Absolutely! Heck, there was an article submitted to Firehose just a day or two ago, about an Atari Game programmer's blog, where he got the job at Atari by coding from scratch a Centipede clone. He redesigned the graphics, and coded the entire game without ever seeing the original code, and while learning how to code. That was STILL considered copyright infringement.
"If the brainless masses want Fisher-Price toys, fine. But lets not pretend that Fisher-Price make better tools."
Why not? American Tool Toy & Invention Corporation makes toys and tools. And not just toys that are also learning tools. Is the Wii a toy? I mean, you can play games with it all day long. You can also surf the web, check weather forecasts, go shopping online, etc. That sounds like a tool. In fact, it seems that Nintendo also makes toys and tools.
You can't condemn the tool just because of how it is used, or the interface it has. A bent paperclip is a CD-Extraction tool.
Odd that the variable names are the same in both scripts. What's the possibility that two different programmers working independently and exclusive of one another, would come up with the same abbreviated variable names for the same functions and same elements in two games that appeared to be same and played the same? What are the odds?
Odd that the graphics are just about all the same in both games. The differences are trivial.
Looks more like someone purposefully made the scripts different, so that they could point and say "Lookee, it's different. See? It's not the same at all. Look at the code. Different." As if they knew ahead of time that there were potential copyright conflicts, and were trying to make an end run around copyright law.
The link I provided is from when they recovered the license making equipment and supplies that had been stolen from a DMV. Replacing a picture on an ID card isn't so impossible when you can just make another ID card from scratch with a new picture and someone else's information.
Now, for a number of years in Virginia, your Social Security number was ALSO your driver's license number. Not only that, but your license was on paper, along with another additional information sheet... and all of it was kept in an OPEN clear plastic sleeve. This changed years ago, but as of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, no state can use a SSN as a Driver's license number.
Most states only require a piece of mail and a birth certificate, in order to get a state issued picture ID. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that you need a picture ID to get a picture ID. So how hard would it be to take someone ELSE's birth certificate and a piece of their mail, and get yourself a new Identity? Sure, there are other measures in place to make it more difficult to get a social security card re-issued, as well as getting into a bank account... but then again...
There's a story about a man who went to his bank, and the teller assumed by his NAME only, that he was the same man who had opened up a business account with $5 million in it. You see, another man with the same name had indeed opened an account for his business with $5 million in it. The teller insisted that the account was indeed his (the wrong man with the same name), so he withdrew $2 million.
Actually buying cans of Coke and pouring them into a larger jug to save space in the fridge will affect the quality of the drink. It will go flat quite quickly once those cans have been opened, regardless of how quickly you fill the jug, and regardless of how little air you leave in the bottle.
Try this little experiment. Purchase two 20oz bottles of Coke. Open one of them for a few seconds, and then close it up. Put both in the fridge for a few days. Then, open them both up and sample them both. You will find a measurable difference in quality.
Now, you begin to approach what happens to the DRMed music that is purchased from iTunes, burned to a CD, and re-ripped.
Of Course, one could always rip into a lossless format, instead of mp3.
Compare "roll your own" cigarettes to pre-rolled brands. Go on, do it yourself. Head down to Walmart or Walgreens or any Tobacco shop. Check out the price of a carton of smokes, then check out the price of a can (6 oz of tobacco) of Top or Bugler brand rolling tobacco.
You'll be looking at what... $50 a carton for Camels, and $10 to $15 a can for Rollies. You get 200 cigs in a carton, and you get 200 papers and enough tobacco to fill them in a can of Top (and 230 papers in Bugler). Brown and Williamson manufactured Bugler (also Kool, Pall Mall, Lucky Strike, etc) until 2004 when they were combined with RJ Reynolds to form Reynolds American. So this way you realize that it is a Class A tobacco product sold by a company that sells plenty of other major brands.
Now, if over half of that $50 a carton is tax... why is the same amount of paper and tobacco when sold unrolled cost LESS than the tax?
Just thought you should know, since you kind of asked.
I have to wonder about what you actually know about Apple.
I mean, are you aware of how they have been running their computer business? I'm sure that you will *say* you are very aware, and then you might begin to spew a little information that will quickly turn into a rant about how evil the company is... but just stop and think (or god forbid actually do some research) before you reply to me.
Did you know that Apple had their tentacles wrapped around every little detail involved with the manufacture and sale of their new computers for the majority of the time that Apple has been selling computers? Do you understand that this is why they are as stable, versatile, and easy to use as they are? Do you think it is just coincidence that the industry standard in professional publishing software began as "Apple Only" software? (Hint: Adobe...) Do you know that Apples were the first computers to enter into professional recording studios? Again, would you just blow this off to coincidence?
For more than a decade, while IBM users were still fooling around with DOS, MAC users were connecting to the budding internet with Prodigy or AOL or Compuserve. While PC users were trying to figure out how to get their sound cards to work, MAC users were writing music in notation on their screens and getting their "cute" little machines to play it back. And these are only some of the advances. Sure, Apple kept an iron grip on manufacturing. This was to ENSURE a quality product. And you know what? IT WORKED!
Now, personally, I've never owned an Apple. I have nothing against them, but I've never been able to afford one. I can appreciate the quality of a Ferrari without owning one of those either. Just because they are expensive, I'm not about to go on a spree hating the company.
What happens when you buy an Unlocked IPhone, and you pick your carrier, and you find that half of those nifty features that you bought the IPhone for, don't work. Whose fault is that. Is it Apples? Nope. You are the kind of person who will blame Apple, but that doesn't make it their fault. They made the phone, they worked it out with AT&T so that all the features of their phone work with AT&T as a carrier. From your argument, you don't want Apple to be dictating how EVERY other company out there that could provide phone service has to alter how their service works, just to make it compatible with the Iphone... or are you a blind hypocrite who just can't see that this is exactly what would HAVE to happen, if the IPhone was able to work with every carrier? Oh sure, Apple could lose and alter some of their features, and make their phone just like a motorola... but what would be the point?
Apple raised the bar. Plain and simple. If you don't like the IPhone AT&T marriage, DON'T BUY ONE! How simple is that? I'm not the only person to realize this. Why can't you?
