Reaper actually *officialy* supports WINE. From http://www.reaper.fm/download.php :
"Windows (32-bit): Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7 or WINE (limited support for W98/ME)."
"1) Giorgio Maone himself has pointed out repeatedly, including at the thread in question, that anyone can disable his pages' ads with NoScript just by blocking the Google-Syndication scripts. NoScript itself cannot be circumvented in this blocking, even by NoScript.:)"
Except the NoScript site serves ads from other sources than just Google. For example, I count 3 "pop-up on hover" adds from DoClix, Inc. on the "GetIt" page alone. Please note the references to "s3.buysellads.com" as well as a "sponsored links" sections that is not from Google in addition to the doclix.com ads. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.
"2) For those who think the updates are a revenue-(ad-viewing)-generator, aside from the fact that the NS FAQ includes simple instructions for turning off the home-page redirect for each update (try reading the FAQ before criticizing)"
Except - as has been pointed out many times - the user has to set this up themselves in about:config, rather than a simple checkbox from the NoScript GUI. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.
The fact of the matter is that Giorgio crossed a line, violating user trust and behaved in a manner exactly like malware. Rationalizing the action by saying there was an "an aggressive EasyList campaign against sites sponsoring NoScript development" or that it was an "attack" on the NoScript site, indicates a problem of acceptance of responsibility and does not help - it only compounds the mistake. Giorgio needs to apologize, promise not to do anything like this again in the future and try to regain user trust.
Excuse me? I'm not *evangelizing* jack shit. I said *why* I think something - clearly identified both my source and (in)experience with the topic - and thanked people that provided comments.
People can do that, you know? State what they think and then listen to what other people have to say - it's how intelligent people refine their opinions.
The dude from MS said a full day before your personal attack that the article didn't hold up - that was good enough for me, because it's not something I care enough about to research any further. Just like my newly refined opinion of you.
Thanks for the response. I guess I'm slow because I can't wrap my head around the assertion that there is "absolutely ZERO impact on people who don't use DRM'd media".
Admittedly, I don't use Vista - and I'm basing my opinion on this article I read a long time ago - but it seems to be both by "common-sense" and "real figuring" (like in the article), all the DRM stuff that was added in Vista does have some impact. Even on those who wouldn't be using DRM'ed files.
I'm not a wikipedian, so I'm not up on the nuances of wikipedia-speak. After reading the "non-notable" link you gave, I agree with the delete votes, and disagree with the notability guidelines -- the user "Khanaris" lays out an argument on that deletion page that is fairly close to my own thoughts.
In any case, as you say, that's the nice thing about the Internet. (And now I know more about both Warhammer and Wikipedia details that I ever cared to.)
A lot of the time, this flexibility in deletion justification is a good thing and it keeps a lot of spam/kooks/PR garbage off Wikipedia. However, sometimes it is mis-wielded as a tool to remove or prevent articles for whatever reason makes sense to some deletion-obsessed editor. (In fact, it looks to me like the exact article you link to about "Blood Angels" was deleted not because of "sources", but for being "cruft" or "non-noteable".)
"Linux users" are more certainly *not* protected by this covenant.
*At best*, those who use a Moonlight "obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient" are covered.
Note that "Intermediate Receipient" is specifically "so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software"
There's so much wrong with the Novell/Microsoft relationship it's hardly adequate to stop here, but keep this sort of thing in mind whenever the Novell/Microsoft apologists chirp up.
Here's what you need to know about CliffyB's mindset:
Do you see the Xbox 360 as the main platform as opposed to the PC? During the whole Unreal time it was very much PC focused.
The PC right now is a fair amount different to what it was back in the day, with all the badly integrated video chips. Here's the problem right now; the person who is savvy enough to want to have a good PC to upgrade their video card, is a person who is savvy enough to know bit torrent to know all the elements so they can pirate software. Therefore, high-end videogames are suffering very much on the PC.
So piracy was a main point for you...
Right now, it makes sense for us to focus on Xbox 360 for a number of reasons. Not least PCs with multiple configurations and piracy.
But when the dust has settled, is there any possibility of Gears 2 on PC?
