Am I the only one who thinks this looks suspiciously like a git commit graph, as represented in gitk/qgit/etc.? Like, a really, really badly managed graph?
There are native Americans when you get to the Blackwater missions.
@taxman: Actually, some of the things I've seen that corroborates the time period choice are the usage of motor cars (again, later in the game) and hold 'em, which didn't debut until the early 1900s. Plus, the story takes place at the end of the "wild west" era (Wikipedia marks the end of the Mexican revolution as being the end).
These are traffic cameras... they're not going to take pictures of your bizarre porn or illegal music collection. They won't divulge embarressing information about you at your next dinner party, nor will they be used to frame you by a shadow government!
Isn't that the risk of an open market? I don't know if I'm going to enjoy the Tiramisu, but do you think I'd be within my rights to demand a dessert, and then only pay if I enjoyed it? Because that's essentially what you're saying is a valid reason.
Lets face it. When you download a pirated game, you're not doing it for copyright reasons, philosophical reasons, or even ethical reasons. Trying to rationalize one's behavior behind "acceptable" reasoning is pretty bad, and I can guarantee 99% of the people who claim they "buy the game" do not.
Don't be ridiculous... people pirate games because they cost money. I've pirated plenty of games, ever since I was a teenager--why? Because I didn't have the money to buy them. And what's easier, paying money for a game, or not paying money for a game? Seriously, do you really think sites like GCW et al exist because people have huge personal issues with DRM (that are apparently circumvented by theft) or because demos don't exist? Be realistic. Don't hide behind false reasons.
I'll be perfectly honest, since it seems people don't want to be. I'll buy games that I know I'm going to enjoy--I own all the HL2 expansions, TF2, etc., because I enjoyed their successors and had a reasonable expectation that their sequels would be equally good. It wasn't a risk I was taking--it was a sure thing. And even though most of the people posting here won't admit to it, I have the feeling that its that uncertainty--whether or not one will enjoy a $50 game--that makes people more willing to pirate than to take a monetary risk.
Not to mention one of the same excuses I used to hide behind--regardless of whether or not I'm going to pirate the game, if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, is the company really losing money on me?
Windows is not ready for "schools, hospitals and governments".
When is the last time you've had to manually edit a config file? How many "Joe schmo" users would know what to do if X randomly crashed (which it does)? Furthermore, consider the wide amount of "lock down" software (Altiris, etc.) that is already available on Windows PCs... what's easier, clicking install or modifying configuration files?
Besides which, and for whatever reason you want to pick, Bill Gates is in the spotlight... so what do you expect? If he were to donate to any charity, under what condition would you say he's doing it from personal motivation? That's the problem with being in a popular light... everything he does, regardless of his true intention, will be named as an attempt to better Microsoft's name.
Either way, the outcome is the same--the charity helps. If he happens to sell a few more copies of Windows while helping thousands, is that really a bad thing?
As much as I love my Debian installation, I'm the first to admit that its not ready for "schools, hospitals, and governments." I'm thinking back to high school... the librarians had enough trouble using computers as it is--imagine how much money the school system would have to pay to teach not only the librarians, but the teachers, how to use a Linux system.
Keep in mind that the majority of these people know how to use the internet and office, and not much more.
I hate to say it, but many of the people the Gates Foundation helps aren't worried about what software their computer is running.
And once again, you're confusing the MICROSOFT corporation with the GATES FOUNDATION. Gates Foundation isn't selling an operating system.
Maybe so, but is the Gates Foundation's philosophy to help promote free software, or to help improve the lives of those who have nothing? Once more, you're confusing Microsoft with the Gates Foundation. If I work at Microsoft, and I also work for, say, Habitat for Humanity, does that mean I'm somehow tainting the charity?
And people who are saving money by using OSS aren't spending the money they saved on charity, myself included.
Is it so bad that Microsoft is a business? I don't see Linux fans (myself included) citing Torvald's, or Stallman's, or any other core developers' helping the poor and sick of the world. For Mac fans, Jobs is notorious for his utter lack of charitable support, and has been criticized frequently over the years--usually in comparison to Gates, in fact.
