Why? I tried Doom on the Nintendo Gameboy Advance. It utterly sucked. Its going to be even worse on the iphone.
Why? The iPhone is more powerful and has a better screen than the GBA. The only difference is the controls, and if you've played Wolfenstein on the iPhone (as mr_da3m0n said below), you'd realize how meritless your conclusion is.
For this quote to apply, you also need to argue that the Android port wasn't an honest development effort, and that his phone doesn't have a keyboard.
Only if Carmack was being absolutely literal and precise (also, you left out the part about the mouse).
It's pretty clear that the keyboard needs to be sufficiently similar to a full-sized PC keyboard, and that "honest effort" doesn't simply mean "earnest" or "intentional", but has a certain level of competence required as well.
And above all, even if you have all of the quoted details correct, nowhere does he imply or promise success.
The takeaway here is that compiling Doom on various hardware is easy. It's even on the iPod. But getting Doom to run at a certain level of quality (not just frame rate and visuals/sounds) can be quite a challenge.
On that note he was never in bed with Microsoft either, much to the chagrin of many Slashdot readers...
They always talk about the escape subs to antarctica, but maybe that was just a diversion, and Hitler actually took a sub to Redmond, where he shaved his mustache and changed his name to Gates and raised a son?
And those Nazi human-animal hybrid experiments? Ballmer. It explains a lot if you think about it.
All I'm really saying is, I'm not ready to give up on the Hitler-Microsoft connection just yet...
Hubble is not in the normal space shuttle/ISS orbit, which made getting an Internet connection more difficult than usual. In their normal orbit, they just time their Internet downloads for when they are passing over Cringely's Pringles can WiFi antenna...
People voluntarily sharing and collaborating forming online communities is not the same as Communism or socialism.
Yes, it is, if their goals are communal or social. It's only if they are oriented around the acquisition of wealth (capital) that such endeavors are examples of capitalism.
Communism is all about Government power being used to force people to behave in the "appropriate" ways. With government power brokers determining what is appropriate and what isn't.
No, that's totalitarianism. Currently, the capitalists in America are clamoring for more totalitarianism than the socialists are.
The cooperation being seen between individuals is the exact opposite. People voluntarily working towards a common good that they choose for themselves.
Very few people care at all about the common goals they are working for in their job. For most people, a job is a job, and it's something they do because they have to, not because they want to. Relatively few people are lucky enough to get to work at a job that they truly love because it's something actually want to do.
Your post is only true if you pretend subjective opinions are objective truths.
Who is being compelled against their will to contribute? While each individual may contribute to their ability, it is on a voluntary basis. "Each according to their need" is ONLY being met as market demands and individuals consider it in their best interest to meet that demand.
You're defining communism as requiring forced contribution, while overlooking the fact that people are forced to contribute in capitalism. The difference isn't compulsion per se, it's the nature of the compulsion.
In a capitalist society, you have to contribute, starve, or rely on the charity of others. Under communism it's exactly the same. The main difference is you generally have more choice under capitalism because more of the economic decisions are distributed, while the economic decisions are more centralized under communism.
But in neither system can you generally expect to skate by without contributing.
Just because the exchange can not be measured in per unit monetary compensation does not make the contribution "selfless".
Only if you define away "selfless" to meaninglessness. By your definition, it's essentially impossible to be selfless. Take the most selfless person you can think of--a parent, a teacher, a soldier, a nun, a disaster recovery volunteer, whatever you want, and every single one of these people derives some benefit from their sacrifice.
Selfless, is more about voluntarily giving up some good or service at a loss without concern about making up those losses down the road. For example, MS giving away Windows to schools isn't selfless, it's self-serving. On the other hand, someone not set to benefit from MS Windows adoption anonymously giving away the same number of Windows licenses to the same schools is selfless, even if they get warm-fuzzies in return.
Karl Marx would have called for government to come in and heavily regulate software. Designate a central authority to manage the development of software, public schools train a specific number of necessary software developers, outlaw the possession, development, or use of "rogue" compilers to help protect people from poor quality software that wasn't approved by the state, and possibly imprison people for unauthorized forking of projects arguing that such action "steals" the necessary resources of the state and impedes progress.
