Does it really never occur to anyone in the "common sense" departments of these corporations that suing devoted fans leads to having fewer of them? And that further, making it difficult to find fan sites (by suing them just for using the name of your product) also diminishes the fanbase? Seriously, if I want to meet other people who play Warhammer Online, a place called warhammeralliance.com is going to be the first place I stop. I'm not going to go to the "Warhammer Fan Page" on wecantusethenameoftheproduct.com...
As I recall the compressed air cartridges used to stop the blade are quite expensive. Not that that should stop anyone from utilizing this amazing technology, but I'm sure it will be a problem for some cheap bastards out there.
Put your "disposable" keys like the key to your bike, mailbox, the roof, and your gf's place on one key ring and keep it in your backpack, while keeping just your "essential" keys like car and front door strapped to your pants.
We had a French foreign exchange student a few months ago, she tried to use her credit card at a gift shop, and couldn't figure out what she was supposed to do with it as there was no smart card reader. The swipe-and-sign method was completely foreign to her (literally!) just as the chip-and-pin method is foreign (and unavailable) to us. It was enlightening.
The question now being whether she was hot enough that we can let it slide, or whether we should point and laugh at "them silly french" instead.
That said, make no mistake about it: after the nuclear holocaust, the only things that will be alive are cockroaches and Twinkies.... that is, until one eats the other.
Well, we all know how that's going to turn out. Them cockroaches better start working on hiding now!
Rob Pardo indicated in a June interview that LAN support would not be included in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.[48][49][50] Removing LAN has the effect of forcing players to connect through Blizzard's servers, Battle.net, before playing multiplayer locally. This has created a large amount of protest mainly in the form of online petitions, and calls for boycotting the game.[51] It has been reported that Blizzard is considering implementing a system whereby a LAN connection is possible after first authenticating with Battle.net.
Source
So, as far as we know, it's the latter approach, but there have been unsubstantiated rumblings of the former.
I am looking forward to discovering whether Diablo 3 is as good as Diablo II. I still haven't seen enough to know whether I care about it or not. I hope they don't make it a campaign oriented mini-WoW. I really want it to have a very strong single player experience.
I don't mean to be impertinent, or detract from your point in any way, but I have to ask the question of whether that would even be useful. As it is it only takes something like 3 or 4 X-25E's to saturate a SATA 6gb/sec link (as we discussed previously on/.). Would it really be very useful to have an even faster cache on the front? Naturally it'll eventually be useful, after we have faster links, but it just seems a little premature to be talking about PCM caches in front of an SSD (in front of a spinning-disk array, lol). There's still a lot of uncertainty as to how the whole SSD market will develop, as well as the uncertainty in the PCM technology itself. Again, the furthest thing from my mind is pissing on your parade, and you ask good questions. I'm just not sure it's the right time to ask them yet.
Seems to me that the Pre made more of a splash by requiring people to give up their SSN to buy it, than it did in the market. Am I off base here? I don't really remember seeing anything in the news about what a smashing success the Pre was, but I suppose I may have just forgotten...
No that would be a simple case of bitnapping. You'd have to request some sort of recompense in exchange for releasing / in order for it to be "holding random".
No, I daresay it's not very appealing to him. However, as far as I can tell, the man is indeed guilty. I've forgotten a lot of the details of the the original circumstances, but I remember enough to say that holding a city's computer systems random (which is essentially what he was doing) certainly deserves a guilty verdict on a count of "computer tampering." You really think it's acceptable under any circumstances for someone to hijack a network like that? Yes, he works there and technically "administrates" those machines, but he has a duty to his employers (ultimately, the citizens), and he was not upholding that duty.
Certainly better written than Rullgard's hatchet-job. Maybe I'm just used to reading technical documentation (RFCs and the like), but I really dislike reading the flippant opinions of some hack with an axe to grind. Much prefer reading the technicalities of the topic and making up my own mind.
... the last time we discussed this, didn't the consensus eventually become that ogg isn't a fun container to work with, despite the fact that the guy who wrote the rant about it was a moron for wanting to trim headers that contribute fractions of percents to the overall size of files?
I know I personally have worked with ogg, and it was a pain in the ass, mostly because (as the author of the format admits) the documentation blows.
That's still not a protocol translation, as such. It's just an ISP-performed tunnel (as evidenced by it not working with v4-only to v6-only). I'm tickled pink to hear about some ISP buy-in on it though, because it seems to be quite a good solution to getting IPv6 to everyone.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't we still using processors designed in the 1970's on our space shuttles? High degrees of VLSI lend themselves easily to interference from solar radiation, so why would not having VLSI have impaired the Soviet space effort?
