Continental Europe is different - they're a bit more strict on privacy laws.
Thanks for the generalization. Southern USA is a bit different. They usually are Ku-klux Klan members.
Well, yes it was a generalization. ^_^ Do you have the impression it's not true? My impression is that the Brits are a bit of an exception with respect to attitudes towards surveillance, privacy and security, compared to the rest of Europe (where I'm from, btw).
The US on the other has one thing going for it: constitutional protections, and associated with that, pretty good transparency.
Surprise! The US is not the only country with a constitution. Nor is it the first country with a constitution. Nor does the constitution seem to help USians much, as the various political fractions interpret the constitution as inventively as christians interpret the bible.
Yes, and likewise not every country (or even democracy) has a constitution. But it's true it's a bit beside the point. What I tried to explain is that a side-effect of the fact that the US has a written constitution, is that it seems easier to grasp, see the conflicts etc. (diff -u with the original) To find out what's going on with British law for instance, you have to parse Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Treaties etc etc. My own country's laws are similarly opaque, and there's not as much analysis to be found (being a much smaller country is part of the reason too of course).
Whenever there's a new law project that might touch constitutional protections, there's usually some people that will notice, and there's quite a bit more public debate about it. To the point that Europeans probably know more about privacy-related laws in the US than in their own country.
Look, just because you can read about it in your newspaper, doesn't mean that everyone else in the world reads the same newspaper. The silly little bickerings you have about privacy-laws in the US, interests us about the same as you would consider the debate about Oslos new opera building interesting. More to the point, people in civilized democracies (such as most of Europe) mostly ignores american politics, except that they dislike Bush, and thought Clinton was a jolly good fellow.
I really wonder what I said to make you and a lot of other people in this thread think I was US citizen. Anyways, I'm not, I'm a European like you, and yes, privacy laws in the US (and the UK) _do_ interest me - for the simple reason that they have a tendency of being "exported" to other countries, through treaties, "harmonisation", "economic interest", or good old fashioned strong-arming.
Secondly, in the eyes of most people in civilized democracies, US politics has mostly been dominated by rabid right-wing capitalists, dictated by powerful companies, since at least the 1960s. It's possible we will follow, but at least untill now, we have managed to keep the battle up for a little longer. And we have privacy laws, even laws that work!
Well, you definitely won't be hearing me disagree with that.
Good to know, but I had the impression you still go apeshit over ID cards (which was what I was referring to ^_^) - although a UK poster in another thread mentioned polls showing it to be more 50/50 or even 40/60, so I might've been wrong on that.
The point I was trying to make (badly, I guess) was that the English have "interesting" variations in what they seem to tolerate and what they don't, compared to, say, mainland Europe where I'm from.
Because of course, there is no CCTV in the US *at all*, is there?
Don't know, I'm not from the US;-)
Did you know that in the UK, you must provide contact information for the owner and operator of a CCTV system in any public place, *and* provide access to any recorded images? It's a criminal offence if you don't - as in, you will be fined or sent to jail for not complying with the very *verY* strict regulation on CCTV.
No I didn't, that's quite interesting, thanks. Good to hear there's any regulation at all. However do you mean they *must* provide access to the government, or to everyone?
The way I hear you describe it, whenever a CCTV comes online - even private- it's another set of eyes for the government to abuse. That doesn't sound too good.
Oh, and yes, I'd consider untrained policemen with guns and SWAT goodies a privacy invasion too ^_^ (understatement)
I think it's a game of "pick your poison", then. Like I mentioned in another post, I don't think ID cards are great either, but I guess as a someone from continental Europe I'm more accustomed to it. Point is, there's lots of times where one absolutely need to identify themselves (buying a house, opening a bank account etc). Having to piece together your ID from all kinds of paperwork seems to me more prone for abuse than having a government sanctioned "ID". (I've never heard of ID-theft happening here, whereas I've got the impression it's a more common occurrence in the US and the UK, right?)
