22/7 != Pie. it equals 3.142857..... where the 142857 repeats forever.

22/7 != Pie.

it equals 3.142857..... where the 142857 repeats forever.

You still get the same effect.

You still get the same effect.

[QUOTE][20:40:21] LegacyWeapon: {{removed}} is my number one bug reporter [20:40:48] LegacyWeapon: because he mass unprotects maps to extract the sounds [20:40:57] Moose: Lol? [20:41:03] Moose: You use an MPQ viewer for that [20:41:07] LegacyWeapon: Hah [20:41:28] LegacyWeapon: Moose, have you ever looked inside a MPQ that's been shadow protected? [20:41:40] Moose: Nope [20:41:43] LegacyWeapon: Everything is unknown. [20:41:50] Moose: I've never wanted sounds from a shadow protected maps [20:42:03] Moose: Are the files still listed? [20:42:05] LegacyWeapon: Nope[/QUOTE] Extract all the files. Renamed them all to .wav. Play each one. If the wav plays, it's a wav. I've done it. It works. Of course it works. You could even write a program to check each file for the first few bytes to get the magic number of each file... to see if it's a wav or not.

Quote

[20:40:21] LegacyWeapon: {{removed}} is my number one bug reporter
[20:40:48] LegacyWeapon: because he mass unprotects maps to extract the sounds
[20:40:57] Moose: Lol?
[20:41:03] Moose: You use an MPQ viewer for that
[20:41:07] LegacyWeapon: Hah
[20:41:28] LegacyWeapon: Moose, have you ever looked inside a MPQ that's been shadow protected?
[20:41:40] Moose: Nope
[20:41:43] LegacyWeapon: Everything is unknown.
[20:41:50] Moose: I've never wanted sounds from a shadow protected maps
[20:42:03] Moose: Are the files still listed?
[20:42:05] LegacyWeapon: Nope

Extract all the files.
Renamed them all to .wav.
Play each one. If the wav plays, it's a wav.
I've done it. It works. Of course it works.

You could even write a program to check each file for the first few bytes to get the magic number of each file... to see if it's a wav or not.

Hell, if Blizzard wanted, they could change the .chk format. They've already done it once (long before the mapping community was around). If they changed the .chk format, everything would be obsolete. Frankly, I think that it really doesn't matter. I think most people here, if they're going to edit a map, are going to respect the mapper's wishes, so it doesn't matter whether you host OSMap in that case. Also, I think that most people who want to allow others to edit their maps would not use a protector. Therefore there's no point to hosting protectors either. However, when someone makes a map, and protects it for no reason, and walks away, there's the problem. If someone creates a high level of innovation, or performs a technique you didn't know existed, without OSMap, that technique is lost forever in the black hole of mapmaking. With OSMap, you can retrieve it, and use that technique in any map you make in the future.

Hell, if Blizzard wanted, they could change the .chk format. They've already done it once (long before the mapping community was around). If they changed the .chk format, everything would be obsolete.

Frankly, I think that it really doesn't matter. I think most people here, if they're going to edit a map, are going to respect the mapper's wishes, so it doesn't matter whether you host OSMap in that case. Also, I think that most people who want to allow others to edit their maps would not use a protector. Therefore there's no point to hosting protectors either. However, when someone makes a map, and protects it for no reason, and walks away, there's the problem. If someone creates a high level of innovation, or performs a technique you didn't know existed, without OSMap, that technique is lost forever in the black hole of mapmaking. With OSMap, you can retrieve it, and use that technique in any map you make in the future.

