A keypress file is a sequence of commands. So is a source code file. They both have to be interpreted by a special program to generate some desired output.
In other words, source code is pure data, nothing else. It's all in how you look at the thing.
Well, if you deliberately insist in using GPL for movie data files, then go right ahead. It's not like I'm going to stop you or anything. I was simply warning about possible problems.
While I have programmed in Z80 assembly, it has been so very many years ago that I don't remember anymore for sure, but I'm somewhat certain that bit operations and comparisons were supported on 16-bit registers. (If I'm wrong here, I apologize in advance.)
The Z80 doesn't support multiplication or division at all (regardless of register size), so they cannot be used as a measure of bitness.
The 8086 had an opcode that could load 32-bit values ("lds si,[bx]"), and it could produce 32-bit results in multiplication and take 32-bit value for division. It could also sign-extend a 16-bit value to 32 bits ("cwd"). Does that make it a 32-bit CPU?
The register size is 16 bits. Basic ALU operations, bit operations, comparisons and memory addressing cannot be done using 32-bit registers with single opcodes, so I don't think it can be considered a 32-bit processor by any possible definition.
I'd think that a keypress file has more in common with a program than with a document though.
A keypress file is a pure data file, nothing else. I wouldn't use the GPL license with it because its interpretation could cause controversy in problematic situations.
I don't see any problem in using some CC license.
The Z80 can only add, add with carry or subtract with carry using 16-bit operands, the other operations aren't available.
What "other operands" are those, and how do they define 16-bitness?
You can perform basic ALU operations with 16-bit registers, you can address memory using 16-bit index registers and you can load and store the value of 16-bit registers from and to memory. By all possible definitions this makes it a 16-bit processor.
Exactly what is it that makes it an 8-bit processor in your opinion?
The very definition of "8-bit processor" is that registers, the ALU and memory addressing are restricted to 8-bit values.
The days of command-line apt-get are long gone, even though most linux-prejudiced people won't accept that, and probably won't for another decade.
What I meant, but worded poorly was:
The days where the only way to manage software packages was using cryptic command-line tools (one of the most common ones being apt-get) are long gone. Nowadays many Linux distros offer, besides the basic command-line tool, GUI alternatives which are way more approachable to new users (and even more experienced ones). Regardless, many people who are prejudiced against Linux still refuse to acknowledge this, but instead persist in claiming that even today the only way to manage software packages is through cryptic command-line tools.
sgrunt wrote:
Show me a GUI which lets me carry out tasks as efficiently as I usually can from the command line, and I'll start using it...
Nowhere did I claim that the GUI interfaces were better than the command-line tools. I simply stated that nowadays there are graphical alternatives which are much easier for new users to use.
I personally rely on the command line much more than I do any GUI tools - given a sufficient level of familiarity with what you're doing you can perform everyday tasks significantly faster.
Personally I find Yast to be a much more efficient way of performing system configuration than trying to do it on the command line. It's easier to find what you are looking for, and the configuration files are often better and more clearly formatted, and often each configuration option has a ready-made list of options to choose from, so you don't have to read man pages or online documentation to find out what is it that you can write there. Yast already knows which files must be modified and how, so it saves me the trouble of having to find out. Thus Yast allows me to configure the system significantly faster.
I have always wondered why some people use "GPL" for documents and data, even though GPL is clearly a software license. The license clearly talks about things like source code, object code, system libraries, standard interfaces and other such terms which are clearly not applicable to pure data (which movie files really are).
The entire point of the GPL is that the source code of the program must be free. If you distribute a program licensed under the GPL, you must also offer the source code for that program for free. With TAS movie data files you cannot eg. comply with sections 5 (if you distribute a modified GPL program, you must also distribute its sources with prominent notices about original authorship) and 6 (if you distribute a program in object code form, you have to also provide the original, machine-readable source code), because the domain of the license simply doesn't apply to pure data files.
Creative Commons is a set of licenses which are specifically aimed at documents and data files.