It would be good if we had the right _not_ to show it, though (ID serves _us_ when we need it, not everybody else), and that more things could be done without requiring it.
Also the issue of the central database is separate in my mind. Giving all kinds of government instances sweeping access to a database holding all kinds of private/sensitive information is idiocy of course. If I recall correctly, there's recently been a couple of bills proposed (Jack Straw, was it?) in the UK, that would do just that.
I don't think that happens here (but it's more difficult to know. as I mentioned in my first post, privacy laws here aren't given the publicity/public debate they require)
Well, I'm actually from mainland Europe. From my perspective, England is much (much!) closer to the US culture when it comes to "security"-matters.
You are right however, that I am used to show my ID whenever and wherever. While I don't think it's a great thing to have (more things should be possible to do without proving, and especially recording your ID), it's better than trying to piece an ID together with utility bills etc when you need to open a bank account etc. I've never heard of ID-theft happening here, for instance.
Ideally there would be an ID-card, and a right not to show it - unless you want to prove who you are (official/bank matters).
You might find that the typical slashdotter might go apeshit over ID cards, but you misrepresent the feelings of the English. Every single poll that's ever been done in the UK about ID cards has shown the majority to be in favour.
I didn't know that, thanks. It was the impression I got from hearing debates on the BBC, but I hadn't actually seen any real polls yet.
About the CCTV-thing and relatively high security-mindedness in general (damn it's hard to find a bin in Waterloo Station) - I suspect it's all a legacy of dealing with the IRA. But hell, I'm just speculating - if that wasn't obvious already.
Well, the UK has always had new crazy, privacy-destroying laws and powers. I find the English completely irrational considering how they go apeshit at the thought of a national ID card, but let things pass like continuous camera surveillance, excessive powers to any government instance, etc. Ripe for abuse. Maybe it's an Anglo-Saxon mindset?
Continental Europe is different - they're a bit more strict on privacy laws. There's always a big stink made when some stuff like this happens, like when euro passenger data is shared with the US, or like when SWIFT Belgium was/is passing loads of info on financial transactions to the US (again).
The US on the other has one thing going for it: constitutional protections, and associated with that, pretty good transparency. Whenever there's a new law project that might touch constitutional protections, there's usually some people that will notice, and there's quite a bit more public debate about it. To the point that Europeans probably know more about privacy-related laws in the US than in their own country.
Absolutely. And getting any specs out of them is probably easier than getting nvidia to open source their drivers, even for basic things like input devices. Linux is completely _not_ on their minds.
Well, there's a lot of patches out there that destabilize the Linux kernel, but somehow Linus doesn't feel threatened. If MS did that, I'm willing to bet people would actually recognize it as the FUD it is.
Yes, it can happen that Mozilla's name might get tarnished a little bit by something someone else did. Some people might not be able to differentiate between that someone else and Mozilla.
But I'm willing to bet that Mozilla going after distro's like that is probably going to cause more bad blood than the potential, hypothetical tarnishing they might receive.
What if Linus said - you must use the exact Vanilla upstream linux kernel without patches I haven't vetted, or else you don't get to call it "Linux"? Because that's what Mozilla is doing.
Guess what: Linus has a trademark, and yet there still are widely diverging kernels for totally different purposes kept in completely different trees by different companies/people - yet they're all called Linux.
Mozilla decides that they're the ones that should have the final say over what patches are "ok" - even if they say stuff like: "don't patch your stable distro with firefox 1.0 for security fixes. upgrade your old, stable distro to firefox 1.5 instead, even if that means breaking users' expectations of 'stable distro' and breaking some programs in the process".
That would also mean that derivative Debian distros (there's more than just Ubuntu) can't rely on the fact that they're free to use and change anything in the distro for their own purposes; They'd have to deal with Mozilla too, instead of just relying on Debian.
Yeah, Win2k is what I recommend to people that have to run Windows. I haven't encountered any game or app however that doesn't run on it. Care to enlighten me? (not doubting you, just curious)
And DirectX10 - if they don't release it for XP, I don't see many game companies using it. At least, I hope not.
Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you stick with Windows 2000? It's a lot less bloated than XP, and runs every program just as well. But it doesn't have the crappy "activation" "feature".
My guess is you probably liked some of the few useful features (wireless, PPPoE, faster booting) or the useless, "bling" features, and in the end you upgraded after all. Or you got a new PC and you couldn't be arsed to demand one without XP (and the microsoft tax) installed.
So, if that's why it's likely you'll repeat the process with Vista, right?
Okay, am I the only one completely unable to change the treshold? I'm not against using some javascript/css tricks with good judgement, but Discussion2's features are pretty much non-discoverable. If they're there, they're well hidden - I can't find out how to do the things I can easily do with the old system.
Additionally, what's up with mixing 'display options' (the popup window) in between "real links" - some of them are destructive (ie they take you away from your context, to your "Preferences" page or whatever), and others aren't (they pop up some extra features without reloading the page). If you're not yet familiar with the links, it's a lottery to see if you're going to load another page (context) or not.
So as it stands currently, and imho, it's a usability regression. Even after trying for a little while, I can't do what I could do previously. Hope it doesn't get adopted as it stands.
yeah, they're _FULLY_ open source... unless you're actually taking into account the intel_hal.so file -> not so open source. Basically it's for things like macrovision (tv-out?) etc, so some features require a binary blob still.
That being said, this thing is completely optional. And the message hints what the Intel policy is on things Intel can't release (I got the exact same impression from intels ipw3945 wireless driver) - it's this: "we'll separate the stuff we can't release in user-mode code accessible through a simple API, so basically we made it as easy as we can for 'some other person' to reverse-engineer and reimplement that piece".
I think that's a pretty good policy for any company entangled in open/closed source issues.
I really like my Nokia 770, having the ability to run _real_ applications (web browser, gnumeric, etc) on such a small device is a real treat.
To sum it up for me: + runs linux + active developer community (with regular updates through apt-get/maemo garage etc) + relatively cheap + (desktop) apps are relatively easily ported (gnumeric, gpe,...) + has wifi, usb and bluetooth, headphones out, a mic, and a mini-speaker + gorgeous screen (800x480 high-dpi) + decent form design
- no keyboard (though you could use bluetooth keyboard) - no mobile phone capabilities (must use external bluetooth phone for GPRS access) - cpu is a bit slow - starved for memory and memory bandwidth - I'd rather have compactflash or SD than RS-MMC as expansion (but it'll do) - doesn't charge through USB - certain apps are still a bit immature (mail app sucks in particular) - this is getting better however
despite the downsides I recommend it if you're the technical type.
Interesting how they mention one or two batteries are required... So unless I'm misinterpreting, you can put two batteries in for longer charge, or one for less weight?
> Because every physicist has a layman's understanding of physics.
Yes, and every physicist was at some point a layman prior to educating himself. It's never wrong to ask questions - I probably have more respect for them than the ones that think it's stupid for doing so.
I think you should speak for yourself. So you don't find it enjoyable. That's a shame.
However, practically everyone of my friends are having fun with the new chapter.
1) Map being smaller might be true, but isn't stopping me from having fun nonetheless. And the two vs four additional slots I don't mind at all.
2) Storage space: sell your stuff already then, you hoarder:). I have a hard time believing your 6 characters with max capacity are loaded to the brim with rare items you just can't live without.
3) I agree with that, some of the quests seem a bit pointless. I guess it is a challenge to keep being original and interesting.
4) don't have this problem, either; I very often play alone, and do explore.
5) I find this a plus rather than a minus. If a group gets reinforcements, you have to as a group know you can deal with it, or know you have to bail out and recharge. The outcome of fights, even in PvE should be a bit unpredictable.
6) I see your point, and it's true that small guilds may have it harder (I'm in a very small one myself). But I think it's partly by design - there's a social element involved if you want to do certain things.
I guess it's a matter of finding mature players that don't take themselves and the game to seriously, and just want to have fun.