Indeed. And Microsoft will be happy to support an nlite "custom" installation.
That is the power of closed source proprietary software: the customer can select only those parts they need and the company is glad to support consumer freedom!
Match that open source!
While we are at it, can you point me to a Linux program with the functionality of Logic Studio? The reason I orinally bought the Mac was that Linux just doesn't cut it for music production. I have not regretted that decision.
Ardour is a pretty darn good DAW, if a bit lacking in the MIDI sequencing department currently (I understand this is being worked on).
I cover MIDI sequencing with Rosegarden and various MIDI synths.
I won't try to say that Audio Production on Linux is at the same point it is on Mac (or even Windows), but for home or demo purposes, I have found it adequate.
Audio production on Linux will get better faster if more people stick with it and give feedback to the developers.
Microsoft understands Open Source perfectly well - it is an acknowledged threat to them. You can therefore rest assured that Microsoft understands the Open Source community well enough to subtly attack it, sow discontent, distract and splinter it.
And Gdammit (beta), don't tell me that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop. Just don't. It's not, just not, just so very NOT.
Just a personal observation: I often read the "don't tell me that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop" (p)rebuttal, but I have yet to see someone *actually* make that argument
I remember the people bleating about how they'd never put XP on their machines.
How they were sticking with 98se forever.
They say the same thing about Vista now. Then again, Vista kind of sort of sucked more than XP did when it first came down the pipes.
I'm one of those people, sorta, I guess. Except I meant what I said.
Vista crossed some lines I was not comfortable with, and I do not use it.
I switched to Ubuntu and, after a bit of an adjustment period, am very glad I did.
This is how it will be for quite some time I imagine, a small number of users "jump ship", I mean it's not like 85% of Windows users will suddenly stop using Windows. That is a ridiculous standard.
Just because everyone who says "I'm not using the new Windows" does not stop using Windows immediately does not mean that nothing has happened. If just one user out of a thousand decides they have had enough with each new version, that is significant.
"COMPANIES are started and run by PEOPLE, so freedoms for a company = freedom for people."
The GOVERNMENT is started and run by PEOPLE, so power to the government = power to the people?
Last time I checked, a virtual Windows under Linux couldn't access USB/firewire devices. FWIW, the closed-source edition of VirtualBox can use USB devices.
No, one _component_ is that it affects other people.
This must be so, because I would find it hard to make the argument that an action that affects no other being can be immoral. To a large degree, I would argue that how our actions affect others forms the basis on what we consider moral/immoral.
The fact that the proposed action is "reckless" is important because (according to my interpretation), it prevents any justification or rationale for the behavior. However, let me be clear that even if the self-destructive behavior is not reckless, I still believe it _could_ be immoral.
It seems to me that you consider an individual's right to be self-destructive to be so absolute that - no matter the circumstances and how it might affect another person - it simply can NOT be immoral.
Since I absolutely disagree with this notion - not because I deny that a person should have the right of self-determination, but I that I do disagree that it automatically grants morality - I will leave the discussion here.
I thank you for your thoughts on the matter - it led to my first posting here and I think it is an interesting topic.
Your argument would only hold water if any action with negative consequences for others is immoral, including things such as buying a product from one vendor instead of another (which deprives the other vendor of income from me), or choosing to walk a couple of miles to a destination instead of paying a taxi driver to take me there, which has a negative effect on the taxi driver's income. Neither of your examples have anything to do with acting _recklessly_ or _self-endangerment_. This a straw man with a bit of false equivalence thrown in for decoration.
The modifier "reckless" is important as well, because it does not allow you to come in with examples that have some reasoned or rational excuse. They are by definition NOT reckless.
Furthermore, I did not say all such actions were immoral, only that they MAY be immoral. Are you taking the position that there is NO circumstance under which reckless self-endangerment can be immoral?
In other words, is your argument that so long as I continuously act recklessly and am a danger to myself, I am guaranteed to have led a moral life?
2) How is recklessly endangering one's self immoral? Because it is exceedingly rare that an individual bears the entire burden of his actions solely on his own shoulders.
In reality, actions have consequences _that affect other people as well as the actor_.
