Spot on. I only hope one day square realizes this and makes a more freeform RPG, starting with something like chronotrigger and expanding from there. Between procedural content and massive disks we have the power today to make quite complex, compelling and uniquely replayable RPGs.
I disagree. Once it's good enough for my own uses it needs to become good enough for yours, too, then the next guy's, the the next and so on until it's good enough for everyone.
Historians are not content to assume that every document from a verifiable is the "truth".
However the people who read history books, by and large, tend to assume that what they read is true. Or, at least, based on facts. It's an interesting mental trap: I know fact X about history because I read it in a respectable history book. But was that fact based on a highly reliable source, multiple reliable sources, hearsay, speculation? As the end-reader it's hard to know. It's even somewhat difficult for the historian to really verify something, if that's what he's trying to do. If enough people after the fact begin asserting a certain narrative about what happened or what it meant then this can "drown out" contrary accounts, especially if it is not due to a centrally directed conspiracy.
What the historian eventually writes down as his best estimate of the truth is going to be presumed to be correct by his readership, absent someone discovering something that makes it obviously untrue. Even in such a case many will continue to cling to the correctness of the account they read first, denying evidence that now proves it incorrect. This happens all the time.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1
Never the less, Google is in violation of Oracle patents. This is the basis if this suit, which is nothing like the one against Microsoft.
Google could have provided a full implementation of Java and been fine. They did not, therefore they do not get protection from Oracle's java-related patents. Therefore they are in violation (supposedly) of some Oracle patents.
I wish people would stop confusing the issue. This isn't about trademarks and it's not about copyright and it's not (much) about Free Software, it's about software patents (again) prohibiting a clean room implementation of the same idea. The only reason Free Software fans should be more interested in this case than in any other software patent case is that if Oracle is successful it means that they might be successful in saying that any OpenJDK-derived codebase which falls out of full compliance, or adds anything to the core libraries, is illegal despite the GPL.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1
True but not important to the case. If you use OpenJDK you get an explicit patent grant for patents that OpenJDK implements. If you write your own VM that uses those patented techniques, which is not hard because these ones are pretty broad, then no matter what your VM is called and no matter how much it is or is not Java you are still in need of a patent license from Oracle.
Oracle is basically saying "We control who is and is not allowed to create virtual machines with certain properties" -- if you create a VM that has those properties then you had better be implementing the Java language in full without extensions, or you had better pay Oracle for a license. Google didn't, so Google gets sued.
you cannot deprive the user the ability to view his own purchased content; therefore you can't say these bits can fly NOW when it goes to your eyes but not when it goes to another disk drive as the destination.
You can't say that technically because there's no technical way to know the difference, but you sure as hell can say it legally. Legality cares very much when, for what purpose and with what intent even if these things cannot be in any way encoded. It may be stupid but it's the kind of stupid that laws have been being and dealing with for years and (believe it or not!) the lawyers and lawmakers don't just not see this as a problem, they actually desire this behavior and would think you crazy if you suggested that it should be changed "just because" it makes no sense (to you) and there isn't really any way to know.
In fact, the official kernel already has leaders like Greg Kroah-Hartman that perform jobs similar to Linus' current role and could pick up almost seamlessly if Linus vanishes. This is such a non-story
QFT.
Nothing to see here, you can go about your business, move along.
If you don't want to have your charity work belittled as ego-driven then don't name your foundation after yourself. "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" doesn't exactly scream "Modest" or "We're only in it to help people."
You seem to be saying that "If foo, then" indicates a certain imminence of the chance of foo, whereas "If and when foo, then" indicates a less imminent chance of foo. I don't think this is necessarily true; that is, I don't think the "If" in "If and when foo" has any connotations about the imminence of the foo.
Try the info pages maybe? In fact the output of ls -l could be altered to include ACL information, but it would not be very practical as there could be a lot of it. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of sigil indicating "ACLs exist for this file" - that would be useful, then I could know to getfacl for details.
Introducing people to programming and lowering the scary barrier to entry is the point of this. Get someone addicted to the power trip and get them to learn some fundamental concepts--I'm talking simple like "branch" and "loop" here--and you can entice him in to programming for real. It's far, FAR easier to go from step 1 to step 2 than from step 0 to step 1 when it comes to teaching someone to program, even though the 1->2 transition is an order of magnitude more difficult to actually accomplish. This is because by this point the person, shall we say the student, is personally invested in a positive outcome.
Personally, anything which demystifies computers is a major Good Thing in my book. How many times have you tried to talk to a user about something and it has become clear that "computer"=="magic"?
