I work at a helpdesk and support Vista. First of all, SP1 has made improvements. Even before that, I couldn't honestly say it was horrid in the sense that, say, supporting WinMe has been. It's now, at least usably stable, and systems are now pretty much up to it's *actual* system requirements, as opposed to the fantasies of PC's that would supposedly run XP and were sold with it before, but couldn't possibly run *well*. That said - A) I have seen nothing to *recommend*
Weird - It may have been in DA (Never actually played DL), but I distinctly recall having some of my ships destroyed in a fleet action versus a starbase? Course, it's been a month since I had time to play, so it may be senility setting in - {G}. Jonnan
Actually - I haven't gotten much feedback on it, so there may be bugs I haven't noticed, but I ran the xml files through "winmerge" and have, I think, setup a mod to run DL and DA under the Twilight Engine. I do recall hitting a bug with the "GalcivII_Twilight_Techtree.xml" not working right, but since it was just a 'cheat' techtree that resulted from my figuring out out stuff worked, it's mostly for reference purposes and I haven't bothered fixing it http://library.galciv2.co
[quote][quote]But yeah, it's happening rather slowly[/quote]Isn't that the way it always goes?[/quote] Actually, no. It was something like last November I double checked the figures for an article (and found they were either accurate, or 'close enuff', depending on what references I checked.) that was noting that by that point in the life cycle XP had 50% market share over every competitor. We're now a year later, and honestly, the rate of increase is still positive, but slower than i
[quote][quote]Yeah, it actually does - IF you have "owner of a copy" protection under section 117. Which explains why software companies use EULAs to prevent you from getting that status. And you should note that this does not exclusively apply to MMOs, almost ALL commercial software comes with an EULA to deny you the section 117 protections.[/quote] OK, i dont know the US law. I just couldnt imagine it. EDIT: I tried to google it but couldnt find anything about that in sec
[quote][quote]You mean sir - that you've never taken a photograph of any item you own?[/quote] Would taking a photograph be considered creating a copy?[/quote] It's a derivative work isn't it? [quote][quote]And the banana's of course can't have photos taken of them either. Nor can they be painted - those genetically modified banana's are copyrighted.[/quote] In this case, you're wrong. I just peel off the sticker and I can take as many pictures of the bananna I
[quote][quote]You mean sir - that you've never taken a photograph of any item you own?[/quote] Who is doing the apple to oranges comparisons now? Thats NOT copying. You are making a photo not a copy. [/quote] The really sad thing is that, although that *should* be an apples to oranges comparison, it's actually not - strictly speaking, taking a photograph of a copyrighted object requires a license. Obviously, that is something that is typically on
[quote][quote] Just out of curiosity Cobra - on what produst have you *ever*, upon *not* seeing a notice of a EULA, asked a person at the store or looked up the EULA online on? Seriously. Have you done so for Banana's? Couch? Digital Camera? CD Player? DVD Player? If not, why not? [/quote] I've looked up the occasional EULA online. For the items you're listed, I haven't created any copies of
[quote][quote]I buy a product, it may or may not have "license enclosed" written on the outside. This is indicative of jack fucking shit. To be preposterous, they could be giving away fishing licenses. To be reasonable, that license can say anything from "By using this software you agree to be bound, gagged, and raped by our company at our discretion" to "You agree not to reverse engineer this product" Stardocks are the latter, EA's are beginning to resemble the former. A generic "
[quote][quote]You keep trying to play the consumer clause out as if it is some really ambiguous definition. Although I see some grey area where two courts mmight disagree in a specific case, there's just not that much play involved in the definition. Yes or no: Is selling a database you acquired from another company a use that counts as being "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Yes or No: Does culling information from that database and repackaging it
An interface improvement that just occurred to me - I'm not sure what to call it this instant, so I'm going to use the term 'part template' - a series of jewelry that are set together in te same fashion as a template for a ship, where the system loads them all as a unit and allows you to hook them onto the main craft as a unit. This would be great when trying to maintain a specific 'style' for ship designs - an upgraded version of the favorites menu in TA. Just a thought - tha
[quote][quote]"If I could find even a single major case where one party was a consumer (or that you would accept as as consumer), this might matter." - I would think that it would occur to you to consider the possibility that *this* might matter - that you have been trying for months now, but can't find a single 'major case' where the defendant didn't qualify as having special skills in that industry or was using it in business.[/quote] Or it could be that the license contracts the