[quote=isolatedpurity][QUOTE][20:40:21] LegacyWeapon: {{removed}} is my number one bug reporter [20:40:48] LegacyWeapon: because he mass unprotects maps to extract the sounds [20:40:57] Moose: Lol? [20:41:03] Moose: You use an MPQ viewer for that [20:41:07] LegacyWeapon: Hah [20:41:28] LegacyWeapon: Moose, have you ever looked inside a MPQ that's been shadow protected? [20:41:40] Moose: Nope [20:41:43] LegacyWeapon: Everything is unknown. [20:41:50] Moose: I've never wanted sounds from a shadow protected maps [20:42:03] Moose: Are the files still listed? [20:42:05] LegacyWeapon: Nope[/QUOTE] Extract all the files. Renamed them all to .wav. Play each one. If the wav plays, it's a wav. I've done it. It works. Of course it works. You could even write a program to check each file for the first few bytes to get the magic number of each file... to see if it's a wav or not.[/quote] What amuses me is the loser that actually uses OSMAP for such a thing like stea... I mean extracting the sounds from protected maps.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Quote

[20:40:21] LegacyWeapon: {{removed}} is my number one bug reporter
[20:40:48] LegacyWeapon: because he mass unprotects maps to extract the sounds
[20:40:57] Moose: Lol?
[20:41:03] Moose: You use an MPQ viewer for that
[20:41:07] LegacyWeapon: Hah
[20:41:28] LegacyWeapon: Moose, have you ever looked inside a MPQ that's been shadow protected?
[20:41:40] Moose: Nope
[20:41:43] LegacyWeapon: Everything is unknown.
[20:41:50] Moose: I've never wanted sounds from a shadow protected maps
[20:42:03] Moose: Are the files still listed?
[20:42:05] LegacyWeapon: Nope

Extract all the files.
Renamed them all to .wav.
Play each one. If the wav plays, it's a wav.
I've done it. It works. Of course it works.

You could even write a program to check each file for the first few bytes to get the magic number of each file... to see if it's a wav or not.

What amuses me is the loser that actually uses OSMAP for such a thing like stea... I mean extracting the sounds from protected maps.

That's even less known to the common user than MPQ viewing. :P

That's even less known to the common user than MPQ viewing.

If mapping was easy it would be called playing.

If mapping was easy it would be called playing.

[quote=Yoshi da Sniper]I'm asking you guys how we should treat discussion (linking to, talking about, production of, unprotectors and protectors).[/quote] This is the question folks. Heres my take. On Warboards you cant even DISCUSS the advantages/disadvantages of having OSMAP around. You can barely say OSMAP without having your topic locked. You cant link to it, give a version number, or mention a feature. This shows instability and cowardace. Im a fan of WBs now. Ive been productive over there in reguards to melee mapping. But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy. 'We cannot talk about this because it could possibly lead to people accepting it. Quick censor everyone and everything.' Its Nazi-like in concept IMO. Now id be happy if both protection and unprotection were to disappear and never come back. But that isnt going to happen. Maybe mappers have intellectual rights to have their name on their map protected, maybe they dont. But i think its folly of us to try and pass our judgement as the absolute everwhere. As far as SENs concerned i think we are within our bounds. And so i say to you this: If someone really wants OSMAP, they can get it. If someone really wants to steal a map, they will. And us not linking or not talking about it is not going to do much in the long run. We need to promote the fact that OSMAP can do good things, and that mappers wishes should be respected. Its the only way i believe things can be changed.

Quote from Yoshi da Sniper

I'm asking you guys how we should treat discussion (linking to, talking about, production of, unprotectors and protectors).

This is the question folks.
Heres my take.

On Warboards you cant even DISCUSS the advantages/disadvantages of having OSMAP around. You can barely say OSMAP without having your topic locked. You cant link to it, give a version number, or mention a feature.

This shows instability and cowardace.

Im a fan of WBs now. Ive been productive over there in reguards to melee mapping. But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy. 'We cannot talk about this because it could possibly lead to people accepting it. Quick censor everyone and everything.' Its Nazi-like in concept IMO.

Now id be happy if both protection and unprotection were to disappear and never come back. But that isnt going to happen. Maybe mappers have intellectual rights to have their name on their map protected, maybe they dont.
But i think its folly of us to try and pass our judgement as the absolute everwhere. As far as SENs concerned i think we are within our bounds.

And so i say to you this:
If someone really wants OSMAP, they can get it.
If someone really wants to steal a map, they will.
And us not linking or not talking about it is not going to do much in the long run.