You've no idea what you're talking about. The variable names in the PDFs posted sometimes are the same, but when they are the variable names are almost always short (usually one-word) and typically are heavily implied by the use (e.g. Elf *elf. What else would you call it?). Any variable seen in an argument list can be presumed to be an API variable an is likely to be 100% identical to other implementation that referred to the same spec.
The salesmen do push gaming machines. It goes like this: "Well that 2GHz processor with 256M of RAM and a 32M intel card isn't going to play any games at all, it just won't handle them. But if you get the 3GHz processor with 256M of RAM and a 32M intel card and this nice new monitor and an extra external hard drive and this 'gaming mouse' then it'll play all the latest titles for years to come!"
I find behavior like that to be offensive, discriminatory and illogical. You don't mod as a troll or offtopic because someone uses all caps, fails to spell, writes in 31337, etc.. You don't dismiss someone's ideas because you don't like their face!
I know it's done, but it ought not to be and I thought slashdot was better than that.
I have had an n900 since it was released (preordered mine) and have faithfully tracked new releases, all without any depends brekage.
I also run Debian exclusively at home and have done so for almost a decade now.
The maemo system is highly Debian-based, but more in an Ubuntu style in that they have their own repos and do not seem to directly pull Debian packages.
It's true that Debian works as well as it does largely because of the dedication and care of the packagers. Other people attempting the same thing will not necessarily have as high quality results (see Ubuntu here as a glaring example). That said, apt is a good tool and I generally find apt-based distributions to be of average or better quality when it comes to packages. Maemo is no exception.
- someone posts videos of free content on youtube
- youtube is not a very free place
- someone else requests the videos be delivered in a less restricted manner
I followed Loki closely from start to finish, from the outside, and the GP is spot on. Loki's poor management made Linux gaming look even less profitable than it is simply because they talked big and then blew up.
If you try to start the *first* Linux porting company you face some resistance. If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company, after the first succeeded, you only have to prove that two can be sustained. If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company after the first was a spectacular and public flop... you have almost no chance.
So, Loki did more to harm Linux gaming long-term than it did to help it.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on. I only hope one day square realizes this and makes a more freeform RPG, starting with something like chronotrigger and expanding from there. Between procedural content and massive disks we have the power today to make quite complex, compelling and uniquely replayable RPGs.
I disagree. Once it's good enough for my own uses it needs to become good enough for yours, too, then the next guy's, the the next and so on until it's good enough for everyone.
And then we win.
Historians are not content to assume that every document from a verifiable is the "truth".
However the people who read history books, by and large, tend to assume that what they read is true. Or, at least, based on facts. It's an interesting mental trap: I know fact X about history because I read it in a respectable history book. But was that fact based on a highly reliable source, multiple reliable sources, hearsay, speculation? As the end-reader it's hard to know. It's even somewhat difficult for the historian to really verify something, if that's what he's trying to do. If enough people after the fact begin asserting a certain narrative about what happened or what it meant then this can "drown out" contrary accounts, especially if it is not due to a centrally directed conspiracy.
What the historian eventually writes down as his best estimate of the truth is going to be presumed to be correct by his readership, absent someone discovering something that makes it obviously untrue. Even in such a case many will continue to cling to the correctness of the account they read first, denying evidence that now proves it incorrect. This happens all the time.
Never the less, Google is in violation of Oracle patents. This is the basis if this suit, which is nothing like the one against Microsoft.
Google could have provided a full implementation of Java and been fine. They did not, therefore they do not get protection from Oracle's java-related patents. Therefore they are in violation (supposedly) of some Oracle patents.
I wish people would stop confusing the issue. This isn't about trademarks and it's not about copyright and it's not (much) about Free Software, it's about software patents (again) prohibiting a clean room implementation of the same idea. The only reason Free Software fans should be more interested in this case than in any other software patent case is that if Oracle is successful it means that they might be successful in saying that any OpenJDK-derived codebase which falls out of full compliance, or adds anything to the core libraries, is illegal despite the GPL.
True but not important to the case. If you use OpenJDK you get an explicit patent grant for patents that OpenJDK implements. If you write your own VM that uses those patented techniques, which is not hard because these ones are pretty broad, then no matter what your VM is called and no matter how much it is or is not Java you are still in need of a patent license from Oracle.
Oracle is basically saying "We control who is and is not allowed to create virtual machines with certain properties" -- if you create a VM that has those properties then you had better be implementing the Java language in full without extensions, or you had better pay Oracle for a license. Google didn't, so Google gets sued.
It's dumb, but that's US patent law.
but I really can't blame them for trying.
I can.
I don't buy games unless I find a no-DRM crack *first*, because it's so fucking annoying.
you cannot deprive the user the ability to view his own purchased content; therefore you can't say these bits can fly NOW when it goes to your eyes but not when it goes to another disk drive as the destination.