Factions is not a disappointment to me - I doubt however you'll see many people like me posting on guildwarsguru; Is it perfect? Most definitely not. Sometimes I get annoyed at changes they introduce (I was a bit annoyed when they nerfed the MM, however I got over that very soon). But when I take a step back I realise I really like it, despite some of its flaws.
I had motion sickness for a while when I switched from 19" CRTs to 21" LCDs. I remember the boat-ride in HL2 as particularly nauseating. Try to change the distance between you and your screen a bit, adjust the height, etc. I used to play Quake2 (Lithium, so very spastic movements) and Quake3 quite a bit without ever having problems. Now that I played a bit with the distance and positions, I've no longer had any problems (though I'm not tempted to try HL2's boat ride again:) ). I noticed that if I see the rest of my room/desk/environment a bit better, I have less problems.
It "collects" all of your ruby source and libs in one compact executable. It works on Windows, MacOSX and Linux. And it has the possibility to not include the Ruby/TK bindings, but the TK libs as well!
I guess you could also use Ruby bindings for native win32, or bindings for GTK+.
Well - my personal belief is that the current patent system do more harm than good when it comes to promoting science and the arts.
Whenever patent defenders want to point out the good that patents do, they often refer to the pharmaceutical industry. "One requires 15 hojillion billion to do R&D to create a new superdrug and get it validated, so no-one would make drugs if it weren't for protection". A couple of observations about pharmaceuticals, though: - just when a patent is about to expire, they file a new application with a slight variation, which usually covers them for another XX years - aka. "evergreening". Cool that the world knows how it works, but if they can't use the techniques, ever, they're just not going to develop it further. They could license it and build on it, but why do that if you're not even sure it's worth it - better work on something sufficiently different. (So no "standing on shoulders of giants"-effect). - the fact that these companies make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, kind of means to me that their patents probably last way too long. Monopoly power in full effect.
If the patent system was working, I believe you should be seeing lots of small dynamic companies inventing and experimenting with crazy stuff. (the "lone inventor" type). However, pharmaceutical companies usually look more like banks or insurance companies. I believe our society isn't promoting the sciences and arts as fast as it could - I believe that it's evolved in a system that's maximizing profit rather than maximizing the development of the sciences and arts.
Maybe patent lifespans should be proportional to the investment and r&d required to get that patent in the first place. I'm not sure. But I'm also not sure that science&arts would crash if patents were to disappear altogether. You should not only judge a law by the good it potentially brings a society, but especially by how easily it is "gamed" and abused.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes it was a generalization. ^_^ Do you have the impression it's not true? My impression is that the Brits are a bit of an exception with respect to attitudes towards surveillance, privacy and security, compared to the rest of Europe (where I'm from, btw).
Yes, and likewise not every country (or even democracy) has a constitution. But it's true it's a bit beside the point. What I tried to explain is that a side-effect of the fact that the US has a written constitution, is that it seems easier to grasp, see the conflicts etc. (diff -u with the original) To find out what's going on with British law for instance, you have to parse Statute Law, Common Law, Royal Prerogative, Treaties etc etc. My own country's laws are similarly opaque, and there's not as much analysis to be found (being a much smaller country is part of the reason too of course).
I really wonder what I said to make you and a lot of other people in this thread think I was US citizen. Anyways, I'm not, I'm a European like you, and yes, privacy laws in the US (and the UK) _do_ interest me - for the simple reason that they have a tendency of being "exported" to other countries, through treaties, "harmonisation", "economic interest", or good old fashioned strong-arming.
Well, you definitely won't be hearing me disagree with that.
Good to know, but I had the impression you still go apeshit over ID cards (which was what I was referring to ^_^) - although a UK poster in another thread mentioned polls showing it to be more 50/50 or even 40/60, so I might've been wrong on that.
The point I was trying to make (badly, I guess) was that the English have "interesting" variations in what they seem to tolerate and what they don't, compared to, say, mainland Europe where I'm from.