We need to promote the fact that OSMAP can do good things, and that mappers wishes should be respected. Its the only way i believe things can be changed.

[QUOTE]But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy.[/QUOTE] That actually does work by the way.

Quote

But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy.

That actually does work by the way.

WB [B]UMS [/B]mapmaking < SEN UMS mapmaking

WB UMS mapmaking < SEN UMS mapmaking

[quote=Esponeo][QUOTE]But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy.[/QUOTE] That actually does work by the way.[/quote] You sir are ignorant.

Quote from Esponeo

Quote

But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy.

That actually does work by the way.

You sir are ignorant.

Ex, I wouldn't go as far as to call him ignorant. I bet there are many people on SEN who don't know about osmap, even though discussion goes on in various topics. I think it can be safe to assume that blocking all osmap content would prevent more than a few people from learning about it. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one is talking about it anymore. Those who know about it keep it to themselves, because they are forced to. It has then, for the site's intentions, disappeared.

Ex, I wouldn't go as far as to call him ignorant. I bet there are many people on SEN who don't know about osmap, even though discussion goes on in various topics. I think it can be safe to assume that blocking all osmap content would prevent more than a few people from learning about it. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one is talking about it anymore. Those who know about it keep it to themselves, because they are forced to. It has then, for the site's intentions, disappeared.

If someone is determined to get it no site is going to stop them. There will always be people 'breaking the rules' to give the program to someone, and always a site that hosts it. Perhaps you could somewhat reduce it from the less determined hands, but in all honesty, i dont think it'd be much of an effect. Id have no problem with OSMAP and unprotection not being supported here if by the same token no protectors were supported. We should be promoting the respecting of authors wishes if anything.

If someone is determined to get it no site is going to stop them. There will always be people 'breaking the rules' to give the program to someone, and always a site that hosts it. Perhaps you could somewhat reduce it from the less determined hands, but in all honesty, i dont think it'd be much of an effect.

Id have no problem with OSMAP and unprotection not being supported here if by the same token no protectors were supported. We should be promoting the respecting of authors wishes if anything.

I thought it was clear SEN was biased and if you don't like it, too bad? :{

I thought it was clear SEN was biased and if you don't like it, too bad? :{

[quote=Clokr_]What amuses me is the loser that actually uses OSMAP for such a thing like stea... I mean extracting the sounds from protected maps.[/quote] The irony though is that the vast majority of sounds for maps are stolen in some way themselves.

Quote from Clokr_

What amuses me is the loser that actually uses OSMAP for such a thing like stea... I mean extracting the sounds from protected maps.

The irony though is that the vast majority of sounds for maps are stolen in some way themselves.

[QUOTE]I thought it was clear SEN was biased and if you don't like it, too bad? :{[/QUOTE] Lawl, owned. I honestly think the rules they have now concerning it are just fine and dandy. WB is very Pro-Protection and Maplantis is... hell I don't even know what you guys are...

Quote

I thought it was clear SEN was biased and if you don't like it, too bad? :{

Lawl, owned. I honestly think the rules they have now concerning it are just fine and dandy. WB is very Pro-Protection and Maplantis is... hell I don't even know what you guys are...

I still see no need for SeN to try and stop us from putting up links, the program is out, let mappers use it for what it was meant for, just because a few stupid people use it to steal maps doesn't mean the majority will, protection was originally made to keep newb B.Net player from rigging maps like they used to, OS Map allows mappers to still protect their maps, and then other mappers can open them with ease. Oh, and IMO, it's much easier to extract sounds with OS Map rather than doing all the crap you people said you had to do to get them.

I still see no need for SeN to try and stop us from putting up links, the program is out, let mappers use it for what it was meant for, just because a few stupid people use it to steal maps doesn't mean the majority will, protection was originally made to keep newb B.Net player from rigging maps like they used to, OS Map allows mappers to still protect their maps, and then other mappers can open them with ease.

Oh, and IMO, it's much easier to extract sounds with OS Map rather than doing all the crap you people said you had to do to get them.

