Talk:Half-Life 2

"Gameplay Nausea"

A trait that is unique due to the realness of the HL2 engine is that many people have reported nausea/vertigo when initially playing this game. The movements, screen resolution and physics all have been incited as a cause to many people getting 'sea sick' while playing this game.

http://www.rage3d.com/Board/archive/index.php?t-33805738.html

`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.5.161 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2008‎ (UTC)

Dead IGN Link

Hi, sorry, I have no idea how to update the references but the IGN review link is dead. The new link should be this: https://www.ign.com/articles/2004/11/15/half-life-2-review 173.244.4.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. IceWelder [✉] 16:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Half-Life 2 and ATI Technologies banner at E3 2003.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"A hacker stole an unfinished version and leaked it online"

User:Popcornfud: I changed this sentence because you can't "steal" digital data, unless you delete it from the place you acquired it, which didn't happen in this instance. Therefore, the sentence is misleading. It was copied from their servers without permission, but it was not "stolen" – i.e. not taken from them (they were not deprived of it). Maybe the sentence can be worded better than I did it, but it still needs to be fixed, as it is currently incorrect. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's well understood that if one is talking about a computer hack, "stolen" is clearly meaning to make a copy and extracting that, not the essence of stealing of a physical object. That's why its data theft in that sense. --Masem (t) 02:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: Why should words not be meaningful? Why should we use words that do not accurately describe a certain concept when that is not necessary? How many people would understand that in this specific context, "stolen" does not mean "taken without permission", but instead "copied without permission"? Why can we not describe accurately and neutrally what occurred? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Because that's the language that reliable sources use, and again, the idea of "theft"/"stealing" of things like data and identity (where only a copy is taken, and not the only version) is well-understood by the average reader. --Masem (t) 03:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What Masem said. Popcornfud (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it a BLP violation to say that?

What this article is currently doing is accusing that person of a crime he didn't commit. He cracked into Valve's servers; that's a crime, and he did do that, and the article currently says that. He copied Half-Life 2's files from the servers. That's copyright infringement. Also a crime, but legally distinct from theft. It doesn't say that; it says he stole it. Surely that's a BLP violation? That reliable sources use the phrase "theft" is not an excuse, because it is entirely possible to not repeat the claim in this article that he's a thief. It's not original research, because the fact he committed copyright infringement can be backed up with a legal citation which knows what it's talking about. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is well established that copying data from servers you do not have authorized access to is theft of intellectual property, period, under US law (eg see [1]) (this is also what the FBI was investigating him for per files obtained via FOIA , see [2]) There's no BLP issue here. He further incurred copyright infringement by redistributing that freely on the Internet, which is a separate crime as well. --Masem (t) 06:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: He committed copyright infringement by copying the data from the server. He cracked into the server to copy it. That's two crimes. No theft is involved. And if current US law has been warped to better serve the interests of businesses, that doesn't mean we can apply how the law is now to describe an act committed eighteen years ago. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely does mean we use the legal definition of "IP theft" as the basis for what he was charged for. I know you share the same mindset as some in the open-source community that you can't "steal" IP, but that's not how Wikipedia works, where we broadly reflect that most legal, mainstream, and tech sources recognize that when you copy data from a source you shouldn't, you're stealing IP. --Masem (t) 13:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: Please don't compare me to people who would use the term "open source"; I believe in ethical behaviour, not mere practicalities. Anyway, please can you quote what you linked before which you say refers to this as "intellectual property theft"? I wasn't aware that those biased terms were so widely-used back then. Also, I'm still fairly certain you can find sources that correctly distinguish between copyright infringement and theft. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Look at page 17 of [3], this should be one of the FBI letters where they talk "theft of source code". And yes, there is a massive difference between copyright infringement - which requires redistributing (not simply coping) works you don't hold the copyright to without permission of the copyright owner, from IP theft, accessing any type of IP material from a controlled location. --Masem (t) 13:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: I need a quote, please. I don't like visiting unknown websites. Also, what you're describing in your last sentence is called "security breaking". If you access material on a computer system which isn't public without permission, that's a crime. If you have to break security to access that material, that's another crime. It has nothing to do with "intellectual property", because "intellectual property" doesn't exist. If you mean "copyrighted material", then that doesn't apply either, because even if the material was public domain, accessing a non-public computer system without permission to get a copy (or view it) is not allowed. But that's only the case because the computer system is non-public; it has nothing to do with copyright law. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Its Wired magazine, and if you refuse to visit that, then that's your own issue. I've given you wehre to find where the FBI describe this crime as IP theft. Let's add that we're actually talking *3* separate crimes: unauthorized access to a system (that's your security breaking), intellectual property theft (copying material they weren't supposed to access from the server), and copyright infringement (redistributing that copyrighted information without permission of the owner and clearly beyond the bounds of fair use). --Masem (t) 03:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: I already explained why the second of the third crimes isn't valid. Do you have any response to that? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Uh, it is 100% a crime in the US. Eg if it were a federal computer system the crimes would fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which criminalizes obtaining information from federal systems without authorization, in addition to accessing systems without authorization. And you are completely wrong; every legitimate reliable source considers intellectual property real. If you cannot accept this view, which is essential not only how we write WP articles, but also how we work in policy towards certain content, then WP is probably not for you. --Masem (t) 04:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: What Wikipedia should really be doing is not stating in Wikipedia's voice something that is a common opinion, but still an opinion. It should only say things in Wikipedia's voice when something is an objective fact, such as "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs)