Can you give some sort of citation for this? How is an IPv4-only host going to address an IPv6-only host that HAS no IPv4 address? What address goes in the packet? Remember, the scenario we're talking about is some IPv6-only corporation that needs its machines to be publicly accessible by an IPv4-only world at large. Please explain how that's gonna work out.
You seem to think that that company will be ok with an IPv6-only setup. This is not the case. An IPv6-only host can only be reached by other IPv6 hosts. So all those schmucks out there without IPv6 won't be able to reach the company. That's probably a dealbreaker.
But... but... but... if we make fun of them then the middle east will continue to hate us and they'll blow up more of our buildings!!! and then we'll have to invade their countries again to make them stop hating us!!
I hate hearing this argument. As though it's even possible to cut our resource utilization/emissions to zero. Sure, we should be frugal, but your comment implying that peoples' food usage is too much of a strain on the planet is ludicrous.
Really? That many people read the newspaper just to find out who died recently? I don't doubt that people do it, but are there really that many of them?
People interested in learning and doing systems programming are wholly out-of-place trying to contribute code to the Linux kernel. The very first time they submit a patch they'll be on the receiving end of a few of the entrenched developers telling them they're stupid for even thinking that whatever they did was better than $other_mechanism.
For that matter, it can be difficult getting into FOSS application development too. I saw recently several of the amarok devs reaming some guy a new asshole because he proposed adding menu items for shuffle and repeat (which can currently only be accessed by a small, easy to overlook button in the corner of the window). The picture I've gotten of FOSS development is of a bunch of established devs with their pet features, code, and design, defending them to the last, and abusing anyone who proposed an alternative.
Seems to me that the only way for an inexperienced developer to get involved with "contributing" to projects is to either endure the abuse until he/she learns what they're doing, or to fork the project and maintain it themselves so they can get their features implemented immediately. And who wants to maintain their own branch?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it really never occur to anyone in the "common sense" departments of these corporations that suing devoted fans leads to having fewer of them? And that further, making it difficult to find fan sites (by suing them just for using the name of your product) also diminishes the fanbase? Seriously, if I want to meet other people who play Warhammer Online, a place called warhammeralliance.com is going to be the first place I stop. I'm not going to go to the "Warhammer Fan Page" on wecantusethenameoftheproduct.com...
As I recall the compressed air cartridges used to stop the blade are quite expensive. Not that that should stop anyone from utilizing this amazing technology, but I'm sure it will be a problem for some cheap bastards out there.
Put your "disposable" keys like the key to your bike, mailbox, the roof, and your gf's place on one key ring and keep it in your backpack, while keeping just your "essential" keys like car and front door strapped to your pants.
We had a French foreign exchange student a few months ago, she tried to use her credit card at a gift shop, and couldn't figure out what she was supposed to do with it as there was no smart card reader. The swipe-and-sign method was completely foreign to her (literally!) just as the chip-and-pin method is foreign (and unavailable) to us. It was enlightening.
The question now being whether she was hot enough that we can let it slide, or whether we should point and laugh at "them silly french" instead.
That said, make no mistake about it: after the nuclear holocaust, the only things that will be alive are cockroaches and Twinkies. ... that is, until one eats the other.
Well, we all know how that's going to turn out. Them cockroaches better start working on hiding now!
Rob Pardo indicated in a June interview that LAN support would not be included in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.[48][49][50] Removing LAN has the effect of forcing players to connect through Blizzard's servers, Battle.net, before playing multiplayer locally. This has created a large amount of protest mainly in the form of online petitions, and calls for boycotting the game.[51] It has been reported that Blizzard is considering implementing a system whereby a LAN connection is possible after first authenticating with Battle.net.
Source
So, as far as we know, it's the latter approach, but there have been unsubstantiated rumblings of the former.
I am looking forward to discovering whether Diablo 3 is as good as Diablo II. I still haven't seen enough to know whether I care about it or not. I hope they don't make it a campaign oriented mini-WoW. I really want it to have a very strong single player experience.
I dunno about correct, but they're both in common usage.
I don't mean to be impertinent, or detract from your point in any way, but I have to ask the question of whether that would even be useful. As it is it only takes something like 3 or 4 X-25E's to saturate a SATA 6gb/sec link (as we discussed previously on /.). Would it really be very useful to have an even faster cache on the front?