[QUOTE]I think most people here, if they're going to edit a map, are going to respect the mapper's wishes, so it doesn't matter whether you host OSMap in that case.[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]It only takes one or two people to ruin it. [QUOTE]Maybe mappers have intellectual rights to have their name on their map protected, maybe they dont. [...] But i think its folly of us to try and pass our judgement as the absolute everwhere.[/QUOTE] No matter what the outcome of this debate is, judgment is passed. If SEN allows OSMAP, then [b]the (proposed) intellectual property rights of map authors are destroyed.[/b] If SEN doesn't allow OSMAP, [b]the (proposed) right of someone to protect a map is (theoretically) forcibly created[/b]. [QUOTE]But i cannot ignore the fact that they use not talking about it as a means to make it go away. Its not going to work and its idiociy.[/QUOTE] It will prevent a surprisingly large majority of people from knowing about it or trying to use it, which is a good thing. No, we can't go back in time and 'un-release' OSMAP (I would if I could), but it is not to the point that banning it at SEN is pointless. [QUOTE]I bet there are many people on SEN who don't know about osmap, even though discussion goes on in various topics. I think it can be safe to assume that blocking all osmap content would prevent more than a few people from learning about it. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one is talking about it anymore. Those who know about it keep it to themselves, because they are forced to. It has then, for the site's intentions, disappeared.[/QUOTE] Exactly. If public OSMAP giving is firmly prohibited, people will [i]shut up[/i] about the issue eventually and OSMAP will fall into obscurity. Will the determined searcher still be able to download it? Of course. Will most people know what it is? Probably not. [QUOTE]We should be promoting the respecting of authors wishes if anything.[/QUOTE] What the hell do you think protection without unprotection does? Honestly. [QUOTE]just because a few stupid people use it to steal maps doesn't mean the majority will[/QUOTE] A 'few stupid people' can do a pretty damn good job of ruining the world.[/color]

DTBK, if anything spreads like wildfire on Bnet it is bad rumors. OSMAP was whispered of before LW even announced making it, and there are very very few people that dont know what it does and that it exists. If this was a month or so after its release id say we might have a shot at preventing further spread, but its too far gone now. Some sites even treat it as a hack, such as the infamous 1.15 and 1.15.1 mineral hack, so now some of the least respecting SC players have it. And id like to repeat: [quote=Excalibur] [B]Id have no problem with OSMAP and unprotection not being supported here if by the same token no protectors were supported.[/B] We should be promoting the respecting of authors wishes if anything.[/quote]

DTBK, if anything spreads like wildfire on Bnet it is bad rumors. OSMAP was whispered of before LW even announced making it, and there are very very few people that dont know what it does and that it exists. If this was a month or so after its release id say we might have a shot at preventing further spread, but its too far gone now. Some sites even treat it as a hack, such as the infamous 1.15 and 1.15.1 mineral hack, so now some of the least respecting SC players have it.

And id like to repeat:

Quote from Excalibur

Id have no problem with OSMAP and unprotection not being supported here if by the same token no protectors were supported. We should be promoting the respecting of authors wishes if anything.

[color=#b5b5ff]Great allegory: hacks. Does the fact that Starcraft melee hacks are freely available and known by the average determined searcher mean we should "give in" and host hacks, too? I don't deny that killing to spread of OSMAP now is a practical impossibility. We do not, however, need to lend it any support because of it. [QUOTE] Id have no problem with OSMAP and unprotection not being supported here if by the same token no protectors were supported.[/QUOTE] Protectors are not the opposite of OSMAP. OSMAP can forcibly stop others from protecting their maps by rendering their protection useless. Protectors can only protect a map of the [b]author's[/b] own creation. If you support the author's rights and their decision, you support map protection. It boils down here to two things: If there was a program that forced everyone to use protection in the manner OSMAP stops them from using it, I would oppose that too. [b]Don't like protection? Just don't use it! No need to [i]force your open-source views on others without their consent.[/i][/b][/color]