Andrew H.
-
Posts
1,446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Andrew H.
-
-
You do have the right to make multiple xerox copies of books and keep them around your house. But this probably doesn't mean that you have the right to do the same with computer programs (assuming its barred by an EULA, of course).
I think this is just one shortcoming of reasoning by analogy, especially when the analogy is an almost 100-year old case. The "first sale" case (I can't remember the real name of the case) really only talked about selling, lending, or giving away books, but it (in those pre-xerox days) didn't talk about making copies of books. I don't think you can interpret the case to mean that EULAs are invalid unless they allow you to do everything with a program that you can do with a book. Although there may be certain things that they can't prohibit you from doing.
I'm not sure if that's much of an answer. I also don't know about the more restrictive EULAs f1shlips described above -- to the extent I read EULAs, they've mostly just been game EULAs.
-
If a halftrack were a pickup truck, the forward MG would be mounted on the roof of the cab (at the back), and you would fire it by standing up in the bed of the truck, behind the cab, looking forward.
There's no way for the driver or front seat passenger to fire it; there has to be someone in the back.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by f1shlips:
I'm interested in other viewpoints, but they are difficult to find and Lessig makes his widely available.<hr></blockquote>
It can be difficult to find articles on the web that describe intellectual property law in general terms. Probably the best thing to do is look for the opinions in the court cases discussing copyright law. Here's a link to the court of appeals ruling in the DeCSS case, for example. DeCSS case.
I think that the opinion is pretty well written and should be fairly understandable to reasonably intelligent people. It has some decent background information in it, too.
When reading Lessig (and others) on copyright, it's probably worthwhile to keep in mind that he is usually talking about two separate issues(although he often doesn't make this distinction clear). The first issue is whether copyright-related laws are "good" laws or "bad" laws; the second issue is whether copyright related laws are constitutional.
It's important to know whether a law is good or bad so that you can know whether to write your legislator and tell him or her how to vote. But the constitution doesn't prohibit bad laws (obviously), so the mere fact that a law is bad doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. I think Lessig blurs these two things sometimes.
You can also find copies of the DCMA on the web. Relevant portions of it can be worthwhile to read as well.
-
IIRC, the volume of a sphere is 4/3(pi)r^3. I'm not sure how to find the weight of iron. But, as I mentioned in my post, I'm not sure if they really used this method in WWII, given that the weight of the shells actually used seems to correspond with the pound designations.
-
After carefully reading the Logistics volume of the US Army's Official History (the green books), I've come to the conclusion that the M1 Paring Knife (potato) is undermodeled. While the Germans had to make due by peeling potatoes with bayonets, and the soviets (according to Solzhenitsyn) did not peel potatoes at all, but baked them under the coals, the US forces had an instrument specifically designed for peeling potatoes. Moreover, the M1 was made of high-carbon steel, which meant that it would stay sharper than conventional knives. Consequently, the M1 should have a significantly higher ROP (rate of peeling) than other kitchen knives. This, in turn, should dramatically affect the delays that troops experience while waiting for hot meals. The increased ROP should mean that US troops will have the smallest delay while waiting for hot food, a factor that is of most interest in operations, but which could also be decisive in longer battles, or in battles where the pre-game buffet is modeled. The soviet troops should suffer the most severe delays because it takes forever for a potato to cook under the coals.
Steve might argue that this is "outside the scope" of CM. But since an army travels on its stomach, and because units in CM move, it only makes sense to include the kitchen battle in CM.
Indeed, I would recommend that CM add a new battle type for QB's: Kitchen Patrol.
Some people might argue that the Germans, because of their cultural familiarity with the potato (remember, Fredrick I sent out the troops to make sure that the peasants planted potatoes instead of turnips because potatoes were more nutritious), but I think that this type of national modifier is not needed in CM. Certainly the french have made a significant contribution to the art of potato preparation (french fries), and if there is anything that Americans are good at, it is fast food. But even CW forces, with their shepherd's pie, have a certain base level of expertise in the field of potatoes.
