Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Microsoft can now kill Java (Score 1) 317

by Whorhay (#47920723) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion

Honestly the graphics being "outdated" was a feature for many players. It meant more of a focus on the actual gaming elements than window dressing. Besides which there were mods very early on that improved the graphics and lighting.

Minecraft is also the first game I knew of that literally evoked a sandbox feel. Games before it were described as "sandbox" but that really just meant you had a wide amount of freedom in the game. Minecraft actually allowed building and destruction on a scale which no other game had done before, at least not that people had heard of. Of course it was inspired by Infiniminer and Dwarf Fortress but those are very niche unknown games by most any comparison.

Also so far as the pricing goes, I remember that when I bought my copy it was closer to $13 because of the exchange rates. Regardless when the transaction servers melted down under the load after Penny Arcade talked about it, Notch made the current version available for free until the transaction servers were back up and a new version was ready weeks later. In my opinion that was some amazing good will, or very shrewd business sense, at a critical moment of growth.

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 576

by Whorhay (#47902001) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Keeping guns out of the reach of very young children is important. But just as important is teaching older children and adults about proper gun safety. I worked with a woman who was standing shoulder to shoulder with her best friend when that friend's boyfriend shot her in the face with a large calibre muzzle loader. He wanted to show off his dad's gun and took for granted that it was unloaded. He thought it was perfectly safe to use a percussion cap so it would make a small bang when he pulled the trigger.

Never leave a firearm laying around or stored loaded.
Always assume a firearm is loaded until you can physically verify that it is not.
Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded, even if you have already proven that it is not loaded.
Never point a firearm at something that you do not intend to shoot momentarily.

Comment: Re:Is it really that dangerous? (Score 1) 323

by Whorhay (#47901877) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

Fatalities being down can be attributed to all kinds of other factors, such as:
Better safety features in general as older unsafe cars age out.
Safer road and traffic engineering.
Red light cameras reducing incidence of fatal T-Bone style accidents.
Better emergency medical response.
Poor economy for most people resulting in less driving.

Comment: Re:It's easy (Score 1) 323

by Whorhay (#47901833) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

I don't know that I would go to DUI levels necessarily to me. But where I live using a cell phone while driving looks like it should fit the elements for Reckless Driving. Which can have a hefty fine although not cripplingly so, and or anywhere from 5 to 90 days in jail, and possible suspension of license. Honestly I think having a serious threat of going to jail for a few days minimum would cut the amount of casual cell phone use while driving pretty effectively.

Comment: Re:Fines work better ... (Score 1) 323

by Whorhay (#47901811) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

Where I live they passed an essentially toothless texting while driving law a couple years ago. The law bans any use of a phone without a hands free kit of some sort while driving. But you can't be pulled over for it, it can only come up as an additional offense. The fine is also a measly $40 or something and doesn't add points to your license.

In my opinion using a cell phone or similiar device shouldn't get it's own special law. That kind of behaviour is just reckless and as such should fall under reckless driving laws.

Comment: Re:You cannot patent an idea (Score 1) 110

by Whorhay (#47897945) Attached to: Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

Software is not a machine, it is a set of instructions for a machine to execute. In this sense it is identical to a recipe, which is not patentable. It is however subject to copyright, which comically enough has longer terms of protection than patents do under current US law.

Comment: Re:Never carry lots of Cash (Score 1) 461

by Whorhay (#47896817) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

An important first step I believe would be to make that first small claims suit directly against the officer(s) involved. LE agencies rely on the officers on the front lines to do these confiscations. If those officers get hit with small claims suits frequently enough they'll lose any desire to confiscate where there isn't a criminal case to be made.

Comment: Re:Accusations (Score 1) 1134

by Whorhay (#47834257) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

I had an unprofessional relationship with my spouse for more than 2 years before we ever had sex. And I can definitely tell you I gave her preferential treatment more than a couple months before we ever had intercourse. In my experience sex wouldn't be the first sign of a relationship.

Comment: Re:Accusations (Score 1) 1134

by Whorhay (#47828677) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

He didn't write an article specifically written as a review of her game. What he did was write an article about how there were thousands or more new indie games. Then in that article he said that her game, was the big standout and the only graphic in the article was for her game. That isn't exactly a review but it sure is a ringing endoresment. And while that can sound like nothing of consequence a mention like that on some of these gaming related news sites can make or break a game in a huge way. Just look at how Minecraft went from something no one had heard of to an incredible success in the course of a single weekend, arguably because of a silly web comic.