Automatically deciding that if something is compared to what is happening in Iraq, then it should be flamebait... that's just wrong.
Way too much money is being spent CURRENTLY on a situation that has gone on far too long, and that just about everyone agrees is a mistake for one reason or another. Since a vast majority believe that it was a mistake to go over there, or to still be there, we can safely look at the countless millions (billions?) that are being used to fund that ongoing issue.
Now, if our President decides that 1.8 billion is too much to spend on a project that *might* actually be worthwhile, while he is CURRENTLY spending far greater sums on a "project" that is not as worthwhile, why can't a comparison be discussed without it being considered flamebait?
Who cares if people don't like how *everything* is being compared to what is going on in Iraq? If the comparison is valid, they should suck it up. Too many things are swept under the rug just because people are tired of hearing about it.
I have personally found that Sears sells the same quality products as other stores, occasionally at more reasonable prices. However, what would make me always go back and check them first, is their policy to upgrade a desired item, if what you want is out of stock. Now I noticed that the Sears in Hyanis MA would quite often not have electronics that I was interested in, in stock. I was making purchases for a handful of people further up on Cape Cod. These would range from televisions and portable radios, to game systems, to appliances. About half the time I would drive the 60+ miles with a list of specific items to purchase, and head back up cape with stuff that should have cost much more; better larger TVs, the next model "boom box", etc.
I like that policy much better than just hearing a store employee apologize and ask you to come back next week, or to take a rain check... or try to SELL you the more expensive item.
And yeah, the life-time (no questions asked) guarantee on Craftsman tools rocks.
False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away -- however saturated the market may be.
Too generic an answer. It doesn't apply to the specifics of this situation. What is the price of music on the radio? How much is the seller charging the end user, namely the person listening in their car, at their office, or at their home? Are you going to falsely assume that the radio station itself pays for the music? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it is sent music directly from a record company's marketing department (along with posters, press packages, hats, etc.) for free.
My knowledge happens to come from actually working at different radio stations.
So, if record companies, by their choice, are giving away music for free to an audience of undetermined size, and at the same time they cry and complain that an audience of undetermined size is listening to their music without paying... should we really be feeling sorry for them? Hell no.
You might be serious, you might be trolling. If you meant any of what you said, you really should pay attention to what you want to say before it spills out.
"We're so smart, it took us, oh... "millions" of years to figure this out."
Humans haven't been here on the planet for millions of years. If you believe that we evolved, it's been a couple of hundred thousand years at best. There is evidence we are still examining however, of creatures that did exist millions of years ago. Large, reptilian/avian creatures dubbed dinosaurs. There is even indirect evidence of all the life that existed in those millions of years, in the oil we draw from the earth and burn in our vehicles as gasoline.
Not quite something that can just come into existence in 6000 years.
Did you know that there is evidence that shows us that the ancient Babylonians in around 5000 B.C., were the first people to brew beer, with Hops (as a preservative, not as a flavor additive). This would mean that the Babylonians were making beer a thousand years before you say that mankind was created.
Now is the time for you to decide. Do you really want to believe that hooey of creationism (and the badly designed knees not made for upright walking was a purposeful decision, the appendix that we don't need because we don't eat what our ancestors ate was left in us for a purposeful reason, and the wisdom teeth we don't need for cracking bone anymore were left in our skull for a purposeful reason), or would you rather have a beer and kick back, and realize that we are not the product of random anything. We are the product of chance, COMBINED with an eon or five of research and development. If you don't follow, what I mean is that although the original spark of amino acids forming chains and making protein might have involved chance, all kinds of failures have occurred since then. We just happen to be a species that survived. Millions of species didn't.
First, note that although I responded to your comment, I am not the original poster that started this little discussion. Solra Bizna posted, and you responded. I then responded to you. You appear confused in your reply to me.
However, Although Parents are responsible for the actions of their children, that is not the same as guilt. I maintain that the parents themselves did nothing wrong. In at least one case, the RIAA is attempting to get the courts to appoint an attorney for a 13 year old child, independent of the parents, so that they can prosecute the child directly. There are numerous precedents where children have been prosecuted for their crimes, without involving the parents. You also did not even mention the fact that the RIAA have attempted to prosecute the dead. There are also cases that simple research on your part would have revealed where the RIAA have attempted to prosecute people who do not even own computers. So I persist in maintaining that the RIAA have indeed attempted to prosecute innocent people.
I am saying nothing about how the RIAA have prosecuted those who were indeed guilty, because it is not relevant to the fact that they have made huge and glaring mistakes in their wide sweeping policies of pursuing prosecution. The statement was made that the RIAA have prosecuted innocent people. You assumed that meant that everyone the RIAA have gone after was innocent. You were wrong. Just as you are wrong that everyone whom the RIAA have gone after is guilty.
Your paragraph about the car bomb. It is not a "fact" that those who were responsible were monsters. That is simply a matter of point of view. Those who seem to think that they can only get their point of view across by suicide bombing certainly do not appear to believe they are monsters. Thus, point of view.
You are correct that because sometimes the police falsely accuse, this does not mean they should be disbanded. However the ratio of false accusations to correct accusations for the police, as compared to the RIAA, is quite different. Also, The RIAA are not a police force. Also, they use more questionable means. Also, they are far less thorough in their investigative means. Also, the police are using techniques that are based on centuries of methodology, and have been refined and redefined based on mistakes they have made in the past.
I am not trying to push that people deserve immunity from civil lawsuits. I am not trying to push anything. I have simply been pointing out where you are in error. You are making sweeping assumptions, and you are proving quite wrong in them.
"Copyright violation......is bad." Now, there were other words in there, and some of them in parenthesis. If you want to insist that those other words not be ignored, then "Copyright violation, at least as far as taking credit for other's work, is bad." The addition of "for reasons that don't warrant an explanation" is relevant, but ignorable. Still, the most basic of reading comprehension will reveal that the GP said Copyright violation is bad.
You said "This is not true." then said nothing about HOW it is not true. You began to attempt to attack software piracy. However, I am still baffled as to why you believe copyright violation is a good thing.