You're thinking of Stalin and Lenin.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both said that with no natural right to real property ownership, there is no imaginable justification for natural rights over an idea (Jefferson Letters). Does that make THEM Communists?
No one is cut from whole cloth. The most capitalist person in the world has some communism in them, and vice versa.
Further, just because everyone wins does not make it collectivism. Collectivism asks for self sacrifice, that you as an individual is not as important as the many. Really? That is why people develop software? Hackers don't have really huge egos when it comes to their accomplishments? Gee, guess I had it all wrong.
Capitalism asks for self-sacrifice. Or is somehow the classes I've had to take to learn subjects I'm not interested in to spend time working in a place I'd rather not be doing things I'd rather not do not self-sacrifice, while taking classes to learn about people around me I don't generally care about and paying taxes or volunteering to help homeless people I don't know is self-sacrifice?
Both collectivism and capitalism demand self-sacrifice. But as mentioned above, it's more a difference in style and choice than anything else.
putting screenshots of websites you visit outside your home directory is a fantastic feature?
You're referring to an implementation detail, not a feature. The feature is the web page previews. Whether they are stored in/var or in ~/Library has no effect on the feature, but does affect the underlying implementation of it.
By all means, put the previews in the ~/Library folder. By all means, file a bug report about this detail, but don't request the removal the feature.
wow i sense the RDF is strong in this one
Correct, because as we all know, nothing bolsters a straw man like ad hominem.
Re:Mac abstraction affects the non-savvy...
on
Safari 4's Messy Trail
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Sorry, the menu item is "Safari -> Reset Safari..." where the option is to "Remove all webpage preview images".
The real scary part of this for me is not the government, more on that in a sec, but your girlfriend/boyfriend/housemate. Anyone who feels like he/she wants to do some snooping now has a treasure chest of stuff to take out of context.
They've always had this. It's called "History" and "Temporary Internet Files". The only difference here is Safari has added screenshots.
If you're that worried, you can enter Private Browsing mode, you can selectively clear out parts of your history (and cache and screenshots), entirely clear out all of the above (including cookies), or just turn the feature off in the first place.
Please don't do this. This "unacceptable in a web browser" feature is fantastic, and if you still find it unacceptable, you can turn it off. I, personally, find it a very nice touch.
Re:Mac abstraction affects the non-savvy...
on
Safari 4's Messy Trail
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The big value-proposition of the Mac has been that it is easy for the non-geeky user to use.
Right, because clicking "Safari -> Empty Cache..." is amazingly complicated...
P.S. All browsers do this. The only difference is Safari saves screenshots as well, which are easily: cleared entirely, cleared selectively, temporarily disabled and permanently disabled, as per the specific needs of the user.
Geeks used to try Linux for geek points. Now geeks use Linux because it's better in most ways for what they use it for. That's the battle that Linux has won.
I would wager quite a large sum of money that significantly less than 50% of "geeks" run Linux.
Actually, that's not terribly important, so long as the methodology isn't downright absurd. What's more important is market share of what market. Of servers, it's going to be much higher than 1%, but that's not a very interesting market to most people.
Of the business market, that's a bit more interesting. Still, more of a factoid type number than something useful.
The truly interesting number for most people is the consumer or home user market. That tells you what people are running when given a choice. Even if someone bought a Mac or Windows PC without knowing Linux existed, they can choose to install it at any time. Of this market, I suspect the number is actually less than 1%.
Macs are at around 10-15%. How many Macs do you see in public? how many Linux notebooks?
Granted, it's much easier to spot a Mac than a Linux PC, but from the screen side it's easy, and I've never seen a Linux notebook in public that wasn't someone I know. Otherwise the total would be two. And I have to go back 15 years to get that number.
It wasn't implied--I've never voted for a Republican in my life, so it seems unlikely that I would ever implicitly advocate such a thing. Unless you are one of those who think the author's opinion of what he meant is irrelevant.
Your straw man is just that because no, I was not advocating voting for republicans.
Your opinion is relevant, but it's not available to me except for what you've already written at the time. Based on what was written, my assumption about what was implied was rational.
