Of course, usually when people mean "emotion," they mean the relatively maudlin and banal elements of melodrama like the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy. Sentimental manipulation isn't aesthetically interesting to me even in film: the drier, more contemplative and less apparently emotional (but aesthetically and intellectually captivating) work of someone like Godard strikes me as a lot more artistic than swelling violins and melodramatics of standard Hollywood fare. A valid point, but that is still an emotion. Different people are captivated by different types of art, and because you don't enjoy the melodrama, and enjoy something else, does not illegitimize, in the least, the experiences of those who do. Thus, games ARE provoking emotional responses in people.
Actually, no. What decides which ending you get is whether or not you join Bastila on at the roof of Rakatan temple. If you do, you get the bad guy ending; if you don't you get the good guy ending. To be fair, KOTOR 2 does use the good/evil meter to determine the ending, although KOTOR 1 didn't.
*FFX and FF8 spoilers, on the off-chance someone hasn't played them yet*
Hm. I think FFX has the second-best plot, after VII, but that's just me. At any rate, the scene where Tidus is fading away really does almost make me cry. It's really sad.
Same in FF8 when Squall is trapped in the dimensional limbo, and is dying. That, and his reunion with Rinoa, were powerful moments for me.
I cry when I read posts on slashdot where people assert the objective superiority of one FF over another. Seriously, for God's sake, can't we just leave each other in peace? I played FFVI and FFVII. I liked FFVII better. I leave the FFVI fans alone, now do the same courtesy for us... not that hard.
On-topic, I didn't cry at any point during FFVII. FF8 and FFX made me get pretty choked up at points though.
It hides OS files by default. So even if you want to know how your system works, the nanny OS reminds you that you shouldn't be looking in that folder. If you're referring to hidden files, fine, although I disagree. If you're referring to the little "click here to view inside this folder" screen, that's HARDLY bad, if you're interested in seeing the files it takes one little click.
It hides extensions by default. Yes, I've met Windows users who don't even know what an extension is, thanks to Microsoft. Yeah, that annoys me.
It installs device drivers automatically, and hides their existence from the user. It shouldn't install them automatically? Hell, even as a technically-minded user, I appreciate that little service.
And in the end, it's a DAMN GOOD THING to hide the inner workings of the OS from the average user. They'd wreak havok on it, and then cry that their computer is broken, goddamn Microsoft! Moreover, no matter your stance on how these things should be handled, it doesn't change the fact that using Windows does not mean you don't know how a computer works. That was your ridiculous, trollish claim, and that's what I'm disputing.
Honestly, don't mean to troll, but you Windows users put up with so much trouble an annoyance just so you can avoid learning how a computer actually works... That's a pretty big troll for "not meaning to troll". Using Windows is not a barrier to knowing how computers work. Hell, you wouldn't want me to go into my rant on how OSX's ui is dumbed-down compared to Windows, and even I'm not arrogant enough to claim that Mac users necessarily don't know how a computer works.
Sure, Macs are more expensive, and Linux has a steep learning curve, but isn't it worth avoiding all of the frustration you're going experience over the rest of your tech lifetime? You know, for all the touted insecurities of Windows, I have been using it for YEARS, and have had a virus or spyware infection once. Even that one time, for that matter, it was only because I listened to a friend's advice on a good source for a keygen (Hint: keygen.us is really bad unless your computer is running at maximum security, preferably on a live cd). That's precious little frustration I've put up with. Contrast that with the frustration I experienced with the Mac GUI I dislike a lot, or the frustration of getting Linux set up properly (example: I should not have to either learn how to manage config files, or reinstall the OS, because I picked a resolution my monitor doesn't support... all basic tasks should be easily handled by the GUI). Windows is by far the least frustrating for me.
Or are you one of those folks who relishes the semi-annual Windows reinstall? Perhaps you like paying an annual license fee to keep your computer from getting infected with a virus? Both of these are blatantly false. I haven't reinstalled my copy of Windows since I built my machine, over a year ago. At best, one could argue that I bought some time when I installed Vista (upgraded from a pirated XP). Hell, I just popped a new mobo in yesterday, and Vista managed to get all the new drivers put into place properly (a pleasant surprise, given how dicey an operation that was under XP). As for the licensing fee, unless you mean a volume license or something (and there's no indication you do), you pay for Windows once per computer. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
When you think about it, even if you don't factor in the cost of your time, Microsoft Windows systems are easily the most expensive systems to run on the planet, and the least useful Macs are more expensive, as you already noted, and usefulness is pretty much equal across all the platforms. Macs have good design apps, Windows has its own apps, not to mention games, and Linux has good server apps. These are all useful for different groups of people.