Also, you really should spend a little more time in the real world, and also do a little research before you decide to refute other people's statements. The RIAA have sued the parents of children that have downloaded material, and while the children might have done something wrong, the parents certainly did not. "Single mom Tanya Andersen, a defendant in a previous lawsuit brought by the RIAA, was one of the first to have her case dismissed with prejudice (it cannot be refiled at a later date)." (you can look that quote up, research...).
There's More. "In a lawsuit filed in January (2005), the RIAA accused 83-year old Gertrude Walton of sharing over 700 pop, rock and rap songs under the alias 'smittenedkitten.' What the RIAA didn't know is that Walton had passed away in December following a long illness. Her daughter, Robin Chianumba, has lived with Walton for the past 17 years and told the Charleston Gazette that her mother refused to even have a computer in the house."
So there is MORE than ample proof that the RIAA have sued innocent people. Get your facts straight.
Unfortunately, the US (Before it was the US) committed wanton and unspeakable acts of terrorism against the UK once upon a time. This included (but was not limited to) guerilla warfare at a time when combat was expected to follow a more civilized course. The then British colonists used terrorist tactics to gain independence and form the nation we now know and enjoy as the US of A.
Not defending terrorism here, but simply pointing out that terrorism largely a point of view issue. For example. If people violently opposed a policy of the US government, that the US government was wrong in having and enforcing, the US government could protect itself by simply declaring those people terrorists, regardless of how horrible and reprehensible this policy might be. If Slavery were legal today, for example.
But this is way off point.
Skype is but a single tool, apparently. The whole point of the encryption is that it *should* be uncrackable. I smell a whole "guilty until proven innocent" argument lurking below.
Actually, by your link to the Urban Dictionary, a Jock is indeed an Athlete. However, it is just not a "Real Athlete" according to at least one of the definitions submitted by those who chose to put their two cents in. I find it strange that by submitting this link as proof of "A jock is not an athlete" you appear to believe that being physically involved with sports activities does not constitute athletic status. The Majority of the definitions I read at Urban Dictionary confirm that Jocks are indeed athletes, only athletes that are also bullies, bigots, or have anger management issues.
It is interesting to note that the majority of definitions there also appear to be written by people who would never consider themselves to be a "Jock". Now, I know that some of these would be the "Real Athletes" mentioned in that one definition, however I would not hesitate to guess that most of these people would be those people who grew up hating "Jocks" during their school years, for a number of reasons.
So going from one cave to the next is ok. Going from one house to the next is ok. Going from one city to the next is ok. Going from one continent to the next is ok. But work toward going from one planet to another... HELL NO???
If you have a better plan than the one in action involving space stations and the craft they are using (poorly) to make this happen, then by all means, put it into action. Otherwise, shut up. It's not like private enterprise isn't getting involved. It is. If you are one of those people who thinks that the development of the bicycle, the automobile, the boat, and the plane were all great ideas, but we should stop when crossing the boundary of space, stick with living in the basement.
I'm holding out for the security guard position on a space station.
Re:Can't Start My Car After Mouthwash
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
Software protection has an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances involved with being legal, they choose to accept a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to enjoy the use of that software illegally.
In the US, taxes have an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances of being legal (paying taxes), they can choose a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to live here illegally (not paying taxes).
Driving has an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances of being legal (licenses, registered and inspected vehicle, insurance), they can choose a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to operate a vehicle illegally (no license, unregistered and/or un-inspected vehicle, non-insured).
You may not see getting a crack or downloading a game with a crack included (because someone already did the searching first), as all that much of annoyance, but there are those who do that don't quite know what they are doing, or what sites to avoid, or how to adequately protect themselves from some of the less scrupulous sources of executable patches or no-cd cracks. It might be more of an annoyance to them over your experience. This only means that the level of annoyance to go the cracked route varies per individual. It is still there to one degree or another. To those that go that route, it is just less of an annoyance than following the procedure set down by the game manufacturer to ensure that the copy of the game you are playing was paid for.
Do you know why? Do you know that that this precise moment, From more than a dozen sources, no less than thirty-three thousand (33,000) people are actively downloading what they believe to be (and most likely is) a Cracked version of Bioshock? At $50 a head, that's $1,650,000 US. That's more than a million and a half that isn't making it's way back to 2k Games. It should come to no surprise that a software company is going to try to do whatever they can to protect their product.
Your argument is essentially that they appear to be losing the war (they have to come up with what hasn't been done, crackers only have to figure out a way around something that already been created. The difference in required innovation between the two positions is large) so they should just give up. That is your argument. You might say you just want them to work harder to come up with something better, something different, something that isn't annoying to you. However, this is what they are continually ATTEMPTING. Do not for a second think that at these big software companies, they are sitting there thinking "Hmm. How can we screw over those people who want to pay for our games just a leetle bit more this time around?". Because trying to come up with something new that defeats piracy is not an easy thing. If it were, YOU would come up with it, and then sell it to the software companies and make your slice of the pie. These companies, and those dedicated to simply coming up with new protection schemes, want to find something that is less inconvenient.
Look at the bad rap that Steam gets. Here it is, the best of both worlds. You don't have to put in the disc. You don't even have to carry around a copy of it. You can go to virtually any computer with an internet connection, and download and play one of the games you have purchased from them. All you have to do is log in. And people still bitch. WTF?? OMG.. I can't install it (without uninstalling first) more than 25 times (cuz if you uninstall, you get the slot back). Gee. I can't install my copy of the game installed on 26 computers at one time. People have a problem with this? Of Course. They want it for free, and they want it to get all the benefits of having paid for it.
So stop your whining about what a GOD AWFUL BOTHER it is to actually have to jump through the hoops that you have to, in order to play your game legally. The company that produced the game you wa
There is at least one country where the policy is 0.0 blood alcohol level is allowed. Zero Tolerance.
Have you ever heard of a Designated Driver?
Why does Everyone have to throw responsibility to the wind, in order to have fun?
Too many drunk driving accidents are occurring that prove people CANNOT drive responsibly when drunk. They can only get lucky that nothing bad will happen.
He proves himself to be a hypocrite when he says that he is fed up with pirates and people using pirated games getting a better gaming experience than legitimate customers, then turns around to thank the makers of cracks for allowing what he is fed up with to actually happen.