OpenSUSE had some command-line version of the package manager as well, but I don't even remember its name since the graphical version in Yast2 has sufficed for everything. It's quite easy to search software and see info about them (eg. which version you have installed, which version is available, and so on).
The days of command-line apt-get are long gone, even though most linux-prejudiced people won't accept that, and probably won't for another decade.
having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows.
I see you have a sense of humor.
Windows is not configurable and has laughably limited support for anything.
For instance, did you know that NTFS and the Windows kernel support hard and soft links? Show me where, in a standard Windows installation, you can create them.
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
I don't really understand what you mean by "invented". That word seems to imply that they came up with completely original programs which nobody else had thought of before. At least that's how I understand the word "invent" to mean.
I have never heard anybody claiming that the FSF invented the standard Unix tools. Instead, what I have always heard is that the FSF wanted to develop a free alternative to all the commercial Unixes out there at the time. In other words replicate all the standard Unix tools, using a free license, so that people would have an alternative to the commercial products.
(Of course that's not to say that the Gnu people haven't truly invented some original tools and programs, because they certainly have. However, nobody has ever claimed that they invented everything.)
Where did this "they invented everything" suddenly come from?
I haven't noticed any slowdown with Windows XP, but I have noticed that disk usage grows in completely normal usage, something which doesn't seem to happen with Linux so easily.
I don't do much with XP nowadays other than play games and a bit of surfing (although the majority of surfing I do on the Linux side). Sometimes try some program. Anyways, completely ordinary normal Windows usage as a gaming platform. Yet once or twice a year I have to perform a serious cleanup of the Windows partition because it tends to get full of trash.
Windows itself, and a bunch of third-party programs (such as the JVM) like to update themselves and not remove temporary files nor old files. Tons of programs like to create temporary files which they don't clean up afterwards, and which Windows' own disk cleaning utility won't remove. Many programs want to put their data files in the C drive (in the "My Documents" folder) even though the program itself has been installed in the D drive, so even when I install a program on D, it still ends up filling C. Naturally many such programs won't remove all those files after uninstallation. Likewise web browsers really like to fill up the C drive with files they won't remove afterwards. And so on.
If you perform a thorough cleaning of your Windows drive eg. once a year, not only using Windows' own cleaning utilities, but searching for obsolete files manually (there are very good tutorials on the net about this subject), you can often free up several gigabytes for better use.
I haven't noticed such a phenomenon in Linux. It doesn't "grow" like that over time. My Linux partition isn't particularly fuller now than it was when I installed it, save for the libraries and programs I have deliberately installed over time. Also programs use my home directory for their data and temporary files and thus removing them is much easier because you don't have to search in cryptic system directories for them. (Also files in your home directory are completely safe to remove in the sense that you know that removing them won't break the system. This is unlike in Windows, where it's always anybody's guess whether removing a file or folder eg. from C:\windows will break something.)
Although you can use IRC with a browser through some webpages specialized for that purpose. (Is there anything in the internet anymore which absolutely cannot be used with a web browser? Bittorrent maybe, although the equivalent function would be just downloading the file using the browser...)
My suggestion about this:
1) Don't use the category anymore, just accept two different character's movies
Oftentimes runs with alternative goals are accepted because they are entertaining even though they do not achieve the fastest possible game completion (but they do achieve the fastest completion with that goal). I think it's good to denote it when a run uses an alternative goal. "!00% completion" is one such alternative goal, and using a slower character is another. They both deserve being mentioned as categories.
(The custom has been, at least in some runs, to use "xyz version" where xyz is the name of the playable character, in the title of the run. However, I think giving it a category is also important because it helps in searching for such runs, create statistics, and other things.)
Maybe runs could be submitted to be published in either the main category or the concept demos/video vault/whatever. Maybe they could have their separate submission forums altogether. And in the main category submission forum one could vote yes/no/meh/vault material. If enough people think it's vault material, it could be transferred to the vault submission forum, where a new round of votes would ensue. Or something along those lines.