The users aren't any better off That, sir, is entirely a matter of opinion, and many disagree with you. Many agree with you, too, but it hardly qualifies as some sort of statement of anything close to fact.
sysadmins risk their careers (not to mention their marriages!) I somehow doubt it's a risk to a sysadmin's career to support whatever software the company he/she works for uses, but maybe I live in the world of sane employers. God only knows how it jeopardizes marriages, I guess you figure that Microsoft is just that damn evil?
You know, for all the bitching people have done about games like Oblivion and Bioshock being "dumbed down" because they were also released on the console, I absolutely cannot see where they get this. I played Morrowind, and Oblivion's UI makes MORE sense to me than Morrowind's. I didn't play SS2, but Bioshock itself is not a dumbed-down game. It might be less complex than SS2, but Bioshock's interface and controls are on par with what one expects from a PC game. Someone, please, explain this new phenomenon of whining to me if you can. Be specific.
I am referring to the GPL. The terms of the GPL *do* dictate terms for other people's work. If you're going to put your code out there to the benefit of others, do so, but saying that if they want to benefit from your work, they have to meet your ideals IS dictating terms. Thus, by advocating the GPL, Stallman advocates restriction of freedom (yes, yes, inflammatory term, but it's the most concise way to put it), while CLAIMING to promote freedom.
This is quite true, but as has already been pointed out earlier in the discussion, Stallman is a fool for choosing to dress in such a way that people may be inspired not to take him seriously. He obviously likes to dress casually, and I'm ok with that... but it could potentially hurt his agenda, and so I think it's extremely stupid to not just avoid the difficulty altogether.
> The fact that someone else has a copy doesn't detract from this ability.
The one who _denies_ someone else a right, isnt "playing nice", so shouldnt have gotten this right in the first place.
Not true. It is, in the end, not a fundamental right, whether or not you can look at source code. It's a good thing to be altruistic, and want other people to benefit from your work, but to not have that desire does not mean that you aren't "playing nice". In fact, as long as we've started the debate on the merits of the GPL, I contend that giving licensing terms as a condition of releasing your work isn't "playing nice": you have no damn right whatsoever to try to dictate how other people should act. Oh, yes, they can just not use your code, but that doesn't mean that you aren't wrong for laying down terms like that for the use of your code.
All I care about, when I release code, is that no one comes along and tries to relicense it (which, as I understand it, isn't legal, but IANAL). Beyond that, I consider it highly important that absolutely anyone has the freedom to do whatever they want with my code. No one has any right to dictate terms for what happens to anyone's work but their own, and the fact that Stallman does so, whilst simultaneously talking about freedom, irritates me to no end. Props to the man for wanting to promote free software, but his methods are poor.
Personally, my criteria for "murder" involves a human: if you aren't killing a human, it isn't murder. That aside, I have no real criteria for killing animals. Most don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest (bugs, delicious and juicy cows, etc)... even though I haven't killed some of them personally, I'm quite ok with them being killed, and benefiting in some way from that. A few animals, I'm more squeamish about (think cats and dogs), but I freely admit that there's no rational reason for this. However, even with those animals, I don't care what someone else does to them. That's their business.
I'm reading, and posting to, slashdot from my Vista machine. I think I should go and copy some files too, just to demonstrate that I can do that. Your exaggeration and FUD, which is no doubt based on concern for me and my fellow Vista users, is greatly appreciated though.
You're not much of a web designer then. A good web designer checks how his/her work looks on as many platforms as possible. Just flipping the bird to Vista users because you don't like Vista, or because you think it's irrelevant, is poor practice, imho.
For the record, I really did find the prequels interesting. The plot of the original movies is, in my opinion, incredibly boring and cliche, what saves them is their great setting, and great action scenes. In the prequels, on the other hand, there was a story I could actually really get into, and wrap myself around: the slow descent of someone who was innocent and good into evil. It really caught me. Of course, the amazing battle scenes didn't hurt either.
No, this is bullshit. Look, I'll admit, I like the prequels. I don't understand how anyone can dislike them. But even so, new material in no way affects the quality of the originals. If you don't like the new stuff, just ignore it and move on! Seriously, the people who say "This new stuff is so bad it ruined the original stuff for me" are being idiots, because it's not that damn hard to just pretend that the new stuff doesn't exist. Case in point: I don't like how they killed off Major Kusanagi in the Ghost in the Shell movie, so I just watch the anime, and pretend the movies don't exist. Takes next to no effort on my part.