Intellectual property exists, that's a fact. It can be stolen by copying it off a server, that's a fact. In the US and most other places, doing this without authorization is a crime, that's a fact (see [4]). You are purposely being blunt here by rejecting a commonly accepted fact about information, and that's the same issues you've tried to raise before elsewhere that were flat out rejected. --Masem (t) 04:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: Not facts; widely-held opinions. The idea that we should even be artificially restricting people from doing things with intangible concepts and ideas is an opinion in the first place. Our entire legal system is opinions about what is right or wrong. Some of those opinions make sense; others not so much, or not at all, like in this case. If you think critically about it, you can determine things like that. Determining what the harm is and what the benefit is. In this case, there is no benefit to the general public when people who want to share ideas and concepts with the world also decide they want to somehow have an artificial monopoly on such intangible things. The law is supposed to benefit the general public. If it fails at that, it needs to be changed. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this view is completely incompatible with how WP operates or accepts as actual reality. This view cannot be accepted here. --Masem (t) 05:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: Do you think it would be bad for Wikipedia if we did as I suggest and only wrote in Wikipedia's voice about objective facts? If so, why? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we are writing about objective facts. That intellectual property exists, that you can steal it, and there are laws that criminialize that theft. Any other point of view is a fringe view to the reality of the rest of the world, which we do not even give credence to. You may feel strongly personally about this, but the near majority of the world accepts as truth and fact these elements about intellectual property, and we're not going to alter that stance because you think different. --Masem (t) 05:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: It is extremely foolish to believe that the most widely-held view is the "correct" one. And all I'm suggesting here is that we don't state these things as if they are fact. I'm not even asking that we state dissenting viewpoints. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You are coming at this from a completely incompatible position. Everything I've said about intellectual property is consider facts globally by the wealth of coverage from reliable sources (newspapers, academics, governments, etc.) that treats it as facts, and WP is not going to change because you suggest there may be an alternate truth. Yes, I understand there's a fringe view that no one can own ideas, etc. etc. but WP doesn't promote fringe or progressive views, which is exactly you are trying to do here as you have done before. That cannot continue, and you aren't going to change anyone's mind on this. This is becoming problematic and tendentious across the board, vering into the realm of nonsense logic for WP's purposes, and serves no further purpose. Consider this the end of the discussion here. --Masem (t) 05:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem: I wish you would think about this more. I'm not going to continue the discussion but I just want to clarify what I was trying to say: I think an encylopedia shouldn't evaluate opinions. Stating an opinion in Wikipedia's voice makes it appear that Wikipedia has evaluated it to be true. I don't think that's a necessary action. We can still be a repository of global knowledge without having to tacitly suggest that opinions are true by stating them as if they're fact, and it would make for a better encylopedia, because we can't possibly say we know the truth when it comes to opinions; nor should we try. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not actually clear if Dr.Breen died or not.

We simply see him falling. Before his death, he is seen talking to an advisor about "a host body" implying that he may have had his consciousness transferred prior to his "physical" death. 105.107.164.234 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)