However, the current way has the advantage of not being subjective.
I think that the category is already subjective because, as said, basically all TASes "manipulate luck" in one way or another. Up until now, whether or not a run gets the category has been completely up to the publisher, often prompted by a suggestion by the author (and different authors may have different personal definitions of "manipulates luck").
The real problem, as mentioned, is that by being too liberal in granting the category, it has become basically nondescriptive and useless. It doesn't really tell anything about the run, not anything interesting at least. It would be much more useful if "manipulates luck" would be a much narrower category where the luck manipulation is extremely obvious. That way if one wants to watch such runs, one can search for runs with that category tag.
Making manipulates luck only count for heavy luck manipulation means more things that we can argue about until the end of time.
That's what judges are for, aren't they? To make decisions even if some visitors disagree with those decisions. :)
Just a guideline which all judges (or anybody who has the right to apply categories) can agree on.
I wouldn't say that's the problem here. The major problem here is going through all the existing publications and removing the category from the ones which don't really deserve it. That's a big undertaking.
(Btw, couldn't arkanoid be its own independent genre?)
You walk down the street and see a man beating his child. You are now at a choice, whether to interfere or not. Obviously the man doesn't want your "help", as it's not your child and it would be a moral crime for you to decide for their parent. If you're going to argue that a human being is different from property, whatever, let it be a cute fluffy kitten. Until the police arrives (if it does), there's still quite enough time to beat it senseless, or even worse. Your decision?
Yeah, because copying someone's intellectual property is completely comparable to stopping someone from beating a child.
Clearly you don't have any rational arguments (not that it surprises me), so I'm going to stop now. Think what you want about it.
I think you have a good point with luck manipulation, but if we're going to make "abuses programming errors" into "abuses programming errors heavily", then we'll actually need that "does not abuse programming errors" tag, since there's plenty of viewers who specifically want glitch-free runs, and making the "default" setting for a run be "abuses some programming errors" will make it hard for those viewers to find glitch-free movies.
You yourself suggested that "does not abuse programming errors" is a useless category because it can be assumed by default, and only bug abuse should be denoted explicitly with a category.
I happen to agree with that. The majority of runs don't abuse any bugs (or any bugs which make any significant difference), usually because there are no bugs to be exploited (not for speed, at least). Heavy bug abuse to achieve speed is more the exception than the norm.
There could be two bug abuse categories: Mild and extreme. Mild bug abuse is something like the SMB flagpole trick. Extreme is like much of the Rygar and Megaman runs.
Dare I, once again, suggest a stricter interpretation of the "manipulates luck" category? I haven't followed how it's recently, but in the past that category has carelessly been granted to any run simply because the author wanted it, or because the publisher was in the mood.
But technically speaking all runs manipulate luck (at least in games which have a RNG or where the game reacts in different ways depending on the player's action) because the TAS repeats exactly certain events, even if they are supposed to be random or otherwise unpredictable in normal play. Thus "manipulates luck" should not mean that.
Instead, "manipulates luck" should mean heavy luck manipulation which gives significant advantage over an unassisted run where luck cannot be manipulated in the same way. For example, if there's, let's say, a 1% chance that an enemy will drop a certain item, and the TAS makes 20 consecutive enemies to drop that exact item, and benefits considerably from this in terms of speed, that is luck manipulation. An unassisted run would have to kill approximately 2000 enemies before it got those 20 items, so the difference is clear and drastic.
Another good example is getting a critical hit on every turn, even though normally it has a really small chance of happening. Likewise parrying enemy hits on every turn, even though it's very unlikely to happen in normal play.
This would make the category more sensible and significant. If you wanted to watch great examples of extreme luck manipulation, you could search for those movies having that category applied to them. Currently you won't get anywhere by doing that.
I think this is in the same vein as making the "abuses programming errors" much stricter than it currently is: Only heavy bug abuse should earn this category.
All runs which are technically faster should be published, even if they're less entertaining.