It's probably also the case that US potato peelers should be modeled as crack or better, which would further increase the ROP, although at a higher point cost. A casual familiarity with documentaries such as Ken Burn's "Dirty Dozen" or Ambrose's "Kelly's Heroes" reveals that US soldiers who were insubordinate and disobeyed orders were actually exremely competent soldiers. Because these soldiers were so frequently assigned kitchen duties, it would be most realistic to model these individuals as crack or better...in much the same way that Germans put the best tankers in Tigers. However, because so many competent US soldiers were insubordinate and assigned KP, front line US soldiers should have a substantial component of green troops.
The German and Sov. armies also had a certain number of insubordinate soldiers. However, rather than putting these troops in the kitchen, where they could do some good, the Germans put these units in penal battalions, where they cleared mines and did other pointless tasks that are of little help when you're hungry. If you've read "Panzer's East," you know that a few extra bowls of steaming potato soup might have made all the difference in the battle for moscow.
Insubordinate soviet troops were generally just shot out of hand.
I know that the uber-Germans will probably complain that CM undermodels the effect of the Knoedel or the Kartoffelpuffer, and possible there should be some tweaking in this area...but these minor aspects pale in comparison to the gross undermodeling of the M1.
-
Patton was a very good general, so was Monty. Patton was probably better, but Rommel was much better than Patton, so there. Monty hurt his reputation by occasionally lying about things after the war (i.e., Caen), but his inability to take Caen is not a sign of incompetence.
Monty in Africa was just what the british needed: a commander who could meticulously arrange his superior forces so that he would get some benefit from having superior forces (i.e., they wouldn't be defeated in detail again. While not nearly as sexy as deep encircling probes, or something, it was exactly what was needed to win at Alamein.
And, yeah, a lot of commentators have pointed out that with a little more cavalryman's flair at the end of Alamein, Monty might have been able to surround and capture all of the Afrika Korps. Maybe this is right, but sending out long, unsupported tank forces to try and trap Rommel, who always seemed to turn initial british victories into british defeats once the british overextended themselves, seems like something one should think twice about doing.
Monty in Normandy was faced with the task of keeping casualties as low as possible due to the british manpower situation. So he had to be cautious. And while he did have problems advancing very far against the Germans in his sector, the same must be said about all allied commanders.
Patton's best performance was in the breakout. The contours of this are well-known, of course, but Patton did his part perfectly -- he covered huge amounts of ground, captured lots of troops and materiel, and suffered very few losses. It's not really fair (or accurate) to denigrate Patton's performance here as being against already beaten troops...while these troops were probably already beaten, Patton had to make sure that they stayed beaten long enough to capture much of France. (Remember, the German troops later forgot that they were beaten at the end of this year). Patton's performance particularly stands out when you remember that one problem the allies had in France was that very small numbers of German troops were able to delay much larger Allied forces. Not that this turns Patton into Napoleon, but being able to do something that no other allied general in the west can do bespeaks a certain amount of competence; the Germans would agree with this assessment. (Patton would disagree; he thought that he was napoleon).
Patton's reinforcement/relief action during the battle of the bulge was also handled very well: he got his entire army up, on the road, and to the shoulder of the bulge very quickly.
-
It's the weight of the shell. I've also read that it's not really the weight of the shell, but the weight of a lead ball with the diameter of the barrel. I.e., a cannonball. But a quick reference check shows that the shells for the 2, 6, and 17 pounders weigh 2, 6, and 17 pounds, respectively.
I've always found it interesting that the brits didn't use the pound measurement for mortars and other artillery.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chosun-few:
Dunno about throwing distance but my old man reckoned that the blast from a mills bomb could toss shrapnel further than you could throw the grenade away from you. So you made damn sure you could take cover before you started<hr></blockquote>
One of the selling points of newer grenades (i.e., those developed in the 60's) has certainly been the fact that the new fragmentation systems (typically using notched wire or somthing similar) not only provide more uniform shrapnel dispersion, but also provide a much more defined safe range. That is, it's much more likely that a person standing 30m away from a grenade with a 20m danger zone will not be hit by shrapnel than was the case in WWII. Not that I would rely on this, of course.
