I'm all in support of using PDF to send and publish documents. But I don't see why a journal would want to accept a presentation format, when their job is to take your text and edit it heavily and publish it into their own workflow/styles/pages/etc. PDF is not a good format for editing (as you can witness if you use tools to convert PDF to txt or html - PDF is very much concerned with how text lays out on the page, so it loses proper paragraph and other "semantic" information).
The worst feature I've seen is the Power, Sleep and Wake Up keys sitting comfortably in the corner of many keyboards (though they thankfully seem to be out of fashion now). When do you ever need to shut down your computer in such a hurry that a single keystroke is necessary over a simple sequence to shut down or sleep?
Having the entire computer turn itself off (or go to sleep, which can be just as bad depending on your applications) with no confirmation is a really bad idea. I'll never forget the time I was doing a live performance involving a projected computer image, and someone accidentally hit the Power key...
That is a point, but SC was a lot more popular than WC3 was. So the SC fans will go to SC2, and a good deal of the WC3 fans will as well (including me for at least some of my time!) I think WC3 will diminish significantly in a way that SC did not.
I find it amusing/annoying that whenever I go on Slashdot and say I like Warcraft III over StarCraft, I get flamed by a whole bunch of people.
It is a universal response when I say "I wish SC2 would have heroes" that people say "Then go play Warcraft III". Yet when everybody else says "I wish they hadn't ruined Warcraft by adding heroes," you can't say "then go play StarCraft".
The thing that really annoys me with this "go play WC3" response is that WC3 is going to be a less-viable option once SC2 is released. It really isn't like two "brother" games. It's really a sequel. StarCraft was the sequel to WC2. WC3 was the sequel to SC. So will SC2 be the sequel to WC3. It is a replacement. So better/worse arguments aside, once SC2 is released it will replace WC3 and everyone will play that. "Stick with WC3" will not be a very viable option.
Having said that I'm quite excited about this game and will observe its progress with great interest.
Looks incredibly cool graphically, though at the moment it looks like the gameplay is exactly the same as StarCraft. I wonder if there'll be some gameplay announcements soon.
Excellent, so glad it isn't a StarCraft MMO as rumoured.
What I want to know is, will it have a Heroes model (after Warcraft III) or will it drop back to a more traditional model of RTS (just units). Or will it have an entirely new hook? I hope it follows after Warcraft III's model.
However, the reports of having hundreds of zerglings makes it seem like it might be more of a macro scale RTS.
I think there are positives and negatives with Steam, as far as convenience and user rights are concerned.
Obviously, for convenience, yes it is -- very convenient!
My greatest concern though is that Valve can revoke your account at any time, which means they effectively destroy the products you purchased from them. They bind copy protection with in-game cheating. (I know if you get banned for cheating, it only prevents you from playing online - but the principle still stands).
I think measures should be taken against online cheaters, but physically disabling the software they purchased is extreme. It's equating a gameplay loss with a monetary loss. The point is, Valve should not have the rights to revoke the software you purchased, and having a service such as Steam (ie. a SERVICE required to use a PRODUCT) gives them that explicit right.
Isn't it funny how, when Microsoft does something puzzlingly in support of what we've all been asking for all this time, rather than being congratulated, the Slashdot crowd immediately starts trying to guess what their devious secret strategy is here to achieve world domination?
Possible reason for this: They have been around for thirty years, and in all that time, they have ALWAYS had a devious secret strategy to achieve world domination!
On with the speculation!
Obviously they're just doing this to make themselves look better when it comes time to vote for OOXML!
I read the other day that in fact it's dangerous to search patents. If you see a patent and infringe it, you're liable for up to three times the damages than if you didn't know about it. This might not be so good!
On a completely different topic, how annoying - this only applies to google.com. My default searches all go to google.com.au which is oldskool!
(Which, I'll add, took a significant amount of searching on the MS website to find. A search for "vista eula" comes up with the XP eula and you have to do quite a bit of poking to actually find the above link... Said poking is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Looking at the big picture, as you suggest, does this not make you a teensy bit worried that in a few years time, we'll all be running Linux and Microsoft will be getting patent royalties for every copy sold, without having ever disclaimed a patent?
I'm using Linux because I don't want to pay Microsoft.
This article gives the reader the distinct impression (read: presents as fact) that Linux is a program created by Novell. In fact it distinctly hints at the fact that there are in fact two operating systems in existence: Microsoft Windows and Novell Linux.
It's a good thing those two are finally working together to make the world a better place. For great justice.
It's one thing to sell Microsoft products. It's completely another thing to sell non-Microsoft products, (products which are by-and-large purchased because people want an alternative to feeding Microsoft), and then pay Microsoft for it.
I don't understand this. When Novell signed their souls to MS last year, there were cries from the masses of "GPLv2 Section 7!" Somehow, it was determined (by Eben Moglen, at that time the EFF lawyer) that the deal in fact was not in violation of the section you just quoted.
As I said, I don't understand how it isn't in violation (and I'd like to see someone explain it). But apparently it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all in support of using PDF to send and publish documents. But I don't see why a journal would want to accept a presentation format, when their job is to take your text and edit it heavily and publish it into their own workflow/styles/pages/etc. PDF is not a good format for editing (as you can witness if you use tools to convert PDF to txt or html - PDF is very much concerned with how text lays out on the page, so it loses proper paragraph and other "semantic" information).
The idea is that Microsoft is within the open source community now that they are officially distributing SUSE Linux.
Care to quote? (I've not seen. Now I should go before I am thrown out of Slashdot).