Re:Can't Start My Car After Mouthwash
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
There are countless examples of where someone thought they were perfectly able to drive after drinking, only to kill a family of three after finding out that they could NOT drive. It has been proven time and time again that drinking alcohol impairs the judgment. Your personal experience does not change these things.
In a few years, you might not have a choice about buying a car that checks your blood alcohol level for you. It is already in the works.
Pirates are not fixing broken products. You are justifying the illegal behavior. If people did not pirate, then copy protection would not have to be so annoying, and it would not be as experimental and prone to bugs. Copy Protection only exists to attempt to curtail illegal behavior. Let's use another analogy. Why have Police? Can't we trust the majority of people not to do things that are wrong? Why should we let the actions of a few criminals put the annoyance that are the Police in our faces? Sure, sometimes innocent (or mostly innocent) people suffer due to the overzealous actions of the police. Sure, it would be much easier of there were no cops on the roads, and we could all drive the speed we wanted to, and blow off stop lights and stop signs because they only hinder. This also describes how you feel, correct?
If you don't like the annoying copy protections you face, why not try supporting the people who are trying to defeat software piracy? Why not actually stand up for the Good Guys?
You are simply trying to use clever wording to justify your usage of cracks to defeat a form of piracy protection. Nothing you say changes the fact that the necessity of having a CD in the drive to play the game you purchased is one form of anti-piracy. You just don't happen to like the inconvenience.
There are countless examples of inconvenient things we have to do every day, that allow us to do other things we enjoy. It is inconvenient to have to pay for airline tickets just to travel to another part of the country. It is inconvenient to have to get a passport and go through all that hassle to visit another country. It is inconvenient to have to learn another language to try to communicate with people in certain other countries. It is inconvenient to have to learn to drive on the opposite side of the car and road from the country I live in. It is inconvenient to have to pay for the milk and bread I need to get for my family to have basic necessities. I can go on. It doesn't matter. It is all dependent on Point of View.
I do not find it inconvenient to have to put the CD in the drive to play the game of my choice. That makes your opinion unimportant in the grander scheme of things. It does mean that I can play a game I paid for, while others cannot play the same game for free. Why should some be able to play it for free when I have to pay for it? That is what cracks allow, regardless of how cracks also allow you to circumvent copy-protection.
Thankfully, there's always a crack. But I'm really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers.
This was a very well thought out and tight conclusion to your post. Unfortunately it points out exactly why you should NOT have a problem with protected titles.
Don't you think that the game companies themselves feel exactly the way you do, in that they are "really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers" as well? They are, and this is why they are making it increasingly difficult to pirate their games. So a real question is; Why are you opposed to anything that might slow or even stop the piracy of the games that you enjoy, if you are opposed to software piracy?
I really do think the question is why I should ever have to worry about a product I bought suddenly deciding I cannot install it.
I know, I know. Everyone hates car analogies. Well, I'm gonna use one with two different examples. Automobiles that made you fasten your seatbelt before they would start. Automobiles that make you pass a breathilizer test before you can start the car. Why should anyone have to worry about a product they bought suddenly deciding that it is not going to do what it is supposed to? If the owner of that product is attempting to use it in a manner that has been arbitrarily decided to be "bad" or against the proscribed usage of that product (driving without a seatbelt or driving with a blood alcohol level above a certain amount). Now, it *IS* possible that the owner of a car restricting usage based on seatbelts might have that car in an area that did not have seatbelt laws. So, they *could* wish to drive without a seatbelt, regardless of how utterly careless and idiotic this may be, and this would violate no statutes and not get them into legal trouble. This relates to the number of installs a game might be limited to. Sure, there *could* be a legitimate reason for installing (without uninstalling) the game you buy a number of times exceeding what the company who made the game thinks is a good number. However, the game company has decided that this is the anti-piracy policy they are going to follow. It dictated that they needed to pick a number of installs to draw the line at (regardless of their decision to rescind this restriction later).
Don't even go there trying to attack cars that attempt to determine if you are too drunk to drive.
What if you lost your serials to the Battlefield 1942 install discs? Then, this product you purchased will no longer install. Gee. You spent money on a product that now decides you cannot play it, because you fail to jump through the proper hoop. If you want to be able to uninstall and reinstall, you have to keep track of more than just game discs. It's a restriction, and not one that will lift a few months down the road. You just happen to accept that restriction.
And you are thankful for cracks? So, although you condemn piracy, you encourage (and endorse) it? I'm sorry. In the end, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
If you want strangers to think you are smart, just remember to label an ongoing topic of discussion as Sensationalism, and link it to a list of other subjects that you sarcastically mark as "Hot Topics".
That way, your destructive attitude (similar in many ways to the destructive force of the asteroids in the topic) will make you *appear* like you actually know something.
Now, I'm sure that you read the friggin article. Since none of us were there to see the impact in the asteroid belt, you are correct in that there *is* speculation involved. However, it is pretty obvious that it is not PURE speculation, since they are using researched information to form their theory. They quite openly talk about the percentages of probability of the events having happened as they described them, thus stating that although they believe things happened the way they have figured it out, it is possible that they are wrong. But they did not speculate on the composition of what hit us. They did not speculate on the composition of other objects we have been hit by. They did not speculate on the frequency that we have been getting hit with objects. They did not speculate on where we were hit by the one that most likely killed the dinosaurs. They are using some speculation as to the date we were hit, but they are using data that puts it at around the right time for an extinction level event.
So throwing around a phrase like "Pure Speculation" is pure ignorance. You are just looking to get a slice of that coverage with your "Pshaw. They ain't knowin diddly. They jus lookin fer money an 'tenshun, ah reckon." shtick.
the screen could be wider than a standard piece of paper
the scan could be on a delay, where you hit your button, wait 5 ticks, and scan
the scan could be initiated by covering the screen with the paper (indicating to the scanning program that you have placed the paper in the optimum scanning position)
you could hit the scan button on your keyboard... just for a start...
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely! Heck, there was an article submitted to Firehose just a day or two ago, about an Atari Game programmer's blog, where he got the job at Atari by coding from scratch a Centipede clone. He redesigned the graphics, and coded the entire game without ever seeing the original code, and while learning how to code. That was STILL considered copyright infringement.