Post WWII studies of WWII grenades showed that the shrapnel did not spray out uniformly from the grenade, and the shrapnel was not of uniform size, either, despite the design of the pineapple grenade, which was supposed to encourage this. Instead, the grenade broke into a few big chunks, and several very small pieces. The small pieces had a very short range, and were not particularly lethal, whereas some of the larger pieces could fly 100 yds.
None of which really matters if you throw the grenade into a bunker or room -- the small fragments will be lethal enough at that range, and the large fragments will be unlikely to fly back out of the room or bunker. And of course there's a concussion effect.
But if you're in a field or something, it is far preferable to have predictable grenades.
-
I'm pretty happy with how close assaults/panzerfaust usage works now. I have had good success with close assaults on tanks in historically realistic settings. That is, the tank is parked next to a building, I send someone inside the building from the other side to move adjacent to the tank. The same is true of a tank parked next to woods. In these cases, my units have almost always close assaulted the the tank or fired a pf, and the men were almost always successful. These appear to be the same situations Andreas was discussing.
On the other hand, when I've tried assaulting tanks in the open -- even immobilized tanks not that far in the open -- my efforts are usually greeted with failure, esp. if I don't have a Pf or rifle grenade left. Occasionally my efforts are greeted with spectacular failure, as when an immobilzed StuG with Nahverteidigungswaffe caused 10 times as many casualties to the close assaulters as it caused to all my other units combined.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by f1shlips:
The current system is contrary to the constiution.<hr></blockquote>
Nonsense. The case Lessig is talking about stands for the proposition that some licenses can be so restrictive that they are unenforceable. This doesn't mean that any license is unenforceable; it is very clear that some licenses are enforceable.
Most EULAs are vaguely patterned after the case Lessig was talking about; their key point is that you can only have one copy of a software program (plus a backup, maybe) at a time. But you are generally free to do what you want to do with the program...sell it, lend it, give it away. These are the same rights you have when you buy a book. Of course, you don't have the right to make identical copies of a book and sell them, lend them out,or give them away. And you can't do that with software, either.
So it would seem that if you made an image of the CMBO CD on your hard drive, you would have two copies of the program (and you wouldn't have made the copy for backup purposes), so you would be violating the user agreement. This would be enforceable. On the other hand, if you wrote an additional program that made CMBO run without the CD in the computer, I don't see how that would violate the licensing agreement.
You have to be careful about relying on Lessig for copyright information. He's a smart man, but he definitely has an agenda (by which I mean a particular view of how he would like copyright to work). A lot of people share his views, which is fine, but it would be a mistake to consider his view of how copyright should work as being how copyright does work, or will work. He's been mostly wrong about how most recent computer copyright cases would turn out, for example, so it's risky to rely on him for information about what copyrights mean (because appellate judges keep telling him that he's wrong).
On the other hand, if you share his view about how copyright should work, and you want ammunition to support your view, he's not a bad source for that.
-
Well, I went to the computer place today and put in my order for the system described above. I should be able to pick it up next Wednesday (except that's a busy day at work, so I'll have to get it on Thursday)
.The 1.53GHz CPU is the Athlon XP1800. I asked about the ASUS A7V266-E; the guy said that he didn't have any in stock, that he could order one, but that he really wasn't certain that he could get one in the next couple of weeks, as the supply was still sort of spotty. He did mention that someone else asked about one yesterday.
I held off on the GeForce 3 so I can give myself a present in a couple of months. Although maybe there will be a GeForce 4 out by then...
[Edit] Oh, I found out the problem with upgrading Dells. According to Scott Mueller's newest PC book, it looks like you can upgrade a Dell normally because they use ATX motherboards. BUT, their motherboards (since sept. 98, apparently) have a different power supply pin arrangement than a normal ATX motherboard. Even worse, the pin arrangement is not different in a way that means that the power supply won't fit, it's different in that it will fit, but will fry the motherboard or burn out the power supply (or both) if you attach a non-dell motherboard to a dell power supply, or vice versa. That, obviously, is very bad, and evil on Dell's part, to boot. Apparently you can get around this by purchasing a new power supply when you want to get a new motherboard, and then installing both. But that's a pain.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]</p>
-
Yeah, it is the Athlon 1800 processor. WRT vid cards, this system is so superior to what I have now, that I might as well be blown away by it as is, and then upgrade as I become more jaded. Or when CMBB is actually released.
