Is? IS!?? He HAS can continues to do so. I'm going to take a stab at correcting your grammar error. Did you mean this?
Is? IS!?? He HAS and continues to do so. Cause that's, you know, what "is" means. You just broke it up into its component parts.
1) No, they're using Linux. "GNU/Linux" is a term applied solely by people who have no appreciation for what a horrible, awkward-sounding mess of a name that is.
2) Ubuntu is most certainly an OS. It's a flavor of Linux. Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Premium and Windows Vista Ultimate are all different flavors of the Windows OS, however, each of them can be correctly called an OS. The fact that it isn't a completely separate OS does not make it any less an OS.
You obviously should be unable to do that. But what you should be able to do is say, "Part of this is my work, and is available under the terms of x license. Part of this is another guy's work, and is available under the terms of y license." The GPL doesn't allow you to do this, and that's unreasonable.
The problem is that developer freedoms are equally as important as user freedoms, if you're putting your source out there for other developers to see and learn from. Indeed, some of what the FSF would define as "user" freedoms are, in fact, developer freedoms. Users don't give a damn about being able to modify their programs. Developers, on the other hand...
If I want to make my work available to others, my right to dictate terms should end at "Please don't take credit for my work". The perfect example of why the GPL is bad is other open-source developers not being able to use GPL code unless their code, too, is GPL. The FSF has a philosophical disagreement with the authors of other OSS licenses, so that means that I can't use them for my work, if I want to benefit from GPL code others have written! What the hell is that noise!? The "no leechers" argument isn't entirely without merit (even if I disagree), but there's no excuse for prohibiting developers from using other OSS licenses.
Well if you need a creator then you'll also need a creator's creator, and a creator's creator's creator, etc. Not so. No matter your explanation for our existence, at some point, you assume that something always existed. If you choose to believe in a creator, then the creator always existed. If you choose to believe in the big bang, and subsequent evolution, then the universe itself always existed. Either way, you have to assume the eternal existence of something.
It's more specific than even that, otherwise the GPL should have no problems with people using GPL code in BSD-licensed projects. The fact of the matter is, the GPL doesn't really promote freedom like it claims to. That's the problem, that it talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. If the GPL wasn't touted as promoting freedom so much, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it is, it's sheer hypocrisy, and I despise it for that.
Besides, you don't think it's a bit rich to try to restrict "the community" to what you want it to mean, rather than the natural interpretation of the word?
No it doesn't. Making good gear available to others, and making it easier for others to access the raids, does not devalue raiders' accomplishments in any way. So, you completed the attunement quests for Hyjal/BT. Big whoop. That's what the "Hand of A'dal" title is for, to give players some recognition for that achievement. In the end, you can always have the satisfaction of having done these things when they were harder.
Unless, of course, you just care about keeping others out of your little club. Then there's no help for you, but you're also a prick in that case, so no one cares.
make sure others can make changes to it too. That is precisely the unreasonable part. If you're truly embracing freedom of software, then that means you embrace it fully, not saying "You can contribute, but only if you do so in a way which is acceptable to me". Either you're giving up your work to the community, or you're not. The GPL tries to do both at the same time, when it really needs to just pick one.
Yes. In other words, not free. Granted, I wouldn't have any issues with the GPL at all, if it didn't promote such hypocrisy: claiming to embrace freedom of software, while simultaneously restricting freedom beyond what is necessary. Such hypocrisy is abominable, and should not be accepted.
Bioshock was never an exclusive, and Gears of War/Mass Effect are no longer exclusives. The 360 is fine, but it doesn't have the huge exclusive edge everyone says it does.
Most games nowadays baby everyone. Old-school games were nigh-unbeatable. We have a term for this. It's called "being a fun game", as opposed to "a clusterfuck of difficulty which is there just so that a chosen few can stroke their e-peens". The punishing difficulty of the old days is gone for a very good reason, and good riddance to it. Challenge is fine, but too many games back in the day (and Ninja Gaiden is another example today) cross the line into frustration. That's bad.
Spoken like someone who's never played WoW PvP. A good player may not be able to compete in bad gear, but neither can a bad player compete in good gear.
There are two reasons that make WoW better than FFXI, even if everything else is worse (which I would dispute):
1) Mobs don't follow you all the way to the edge of the zone.
2) You don't lose XP, or even worse, level down. The people who put XP loss and levelling down in games need to be beaten with a stick until they agree to stop making games for the rest of their lives.
Either one of those would be bad alone. Together, they're horrible. I'm sorry, but a game where I can't run away from a bad situation effectively, and also level down when I die, is not a fun game. At all.
I dunno. I don't run Linux because I can't effortlessly run my games on it. I don't wish to dual-boot an OS, and Linux, for me, has no advantage whatsoever over Windows. I don't really see how "can't run games" isn't a valid reason.
Who runs 3D accellerated stuff in a VM anyways? I'd love to be able to do so. KOTOR 2 doesn't run under Vista for me, so I have to keep an XP install around if I want to play it.
imnsho, that's the worst thing about Eve, and why I don't intend to ever play (well, one of the reasons). Real time translates into in-game power, which means that no matter what, I will always, always, always be at a disadvantage to someone who started playing the game on day 1. Fuck that shit, imo.
