Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:And hippies will protest it (Score 1) 396

When I get home late and don't have time to cook before crashing, $2-$3 at McDonalds fills me up adequately for dinner (couple cheeseburgers or bacon cheddar mcchickens). $5 is more than I can eat (there's a "two big macs for $5" sale on now).

It's disgusting (if a bit addictive) but it's stupid fast, and yes, it's cheap as dirt. If I was working two jobs it would be nearly mandatory--no prep time, no dishes, right in front of the bus stop; grab it, eat, sleep.

At our local QFC, every time we try making something healthy it costs an arm and a leg. Buying in bulk helps, but the people we're talking about here can't do that all the time.

Comment Re:Why do we still allow this sort of overeach? (Score 1) 511

Good god! I can only imagine all the nefarious purposes that drug testing companies use my samples for when I get tested for a job! Why, maybe they're even trying to pull my DNA out of them and sequence it so they can sell it to who-knows-what evildoers! If only a tinfoil hat worked for that.

No. I give VAC explicit permission, and it does its job. No VAC, no online games worth playing.

Comment Re:Not good for their aspirations (Score 1) 511

Yeah, I can't see Linux players being allowed on any servers for some games. "No VAC on Linux" is a reasonable statement. VAC-only games (I think CoD?) will therefore never make it onto the platform. Can you imagine if only one operating system didn't have cheat detection? Why not wave a big flag around saying "If you want to cheat, run Linux"?

There's a lot of players who actively choose VAC games over non-VAC games, even with full information about these countermeasures, because they want to lower the chances that they are playing against a cheater. Saying "I run Linux but please let me play your game" is like saying "I'm not willing to take a drug test but please hire me". Some places might. Some places never will.

Comment Re:Still abusive (Score 1) 511

Sounds good. It's nice that Free games are out there. However, after playing games that don't try to detect this stuff, I'm very happy to not only give VAC permission to check my stuff but also PAY for the privilege of playing against other people who do the same thing. I guess it's kind of like going to a restaurant with a dress code... sure, maybe it "infringes" on your "rights" to wear whatever you want, but there's people who choose to pay to be in a space where everyone follows the same restrictions. It gives a certain atmosphere. But hey, go ahead and cook bacon at home in your underpants, I'm not doing anything to stop you.

Comment Re:Stop using Youtube (Score 4, Insightful) 268

The guy who was filing the complaints commented on the site. So maybe he's a dick, sure. But if you're willing to give him good faith for his complaint--solely in the capacity that he honestly believes that the video oversteps fair use, and is violating copyright--then he did follow correct procedure.

He tried contacting the guy quite a few times (or so he claims), and after getting no response, he filed the takedown request personally, not through some automated thing. If he has good reason to honestly believe that his rights were violated, it wasn't even perjury. Strangely enough that's what I would do if I thought someone was violating my copyright.

Claiming fair use for informational purposes is really shaky ground. There's a lot of "I know it when I see it", and people like to stretch the definition on either side. I haven't seen the video so I don't know how long the clips are, but if they are too long then yes it's a violation, and I suspect that (much like with parody) there's a line between "informational purposes" and "openly hostile" that the law says you shouldn't cross. Does it cross the line? Hell if I know, but the guy sounds like he's at least justified in filing a claim. Whether a court would find it reasonable or not is up to them, but jackasses get to protect their own rights too.

Comment Re:sensational (Score 1) 373

> to verify that the VAC module was downloaded from the correct server...
 
...actually that sounds about right, if not that exactly then something close. I can totally see someone using a HOSTS file to screw around with a security system, it makes sense. In an ideal world, they would only upload very specific entries.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...