I made pretty much same the initial computer mistake you did, buying a Compaq K62 533 from best buy, around 2 years ago. I knew enough to look for AGP, but didn't know enough to realize that "integrated AGP" was not the same as an actual AGP slot. Not at all the same
. And of course my compaq has a weird form that prevents just putting in a new motherboard.
So I can't wait for my new standard computer!
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:
*SIGH*, appears you have forgotten that "Empire" is the erroneous term as Britain has never had an "Emperor", maybe "Queendom" didn't sound pompous enough.
Gyrene<hr></blockquote>
Not quite true; the british monarchs had numerous titles, something like, "King of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, and of the Overseas Dominions, and Emperor of India."
So the british had an emperor, even if the british emperor was not emperor of the britains.
-
Well, you can follow my exciting upgrading story in full on the Tech Support part of the bbs, but basically I'm getting this computer:
1.53Ghz 266FSB AMD XP CPU w/ 256KB Cache
ASUS A7V266 Socket-A ATX Motherboard
256MB PC2100 DDR RAM
80GB UltraATA/100 HardDrive 7200RPM
16X DVD-ROM w/ Software
16X/10X/40X CD-RW w/ Adaptec V5.0 Software
1.44MB 3.5" Floppy Drive
64MB GeForce2 MX AGP Graphics Accelerator Card
Ambient 56K PCI Data/Fax V.90 Modem
On-Board PCI Sound System
2-Serial / 1-Parallel / 2-USB Ports
Deluxe ATX Mid Tower Case w/ 300W Power Supply
It's not quite at the level of your system, but I'm very happy with the $925 price. I'll probably upgrade the video card at some point, of course, which will add another couple hundred dollars to the cost.
I put my order in today, and I should be able to pick it up next Thursday.
-
Thanks for the info. I've thought about upgrading the video card to a Geforce 3, but haven't decided yet. The motherboard tip is something I didn't know about and very helpful.
Here's a link to the place I found this computer:Indiana Computer Factory
It's local for me, but it looks like they might do some mail order. I don't think that the prices include the OS. If my work schedule fits, I'm going to drop by there tomorrow.
-
I've done a little shopping at some computer builders in town and found this quote, for $925, which looks pretty good to me:
1.53Ghz 266FSB AMD XP CPU w/ 256KB Cache
ASUS A7V266 Socket-A ATX Motherboard
256MB PC2100 DDR RAM
80GB UltraATA/100 HardDrive 7200RPM
16X DVD-ROM w/ Software
16X/10X/40X CD-RW w/ Adaptec V5.0 Software
1.44MB 3.5" Floppy Drive
64MB GeForce2 MX AGP Graphics Accelerator Card
Ambient 56K PCI Data/Fax V.90 Modem
On-Board PCI Sound System
2-Serial / 1-Parallel / 2-USB Ports
Deluxe ATX Mid Tower Case w/ 300W Power Supply
Any comments on this system? Are there any upgrades that it might be worthwhile to make? (I plan to use the monitor and sound card from my current PC in this one.)
-
There already is a close assault animation: the troops throw grenades and stuff at whatever it is that they are close assaulting. This is as dramatic as showing men swarming over the enemy tanks, but it does let you know that your troops are (or are not) close assaulting.
It would be cool if in CMBB the grenades for close assaulting were molotovs with little burning fuses, though. :cool:
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst_Void:
there are some problems however. As spectorx said, defending units that are in a position for a while should be very hard to spot, especially in comoflouge, and should have a great advantage. There was a certain scenario in Operation Flashpoint where about 5 men and myself were advancing up a hill through thick forest defended by three Russian riflemam. The Russians defeated my squad easily, I didn't even see them, they were invisible but they easily saw me.<hr></blockquote>
I think there's a an important scale difference between three riflemen and, say, a rifle company, or even a rifle platoon. I've read a lot of AARs from small unit actions in WWII, and while there are several accounts of a hidden gun or sniper or other single unit holding up the advance of a larger group (usually by covering a roadway), I can't recall any instances where a defender got an advantage like the one described above simply because he was well hidden.