"If the brainless masses want Fisher-Price toys, fine. But lets not pretend that Fisher-Price make better tools."
Why not? American Tool Toy & Invention Corporation makes toys and tools. And not just toys that are also learning tools. Is the Wii a toy? I mean, you can play games with it all day long. You can also surf the web, check weather forecasts, go shopping online, etc. That sounds like a tool. In fact, it seems that Nintendo also makes toys and tools.
You can't condemn the tool just because of how it is used, or the interface it has. A bent paperclip is a CD-Extraction tool.
Odd that the variable names are the same in both scripts. What's the possibility that two different programmers working independently and exclusive of one another, would come up with the same abbreviated variable names for the same functions and same elements in two games that appeared to be same and played the same? What are the odds?
Odd that the graphics are just about all the same in both games. The differences are trivial.
Looks more like someone purposefully made the scripts different, so that they could point and say "Lookee, it's different. See? It's not the same at all. Look at the code. Different." As if they knew ahead of time that there were potential copyright conflicts, and were trying to make an end run around copyright law.
Here's an Old story (that happened when I was there in Vegas).
http://www.dmvnv.com/news/05-005.htm
The link I provided is from when they recovered the license making equipment and supplies that had been stolen from a DMV. Replacing a picture on an ID card isn't so impossible when you can just make another ID card from scratch with a new picture and someone else's information.
Now, for a number of years in Virginia, your Social Security number was ALSO your driver's license number. Not only that, but your license was on paper, along with another additional information sheet... and all of it was kept in an OPEN clear plastic sleeve. This changed years ago, but as of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, no state can use a SSN as a Driver's license number.
Most states only require a piece of mail and a birth certificate, in order to get a state issued picture ID. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that you need a picture ID to get a picture ID. So how hard would it be to take someone ELSE's birth certificate and a piece of their mail, and get yourself a new Identity? Sure, there are other measures in place to make it more difficult to get a social security card re-issued, as well as getting into a bank account... but then again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/nyc-bank-lets-wrong-man-w_n_87647.html
There's a story about a man who went to his bank, and the teller assumed by his NAME only, that he was the same man who had opened up a business account with $5 million in it. You see, another man with the same name had indeed opened an account for his business with $5 million in it. The teller insisted that the account was indeed his (the wrong man with the same name), so he withdrew $2 million.
Where were the Picture ID's then?
I'm just adding, not so much refuting you.
Retinal scanning is the way to go.
Actually buying cans of Coke and pouring them into a larger jug to save space in the fridge will affect the quality of the drink. It will go flat quite quickly once those cans have been opened, regardless of how quickly you fill the jug, and regardless of how little air you leave in the bottle.
Try this little experiment. Purchase two 20oz bottles of Coke. Open one of them for a few seconds, and then close it up. Put both in the fridge for a few days. Then, open them both up and sample them both. You will find a measurable difference in quality.
Now, you begin to approach what happens to the DRMed music that is purchased from iTunes, burned to a CD, and re-ripped.
Of Course, one could always rip into a lossless format, instead of mp3.
Compare "roll your own" cigarettes to pre-rolled brands. Go on, do it yourself. Head down to Walmart or Walgreens or any Tobacco shop. Check out the price of a carton of smokes, then check out the price of a can (6 oz of tobacco) of Top or Bugler brand rolling tobacco.
You'll be looking at what... $50 a carton for Camels, and $10 to $15 a can for Rollies. You get 200 cigs in a carton, and you get 200 papers and enough tobacco to fill them in a can of Top (and 230 papers in Bugler). Brown and Williamson manufactured Bugler (also Kool, Pall Mall, Lucky Strike, etc) until 2004 when they were combined with RJ Reynolds to form Reynolds American. So this way you realize that it is a Class A tobacco product sold by a company that sells plenty of other major brands.
Now, if over half of that $50 a carton is tax... why is the same amount of paper and tobacco when sold unrolled cost LESS than the tax?
Just thought you should know, since you kind of asked.
I have to wonder about what you actually know about Apple.
I mean, are you aware of how they have been running their computer business? I'm sure that you will *say* you are very aware, and then you might begin to spew a little information that will quickly turn into a rant about how evil the company is... but just stop and think (or god forbid actually do some research) before you reply to me.
Did you know that Apple had their tentacles wrapped around every little detail involved with the manufacture and sale of their new computers for the majority of the time that Apple has been selling computers? Do you understand that this is why they are as stable, versatile, and easy to use as they are? Do you think it is just coincidence that the industry standard in professional publishing software began as "Apple Only" software? (Hint: Adobe...) Do you know that Apples were the first computers to enter into professional recording studios? Again, would you just blow this off to coincidence?
For more than a decade, while IBM users were still fooling around with DOS, MAC users were connecting to the budding internet with Prodigy or AOL or Compuserve. While PC users were trying to figure out how to get their sound cards to work, MAC users were writing music in notation on their screens and getting their "cute" little machines to play it back. And these are only some of the advances. Sure, Apple kept an iron grip on manufacturing. This was to ENSURE a quality product. And you know what? IT WORKED!
Now, personally, I've never owned an Apple. I have nothing against them, but I've never been able to afford one. I can appreciate the quality of a Ferrari without owning one of those either. Just because they are expensive, I'm not about to go on a spree hating the company.
What happens when you buy an Unlocked IPhone, and you pick your carrier, and you find that half of those nifty features that you bought the IPhone for, don't work. Whose fault is that. Is it Apples? Nope. You are the kind of person who will blame Apple, but that doesn't make it their fault. They made the phone, they worked it out with AT&T so that all the features of their phone work with AT&T as a carrier. From your argument, you don't want Apple to be dictating how EVERY other company out there that could provide phone service has to alter how their service works, just to make it compatible with the Iphone... or are you a blind hypocrite who just can't see that this is exactly what would HAVE to happen, if the IPhone was able to work with every carrier? Oh sure, Apple could lose and alter some of their features, and make their phone just like a motorola... but what would be the point?