Would it be too far to say that many of you can't distinguish between Microsoft, international software company, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity? Because to use a phrase from my childhood... they're apples and oranges.
Also, why would they spend 100% of their money? That's poor business management, especially for a charity. When you rely largely on other people's donations, and you merely spend it, you'll end up with less money, doing a lot less good--because you'll use it all up and end up treading water for months or years.
To some of the people criticizing Gates' personal donations--do you think he's the only person donating? Google Warrenn Buffett. When a company like HP, or IBM, or any high profile business, gives money to a charity, do you seriously think they're doing it because they're saints? No. Its largely a political move to increase their standing in the community, as well as the added benefit of a tax write-off. Trying to single out one person or one company is utterly ridiculous when in the business world, its a pretty standard policy.
The fact is, nobody's looking to do Gates any favors--and if his charity were actually defrauding or mismanaging funds, believe me, they'd be called on it. If people have no problem taking on Microsoft legally, do you really think they'd hesitate on an "evil" charity that's just guzzling money for its own purposes?
Regardless of the reasons for donating, its obvious that Bill Gates gives a crap--which can't be said for most of the tech big wigs (I'm looking at you, Jobs!). On top of that, his personal involvement in the organization (and believe me, he is involved... Google it) is commendable.
Don't mix your negative views of Microsoft, the company, with your views of Bill Gates, the man.
(P.S.: How much money has RMS given to help his fellow man? Somehow, I don't see Linux doing much good to a starving Ethiopian child. Or an illiterate American child who can't afford to eat. Or... well, you get the point.
Furthermore, what percentage of _your_ money have you donated?)
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who thinks this looks suspiciously like a git commit graph, as represented in gitk/qgit/etc.? Like, a really, really badly managed graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
Who knew that a decent, but under appreciated manga that debuted in the late 90s would turn out to be a tale of things to come? :)
There are native Americans when you get to the Blackwater missions.
@taxman: Actually, some of the things I've seen that corroborates the time period choice are the usage of motor cars (again, later in the game) and hold 'em, which didn't debut until the early 1900s. Plus, the story takes place at the end of the "wild west" era (Wikipedia marks the end of the Mexican revolution as being the end).
These are traffic cameras... they're not going to take pictures of your bizarre porn or illegal music collection. They won't divulge embarressing information about you at your next dinner party, nor will they be used to frame you by a shadow government!
Oh, so I guess the efforts of NBC, ABC, Fox, etc., to get their shows online through sites like Hulu are effectively legitimizing piracy too, eh?
Isn't counting bugs released as part of press releases and change logs kind of like saying "All confirmed criminals are in jail?"
Trying before you buy reduces that risk.
Isn't that the risk of an open market? I don't know if I'm going to enjoy the Tiramisu, but do you think I'd be within my rights to demand a dessert, and then only pay if I enjoyed it? Because that's essentially what you're saying is a valid reason.
Lets face it. When you download a pirated game, you're not doing it for copyright reasons, philosophical reasons, or even ethical reasons. Trying to rationalize one's behavior behind "acceptable" reasoning is pretty bad, and I can guarantee 99% of the people who claim they "buy the game" do not.
Don't be ridiculous... people pirate games because they cost money. I've pirated plenty of games, ever since I was a teenager--why? Because I didn't have the money to buy them. And what's easier, paying money for a game, or not paying money for a game? Seriously, do you really think sites like GCW et al exist because people have huge personal issues with DRM (that are apparently circumvented by theft) or because demos don't exist? Be realistic. Don't hide behind false reasons.
I'll be perfectly honest, since it seems people don't want to be. I'll buy games that I know I'm going to enjoy--I own all the HL2 expansions, TF2, etc., because I enjoyed their successors and had a reasonable expectation that their sequels would be equally good. It wasn't a risk I was taking--it was a sure thing. And even though most of the people posting here won't admit to it, I have the feeling that its that uncertainty--whether or not one will enjoy a $50 game--that makes people more willing to pirate than to take a monetary risk.