As a matter of fact, I have. And I don't even play FF11. However, your complaint is a bit odd, because "Pirates of the Burning Sea" is the name of the game. I'm not sure how that's any worse than saying "Final Fantasy XI" or "City of Heroes".
Yes they should. The browser's responsibility is to display content properly, and if there's a known bug on a very popular site, the browser should take it into account... unless they don't want users, of course. Hell, to this day I don't use Firefox because FF 1.0 rendered Gamespot so poorly and slowly. The user's experience is paramount, not idealism.
They have (indeed, I own one, and love it), but there aren't exactly any DS games I can think of which make any good use of the touch screen. The only game I've played that has a decent concept is SimCity DS, and their implementation is flawed. The haters are right on this one, the DS touch screen is a gimmick... or if it isn't, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
The fact that you are so against a technology its a character flaw. Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with disliking a particular technology, and it's rather arrogant of you to imply that he must like everything.
Slashdot Mirror
2) Ubuntu is most certainly an OS. It's a flavor of Linux. Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Premium and Windows Vista Ultimate are all different flavors of the Windows OS, however, each of them can be correctly called an OS. The fact that it isn't a completely separate OS does not make it any less an OS.
You obviously should be unable to do that. But what you should be able to do is say, "Part of this is my work, and is available under the terms of x license. Part of this is another guy's work, and is available under the terms of y license." The GPL doesn't allow you to do this, and that's unreasonable.
Of course, maybe he won't be able to either, in the long run. Who knows? I wish him luck, that's for sure.
If I want to make my work available to others, my right to dictate terms should end at "Please don't take credit for my work". The perfect example of why the GPL is bad is other open-source developers not being able to use GPL code unless their code, too, is GPL. The FSF has a philosophical disagreement with the authors of other OSS licenses, so that means that I can't use them for my work, if I want to benefit from GPL code others have written! What the hell is that noise!? The "no leechers" argument isn't entirely without merit (even if I disagree), but there's no excuse for prohibiting developers from using other OSS licenses.
If you restrict freedom to "the freedoms I choose to embrace", how exactly are you promoting freedom?
Besides, you don't think it's a bit rich to try to restrict "the community" to what you want it to mean, rather than the natural interpretation of the word?
Unless, of course, you just care about keeping others out of your little club. Then there's no help for you, but you're also a prick in that case, so no one cares.
Yes. In other words, not free. Granted, I wouldn't have any issues with the GPL at all, if it didn't promote such hypocrisy: claiming to embrace freedom of software, while simultaneously restricting freedom beyond what is necessary. Such hypocrisy is abominable, and should not be accepted.
And a design that is (physically) stable and doesn't look like ass. (Apple, you were idiots to throw away the gorgeous G4 iMac design!)
Bioshock was never an exclusive, and Gears of War/Mass Effect are no longer exclusives. The 360 is fine, but it doesn't have the huge exclusive edge everyone says it does.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm aware of no changing around of the focus of raiding.
Spoken like someone who's never played WoW PvP. A good player may not be able to compete in bad gear, but neither can a bad player compete in good gear.
1) Mobs don't follow you all the way to the edge of the zone.
2) You don't lose XP, or even worse, level down. The people who put XP loss and levelling down in games need to be beaten with a stick until they agree to stop making games for the rest of their lives.
Either one of those would be bad alone. Together, they're horrible. I'm sorry, but a game where I can't run away from a bad situation effectively, and also level down when I die, is not a fun game. At all.
I dunno. I don't run Linux because I can't effortlessly run my games on it. I don't wish to dual-boot an OS, and Linux, for me, has no advantage whatsoever over Windows. I don't really see how "can't run games" isn't a valid reason.
imnsho, that's the worst thing about Eve, and why I don't intend to ever play (well, one of the reasons). Real time translates into in-game power, which means that no matter what, I will always, always, always be at a disadvantage to someone who started playing the game on day 1. Fuck that shit, imo.
As a matter of fact, I have. And I don't even play FF11. However, your complaint is a bit odd, because "Pirates of the Burning Sea" is the name of the game. I'm not sure how that's any worse than saying "Final Fantasy XI" or "City of Heroes".
I have Metroid Prime 3, and it is indeed awesome. Thanks for the tip on Phantom Hourglass, I've been avoiding it because I hear it has Navi. /shudder
Yes they should. The browser's responsibility is to display content properly, and if there's a known bug on a very popular site, the browser should take it into account... unless they don't want users, of course. Hell, to this day I don't use Firefox because FF 1.0 rendered Gamespot so poorly and slowly. The user's experience is paramount, not idealism.
They have (indeed, I own one, and love it), but there aren't exactly any DS games I can think of which make any good use of the touch screen. The only game I've played that has a decent concept is SimCity DS, and their implementation is flawed. The haters are right on this one, the DS touch screen is a gimmick... or if it isn't, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.