tank03

I have a friend that was a Navy pilot quite some time ago, and he has recordings he made himself. It's ASTOUNDING how much on air traffic there was. That they could weed through all of that stuff and still know what was going on, and still have enough attention to do their job amazes me. It's quite impressive, and gives me even greater appreciation for what those guys do.

I use the COMM mod found in the download section here. It makes it so that the flight calls out the number being targeted. That way I just have to respond when I hear my number. Of course, if there are multiple squadrons, I can hear "1- SAM launch" quite a bit, but it still reduces the overall number of radio calls I have to pay attention to.

It's not a matter of how we look at it, it's a matter of how those who create the laws look at it. Your model doesn't exist outside of the digital world created by the developer. It's sole intent is to function within that world, a world you didn't create. It's not a matter of his creation remaining unchanged in a secured hard drive, its a matter of you using his creation for your own means. Much like me using someone else's words for my own means; both are contrary to copyright. You can make all the models you want on a desktop, but once they are plugged into that game things change. You need his creation in order to give your model life, so to speak. You are not plagerizing the painting because the painting isn't copyrighted. It's real property and you can do what you want with it. Making the 3D model isn't plagerism, you can make all the models you want. It potentially crosses the line when you use it in the game. You are relying on someone else's creation to allow your model to exist. You can't fly your model without their digital world. You are relying too heavily on their work for it to exist as you intended. Surely, you didn't create the model to have it sitting around on your computer? You created it to fly; specifically, you created it to fly in an environment not of your creation. It's all about intent. You using your model in someone else's game is the same as me writing a story and using someone else's words. We are both relying too heavily on the copyrighted work of someone else. Now, I could use quotes to get around it, or the author could give blanket permission to use his work as we want. Same with the game. In the TW sims, Tk has given permission to modify and share certain aspects of the games. Other producers have not. What it comes down to is the copyright will always supercede the consumer right, regardless of how right or wrong we may view this.

Yeah, it is kind of a circular argument isn't it? I see your point, but I would argue that what you have made is akin to plagerism. I can take a passage from a book and try and call it my own by changing a few words here and there. That would still be considered plagerism because the thought/ idea was someone else's that I usurped as my own. I can share that thought/idea, but I need to come up with my own way to express it. That's why quotation marks exist. To deliniate to the reader whose thoughts they are reading. The model you made is really just a manipulation of what already existed. The game engine/code that allowed the maker to produce their models is what allowed yours to "exist". Making a new model is like just changing a few words around. Both are relying on the original work too much in order for it to truly be yours. "But what if said copy protection violates your right as a consumer?" There is a hierarchy of rights and rarely does the consumer's right supercede that of a creator of a copyrighted work. Reason being is that our society views the protection of intellectual property more important than consumer concerns. Kind of like, I have a right to free speech, but I can't go into a crowded theater and yell, "FIRE". My right to free speech doesn't supercede the public's right to safety.

My thoughts exactly, I just wish I thought to put them as succinctly rather than rambling on about intellectual property (though I have enjoyed the debate).

True, very true, but I would argue that the painting is more real property than intellectual property. That's why paintings aren't copyrighted (nor are TV's or houses). They are considered real property legally. Society and the artist may recognise the artistic and intellectual component of the painting, but they are real property first and foremost and the owner can do what they want with it. I use a book as an example because it most closely resembles the issues relative to digital works. If I were to buy a book, I could rip out the binding and color on the pages, but I could never alter the thoughts, ideas, impressions, and other intangible aspects that were contained and communicated through the words of the author. That is how digital works are so different form other things that can be copyrighted. I can't manipulate the authors intentions/ ideas, but I can manipulate a computer program. This is a development that has never been encountered before in history. Sure, one could plagerize a work before, but never has one been able to so drastically and essentially been able to alter what is considered someone else's intellectual property. Never has the intangible been made tangible through computerization. I still think that you should be able to do what you want with it for your own private use, but outside of that I recognise some serious and far reaching legal conundrums.