A straw man goes like this:
A. X is true! B. Y is not true, therefore X is not true! (where X is not dependent on Y)
For this to be a straw man, there has to be some X I was trying to disprove by assuming you were defending the idea of voting Republican. Please, demonstrate the X I was intending to disprove.
You do not know what the straw man fallacy is, sorry. It doesn't mean "making a false assumption".
Some progress? Like how Obama rubber-stamped continuing warrantless wiretapping? I knew the Democrats were full of BS when they complained about the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. As soon as they achieved power, it's just business as usual.
Really? Obama moves forward on dozens of issues, but all you need to do is find one where things stay the same (or at least, similar) and all of a sudden there's absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans?!
I stopped voting out of fear. People say voting for 3rd parties is a waste, but at least my conscious is clean, and there will never be any change until people stop worrying about 'wasting their vote' and start worrying about signing on to yet another backstabbing bandwagon.
The only correct thing in that statement is that your conscious is clean. The rest is nonsense. The national political system in the US is set up to be at equilibrium with two parties. It's not the voters' faults, it's the system's.
Here's a clue:
You could run millions of simulations of our political system. You could start with one party, with two parties, with a million parties. But every single run through your simulation will end up, in a short period of time, with two parties.
The only way for a third party to take hold is for there to be some extraordinary circumstance in the nation, as happened around the Civil War. But instead of ending up with three parties, one of the two previous parties goes away. Unless there is continual civil unrest at levels similar to that leading up to the Civil War, you're always going to have, for the long run, only two parties in power at a time. You'd have to change the design of the system for it to work otherwise.
And, just to be clear, this was the intent of the founding fathers. Some of them wanted a two party system, and that's what they got.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus isn't playing on a touch screen going to get really annoying. I mean imagine this...
No need to imagine, you can currently play Wolfenstein 3D on the iPhone and decide, for real, whether the touch interface works well or not.
Why? I tried Doom on the Nintendo Gameboy Advance. It utterly sucked. Its going to be even worse on the iphone.
Why? The iPhone is more powerful and has a better screen than the GBA. The only difference is the controls, and if you've played Wolfenstein on the iPhone (as mr_da3m0n said below), you'd realize how meritless your conclusion is.
For this quote to apply, you also need to argue that the Android port wasn't an honest development effort, and that his phone doesn't have a keyboard.
Only if Carmack was being absolutely literal and precise (also, you left out the part about the mouse).
It's pretty clear that the keyboard needs to be sufficiently similar to a full-sized PC keyboard, and that "honest effort" doesn't simply mean "earnest" or "intentional", but has a certain level of competence required as well.
And above all, even if you have all of the quoted details correct, nowhere does he imply or promise success.
The takeaway here is that compiling Doom on various hardware is easy. It's even on the iPod. But getting Doom to run at a certain level of quality (not just frame rate and visuals/sounds) can be quite a challenge.
The original Doom has already been ported to Android, Android beats I-phone again!
When Android is finished practicing against the I-phone, perhaps it'll be ready to take on the iPhone?
Does a red story mean that there are no comments?
Not sure, but a read story means it's winter in hell.
On that note he was never in bed with Microsoft either, much to the chagrin of many Slashdot readers...
They always talk about the escape subs to antarctica, but maybe that was just a diversion, and Hitler actually took a sub to Redmond, where he shaved his mustache and changed his name to Gates and raised a son?
And those Nazi human-animal hybrid experiments? Ballmer. It explains a lot if you think about it.
All I'm really saying is, I'm not ready to give up on the Hitler-Microsoft connection just yet...
Hubble is not in the normal space shuttle/ISS orbit, which made getting an Internet connection more difficult than usual. In their normal orbit, they just time their Internet downloads for when they are passing over Cringely's Pringles can WiFi antenna...
People voluntarily sharing and collaborating forming online communities is not the same as Communism or socialism.
Yes, it is, if their goals are communal or social. It's only if they are oriented around the acquisition of wealth (capital) that such endeavors are examples of capitalism.
Communism is all about Government power being used to force people to behave in the "appropriate" ways. With government power brokers determining what is appropriate and what isn't.