So, recklessly endangering oneself may well be immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
Reaper actually *officialy* supports WINE. From http://www.reaper.fm/download.php : "Windows (32-bit): Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7 or WINE (limited support for W98/ME)."
"1) Giorgio Maone himself has pointed out repeatedly, including at the thread in question, that anyone can disable his pages' ads with NoScript just by blocking the Google-Syndication scripts. NoScript itself cannot be circumvented in this blocking, even by NoScript. :)"
Except the NoScript site serves ads from other sources than just Google. For example, I count 3 "pop-up on hover" adds from DoClix, Inc. on the "GetIt" page alone. Please note the references to "s3.buysellads.com" as well as a "sponsored links" sections that is not from Google in addition to the doclix.com ads. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.
"2) For those who think the updates are a revenue-(ad-viewing)-generator, aside from the fact that the NS FAQ includes simple instructions for turning off the home-page redirect for each update (try reading the FAQ before criticizing)"
Except - as has been pointed out many times - the user has to set this up themselves in about:config, rather than a simple checkbox from the NoScript GUI. Not that either side of this point is actually relevant to how inappropriate the action was.
The fact of the matter is that Giorgio crossed a line, violating user trust and behaved in a manner exactly like malware. Rationalizing the action by saying there was an "an aggressive EasyList campaign against sites sponsoring NoScript development" or that it was an "attack" on the NoScript site, indicates a problem of acceptance of responsibility and does not help - it only compounds the mistake. Giorgio needs to apologize, promise not to do anything like this again in the future and try to regain user trust.
Excuse me? I'm not *evangelizing* jack shit. I said *why* I think something - clearly identified both my source and (in)experience with the topic - and thanked people that provided comments.
People can do that, you know? State what they think and then listen to what other people have to say - it's how intelligent people refine their opinions.
The dude from MS said a full day before your personal attack that the article didn't hold up - that was good enough for me, because it's not something I care enough about to research any further. Just like my newly refined opinion of you.
Thanks for the response. I guess I'm slow because I can't wrap my head around the assertion that there is "absolutely ZERO impact on people who don't use DRM'd media".
Admittedly, I don't use Vista - and I'm basing my opinion on this article I read a long time ago - but it seems to be both by "common-sense" and "real figuring" (like in the article), all the DRM stuff that was added in Vista does have some impact. Even on those who wouldn't be using DRM'ed files.
This doesn't make sense. If Vista isn't at least checking a file for the presence of DRM, then it can't possibly be doing anything DRM-related at all.
So, it seems obvious that Vista must have some DRM-specific code running for non-DRM files, even if it is only as quick as "check and exit"
I'm not a wikipedian, so I'm not up on the nuances of wikipedia-speak. After reading the "non-notable" link you gave, I agree with the delete votes, and disagree with the notability guidelines -- the user "Khanaris" lays out an argument on that deletion page that is fairly close to my own thoughts.
In any case, as you say, that's the nice thing about the Internet. (And now I know more about both Warhammer and Wikipedia details that I ever cared to.)
It's more than just "sources and nothing else."
There's a whole list of "Reasons for Deletion"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, at least one of which (notability) is at best controversial in its application.
A lot of the time, this flexibility in deletion justification is a good thing and it keeps a lot of spam/kooks/PR garbage off Wikipedia. However, sometimes it is mis-wielded as a tool to remove or prevent articles for whatever reason makes sense to some deletion-obsessed editor. (In fact, it looks to me like the exact article you link to about "Blood Angels" was deleted not because of "sources", but for being "cruft" or "non-noteable".)
"Linux users" are more certainly *not* protected by this covenant.
*At best*, those who use a Moonlight "obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient" are covered.
Note that "Intermediate Receipient" is specifically "so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software"
There's so much wrong with the Novell/Microsoft relationship it's hardly adequate to stop here, but keep this sort of thing in mind whenever the Novell/Microsoft apologists chirp up.
Do you see the Xbox 360 as the main platform as opposed to the PC? During the whole Unreal time it was very much PC focused.