Don't know, I'm not from the US
No I didn't, that's quite interesting, thanks. Good to hear there's any regulation at all. However do you mean they *must* provide access to the government, or to everyone?
The way I hear you describe it, whenever a CCTV comes online - even private- it's another set of eyes for the government to abuse. That doesn't sound too good.
Oh, and yes, I'd consider untrained policemen with guns and SWAT goodies a privacy invasion too ^_^ (understatement)
I think it's a game of "pick your poison", then. Like I mentioned in another post, I don't think ID cards are great either, but I guess as a someone from continental Europe I'm more accustomed to it. Point is, there's lots of times where one absolutely need to identify themselves (buying a house, opening a bank account etc). Having to piece together your ID from all kinds of paperwork seems to me more prone for abuse than having a government sanctioned "ID". (I've never heard of ID-theft happening here, whereas I've got the impression it's a more common occurrence in the US and the UK, right?)
It would be good if we had the right _not_ to show it, though (ID serves _us_ when we need it, not everybody else), and that more things could be done without requiring it.
Also the issue of the central database is separate in my mind. Giving all kinds of government instances sweeping access to a database holding all kinds of private/sensitive information is idiocy of course. If I recall correctly, there's recently been a couple of bills proposed (Jack Straw, was it?) in the UK, that would do just that.
I don't think that happens here (but it's more difficult to know. as I mentioned in my first post, privacy laws here aren't given the publicity/public debate they require)
I guess it wasn't clear that I'm not actually a US citizen, but from mainland Europe. ^_^
Well, I'm actually from mainland Europe. From my perspective, England is much (much!) closer to the US culture when it comes to "security"-matters.
You are right however, that I am used to show my ID whenever and wherever. While I don't think it's a great thing to have (more things should be possible to do without proving, and especially recording your ID), it's better than trying to piece an ID together with utility bills etc when you need to open a bank account etc. I've never heard of ID-theft happening here, for instance.
Ideally there would be an ID-card, and a right not to show it - unless you want to prove who you are (official/bank matters).
About the CCTV-thing and relatively high security-mindedness in general (damn it's hard to find a bin in Waterloo Station) - I suspect it's all a legacy of dealing with the IRA. But hell, I'm just speculating - if that wasn't obvious already.
Well, the UK has always had new crazy, privacy-destroying laws and powers. I find the English completely irrational considering how they go apeshit at the thought of a national ID card, but let things pass like continuous camera surveillance, excessive powers to any government instance, etc. Ripe for abuse. Maybe it's an Anglo-Saxon mindset?
Continental Europe is different - they're a bit more strict on privacy laws. There's always a big stink made when some stuff like this happens, like when euro passenger data is shared with the US, or like when SWIFT Belgium was/is passing loads of info on financial transactions to the US (again).
The US on the other has one thing going for it: constitutional protections, and associated with that, pretty good transparency. Whenever there's a new law project that might touch constitutional protections, there's usually some people that will notice, and there's quite a bit more public debate about it. To the point that Europeans probably know more about privacy-related laws in the US than in their own country.
Absolutely. And getting any specs out of them is probably easier than getting nvidia to open source their drivers, even for basic things like input devices. Linux is completely _not_ on their minds.
Well, there's a lot of patches out there that destabilize the Linux kernel, but somehow Linus doesn't feel threatened. If MS did that, I'm willing to bet people would actually recognize it as the FUD it is.
Yes, it can happen that Mozilla's name might get tarnished a little bit by something someone else did. Some people might not be able to differentiate between that someone else and Mozilla.
But I'm willing to bet that Mozilla going after distro's like that is probably going to cause more bad blood than the potential, hypothetical tarnishing they might receive.
What if Linus said - you must use the exact Vanilla upstream linux kernel without patches I haven't vetted, or else you don't get to call it "Linux"? Because that's what Mozilla is doing.
Guess what: Linus has a trademark, and yet there still are widely diverging kernels for totally different purposes kept in completely different trees by different companies/people - yet they're all called Linux.