No, that's totalitarianism. Currently, the capitalists in America are clamoring for more totalitarianism than the socialists are.
The cooperation being seen between individuals is the exact opposite. People voluntarily working towards a common good that they choose for themselves.
Very few people care at all about the common goals they are working for in their job. For most people, a job is a job, and it's something they do because they have to, not because they want to. Relatively few people are lucky enough to get to work at a job that they truly love because it's something actually want to do.
Your post is only true if you pretend subjective opinions are objective truths.
Who is being compelled against their will to contribute? While each individual may contribute to their ability, it is on a voluntary basis. "Each according to their need" is ONLY being met as market demands and individuals consider it in their best interest to meet that demand.
You're defining communism as requiring forced contribution, while overlooking the fact that people are forced to contribute in capitalism. The difference isn't compulsion per se, it's the nature of the compulsion.
In a capitalist society, you have to contribute, starve, or rely on the charity of others. Under communism it's exactly the same. The main difference is you generally have more choice under capitalism because more of the economic decisions are distributed, while the economic decisions are more centralized under communism.
But in neither system can you generally expect to skate by without contributing.
Just because the exchange can not be measured in per unit monetary compensation does not make the contribution "selfless".
Only if you define away "selfless" to meaninglessness. By your definition, it's essentially impossible to be selfless. Take the most selfless person you can think of--a parent, a teacher, a soldier, a nun, a disaster recovery volunteer, whatever you want, and every single one of these people derives some benefit from their sacrifice.
Selfless, is more about voluntarily giving up some good or service at a loss without concern about making up those losses down the road. For example, MS giving away Windows to schools isn't selfless, it's self-serving. On the other hand, someone not set to benefit from MS Windows adoption anonymously giving away the same number of Windows licenses to the same schools is selfless, even if they get warm-fuzzies in return.
Karl Marx would have called for government to come in and heavily regulate software. Designate a central authority to manage the development of software, public schools train a specific number of necessary software developers, outlaw the possession, development, or use of "rogue" compilers to help protect people from poor quality software that wasn't approved by the state, and possibly imprison people for unauthorized forking of projects arguing that such action "steals" the necessary resources of the state and impedes progress.
You're thinking of Stalin and Lenin.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both said that with no natural right to real property ownership, there is no imaginable justification for natural rights over an idea (Jefferson Letters). Does that make THEM Communists?
No one is cut from whole cloth. The most capitalist person in the world has some communism in them, and vice versa.
Further, just because everyone wins does not make it collectivism. Collectivism asks for self sacrifice, that you as an individual is not as important as the many. Really? That is why people develop software? Hackers don't have really huge egos when it comes to their accomplishments? Gee, guess I had it all wrong.
Capitalism asks for self-sacrifice. Or is somehow the classes I've had to take to learn subjects I'm not interested in to spend time working in a place I'd rather not be doing things I'd rather not do not self-sacrifice, while taking classes to learn about people around me I don't generally care about and paying taxes or volunteering to help homeless people I don't know is self-sacrifice?
Both collectivism and capitalism demand self-sacrifice. But as mentioned above, it's more a difference in style and choice than anything else.
You sound bitter...
So when is Cynicism getting added to an ever expanding list of mental disorders that one more pill can set right?
While they surely have a pill ready, all you need is an irony supplement.
putting screenshots of websites you visit outside your home directory is a fantastic feature?
You're referring to an implementation detail, not a feature. The feature is the web page previews. Whether they are stored in /var or in ~/Library has no effect on the feature, but does affect the underlying implementation of it.
By all means, put the previews in the ~/Library folder. By all means, file a bug report about this detail, but don't request the removal the feature.
wow i sense the RDF is strong in this one
Correct, because as we all know, nothing bolsters a straw man like ad hominem.
Sorry, the menu item is "Safari -> Reset Safari..." where the option is to "Remove all webpage preview images".
Not quite. That's when in-orbit assembly began. The modules existed long before then.
The real scary part of this for me is not the government, more on that in a sec, but your girlfriend/boyfriend/housemate. Anyone who feels like he/she wants to do some snooping now has a treasure chest of stuff to take out of context.