Apple raised the bar. Plain and simple. If you don't like the IPhone AT&T marriage, DON'T BUY ONE! How simple is that? I'm not the only person to realize this. Why can't you?
Automatically deciding that if something is compared to what is happening in Iraq, then it should be flamebait... that's just wrong.
Way too much money is being spent CURRENTLY on a situation that has gone on far too long, and that just about everyone agrees is a mistake for one reason or another. Since a vast majority believe that it was a mistake to go over there, or to still be there, we can safely look at the countless millions (billions?) that are being used to fund that ongoing issue.
Now, if our President decides that 1.8 billion is too much to spend on a project that *might* actually be worthwhile, while he is CURRENTLY spending far greater sums on a "project" that is not as worthwhile, why can't a comparison be discussed without it being considered flamebait?
Who cares if people don't like how *everything* is being compared to what is going on in Iraq? If the comparison is valid, they should suck it up. Too many things are swept under the rug just because people are tired of hearing about it.
I have personally found that Sears sells the same quality products as other stores, occasionally at more reasonable prices. However, what would make me always go back and check them first, is their policy to upgrade a desired item, if what you want is out of stock. Now I noticed that the Sears in Hyanis MA would quite often not have electronics that I was interested in, in stock. I was making purchases for a handful of people further up on Cape Cod. These would range from televisions and portable radios, to game systems, to appliances. About half the time I would drive the 60+ miles with a list of specific items to purchase, and head back up cape with stuff that should have cost much more; better larger TVs, the next model "boom box", etc.
I like that policy much better than just hearing a store employee apologize and ask you to come back next week, or to take a rain check... or try to SELL you the more expensive item.
And yeah, the life-time (no questions asked) guarantee on Craftsman tools rocks.
Too generic an answer. It doesn't apply to the specifics of this situation. What is the price of music on the radio? How much is the seller charging the end user, namely the person listening in their car, at their office, or at their home? Are you going to falsely assume that the radio station itself pays for the music? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it is sent music directly from a record company's marketing department (along with posters, press packages, hats, etc.) for free.
My knowledge happens to come from actually working at different radio stations.
So, if record companies, by their choice, are giving away music for free to an audience of undetermined size, and at the same time they cry and complain that an audience of undetermined size is listening to their music without paying... should we really be feeling sorry for them? Hell no.
You might be serious, you might be trolling. If you meant any of what you said, you really should pay attention to what you want to say before it spills out.
"We're so smart, it took us, oh...
"millions" of years to figure this
out."
Humans haven't been here on the planet for millions of years. If you believe that we evolved, it's been a couple of hundred thousand years at best. There is evidence we are still examining however, of creatures that did exist millions of years ago. Large, reptilian/avian creatures dubbed dinosaurs. There is even indirect evidence of all the life that existed in those millions of years, in the oil we draw from the earth and burn in our vehicles as gasoline.
Not quite something that can just come into existence in 6000 years.
Did you know that there is evidence that shows us that the ancient Babylonians in around 5000 B.C., were the first people to brew beer, with Hops (as a preservative, not as a flavor additive). This would mean that the Babylonians were making beer a thousand years before you say that mankind was created.
Now is the time for you to decide. Do you really want to believe that hooey of creationism (and the badly designed knees not made for upright walking was a purposeful decision, the appendix that we don't need because we don't eat what our ancestors ate was left in us for a purposeful reason, and the wisdom teeth we don't need for cracking bone anymore were left in our skull for a purposeful reason), or would you rather have a beer and kick back, and realize that we are not the product of random anything. We are the product of chance, COMBINED with an eon or five of research and development. If you don't follow, what I mean is that although the original spark of amino acids forming chains and making protein might have involved chance, all kinds of failures have occurred since then. We just happen to be a species that survived. Millions of species didn't.
First, note that although I responded to your comment, I am not the original poster that started this little discussion. Solra Bizna posted, and you responded. I then responded to you. You appear confused in your reply to me.
However, Although Parents are responsible for the actions of their children, that is not the same as guilt. I maintain that the parents themselves did nothing wrong. In at least one case, the RIAA is attempting to get the courts to appoint an attorney for a 13 year old child, independent of the parents, so that they can prosecute the child directly. There are numerous precedents where children have been prosecuted for their crimes, without involving the parents. You also did not even mention the fact that the RIAA have attempted to prosecute the dead. There are also cases that simple research on your part would have revealed where the RIAA have attempted to prosecute people who do not even own computers. So I persist in maintaining that the RIAA have indeed attempted to prosecute innocent people.
I am saying nothing about how the RIAA have prosecuted those who were indeed guilty, because it is not relevant to the fact that they have made huge and glaring mistakes in their wide sweeping policies of pursuing prosecution. The statement was made that the RIAA have prosecuted innocent people. You assumed that meant that everyone the RIAA have gone after was innocent. You were wrong. Just as you are wrong that everyone whom the RIAA have gone after is guilty.
Your paragraph about the car bomb. It is not a "fact" that those who were responsible were monsters. That is simply a matter of point of view. Those who seem to think that they can only get their point of view across by suicide bombing certainly do not appear to believe they are monsters. Thus, point of view.
You are correct that because sometimes the police falsely accuse, this does not mean they should be disbanded. However the ratio of false accusations to correct accusations for the police, as compared to the RIAA, is quite different. Also, The RIAA are not a police force. Also, they use more questionable means. Also, they are far less thorough in their investigative means. Also, the police are using techniques that are based on centuries of methodology, and have been refined and redefined based on mistakes they have made in the past.
I am not trying to push that people deserve immunity from civil lawsuits. I am not trying to push anything. I have simply been pointing out where you are in error. You are making sweeping assumptions, and you are proving quite wrong in them.
WTF???
...is bad." Now, there were other words in there, and some of them in parenthesis. If you want to insist that those other words not be ignored, then "Copyright violation, at least as far as taking credit for other's work, is bad." The addition of "for reasons that don't warrant an explanation" is relevant, but ignorable. Still, the most basic of reading comprehension will reveal that the GP said Copyright violation is bad.
The GP said
"Copyright violation...
You said "This is not true." then said nothing about HOW it is not true. You began to attempt to attack software piracy. However, I am still baffled as to why you believe copyright violation is a good thing.