Mozilla decides that they're the ones that should have the final say over what patches are "ok" - even if they say stuff like: "don't patch your stable distro with firefox 1.0 for security fixes. upgrade your old, stable distro to firefox 1.5 instead, even if that means breaking users' expectations of 'stable distro' and breaking some programs in the process".
That would also mean that derivative Debian distros (there's more than just Ubuntu) can't rely on the fact that they're free to use and change anything in the distro for their own purposes; They'd have to deal with Mozilla too, instead of just relying on Debian.
Yeah, Win2k is what I recommend to people that have to run Windows. I haven't encountered any game or app however that doesn't run on it. Care to enlighten me? (not doubting you, just curious)
And DirectX10 - if they don't release it for XP, I don't see many game companies using it. At least, I hope not.
Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you stick with Windows 2000? It's a lot less bloated than XP, and runs every program just as well. But it doesn't have the crappy "activation" "feature".
My guess is you probably liked some of the few useful features (wireless, PPPoE, faster booting) or the useless, "bling" features, and in the end you upgraded after all. Or you got a new PC and you couldn't be arsed to demand one without XP (and the microsoft tax) installed.
So, if that's why it's likely you'll repeat the process with Vista, right?
Okay, am I the only one completely unable to change the treshold? I'm not against using some javascript/css tricks with good judgement, but Discussion2's features are pretty much non-discoverable. If they're there, they're well hidden - I can't find out how to do the things I can easily do with the old system.
Additionally, what's up with mixing 'display options' (the popup window) in between "real links" - some of them are destructive (ie they take you away from your context, to your "Preferences" page or whatever), and others aren't (they pop up some extra features without reloading the page). If you're not yet familiar with the links, it's a lottery to see if you're going to load another page (context) or not.
So as it stands currently, and imho, it's a usability regression. Even after trying for a little while, I can't do what I could do previously. Hope it doesn't get adopted as it stands.
yeah, they're _FULLY_ open source... unless you're actually taking into account the intel_hal.so file -> not so open source. Basically it's for things like macrovision (tv-out?) etc, so some features require a binary blob still.
5 536806403908&w=2
See: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=11
That being said, this thing is completely optional. And the message hints what the Intel policy is on things Intel can't release (I got the exact same impression from intels ipw3945 wireless driver) - it's this: "we'll separate the stuff we can't release in user-mode code accessible through a simple API, so basically we made it as easy as we can for 'some other person' to reverse-engineer and reimplement that piece".
I think that's a pretty good policy for any company entangled in open/closed source issues.
I agree, it feels well balanced - and that must be hard considering all the potential combinations.
I really like my Nokia 770, having the ability to run _real_ applications (web browser, gnumeric, etc) on such a small device is a real treat.
...)
To sum it up for me:
+ runs linux
+ active developer community (with regular updates through apt-get/maemo garage etc)
+ relatively cheap
+ (desktop) apps are relatively easily ported (gnumeric, gpe,
+ has wifi, usb and bluetooth, headphones out, a mic, and a mini-speaker
+ gorgeous screen (800x480 high-dpi)
+ decent form design
- no keyboard (though you could use bluetooth keyboard)
- no mobile phone capabilities (must use external bluetooth phone for GPRS access)
- cpu is a bit slow
- starved for memory and memory bandwidth
- I'd rather have compactflash or SD than RS-MMC as expansion (but it'll do)
- doesn't charge through USB
- certain apps are still a bit immature (mail app sucks in particular) - this is getting better however
despite the downsides I recommend it if you're the technical type.
Considering the spam I get becomes more and more nonsensical, how about using incoming spam as an entropy source for /dev/random?
Interesting how they mention one or two batteries are required... So unless I'm misinterpreting, you can put two batteries in for longer charge, or one for less weight?
> Because every physicist has a layman's understanding of physics.
Yes, and every physicist was at some point a layman prior to educating himself. It's never wrong to ask questions - I probably have more respect for them than the ones that think it's stupid for doing so.