[quote] Bodyless - those same considerations came up in the Zeitenberg case in 1996. That was part of the justification for upholding EULAs.[/quote] Regarding [link="http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html"]Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg[/link] - Yes, it explicitly supports Willy's belief that the distinction between "Merchant" and "Consumer" is illusory, and uses that to make shrink-wrap agreements binding in the 7th district. It's several pages long, and I'm n
[quote][quote]I think you're assuming a lot more ambiguity in contract law than is actually there -[/quote] Maybe, but something just came up in my mind: You dont need to buy the retail WoW to play it. You can download the entire Client for free from the WoW Homepage. And even buy a license there(completely seperated from the download). No physical cd is required. Now do you want to base this case on the users who a) buyed the retai
[quote][quote]You have posted several cases. I did not bypass them and move on - I explained, point by point, *why* I thought they were not relevant. Generally it was because the defendent seemed to obviously fall under the definition of "Merchant" - which, perhaps not coincidentally, seems to be about the time you decided that you really hated the definition of "Merchant" and "Consumer". If you post a case that has a consumer, and I can post a link back to the definition of consume
[quote][quote]The problem is that by attempting a legal solution to a technical problem[/quote] . . . and the problem with the "technical problem" is that it's a virtually unsolvable problem. I've gone through the information theory I know of, and ultimately whichever program gets installed on the user's computer first will always have the upper hand. If the bot is installed before WoW is installed, there's vitually no way to guaruntee that WoW can detect it's on the sam
[quote]Jonnan - a bit of indirect personal experience, if I may. One of my friends from high school is a lawyer who specializes in debt collection and representing creditors in bankrupcy cases. You would be floored by the percentage of people who use "I signed it, but that doesn't mean I knew what it said" as a defense, and it almost never works. This holds true for utility bills, car loans, morgages, and damn near anything else. Clearly, even having someone hold consumers' hands through a co
[quote][quote]Here's the thing - if you accept 4), then 5) follows inexorably if the buyer is a consumer. The CD is the original item being sold[/quote] Not necessarily. You are buying a game, yes, but it is only an assumption that you are buying the cd inside the box. If there is a fair warning that you purchase a license and the cd is simply provided for you to get the a copy of the software, your assumption is useless. Now you can argue what a "fair warning" is. But t
[quote][quote]How the hell do you call "license enclosed" fair warning?[/quote] Do you have a better idea? Pretty much everywhere they can, they make the license available. It's in the box, on their website, shown whenever the client is installed or updated, available from the client before you login, etc. It's pretty difficult to miss. Maybe they should make it more obvious on the retail shelves somehow? I know that when buying it electronica
DILITHIUM! Those Dilithium cracking stages are the dumps, but I understand you can make tons of money at them. Careful of the Babes they through at you though. Oh - Venus Drug. We need Black markets in this game! {G} - Pug
Thanks - I disagree with you on these, but at least we're talking about small, definite points now, not whether it's fair to one side or the other - {G}. [quote]4) This distinction hovers between "nebulous" and "outright lie". The same person can be considered BOTH in the SAME TRANSACTION. For instance, my boss orders items over the internet as part of his job. If he were to order an item for personal use, he would be fulfilling the definition of both a consumer and merchant at the same
[quote][quote]Note,: This "Owner of a Copy" person is different than the "Owner of a copyright" [/quote] Interesting claim, and I had to look that one up. Appears you are correct. The problem isn't that I wasn't reading what you had linked to - the problem is that I didn't have my definitions straight, which were in another document. If I'm not quite understanding everything, please do not immediately assume I am not reading what you have linked to. This stuff is, after all
Okay - my increasing frustration is rather evident - I keep posting the law, and Willy/Bodyless keep posting back that I must be wrong because it would be unfair to a company to force them to live within the strictures of this law. Moreover I feel that exactly what it is that the disagree with keeps changing. So I would like to know, what exactly is it among my 'axioms' that they believe I am wrong on. So, I'm asking for people to read the relevant law and saw what the
Why do I bother posting detailed data that people are determined to just flat out ignore? [quote][quote]it rests on an interpretation of Blizzards EULA between Blizzard and the person that bought the the CD with the WoW client. [/quote] Correct. In this case, they are discussing MDY's licensed (not owned) copy of the intellectual property (IP henceforth). As far as I am aware, MDY does not actually own the copyright on any of Blizzard's IP. [/quote] Red Herring: NO
GalCiv2 Forums