I was talking about the (upcoming) concept demos section of the site, not the main section where strict TAS runs are published. The whole idea of the concept demos section would be that it would be a way to publish tool-assisted playing videos which do not conform to the rules but are otherwise enjoyable.
Warp, see, the problem is that we won't ever agree on this issue because you're arguing from the standpoint of law defined by somebody else, and I'm arguing from the standpoint of making sense, defined by myself.
That's where you are wrong (which is an euphemism for "you are deliberately distorting what I'm saying").
When I say "you don't have the right to make that decision on behalf of the author" and "it's not your property", I'm talking from a moral point of view. While those are also legal terms, that's a side-issue. In this case law and morality coincide.
As a completely hypothetical example, let's assume that you see your neighbor tending his garden, and you think that he is doing it completely wrongly. His plants will suffer and not grow well if he keeps doing it that way. You can go and tell him that he is doing it wrong. However, you don't have any moral or any other kind of right to go to his garden without his permission when he is not at home and fix what you see is the problem. If your neighbor doesn't want you touching his garden, then you stay out. Going in there is both a moral and a legal crime.
Intellectual property makes no difference. You don't own it, you don't have any rights to it, it's owned by someone else, and you don't have any moral right to do whatever you want with it without the owner's permission, no matter how many excuses you use to explain why what you are doing is actually a "good" thing.
You claim that I speak only from the point of view of the law, and refuse to acknowledge the moral issues related to piracy. I have the feeling that you are doing that as yet another excuse to try to justify your acts. After all, law and morality don't always coincide, so if it's just "the law speaking" then you don't have to worry about it because morally you may be doing the right thing. Which is bullshit.
I wonder if Adblock is conflicting with some other addon, because if I disable Adblock completely as an addon, the embedded videos work fine, but if I enable Adblock as an addon but disable its functionality from Adblock's own settings, all advertisements start showing but the embedded video doesn't work. Strange.
Besides, why are you talking about giving? I am talking about copying. A completely different thing. If you equal those two things, you are deliberately distorting the issue.
…And I'm talking about copying.
So, as said, you are deliberately distorting the issue. You were talking about giving. You used that very word.
To give a piece of software you own to someone else is legally a completely different thing than to copy it to someone else. Don't try to confuse the two things.
The original issue was that "giving something to someone else being illegal is stupid", and this was used to justify illicit copying, which is a completely different thing. It's deliberately confusing two distinct acts.
But there is really no difference because the person in question didn't pay money for it and thus legally didn't have the right to enjoy it. Even if he didn't enjoy it in the first place. Which he wouldn't know without trying it.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. You are not making any sense. What does "enjoyment" have to do with anything?
Warp wrote:
Read your country's law. I'm not a lawyer.
But you're a lawyer enough to tell me about licenses, huh. Oh well.
You don't have to be a lawyer to know how your country's law says. I know what Finnish law says about computer software. I don't know what your country does, if you are not living in Finland.
Warp wrote:
That's not up to you to decide. You don't own the music; it's not your property. If the proper owner of the music allows it to be distributed for free, that's his prerogative, not yours. You don't have the right to make decisions on his behalf. Why would you? If the owner doesn't want his music to be distributed, then you don't have the right to go over his rights and do it anyways. You don't own the music.
Allow me to quote your question: "Exactly how does it help the artist that you copy the work to someone else?" So, instead of admitting that it effectively did help the artist (which it did), you are playing devil's advocate here yet again, telling me how wrong my methods of helping them were. Like I care about those. :P
Are you claiming that every single time you have illegally copied something, it has helped the author, and that justifies your illegal activity? Are you saying that because in a few cases copying having led to purchase justify all the other instances as well, even though it may have been against the will and legal rights of the author?
Besides, what gives you the moral right to do something against the wishes of the owner, regardless of whether it might have benefited him or not? Or are you simply using this as an excuse for your illegal copying? (That was a rhetorical question.)