Naturally it'll eventually be useful, after we have faster links, but it just seems a little premature to be talking about PCM caches in front of an SSD (in front of a spinning-disk array, lol). There's still a lot of uncertainty as to how the whole SSD market will develop, as well as the uncertainty in the PCM technology itself.
Again, the furthest thing from my mind is pissing on your parade, and you ask good questions. I'm just not sure it's the right time to ask them yet.
Seems to me that the Pre made more of a splash by requiring people to give up their SSN to buy it, than it did in the market. Am I off base here? I don't really remember seeing anything in the news about what a smashing success the Pre was, but I suppose I may have just forgotten...
No that would be a simple case of bitnapping. You'd have to request some sort of recompense in exchange for releasing / in order for it to be "holding random".
And this, kids, is why proofreading once isn't enough. Ransom, naturally.
No, I daresay it's not very appealing to him. However, as far as I can tell, the man is indeed guilty. I've forgotten a lot of the details of the the original circumstances, but I remember enough to say that holding a city's computer systems random (which is essentially what he was doing) certainly deserves a guilty verdict on a count of "computer tampering." You really think it's acceptable under any circumstances for someone to hijack a network like that? Yes, he works there and technically "administrates" those machines, but he has a duty to his employers (ultimately, the citizens), and he was not upholding that duty.
Certainly better written than Rullgard's hatchet-job. Maybe I'm just used to reading technical documentation (RFCs and the like), but I really dislike reading the flippant opinions of some hack with an axe to grind. Much prefer reading the technicalities of the topic and making up my own mind.
... the last time we discussed this, didn't the consensus eventually become that ogg isn't a fun container to work with, despite the fact that the guy who wrote the rant about it was a moron for wanting to trim headers that contribute fractions of percents to the overall size of files? I know I personally have worked with ogg, and it was a pain in the ass, mostly because (as the author of the format admits) the documentation blows.
That's still not a protocol translation, as such. It's just an ISP-performed tunnel (as evidenced by it not working with v4-only to v6-only). I'm tickled pink to hear about some ISP buy-in on it though, because it seems to be quite a good solution to getting IPv6 to everyone.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't we still using processors designed in the 1970's on our space shuttles? High degrees of VLSI lend themselves easily to interference from solar radiation, so why would not having VLSI have impaired the Soviet space effort?
PS. As far as I know, every proposed method of protocol translation between IPv6 and IPv4 (eg, NAT-PT) has subsequently been deprecated by the IETF.
Can you give some sort of citation for this? How is an IPv4-only host going to address an IPv6-only host that HAS no IPv4 address? What address goes in the packet? Remember, the scenario we're talking about is some IPv6-only corporation that needs its machines to be publicly accessible by an IPv4-only world at large. Please explain how that's gonna work out.
You seem to think that that company will be ok with an IPv6-only setup. This is not the case. An IPv6-only host can only be reached by other IPv6 hosts. So all those schmucks out there without IPv6 won't be able to reach the company. That's probably a dealbreaker.
But... but... but... if we make fun of them then the middle east will continue to hate us and they'll blow up more of our buildings!!! and then we'll have to invade their countries again to make them stop hating us!!
I hate hearing this argument. As though it's even possible to cut our resource utilization/emissions to zero. Sure, we should be frugal, but your comment implying that peoples' food usage is too much of a strain on the planet is ludicrous.
Modern missiles will just seek on the source of the jamming then, and you're still screwed :D
Really? That many people read the newspaper just to find out who died recently? I don't doubt that people do it, but are there really that many of them?
People interested in learning and doing systems programming are wholly out-of-place trying to contribute code to the Linux kernel. The very first time they submit a patch they'll be on the receiving end of a few of the entrenched developers telling them they're stupid for even thinking that whatever they did was better than $other_mechanism.
For that matter, it can be difficult getting into FOSS application development too. I saw recently several of the amarok devs reaming some guy a new asshole because he proposed adding menu items for shuffle and repeat (which can currently only be accessed by a small, easy to overlook button in the corner of the window). The picture I've gotten of FOSS development is of a bunch of established devs with their pet features, code, and design, defending them to the last, and abusing anyone who proposed an alternative.
Seems to me that the only way for an inexperienced developer to get involved with "contributing" to projects is to either endure the abuse until he/she learns what they're doing, or to fork the project and maintain it themselves so they can get their features implemented immediately. And who wants to maintain their own branch?