I think this probably has to do with the underlying WWII reality that units on both sides had a pretty good idea about where enemy units were because of scouting. Not in precise detail, because units did move around, but in general. In company commander, for example, there's a description of how Macdonald's troops, in a quiet sector of the line, were constantly patrolling and observing the German line. If you watch the defensive line for weeks with binoculars, and frequently probe, you will have a decent idea about where enemy troops are.
Which is not to say that people went into battle with maps showing the location of every enemy foxhole; of course they didn't. But you also never read about situations where a company advances across a field, observing nothing, until concealed enemy units pop up at point blank range and gun them all down. The attackers just don't have that level of blindness.
In general, though, I think that CM's spotting is about right, especially after the button-up-delay patch. Guns remain a real danger because they can usually get a couple of shots off before being spotted, and concealed defenders in cover remain hidden until enemy units close to within 200 meters or so.
-
That's good to know about the Dell. My biggest concern is about upgradeability, though: if I could easily replace the motherboard on my current computer now, I wouldn't feel the need to buy a completely new one for another couple of years. So I want to make sure that the next computer I buy gives me that option, so that in two more years I can simply buy a new motherboard/CPU combo. (Which at that time will probably have something like an 8 gig CPU).
-
Certain types of defenses could be represented in CMBB without an engine rewrite by simply adding a new battle type. I brought mentioned this in an earlier discussion of the engineering battle. Look at Breach.
The essence of this battle type is not the points ratio between attacker and defender, but the limitation/restriction of what can be purchased, particularly by the defender. Thus, in a 1000-point Breach type battle, both the attacker and the defender might have 1000 points, but the defender might have to spend 400 points on fortifications. (Of course, for this to work ideally, the game would need to discriminate between manned (pillboxes, bunkers) and unmanned (mines, wire, trenches (?)) fortifications.
Having a battle type like this would not fix difficulties caused by absolute spotting, etc., but it would permit the use in QBs of certain types of common battles, especially on the eastern front.
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Compassion:
wonder of wonder, the 37mm went right down the tube and detonated the loaded shell in the German tank and it brewed right up.
THis is totally unatributed, so take it for what it's worth. Quite a gamey move on the US player, eh?<hr></blockquote>
Of course, if you're the gunner on a tank mounting a 37mm gun and you find yourself facing the front of a KT, what else are you going to find to aim at?
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:
Alas, we must wait until CM Desert War and/or
CM The Early Years.
50L60 Toad<hr></blockquote>
No, they should be in CMBB.
-
Thanks for the info. I will check with a computer shop and see what they can do; that would also allow a little extra customizing, too. If that ends up being too expensive, I'll probably get the dell and see how well anti-spyware programs work.
-
I want to buy a new computer to update my middle-aged Compaq K6-2 533. I'm sort of interested in a Dell Dimension 8200 with a P4 1.8 gig. (You can look at it here if you're interested.
I would be interested in any comments people here might have about the dell.
There are two main problems with my compaq that I would like to correct by getting a dell. First, my compaq doesn't have an AGP slot, which I know the dell does. Second, because of the weird compaq form factor, I'm not able to upgrade the compaq buy purchasing an off the rack mobo and simply replacing what I have. Does anyone know if this will be a problem with the dell?
Thanks.
.
help please, kinda-off topic...
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
The Patton museum is great. Not only can you climb on the tanks outside when no one is looking, but no one is ever looking. It also gives you a good appreciation for what close assaulters had to face.
Also, the county courthouse in Putnam county, Ind., has a V-1 on display on the courthouse lawn (sort of like how other courthouses have cannon and stuff). Probably not worth a special trip, but weird nonetheless.