Not to mention one of the same excuses I used to hide behind--regardless of whether or not I'm going to pirate the game, if I wasn't going to buy it anyway, is the company really losing money on me?
Windows is not ready for "schools, hospitals and governments".
When is the last time you've had to manually edit a config file? How many "Joe schmo" users would know what to do if X randomly crashed (which it does)? Furthermore, consider the wide amount of "lock down" software (Altiris, etc.) that is already available on Windows PCs... what's easier, clicking install or modifying configuration files?
Besides which, and for whatever reason you want to pick, Bill Gates is in the spotlight... so what do you expect? If he were to donate to any charity, under what condition would you say he's doing it from personal motivation? That's the problem with being in a popular light... everything he does, regardless of his true intention, will be named as an attempt to better Microsoft's name.
Either way, the outcome is the same--the charity helps. If he happens to sell a few more copies of Windows while helping thousands, is that really a bad thing?
As much as I love my Debian installation, I'm the first to admit that its not ready for "schools, hospitals, and governments." I'm thinking back to high school... the librarians had enough trouble using computers as it is--imagine how much money the school system would have to pay to teach not only the librarians, but the teachers, how to use a Linux system.
Keep in mind that the majority of these people know how to use the internet and office, and not much more.
I hate to say it, but many of the people the Gates Foundation helps aren't worried about what software their computer is running.
And once again, you're confusing the MICROSOFT corporation with the GATES FOUNDATION. Gates Foundation isn't selling an operating system.
Maybe so, but is the Gates Foundation's philosophy to help promote free software, or to help improve the lives of those who have nothing? Once more, you're confusing Microsoft with the Gates Foundation. If I work at Microsoft, and I also work for, say, Habitat for Humanity, does that mean I'm somehow tainting the charity?
And people who are saving money by using OSS aren't spending the money they saved on charity, myself included.
Once again... refer to the post title.
Is it so bad that Microsoft is a business? I don't see Linux fans (myself included) citing Torvald's, or Stallman's, or any other core developers' helping the poor and sick of the world. For Mac fans, Jobs is notorious for his utter lack of charitable support, and has been criticized frequently over the years--usually in comparison to Gates, in fact.
Would it be too far to say that many of you can't distinguish between Microsoft, international software company, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity? Because to use a phrase from my childhood... they're apples and oranges.
Also, why would they spend 100% of their money? That's poor business management, especially for a charity. When you rely largely on other people's donations, and you merely spend it, you'll end up with less money, doing a lot less good--because you'll use it all up and end up treading water for months or years.
To some of the people criticizing Gates' personal donations--do you think he's the only person donating? Google Warrenn Buffett. When a company like HP, or IBM, or any high profile business, gives money to a charity, do you seriously think they're doing it because they're saints? No. Its largely a political move to increase their standing in the community, as well as the added benefit of a tax write-off. Trying to single out one person or one company is utterly ridiculous when in the business world, its a pretty standard policy.
The fact is, nobody's looking to do Gates any favors--and if his charity were actually defrauding or mismanaging funds, believe me, they'd be called on it. If people have no problem taking on Microsoft legally, do you really think they'd hesitate on an "evil" charity that's just guzzling money for its own purposes?
Regardless of the reasons for donating, its obvious that Bill Gates gives a crap--which can't be said for most of the tech big wigs (I'm looking at you, Jobs!). On top of that, his personal involvement in the organization (and believe me, he is involved... Google it) is commendable.
Don't mix your negative views of Microsoft, the company, with your views of Bill Gates, the man.
(P.S.: How much money has RMS given to help his fellow man? Somehow, I don't see Linux doing much good to a starving Ethiopian child. Or an illiterate American child who can't afford to eat. Or... well, you get the point.
Furthermore, what percentage of _your_ money have you donated?)