Warp wrote:
You may argue that an artist not allowing his music to be copied is fool, but that doesn't change anything. Again, it's not up to you to decide what to do with his property.
No, I'm not going to argue that. What I'm going to argue, however, is that in the real world it's not the artist that is now the "proper" owner, and it's not up to them to decide what to do with their music.
And exactly what does that change? Are you seriously claiming that because the author sold his rights to someone else, now you are, by some twisted logic, morally allowed to copy his work for free?
And exactly how do you know what kind of saying the original author has over his work and how much money he gets from the sales? Have you made that research with every single piece of intellectual property you have copied?
Or are you, once again, using that argument as an umbrella excuse for all of your copying?
Up to the point that they can be persecuted for distributing the music they've written. Which is just wrong from any possible standpoint, but you likely won't care because they'd be subjected to the same argument of "it's not up to them for decide".
Wait, by using the wording "but you likely won't care" you are insinuating that you are actually doing some good by copying the intellectual property which is not owned by the original author but someone else?
Oh, great good samaritan who goes to great lengths to help those poor authors who get robbed by big multimedia companies, please explain me your logic because I can't understand it. Exactly how does your illicit copying help the authors, who you seemingly so much care about?
Warp wrote:
So you are saying that anything that is not presented in a movie theater or rented in a movie rental should be freely distributable? By which logic?
Uh… You're asking me for logic but aren't being logical at the same time. Let me illustrate what you're doing here:
me: Apple is a fruit.
You: So what is not an apple isn't a fruit?
Don't pull those straw men. The argument was:
"The concept of pay-per-view is idiotic."
"So you are saying that movie theaters and video rentals are idiotic?"
"No, movie theaters offer an experience not available at home and video rentals offer movies at low prices for longer periods of time."
"And what is it that you are trying to say with that? That as long as it's a movie theater or a video rental, it's ok and logical to pay, but anything else is idiotic and should be freely distributable?"
The point is: I don't see much difference between pay-per-view and eg. a movie theater. If you don't want to pay for it, then don't watch it, but it's not nonsensical and doesn't change absolutely anything about whether it's ok to copy something for free or not.
Warp wrote:
Even I can think of better excuses for piracy.
You should also realize that you and I have different definitions of piracy.
Let me guess, to you piracy is selling illegally copied intellectual property for profit, but distributing it for free isn't?
"Pirated" is generally used for all usage of illegally copied intellectual property. Money doesn't have to be involved. I know that people use some stricter meaning of "piracy" as an excuse that they are not really doing anything wrong.
Warp wrote:
Is that really the best argument you could come up with?
I have given you an example when people wouldn't make money off a product itself but still be commercially successful through different but directly related means (that is, they receive reward for that same effort).
So some people are able to make a profit with free software? And exactly what does this have to do with illegal copying of software?
Even if your point is "it's foolishness to restrict the distribution of music/software" that doesn't change anything. That still doesn't give you any moral, ethical or legal right to copy that music or software against the owner's will. You may question their business strategies but that doesn't change your rights and restrictions, not legally nor even morally.
Warp wrote:
The authors have full moral, ethical and legal rights to either distribute their property for free, or demand payment for it. I'm not doing anything morally, ethically or legally wrong by using their software in accordance to how the authors want.
See above. It's not about the authors, it's about the intermediaries now. Most of the time the people you're suggesting to be the authors don't get a sliver of the earnings the intermediaries get. Arguing about morals and ethics with that in mind just feels repulsive to me.
So according to you it's morally right to freely copy intellectual property if the original author has sold his work to someone else.
Sorry, that doesn't compute.
As a matter of practice, games are sold. Everyone except for the lawyers who make the EULAs for the games interpret the act of going to a store and handing over money for a box containing a DVD and some paper as a purchase. Signs say "Buy Now". They don't say "License Now". People expect, and reasonably so, that they will have all the same rights they have with the games they purchased as with any other item they buy. As it happens, legally they're in the wrong because of those lawyers; morally the matter is far less clear.