They've always had this. It's called "History" and "Temporary Internet Files". The only difference here is Safari has added screenshots.
If you're that worried, you can enter Private Browsing mode, you can selectively clear out parts of your history (and cache and screenshots), entirely clear out all of the above (including cookies), or just turn the feature off in the first place.
Please don't do this. This "unacceptable in a web browser" feature is fantastic, and if you still find it unacceptable, you can turn it off. I, personally, find it a very nice touch.
The big value-proposition of the Mac has been that it is easy for the non-geeky user to use.
Right, because clicking "Safari -> Empty Cache..." is amazingly complicated...
P.S. All browsers do this. The only difference is Safari saves screenshots as well, which are easily: cleared entirely, cleared selectively, temporarily disabled and permanently disabled, as per the specific needs of the user.
Geeks used to try Linux for geek points. Now geeks use Linux because it's better in most ways for what they use it for. That's the battle that Linux has won.
I would wager quite a large sum of money that significantly less than 50% of "geeks" run Linux.
Actually, that's not terribly important, so long as the methodology isn't downright absurd. What's more important is market share of what market. Of servers, it's going to be much higher than 1%, but that's not a very interesting market to most people.
Of the business market, that's a bit more interesting. Still, more of a factoid type number than something useful.
The truly interesting number for most people is the consumer or home user market. That tells you what people are running when given a choice. Even if someone bought a Mac or Windows PC without knowing Linux existed, they can choose to install it at any time. Of this market, I suspect the number is actually less than 1%.
Macs are at around 10-15%. How many Macs do you see in public? how many Linux notebooks?
Granted, it's much easier to spot a Mac than a Linux PC, but from the screen side it's easy, and I've never seen a Linux notebook in public that wasn't someone I know. Otherwise the total would be two. And I have to go back 15 years to get that number.
Like the guy said, loads of useless crap.
I was, too. But I couldn't think of anything funny to say.
It wasn't implied--I've never voted for a Republican in my life, so it seems unlikely that I would ever implicitly advocate such a thing. Unless you are one of those who think the author's opinion of what he meant is irrelevant.
Your straw man is just that because no, I was not advocating voting for republicans.
Your opinion is relevant, but it's not available to me except for what you've already written at the time. Based on what was written, my assumption about what was implied was rational.
A straw man goes like this:
A. X is true!
B. Y is not true, therefore X is not true! (where X is not dependent on Y)
For this to be a straw man, there has to be some X I was trying to disprove by assuming you were defending the idea of voting Republican. Please, demonstrate the X I was intending to disprove.
You do not know what the straw man fallacy is, sorry. It doesn't mean "making a false assumption".
Some progress? Like how Obama rubber-stamped continuing warrantless wiretapping? I knew the Democrats were full of BS when they complained about the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. As soon as they achieved power, it's just business as usual.
Really? Obama moves forward on dozens of issues, but all you need to do is find one where things stay the same (or at least, similar) and all of a sudden there's absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans?!
I stopped voting out of fear. People say voting for 3rd parties is a waste, but at least my conscious is clean, and there will never be any change until people stop worrying about 'wasting their vote' and start worrying about signing on to yet another backstabbing bandwagon.
The only correct thing in that statement is that your conscious is clean. The rest is nonsense. The national political system in the US is set up to be at equilibrium with two parties. It's not the voters' faults, it's the system's.
Here's a clue:
You could run millions of simulations of our political system. You could start with one party, with two parties, with a million parties. But every single run through your simulation will end up, in a short period of time, with two parties.
The only way for a third party to take hold is for there to be some extraordinary circumstance in the nation, as happened around the Civil War. But instead of ending up with three parties, one of the two previous parties goes away. Unless there is continual civil unrest at levels similar to that leading up to the Civil War, you're always going to have, for the long run, only two parties in power at a time. You'd have to change the design of the system for it to work otherwise.
And, just to be clear, this was the intent of the founding fathers. Some of them wanted a two party system, and that's what they got.
Yea, that thing about 'progress'.
It can mean 'for the better', but often it means progressing to socialism or absolute rule. I kind of have a problem with that.
In the present context, it means towards more socialism and away from absolute rule.