That's not really true. 3.1 was good, not meh, in my opinion. Vista is also good, in my opinion. Now, 98 and ME... I feel sorry for anyone who upgraded to 98 (not that it was bad, it just was a pretty minor thing to call a "new version"), or used ME at all. So it's kind of like Star Trek movies, where you see the releases following the rule to an extent, but also releases which completely break the rule (3.1, Vista, ST 3, ST Generations), making it hard to generalize.
Well, as for your "not harmless" contention, that falls into the harmless camp for me. I don't give a flying fuck about private info, though.
As far as your "enjoyable" contention, that's pure bs, in my not all-that-humble opinion. I enjoy using Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux, things aren't a chore just to get set up, and I have never, ever, ever had issues where I felt like I was "fighting with my computer". In fact, I would go so far as to say that, contrary to your not all-that-humble opinion, using Windows is quite enjoyable. See? This is why choice is good. I'll go back to using the OS I like, and you can go back to using the OS you like, and we'll both be equally happy with our situation.
Bah. What about the Apache servers running on Windows? What about non-Apache servers? While your fix doesn't break any standards, it isn't inclusive enough!;)
You can stream movies off a Windows Media Center computer but only if all the DRM is happy. FUCK THAT. Sort of. It's only in certain formats, which is irritating, but you can also get software which apparently re-encodes your video on the fly. Look into Transcode 360, I haven't tried it yet, but it seems to have potential.
what need would there be for Linux if Windows did everything we needed and was mostly harmless, mostly enjoyable? Well, it already does that, so you'd better tell the Linux teams to stop working on their stuff. The need for Linux is obvious: choice. Even if I prefer Windows, I appreciate having the choice to move to Linux available if I should choose to use it. Hell, even though I think Mac OS is a heaping pile of suck, I appreciate having it out there: more options. Other people like it, good for them, it doesn't bug me, I just choose not to use it.
I disagree. There are precious few 360-only titles available. Halo 3 is one, Forza is close to, but not quite, another. Really, I think the 360 has as many good games for it as the PS3. The really good games are still forthcoming on the 360, just as much as on the PS3 (Mass Effect, Fable 2). The game library for either system is weak (much as I love Halo 3, that alone isn't a reason to buy a 360).
Oh, ok, thanks for correcting me. It's sad, because I own a Wii, too, I just swear I remember paying $60 for the games (heh, maybe I did, and got ripped off by Best Buy).
No, the intelligent don't give a damn about ads, they learn to tune them out automatically.
I'm only part serious, of course (although that is what I do)... my point is to stop being smug about what you're doing, attitudes like that make life worse for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. I think FFX has the second-best plot, after VII, but that's just me. At any rate, the scene where Tidus is fading away really does almost make me cry. It's really sad.
Same in FF8 when Squall is trapped in the dimensional limbo, and is dying. That, and his reunion with Rinoa, were powerful moments for me.
On-topic, I didn't cry at any point during FFVII. FF8 and FFX made me get pretty choked up at points though.
And in the end, it's a DAMN GOOD THING to hide the inner workings of the OS from the average user. They'd wreak havok on it, and then cry that their computer is broken, goddamn Microsoft! Moreover, no matter your stance on how these things should be handled, it doesn't change the fact that using Windows does not mean you don't know how a computer works. That was your ridiculous, trollish claim, and that's what I'm disputing.
You know, for all the bitching people have done about games like Oblivion and Bioshock being "dumbed down" because they were also released on the console, I absolutely cannot see where they get this. I played Morrowind, and Oblivion's UI makes MORE sense to me than Morrowind's. I didn't play SS2, but Bioshock itself is not a dumbed-down game. It might be less complex than SS2, but Bioshock's interface and controls are on par with what one expects from a PC game. Someone, please, explain this new phenomenon of whining to me if you can. Be specific.
I am referring to the GPL. The terms of the GPL *do* dictate terms for other people's work. If you're going to put your code out there to the benefit of others, do so, but saying that if they want to benefit from your work, they have to meet your ideals IS dictating terms. Thus, by advocating the GPL, Stallman advocates restriction of freedom (yes, yes, inflammatory term, but it's the most concise way to put it), while CLAIMING to promote freedom.
This is quite true, but as has already been pointed out earlier in the discussion, Stallman is a fool for choosing to dress in such a way that people may be inspired not to take him seriously. He obviously likes to dress casually, and I'm ok with that... but it could potentially hurt his agenda, and so I think it's extremely stupid to not just avoid the difficulty altogether.
The one who _denies_ someone else a right, isnt "playing nice", so shouldnt have gotten this right in the first place.