Using simpler terminology is indeed a practical matter. However, for example the Finnish law on computer programs is rather (and unusually) clear and unambiguous about that subject. It clearly states which rights the customer has on using the software, and under which circumstances those rights end.
Of course this is heavily dependent on each country's laws. Some countries might not have any laws regarding computer software at all, making the whole thing a lot fuzzier.
Except if it is "sold" and not rented, I'm supposed to be buying and not renting.
What you are being "sold" is a license, and licenses have their restrictions, even under your country's law. For example, licenses can be terminated.
I'm not legally allowed to give a DVD I bought to my friend?
I don't know about your country, but here you can. Your rights to use the program end when you give it to someone else, though.
Besides, why are you talking about giving? I am talking about copying. A completely different thing. If you equal those two things, you are deliberately distorting the issue.
In what particular way I'm "transferring the license", say, when I'm lending something?
Read your country's law. I'm not a lawyer.
Warp wrote:
Exactly how does it help the artist that you copy the work to someone else?
Easily. An example from my life: I've gotten ahold of an artist's recording for free (illegally in this case), I became a fan, I'm now rewarding the artist by buying CDs and visiting their live events. If I hadn't obtained the content for free I wouldn't have bought it, wouldn't have become a fan, and thus wouldn't have paid the money to the artist. As a result, I paid money the artist wouldn't get otherwise, anyway.
It's so simple I don't even know why I'm required to spell it out for you. Many independent artists are in fact employing this exact scheme to gain popularity and then cash in on live events and hard copies of their work. There are also many respected people who are advocates of this approach, like Cory Doctorow.
That's not up to you to decide. You don't own the music; it's not your property. If the proper owner of the music allows it to be distributed for free, that's his prerogative, not yours. You don't have the right to make decisions on his behalf. Why would you? If the owner doesn't want his music to be distributed, then you don't have the right to go over his rights and do it anyways. You don't own the music.
You may argue that an artist not allowing his music to be copied is fool, but that doesn't change anything. Again, it's not up to you to decide what to do with his property.
Warp wrote:
You are saying that, for example, movie theaters or video rentals are the most ridiculous shit ever?
Movie theaters offer a unique experience that can't be reproduced at home, and that is worth money. Rentals never charge per view (and in most cases the rates are lower anyway).
So you are saying that anything that is not presented in a movie theater or rented in a movie rental should be freely distributable? By which logic?
Sorry, you are not making any sense. You are just inventing excuses, and bad ones at that. Even I can think of better excuses for piracy.
Warp wrote:
Does that mean that it should be ok if the company sells exactly one copy of their product, and then that one single purchased product is copied for everybody else to use for free? And exactly how does that make any sense?
Hey, you're a Linux user, right? Under what logic are you using the open source products without paying for them?
Under the logic that the authors of the software have given me express permission to use their software for free, with a legally binding usage license. They own the rights to the software, and they are giving express permission.
People have spent just as much effort on them, so they should be rewarded, right? Ideally, yes.
If they wanted the money and prohibited their software to be distributed for free, then that would be their legal prerogative. But they are giving it for free. That's their decision.
(But even then, I'm actually not allowed to do anything I want with their software either. For example, I cannot take parts of their source code and embed it in a closed-source proprietary program. Their license forbids me from doing that, and it's legally binding.)
You're basically playing the devil's advocate by suggesting me to pay some people for their effort, but not the other, based exclusively on the licenses they are "selling" with their products. Doesn't it feel unjust?
Is that really the best argument you could come up with?
The authors have full moral, ethical and legal rights to either distribute their property for free, or demand payment for it. I'm not doing anything morally, ethically or legally wrong by using their software in accordance to how the authors want.
"Would you please leave my room now? I want to listen to this CD I've bought, but you haven't bought the right to listen to it, so... Really sorry, but I don't want to get into trouble with the law!"
That's a perfect example of a straw man argument. There's a big difference between two people listening to the same record and copying the record to other people. The latter is distribution, and it's a completely different thing.