The PC right now is a fair amount different to what it was back in the day, with all the badly integrated video chips. Here's the problem right now; the person who is savvy enough to want to have a good PC to upgrade their video card, is a person who is savvy enough to know bit torrent to know all the elements so they can pirate software. Therefore, high-end videogames are suffering very much on the PC.
So piracy was a main point for you...
Right now, it makes sense for us to focus on Xbox 360 for a number of reasons. Not least PCs with multiple configurations and piracy.
But when the dust has settled, is there any possibility of Gears 2 on PC?
No.
Definitely not?
No.
From: http://www.totalvideogames.com/Gears-of-War-2/feature-13270.html
Indeed. And Microsoft will be happy to support an nlite "custom" installation. That is the power of closed source proprietary software: the customer can select only those parts they need and the company is glad to support consumer freedom! Match that open source!
While we are at it, can you point me to a Linux program with the functionality of Logic Studio? The reason I orinally bought the Mac was that Linux just doesn't cut it for music production. I have not regretted that decision.
Ardour is a pretty darn good DAW, if a bit lacking in the MIDI sequencing department currently (I understand this is being worked on). I cover MIDI sequencing with Rosegarden and various MIDI synths. I won't try to say that Audio Production on Linux is at the same point it is on Mac (or even Windows), but for home or demo purposes, I have found it adequate. Audio production on Linux will get better faster if more people stick with it and give feedback to the developers.
Microsoft understands Open Source perfectly well - it is an acknowledged threat to them. You can therefore rest assured that Microsoft understands the Open Source community well enough to subtly attack it, sow discontent, distract and splinter it.
And Gdammit (beta), don't tell me that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop. Just don't. It's not, just not, just so very NOT.
Just a personal observation: I often read the "don't tell me that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop" (p)rebuttal, but I have yet to see someone *actually* make that argument
I remember the people bleating about how they'd never put XP on their machines. How they were sticking with 98se forever.
They say the same thing about Vista now. Then again, Vista kind of sort of sucked more than XP did when it first came down the pipes.
I'm one of those people, sorta, I guess. Except I meant what I said.
Vista crossed some lines I was not comfortable with, and I do not use it.
I switched to Ubuntu and, after a bit of an adjustment period, am very glad I did.
This is how it will be for quite some time I imagine, a small number of users "jump ship", I mean it's not like 85% of Windows users will suddenly stop using Windows. That is a ridiculous standard.
Just because everyone who says "I'm not using the new Windows" does not stop using Windows immediately does not mean that nothing has happened. If just one user out of a thousand decides they have had enough with each new version, that is significant.
AFAIK, all it would take is a recompile, and any given app would run in 64bit mode natively, right?
Not always. Some things rely on certain data types being of a certain size and will break if, say, an "int" is twice as long as expected.
"COMPANIES are started and run by PEOPLE, so freedoms for a company = freedom for people." The GOVERNMENT is started and run by PEOPLE, so power to the government = power to the people?
No. XP Pro does require activation. (Corporate licenses may not require activation.) Check Google if you require a cite.
No, one _component_ is that it affects other people.
This must be so, because I would find it hard to make the argument that an action that affects no other being can be immoral. To a large degree, I would argue that how our actions affect others forms the basis on what we consider moral/immoral.
The fact that the proposed action is "reckless" is important because (according to my interpretation), it prevents any justification or rationale for the behavior. However, let me be clear that even if the self-destructive behavior is not reckless, I still believe it _could_ be immoral.
It seems to me that you consider an individual's right to be self-destructive to be so absolute that - no matter the circumstances and how it might affect another person - it simply can NOT be immoral.
Since I absolutely disagree with this notion - not because I deny that a person should have the right of self-determination, but I that I do disagree that it automatically grants morality - I will leave the discussion here.
I thank you for your thoughts on the matter - it led to my first posting here and I think it is an interesting topic.
The modifier "reckless" is important as well, because it does not allow you to come in with examples that have some reasoned or rational excuse. They are by definition NOT reckless.
Furthermore, I did not say all such actions were immoral, only that they MAY be immoral. Are you taking the position that there is NO circumstance under which reckless self-endangerment can be immoral?
In other words, is your argument that so long as I continuously act recklessly and am a danger to myself, I am guaranteed to have led a moral life?