Not true. It is, in the end, not a fundamental right, whether or not you can look at source code. It's a good thing to be altruistic, and want other people to benefit from your work, but to not have that desire does not mean that you aren't "playing nice". In fact, as long as we've started the debate on the merits of the GPL, I contend that giving licensing terms as a condition of releasing your work isn't "playing nice": you have no damn right whatsoever to try to dictate how other people should act. Oh, yes, they can just not use your code, but that doesn't mean that you aren't wrong for laying down terms like that for the use of your code.All I care about, when I release code, is that no one comes along and tries to relicense it (which, as I understand it, isn't legal, but IANAL). Beyond that, I consider it highly important that absolutely anyone has the freedom to do whatever they want with my code. No one has any right to dictate terms for what happens to anyone's work but their own, and the fact that Stallman does so, whilst simultaneously talking about freedom, irritates me to no end. Props to the man for wanting to promote free software, but his methods are poor.
Personally, my criteria for "murder" involves a human: if you aren't killing a human, it isn't murder. That aside, I have no real criteria for killing animals. Most don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest (bugs, delicious and juicy cows, etc)... even though I haven't killed some of them personally, I'm quite ok with them being killed, and benefiting in some way from that. A few animals, I'm more squeamish about (think cats and dogs), but I freely admit that there's no rational reason for this. However, even with those animals, I don't care what someone else does to them. That's their business.
I'm reading, and posting to, slashdot from my Vista machine. I think I should go and copy some files too, just to demonstrate that I can do that. Your exaggeration and FUD, which is no doubt based on concern for me and my fellow Vista users, is greatly appreciated though.
You're not much of a web designer then. A good web designer checks how his/her work looks on as many platforms as possible. Just flipping the bird to Vista users because you don't like Vista, or because you think it's irrelevant, is poor practice, imho.
For the record, I really did find the prequels interesting. The plot of the original movies is, in my opinion, incredibly boring and cliche, what saves them is their great setting, and great action scenes. In the prequels, on the other hand, there was a story I could actually really get into, and wrap myself around: the slow descent of someone who was innocent and good into evil. It really caught me. Of course, the amazing battle scenes didn't hurt either.
No, this is bullshit. Look, I'll admit, I like the prequels. I don't understand how anyone can dislike them. But even so, new material in no way affects the quality of the originals. If you don't like the new stuff, just ignore it and move on! Seriously, the people who say "This new stuff is so bad it ruined the original stuff for me" are being idiots, because it's not that damn hard to just pretend that the new stuff doesn't exist. Case in point: I don't like how they killed off Major Kusanagi in the Ghost in the Shell movie, so I just watch the anime, and pretend the movies don't exist. Takes next to no effort on my part.
That's not really true. 3.1 was good, not meh, in my opinion. Vista is also good, in my opinion. Now, 98 and ME... I feel sorry for anyone who upgraded to 98 (not that it was bad, it just was a pretty minor thing to call a "new version"), or used ME at all. So it's kind of like Star Trek movies, where you see the releases following the rule to an extent, but also releases which completely break the rule (3.1, Vista, ST 3, ST Generations), making it hard to generalize.
As far as your "enjoyable" contention, that's pure bs, in my not all-that-humble opinion. I enjoy using Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux, things aren't a chore just to get set up, and I have never, ever, ever had issues where I felt like I was "fighting with my computer". In fact, I would go so far as to say that, contrary to your not all-that-humble opinion, using Windows is quite enjoyable. See? This is why choice is good. I'll go back to using the OS I like, and you can go back to using the OS you like, and we'll both be equally happy with our situation.
Bah. What about the Apache servers running on Windows? What about non-Apache servers? While your fix doesn't break any standards, it isn't inclusive enough! ;)
Thanks for the link. I just went and infringed on some intellectual property rights... who knew it could be so damn fun?
I disagree. There are precious few 360-only titles available. Halo 3 is one, Forza is close to, but not quite, another. Really, I think the 360 has as many good games for it as the PS3. The really good games are still forthcoming on the 360, just as much as on the PS3 (Mass Effect, Fable 2). The game library for either system is weak (much as I love Halo 3, that alone isn't a reason to buy a 360).
Oh, ok, thanks for correcting me. It's sad, because I own a Wii, too, I just swear I remember paying $60 for the games (heh, maybe I did, and got ripped off by Best Buy).
The game is $60. Console games cost $60 these days, PC games still cost $50.
The irony is just astounding here. I'm truly floored.
I'm only part serious, of course (although that is what I do)... my point is to stop being smug about what you're doing, attitudes like that make life worse for everyone.