Comment: Re:Accusations (Score 1) 1134

by Whorhay (#47828573) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

I see the words "objectivity", "mpartiality", and "fairness" all included as part of the second paragraph as common parts of established journalistic codes. I'm pretty sure when you have had a sexual relationship those are going to be very difficult things to maintain when speaking about that person or their work. I wouldn't actually expect anyone to say in their article "We shagged and they were awful in the sack, but the video game was pretty great." I would instead expect the journalist to either state that they had a more than professional relationship with that person, or most likely just abstain from writing about them or their game. He should have told his Editor that he had a non-professional relationship with her and had someone else write any articles regarding her or her work, or including plugs for her work.

Comment: Accusations (Score 4, Insightful) 1134

by Whorhay (#47825605) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

So TFS says that the accusations regarding Zoe Quinn were false. I hadn't heard this bit yet, is the article linked to actually confirmation of that? Sorry, I'd read the articles for myself but work filters are a PITA. The last I had heard was that the guy who writes for RPS and Kotaku had confirmed their sexual relationship.

I honestly don't care about her sex life or lack there of. The only thing of interest to me is a "journalist" possibly sleeping with a person with whom he should have a more professional relation ship with, and not disclosing that fact when making mention of her work, whether positive or negative.

Comment: Re:This does not bother me (Score 1) 237

by Whorhay (#47820615) Attached to: Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

Again bullshit.

Again, their is no need for a "right to privacy", we inherently posses all and any rights not explicitly forbidden in the law or granted to the various Governments to which we are subject. The Constitution is an explicit listing of powers or rights that the Federal Government and it's agents may posses. They are not granted any more authority than is explicitly listed in the Constitution and whatever other laws we've passed. You could argue that some of this might be covered under the questionable patriot law clause, but that is more and more tenous by the day.

Intent and method matters when you are talking about communications, otherwise there would be nothing illegal about wiretapping any phone conversation. You are essentially arguing that just because you had a conversation using a STU in a fortified bunker in an old mineshaft that there is nothing wrong as a private citizen tapping that line, cracking the encryption, and doing whatever they want with it. Or say a voyeur installing their own airport type scanner in a public walkway of some sort disguised as something else, I mean nobody is bothering to even encrypt the radiation they are emitting or reflecting. Just because they wouldn't expect anyone to be able to see or detect that, or even know it's possible, their can't possibly be anything wrong.

And speaking of radiation. I would wager that these towers are also in violation of any number of FCC Regulations on the use of radio frequencies. The frequencies that are used by cell phones are very lucrative and are leased on an exclusive basis. These towers are very likely using bandwidth that is already leased to some other entity. Remember they aren't just listening they have to be broadcasting or the cellphones would never actually establish a connection with them.

So far as the DMCA goes, it is a law, as far as I know it applies to everyone unless they are explicitly exempted. According to the DMCA it doesn't matter how weak the encryption you are using is. Deliberately dycrypting something which you have not been explicitly authorized for is a violaiton and hacking of some sort or another.

The mailbox is exactly like radio transmissions it is just visible from a longer range and using a naturally visible frequency. When I put something in the mailbox it is continuously available to anyone who has the gumption to open the box and open the envelope. When you put a letter in an envelope and seal it, it is then obvious to anyone that it is private and not intended for anyone to read but the receipient listed on the envelope, doubly so if it's one of those 'security' envelopes. But the actual physical protection on that letter is still actually incredibly weak, my two year old frequently opens my mail for me. The same should be logically true for encrypted radio transmissions. Just because it is trivial to break does not justify deliberately doing so. And by virtue of those transmissions being in specifically leased frequency ranges they have an expected receipient, which is whoever the wireless provider is that leased the band and signed the contract with the end user. If the mailman accidentally, or even deliberately delivers my mail to your mailbox you are not legally allowed to just open it and read my correspondence.

As a private citizen I do not need an explicit recitation of rights, the only things I need explicitly stated are things that I may not do. The Government and its many agencies and agents does require an explicit grant of rights in the law to perform their duties. That is pretty much the entire point of our Constitution.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...