banned from teaching them any better.
No, they jump on any sort of guidance or fad, because that's how humans act.
There's nothing special about this new generation, or the multi-cultural nature of modern society.
Education can be "cultureless", because it's the parents job to instill culture... not the education system.
it would be nice to be able to spell "necessary" consistently today without needing a spell checker.
I used to be good at spelling. Really good at spelling.
Problem is, I then learned German, and the consistent spelling and rarity that vowels lose quality means that when attempting to apply the same rules into English, I screw up all the time.
"Separate"? The second vowel has lost all its quality and just become "Sep-uh-rate", so what should the middle vowel be anymore? It takes time and effort to remember a separate pronunciation for every word that indicates the correct spelling. And even then, memory is a fickle thing, and the parallel spelling-pronunciation that one learned long ago has just defenestrated itself, so good luck on the good spelling.
It's definitely something that needs to be practiced, or else you just look ridiculous.
(Yeah, I added the "ridiculous" once I realized I used "separate" and "definitely" in this post already.)
Compared to that, they could have said that neutrinos turn into faerie dust and I'd have been fine.
This I at least could have understood.
None of their scientific babbling made any sense to me until my friend's boyfriend explained what the heck they were trying to say.
Was their science advisor a magic 8-ball?
My sources say no.
But we have that problem with the existing system, so why not have a simpler legal system that can work for the little guy some of the time, instead of only working for the rich and the lawyers.
Because even if we simplified everything, we would just build up complication in it fairly quickly.
Look at any Nomic... it doesn't take long before rules are in dispute, and you get people specializing in rules lawyering.
I have deactivating my facebook account in respons[e]
Try to do it together with a large group of friends. Try to find a decent alternative they can all move to together. If you don't do that then you may eventually find yourself moving back just because your friends are still in Facebook and you feel you need it.
I actually started a Facebook group to organize with my friends to get off of Facebook in protest.
We have 500,000 members already!
Why do all of you Facebook bitches still use it? It's like Facebook is an abusive husband, and y'all just keep going back again and again.
He said he was going to change this time, and this time, I think he really really means it...
I have to say that I like your opinion as stated here.
I think Facebook should have just kept it up and been all, "Hey... the internet is fully of fuckwad assholes... we can only be sorry so much."
And let the block stand. If a whole country chooses to ignore you, then meh... you can't put safety-padding on the internet.
I was going to comment that there aren't really any irrationally radical Jews out there causing trouble in the world...
But then I realized that Israel has been doing some pretty antagonistic stuff... pretty much just to be antagonistic.
Where is the opposition from the left to the celebratory mosque being built overlooking the 9/11 site?
Because building a Mosque is a perfectly reasonable, and rational expression of one's faith.
Banning sites for drawings of Mohammad is not. That is irrational behavior.
Why does the left go apeshit over any suggestion that any counter-terrorism activities ever focus primarily on muslims?
Because we've been "hit" by just as many non-muslim terrorists as muslim terrorists.
Muslims are not the only terrorists, ALL irrational idiots that take terrorism into their fold of acceptable expression need to be dealt with, not just Muslims.
Hell, I could make a case for being against Christians because of the bat-shit irrational beliefs that they express...
So, if you want the right to express your bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology, then don't complain about some other group expressing their bat-shit crazy superstitious bronze-age mythology.
Note: None of this tolerance for reasonable religious expression makes terrorism OK.