I think you should speak for yourself. So you don't find it enjoyable. That's a shame.
:). I have a hard time believing your 6 characters with max capacity are loaded to the brim with rare items you just can't live without.
However, practically everyone of my friends are having fun with the new chapter.
1) Map being smaller might be true, but isn't stopping me from having fun nonetheless. And the two vs four additional slots I don't mind at all.
2) Storage space: sell your stuff already then, you hoarder
3) I agree with that, some of the quests seem a bit pointless. I guess it is a challenge to keep being original and interesting.
4) don't have this problem, either; I very often play alone, and do explore.
5) I find this a plus rather than a minus. If a group gets reinforcements, you have to as a group know you can deal with it, or know you have to bail out and recharge. The outcome of fights, even in PvE should be a bit unpredictable.
6) I see your point, and it's true that small guilds may have it harder (I'm in a very small one myself). But I think it's partly by design - there's a social element involved if you want to do certain things.
I guess it's a matter of finding mature players that don't take themselves and the game to seriously, and just want to have fun.
Factions is not a disappointment to me - I doubt however you'll see many people like me posting on guildwarsguru; Is it perfect? Most definitely not. Sometimes I get annoyed at changes they introduce (I was a bit annoyed when they nerfed the MM, however I got over that very soon). But when I take a step back I realise I really like it, despite some of its flaws.
I had motion sickness for a while when I switched from 19" CRTs to 21" LCDs. I remember the boat-ride in HL2 as particularly nauseating. Try to change the distance between you and your screen a bit, adjust the height, etc. I used to play Quake2 (Lithium, so very spastic movements) and Quake3 quite a bit without ever having problems. Now that I played a bit with the distance and positions, I've no longer had any problems (though I'm not tempted to try HL2's boat ride again :) ). I noticed that if I see the rest of my room/desk/environment a bit better, I have less problems.
Ultima Underworld is one I don't often hear mentioned... but it was fantastic!
Space Quest 1-3 and Hero's Quest/Quest for Glory 1-2 were great too.
Quake2's multiplayer got me hooked on multiplayer deathmatch for a long time. Counterstrike did that too.
Currently I've been playing Guild Wars for months, and can't get enough of it, so I'd count it in too.
If you don't mind Ruby (and why would you, Ruby's great), check these out:
- http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/
- http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/allinoneruby/
It "collects" all of your ruby source and libs in one compact executable. It works on Windows, MacOSX and Linux. And it has the possibility to not include the Ruby/TK bindings, but the TK libs as well!
I guess you could also use Ruby bindings for native win32, or bindings for GTK+.
Well - my personal belief is that the current patent system do more harm than good when it comes to promoting science and the arts.
Whenever patent defenders want to point out the good that patents do, they often refer to the pharmaceutical industry. "One requires 15 hojillion billion to do R&D to create a new superdrug and get it validated, so no-one would make drugs if it weren't for protection". A couple of observations about pharmaceuticals, though:
- just when a patent is about to expire, they file a new application with a slight variation, which usually covers them for another XX years - aka. "evergreening". Cool that the world knows how it works, but if they can't use the techniques, ever, they're just not going to develop it further. They could license it and build on it, but why do that if you're not even sure it's worth it - better work on something sufficiently different. (So no "standing on shoulders of giants"-effect).
- the fact that these companies make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, kind of means to me that their patents probably last way too long. Monopoly power in full effect.
If the patent system was working, I believe you should be seeing lots of small dynamic companies inventing and experimenting with crazy stuff. (the "lone inventor" type). However, pharmaceutical companies usually look more like banks or insurance companies. I believe our society isn't promoting the sciences and arts as fast as it could - I believe that it's evolved in a system that's maximizing profit rather than maximizing the development of the sciences and arts.
Maybe patent lifespans should be proportional to the investment and r&d required to get that patent in the first place. I'm not sure. But I'm also not sure that science&arts would crash if patents were to disappear altogether. You should not only judge a law by the good it potentially brings a society, but especially by how easily it is "gamed" and abused.