Also, you really should spend a little more time in the real world, and also do a little research before you decide to refute other people's statements. The RIAA have sued the parents of children that have downloaded material, and while the children might have done something wrong, the parents certainly did not. "Single mom Tanya Andersen, a defendant in a previous lawsuit brought by the RIAA, was one of the first to have her case dismissed with prejudice (it cannot be refiled at a later date)." (you can look that quote up, research...).
There's More. "In a lawsuit filed in January (2005), the RIAA accused 83-year old Gertrude Walton of sharing over 700 pop, rock and rap songs under the alias 'smittenedkitten.' What the RIAA didn't know is that Walton had passed away in December following a long illness. Her daughter, Robin Chianumba, has lived with Walton for the past 17 years and told the Charleston Gazette that her mother refused to even have a computer in the house."
So there is MORE than ample proof that the RIAA have sued innocent people. Get your facts straight.
Unfortunately, the US (Before it was the US) committed wanton and unspeakable acts of terrorism against the UK once upon a time. This included (but was not limited to) guerilla warfare at a time when combat was expected to follow a more civilized course. The then British colonists used terrorist tactics to gain independence and form the nation we now know and enjoy as the US of A.
Not defending terrorism here, but simply pointing out that terrorism largely a point of view issue. For example. If people violently opposed a policy of the US government, that the US government was wrong in having and enforcing, the US government could protect itself by simply declaring those people terrorists, regardless of how horrible and reprehensible this policy might be. If Slavery were legal today, for example.
But this is way off point.
Skype is but a single tool, apparently. The whole point of the encryption is that it *should* be uncrackable. I smell a whole "guilty until proven innocent" argument lurking below.
Actually, by your link to the Urban Dictionary, a Jock is indeed an Athlete. However, it is just not a "Real Athlete" according to at least one of the definitions submitted by those who chose to put their two cents in. I find it strange that by submitting this link as proof of "A jock is not an athlete" you appear to believe that being physically involved with sports activities does not constitute athletic status. The Majority of the definitions I read at Urban Dictionary confirm that Jocks are indeed athletes, only athletes that are also bullies, bigots, or have anger management issues.
It is interesting to note that the majority of definitions there also appear to be written by people who would never consider themselves to be a "Jock". Now, I know that some of these would be the "Real Athletes" mentioned in that one definition, however I would not hesitate to guess that most of these people would be those people who grew up hating "Jocks" during their school years, for a number of reasons.
So going from one cave to the next is ok. Going from one house to the next is ok. Going from one city to the next is ok. Going from one continent to the next is ok. But work toward going from one planet to another... HELL NO???
If you have a better plan than the one in action involving space stations and the craft they are using (poorly) to make this happen, then by all means, put it into action. Otherwise, shut up. It's not like private enterprise isn't getting involved. It is. If you are one of those people who thinks that the development of the bicycle, the automobile, the boat, and the plane were all great ideas, but we should stop when crossing the boundary of space, stick with living in the basement.
I'm holding out for the security guard position on a space station.
Software protection has an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances involved with being legal, they choose to accept a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to enjoy the use of that software illegally.
In the US, taxes have an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances of being legal (paying taxes), they can choose a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to live here illegally (not paying taxes).
Driving has an effect on everyone. For those who do not wish to deal with the annoyances of being legal (licenses, registered and inspected vehicle, insurance), they can choose a less bothersome annoyance, that being the decision to operate a vehicle illegally (no license, unregistered and/or un-inspected vehicle, non-insured).
You may not see getting a crack or downloading a game with a crack included (because someone already did the searching first), as all that much of annoyance, but there are those who do that don't quite know what they are doing, or what sites to avoid, or how to adequately protect themselves from some of the less scrupulous sources of executable patches or no-cd cracks. It might be more of an annoyance to them over your experience. This only means that the level of annoyance to go the cracked route varies per individual. It is still there to one degree or another. To those that go that route, it is just less of an annoyance than following the procedure set down by the game manufacturer to ensure that the copy of the game you are playing was paid for.
Do you know why? Do you know that that this precise moment, From more than a dozen sources, no less than thirty-three thousand (33,000) people are actively downloading what they believe to be (and most likely is) a Cracked version of Bioshock? At $50 a head, that's $1,650,000 US. That's more than a million and a half that isn't making it's way back to 2k Games. It should come to no surprise that a software company is going to try to do whatever they can to protect their product.
Your argument is essentially that they appear to be losing the war (they have to come up with what hasn't been done, crackers only have to figure out a way around something that already been created. The difference in required innovation between the two positions is large) so they should just give up. That is your argument. You might say you just want them to work harder to come up with something better, something different, something that isn't annoying to you. However, this is what they are continually ATTEMPTING. Do not for a second think that at these big software companies, they are sitting there thinking "Hmm. How can we screw over those people who want to pay for our games just a leetle bit more this time around?". Because trying to come up with something new that defeats piracy is not an easy thing. If it were, YOU would come up with it, and then sell it to the software companies and make your slice of the pie. These companies, and those dedicated to simply coming up with new protection schemes, want to find something that is less inconvenient.
Look at the bad rap that Steam gets. Here it is, the best of both worlds. You don't have to put in the disc. You don't even have to carry around a copy of it. You can go to virtually any computer with an internet connection, and download and play one of the games you have purchased from them. All you have to do is log in. And people still bitch. WTF?? OMG.. I can't install it (without uninstalling first) more than 25 times (cuz if you uninstall, you get the slot back). Gee. I can't install my copy of the game installed on 26 computers at one time. People have a problem with this? Of Course. They want it for free, and they want it to get all the benefits of having paid for it.
So stop your whining about what a GOD AWFUL BOTHER it is to actually have to jump through the hoops that you have to, in order to play your game legally. The company that produced the game you wa
There is at least one country where the policy is 0.0 blood alcohol level is allowed. Zero Tolerance.
Have you ever heard of a Designated Driver?
Why does Everyone have to throw responsibility to the wind, in order to have fun?
Too many drunk driving accidents are occurring that prove people CANNOT drive responsibly when drunk. They can only get lucky that nothing bad will happen.