Wow, I have never read such an eloquent argument against capitalism. So true!
The worst feature I've seen is the Power, Sleep and Wake Up keys sitting comfortably in the corner of many keyboards (though they thankfully seem to be out of fashion now). When do you ever need to shut down your computer in such a hurry that a single keystroke is necessary over a simple sequence to shut down or sleep?
Having the entire computer turn itself off (or go to sleep, which can be just as bad depending on your applications) with no confirmation is a really bad idea. I'll never forget the time I was doing a live performance involving a projected computer image, and someone accidentally hit the Power key...
I really like this explanation.
That is a point, but SC was a lot more popular than WC3 was. So the SC fans will go to SC2, and a good deal of the WC3 fans will as well (including me for at least some of my time!) I think WC3 will diminish significantly in a way that SC did not.
I find it amusing/annoying that whenever I go on Slashdot and say I like Warcraft III over StarCraft, I get flamed by a whole bunch of people.
It is a universal response when I say "I wish SC2 would have heroes" that people say "Then go play Warcraft III". Yet when everybody else says "I wish they hadn't ruined Warcraft by adding heroes," you can't say "then go play StarCraft".
The thing that really annoys me with this "go play WC3" response is that WC3 is going to be a less-viable option once SC2 is released. It really isn't like two "brother" games. It's really a sequel. StarCraft was the sequel to WC2. WC3 was the sequel to SC. So will SC2 be the sequel to WC3. It is a replacement. So better/worse arguments aside, once SC2 is released it will replace WC3 and everyone will play that. "Stick with WC3" will not be a very viable option.
Having said that I'm quite excited about this game and will observe its progress with great interest.
Yeah me too - I'm starting to get over the "wow" factor and say "hang on, where is the new gameplay".
But not too worried at this point - remember Warcraft III had its gameplay totally revamped/reinvented some months after the announcement.
Oh I'm glad someone said it :)
IGN has posted screenshots here.
Looks incredibly cool graphically, though at the moment it looks like the gameplay is exactly the same as StarCraft. I wonder if there'll be some gameplay announcements soon.
Hmm, I suppose that's sort of a Hero, but not really in the WC3 sense I don't think.
Excellent, so glad it isn't a StarCraft MMO as rumoured.
What I want to know is, will it have a Heroes model (after Warcraft III) or will it drop back to a more traditional model of RTS (just units). Or will it have an entirely new hook? I hope it follows after Warcraft III's model.
However, the reports of having hundreds of zerglings makes it seem like it might be more of a macro scale RTS.
My expirey-sense is tingling!
I think there are positives and negatives with Steam, as far as convenience and user rights are concerned.
Obviously, for convenience, yes it is -- very convenient!
My greatest concern though is that Valve can revoke your account at any time, which means they effectively destroy the products you purchased from them. They bind copy protection with in-game cheating. (I know if you get banned for cheating, it only prevents you from playing online - but the principle still stands).
I think measures should be taken against online cheaters, but physically disabling the software they purchased is extreme. It's equating a gameplay loss with a monetary loss. The point is, Valve should not have the rights to revoke the software you purchased, and having a service such as Steam (ie. a SERVICE required to use a PRODUCT) gives them that explicit right.
Isn't it funny how, when Microsoft does something puzzlingly in support of what we've all been asking for all this time, rather than being congratulated, the Slashdot crowd immediately starts trying to guess what their devious secret strategy is here to achieve world domination?
Possible reason for this: They have been around for thirty years, and in all that time, they have ALWAYS had a devious secret strategy to achieve world domination!
On with the speculation!
Obviously they're just doing this to make themselves look better when it comes time to vote for OOXML!
I read the other day that in fact it's dangerous to search patents. If you see a patent and infringe it, you're liable for up to three times the damages than if you didn't know about it. This might not be so good!
On a completely different topic, how annoying - this only applies to google.com. My default searches all go to google.com.au which is oldskool!
DRM? I think you mean Digital Consumer Enablement!
Do you mean this monstrosity?
(Which, I'll add, took a significant amount of searching on the MS website to find. A search for "vista eula" comes up with the XP eula and you have to do quite a bit of poking to actually find the above link... Said poking is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Lol ... well if you want to look at it that way, this is basically like paying your wife to let you sleep with a hooker.
Looking at the big picture, as you suggest, does this not make you a teensy bit worried that in a few years time, we'll all be running Linux and Microsoft will be getting patent royalties for every copy sold, without having ever disclaimed a patent?
I'm using Linux because I don't want to pay Microsoft.
Not laughing. I agree with everything you said. It is a dark day - or at the very least, it ends that little hope we had that Dell were on our side.
Incidentally, what's wrong with the word "leverage"?
"Novell's open-source Linux platform".
This article gives the reader the distinct impression (read: presents as fact) that Linux is a program created by Novell. In fact it distinctly hints at the fact that there are in fact two operating systems in existence: Microsoft Windows and Novell Linux.
It's a good thing those two are finally working together to make the world a better place. For great justice.
It's one thing to sell Microsoft products. It's completely another thing to sell non-Microsoft products, (products which are by-and-large purchased because people want an alternative to feeding Microsoft), and then pay Microsoft for it.
I don't understand this. When Novell signed their souls to MS last year, there were cries from the masses of "GPLv2 Section 7!" Somehow, it was determined (by Eben Moglen, at that time the EFF lawyer) that the deal in fact was not in violation of the section you just quoted.
As I said, I don't understand how it isn't in violation (and I'd like to see someone explain it). But apparently it isn't.