Ah, I think I understand the point of all of this now. "I don't buy into the DMCA BS. I went to a store, I gave the cashier $50, he gave me a box with a DVD in it. Just as if I bought a car, house, couch or TV, it's my property. It's basic human law." The examples you gave are of material/tangible objects designed to be given away (legally called Real Property, as opposed to Intellectual Property). The analogy between a car, house, or TV and a computer program (or written work) doesn't really work as they are vastly different forms of property; apples and oranges. "Further, I'm not altering the game itself, the DVD is exactly as they made it." -The copyright doesn't protect the material object (the DVD) it protects the so-called "intellectual property" contained therein; the programs, code, etc. Much like the copyright that protects published works. The difference is that a digital product can be manipulated in ways that a printed product can't. Having clarified that though, I do agree with you. I can't see how any corporation can have a say if you alter the product in your own home and for your own use. If you start to distribute the product of your efforts (free or otherwise), then that's a different story. But, you should be able to manipulate all you want for your own use.

It's got to be demoralizing to have your enemy start dropping their used plumbing on you.

Ah, intellectual property can be a legal quagmire. When you talk of a book, do you mean the material object (the binding, pages, ink) or the thoughts, ideas, and intangibles contained therein? "Can you just change everything in the house against the will of the owner?" Yes, you can, but only under very specific circumstances. I don't really know what this debate is actually about, care to enlighten me? Or perhaps it may be better for me to get out of the way now if this is one of those arguments that enrages more than enlightens?

Better Colorado steaks than Rocky Mountain oysters

Isn't Varitek a class act? He pocketed the ball from the last out and plans to give it to the Sox. Not like Menciweiz from '04 who kept it and tried to sell it back to the Sox for $2 million.

The question isn't whether or not providing the info was illegal; depending on the jurisdiction, that should be a cut and dried answer based on statute law. Civil law clearly states what is and isn't illegal in cases like this; and therefore it's really a moot question. If the law says what you did was illegal, then it was illegal, regardless what you may have to say about it. The real question is what was your intent in providing the information? A reasonable person (and the law always looks at this from the stand point of reasonability) would probably see no reason for someone to provide such information unless their intent was nefarious. Why else would you give away the detailed information on the security and location of valuables? Based on the brief scenario you provided I'd have to say that you are guilty; for no other reason other than I can see no reasonable justification for providing that type of info that didn't involve theft.

Much thanks to those who host/manage/moderate the site and all the modders who share their work. Cheers!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

A horse walks into a bar, bartender says, "Why the long face?"

A common mistake is misnaming the files: i.e. CV-63, CV63, CV_63. Be sure that the naming protocol is consistent. Additionally, each object has it's own folder in the Ground Object folder.

I agree. A ton of a/c are available in the community, but good quality maps/terrain aren't as common and would definitely be something I would pay for.

There is an article on patching in the knowledge base.

Since the start of the series I always thought that Boston would have some trouble in the first game in Denver. I can just picture Manny trying to hustle his fat ass around the bases in that thin air. Can't wait for the game. My brother-in-law lives in CO and is going to the game on Sat. The traitor and his family are rooting for the Rockies. I'm just so ashamed of him.

I'd bet Wonder Woman is a bit kinky with that whip and all.

I expected Beckett to dominate, but I didn't think the Sox offense would be that good. It's tough to win a game when you are allowing runs to just walk in. Can't wait to see what happens next.

Superman would do in Batman before Batman was even able to squeeze into his silly rubber suit. There's just no question here. With the exception of kryptonite, there is no device Batman could use against Superman that he couldn't overcome. And yes, I'm wasting time. I'm supposed to be doing daily status reports, and instead I'm arguing with a co-worker about the Batman/Superman thing.

I know I guy that kept the ignition key in the old tractor that he used for plowing his driveway; never had a problem with it before. Last winter, some drunk stole the thing and crashed a couple miles down the road and got himself hurt. He sued my friend for negligence because he left the key in the tractor; had to pay out $25,000. The guy was drunk! The guy stole it! But apparently that's not as bad as leaving the key in the thing.

That's good stuff!!!

Manch-vegas!!