He proves himself to be a hypocrite when he says that he is fed up with pirates and people using pirated games getting a better gaming experience than legitimate customers, then turns around to thank the makers of cracks for allowing what he is fed up with to actually happen.
There are countless examples of where someone thought they were perfectly able to drive after drinking, only to kill a family of three after finding out that they could NOT drive. It has been proven time and time again that drinking alcohol impairs the judgment. Your personal experience does not change these things.
In a few years, you might not have a choice about buying a car that checks your blood alcohol level for you. It is already in the works.
Pirates are not fixing broken products. You are justifying the illegal behavior. If people did not pirate, then copy protection would not have to be so annoying, and it would not be as experimental and prone to bugs. Copy Protection only exists to attempt to curtail illegal behavior. Let's use another analogy. Why have Police? Can't we trust the majority of people not to do things that are wrong? Why should we let the actions of a few criminals put the annoyance that are the Police in our faces? Sure, sometimes innocent (or mostly innocent) people suffer due to the overzealous actions of the police. Sure, it would be much easier of there were no cops on the roads, and we could all drive the speed we wanted to, and blow off stop lights and stop signs because they only hinder. This also describes how you feel, correct?
If you don't like the annoying copy protections you face, why not try supporting the people who are trying to defeat software piracy? Why not actually stand up for the Good Guys?
You are simply trying to use clever wording to justify your usage of cracks to defeat a form of piracy protection. Nothing you say changes the fact that the necessity of having a CD in the drive to play the game you purchased is one form of anti-piracy. You just don't happen to like the inconvenience.
There are countless examples of inconvenient things we have to do every day, that allow us to do other things we enjoy. It is inconvenient to have to pay for airline tickets just to travel to another part of the country. It is inconvenient to have to get a passport and go through all that hassle to visit another country. It is inconvenient to have to learn another language to try to communicate with people in certain other countries. It is inconvenient to have to learn to drive on the opposite side of the car and road from the country I live in. It is inconvenient to have to pay for the milk and bread I need to get for my family to have basic necessities. I can go on. It doesn't matter. It is all dependent on Point of View.
I do not find it inconvenient to have to put the CD in the drive to play the game of my choice. That makes your opinion unimportant in the grander scheme of things. It does mean that I can play a game I paid for, while others cannot play the same game for free. Why should some be able to play it for free when I have to pay for it? That is what cracks allow, regardless of how cracks also allow you to circumvent copy-protection.
This was a very well thought out and tight conclusion to your post. Unfortunately it points out exactly why you should NOT have a problem with protected titles.
Don't you think that the game companies themselves feel exactly the way you do, in that they are "really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers" as well? They are, and this is why they are making it increasingly difficult to pirate their games. So a real question is; Why are you opposed to anything that might slow or even stop the piracy of the games that you enjoy, if you are opposed to software piracy?
I really do think the question is why I should ever have to worry about a product I bought suddenly deciding I cannot install it.I know, I know. Everyone hates car analogies. Well, I'm gonna use one with two different examples. Automobiles that made you fasten your seatbelt before they would start. Automobiles that make you pass a breathilizer test before you can start the car. Why should anyone have to worry about a product they bought suddenly deciding that it is not going to do what it is supposed to? If the owner of that product is attempting to use it in a manner that has been arbitrarily decided to be "bad" or against the proscribed usage of that product (driving without a seatbelt or driving with a blood alcohol level above a certain amount). Now, it *IS* possible that the owner of a car restricting usage based on seatbelts might have that car in an area that did not have seatbelt laws. So, they *could* wish to drive without a seatbelt, regardless of how utterly careless and idiotic this may be, and this would violate no statutes and not get them into legal trouble. This relates to the number of installs a game might be limited to. Sure, there *could* be a legitimate reason for installing (without uninstalling) the game you buy a number of times exceeding what the company who made the game thinks is a good number. However, the game company has decided that this is the anti-piracy policy they are going to follow. It dictated that they needed to pick a number of installs to draw the line at (regardless of their decision to rescind this restriction later).
Don't even go there trying to attack cars that attempt to determine if you are too drunk to drive.
What if you lost your serials to the Battlefield 1942 install discs? Then, this product you purchased will no longer install. Gee. You spent money on a product that now decides you cannot play it, because you fail to jump through the proper hoop. If you want to be able to uninstall and reinstall, you have to keep track of more than just game discs. It's a restriction, and not one that will lift a few months down the road. You just happen to accept that restriction.
And you are thankful for cracks? So, although you condemn piracy, you encourage (and endorse) it? I'm sorry. In the end, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
Messed up syntax, Yoda would as well, hmmm?
Accomplish much he would, yes.
Eh, heh heh heh. ooOooh.
If you want strangers to think you are smart, just remember to label an ongoing topic of discussion as Sensationalism, and link it to a list of other subjects that you sarcastically mark as "Hot Topics".
That way, your destructive attitude (similar in many ways to the destructive force of the asteroids in the topic) will make you *appear* like you actually know something.
Now, I'm sure that you read the friggin article. Since none of us were there to see the impact in the asteroid belt, you are correct in that there *is* speculation involved. However, it is pretty obvious that it is not PURE speculation, since they are using researched information to form their theory. They quite openly talk about the percentages of probability of the events having happened as they described them, thus stating that although they believe things happened the way they have figured it out, it is possible that they are wrong. But they did not speculate on the composition of what hit us. They did not speculate on the composition of other objects we have been hit by. They did not speculate on the frequency that we have been getting hit with objects. They did not speculate on where we were hit by the one that most likely killed the dinosaurs. They are using some speculation as to the date we were hit, but they are using data that puts it at around the right time for an extinction level event.
So throwing around a phrase like "Pure Speculation" is pure ignorance. You are just looking to get a slice of that coverage with your "Pshaw. They ain't knowin diddly. They jus lookin fer money an 'tenshun, ah reckon." shtick.
Yes. It is called "The Brain".
the screen could be wider than a standard piece of paper
... just for a start...
the scan could be on a delay, where you hit your button, wait 5 ticks, and scan
the scan could be initiated by covering the screen with the paper (indicating to the scanning program that you have placed the paper in the optimum scanning position)
you could hit the scan button on your keyboard