You can't say that technically because there's no technical way to know the difference, but you sure as hell can say it legally. Legality cares very much when, for what purpose and with what intent even if these things cannot be in any way encoded. It may be stupid but it's the kind of stupid that laws have been being and dealing with for years and (believe it or not!) the lawyers and lawmakers don't just not see this as a problem, they actually desire this behavior and would think you crazy if you suggested that it should be changed "just because" it makes no sense (to you) and there isn't really any way to know.
In fact, the official kernel already has leaders like Greg Kroah-Hartman that perform jobs similar to Linus' current role and could pick up almost seamlessly if Linus vanishes. This is such a non-story
QFT.
Nothing to see here, you can go about your business, move along.
If you don't want to have your charity work belittled as ego-driven then don't name your foundation after yourself. "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" doesn't exactly scream "Modest" or "We're only in it to help people."
You seem to be saying that "If foo, then" indicates a certain imminence of the chance of foo, whereas "If and when foo, then" indicates a less imminent chance of foo. I don't think this is necessarily true; that is, I don't think the "If" in "If and when foo" has any connotations about the imminence of the foo.
Try the info pages maybe? In fact the output of ls -l could be altered to include ACL information, but it would not be very practical as there could be a lot of it. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of sigil indicating "ACLs exist for this file" - that would be useful, then I could know to getfacl for details.
Introducing people to programming and lowering the scary barrier to entry is the point of this. Get someone addicted to the power trip and get them to learn some fundamental concepts--I'm talking simple like "branch" and "loop" here--and you can entice him in to programming for real. It's far, FAR easier to go from step 1 to step 2 than from step 0 to step 1 when it comes to teaching someone to program, even though the 1->2 transition is an order of magnitude more difficult to actually accomplish. This is because by this point the person, shall we say the student, is personally invested in a positive outcome.
Personally, anything which demystifies computers is a major Good Thing in my book. How many times have you tried to talk to a user about something and it has become clear that "computer"=="magic"?
If you s/Geocities/myspace/ then you're still years out of date, but only moderately so.
Interest is credit. You can argue that credit is bad (mostly true) but it's hard to do without.
There is a clear concept of what money is, it's just not widely understood.
You've no idea what you're talking about. The variable names in the PDFs posted sometimes are the same, but when they are the variable names are almost always short (usually one-word) and typically are heavily implied by the use (e.g. Elf *elf. What else would you call it?). Any variable seen in an argument list can be presumed to be an API variable an is likely to be 100% identical to other implementation that referred to the same spec.
The salesmen do push gaming machines. It goes like this: "Well that 2GHz processor with 256M of RAM and a 32M intel card isn't going to play any games at all, it just won't handle them. But if you get the 3GHz processor with 256M of RAM and a 32M intel card and this nice new monitor and an extra external hard drive and this 'gaming mouse' then it'll play all the latest titles for years to come!"
And yet, ironically, you proved the GP's point: The unpatchable NES version worked correctly, the patchable PC version did not.
Rude and demanding... and on topic.
A stylistic choice to write your post like a lolcats image should not have any impact on how it's modded.
I find behavior like that to be offensive, discriminatory and illogical. You don't mod as a troll or offtopic because someone uses all caps, fails to spell, writes in 31337, etc.. You don't dismiss someone's ideas because you don't like their face!
I know it's done, but it ought not to be and I thought slashdot was better than that.
I have had an n900 since it was released (preordered mine) and have faithfully tracked new releases, all without any depends brekage.
I also run Debian exclusively at home and have done so for almost a decade now.
The maemo system is highly Debian-based, but more in an Ubuntu style in that they have their own repos and do not seem to directly pull Debian packages.
It's true that Debian works as well as it does largely because of the dedication and care of the packagers. Other people attempting the same thing will not necessarily have as high quality results (see Ubuntu here as a glaring example). That said, apt is a good tool and I generally find apt-based distributions to be of average or better quality when it comes to packages. Maemo is no exception.
Why is parent modded offtopic?
- someone posts videos of free content on youtube
- youtube is not a very free place
- someone else requests the videos be delivered in a less restricted manner
Sounds topical to me.
If one extra character changes it from pseudocode to real code, why not include that one extra character?
And Judaism is a religion, as long as we're being pedantic.
+1 funny
-1 people at work are now looking at me funny )-:
I followed Loki closely from start to finish, from the outside, and the GP is spot on. Loki's poor management made Linux gaming look even less profitable than it is simply because they talked big and then blew up.
If you try to start the *first* Linux porting company you face some resistance.
If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company, after the first succeeded, you only have to prove that two can be sustained.
If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company after the first was a spectacular and public flop... you have almost no chance.
So, Loki did more to harm Linux gaming long-term than it did to help it.
What, me bitter?