A bit? I hate to break it to you, but there was *nothing* groundbreaking about FarCry. It was your standard Soldier of Fortune 2-esque FPS knockoff. The story was your typical "nazi scientist" drivel, the main character was, again, your typical no-nonsense hardcore spec-ops/government agent, the weapons were exceedingly average and typical, and finally, the much lauded AI was seriously wanting.
*AND* with menus which were with tiny tiny fonts unreadable to a lot of us (even at low res) - its funny those game making morons don't get it: Its not enough to let the user select a resolution, you also need to let them scale the interface.
Sure do you? I'm just tired of that phrase, everytime someone dares suggest something about open source software you always get that thrown back in your face "Change it yourself". It becomes annoying.
Ok, well I wasn't there of course. My instinctive reaction though, is that they haven't implemented this level of protection and that it must be something else.
Interesting anecdote, but doesn't change the fact that some of us, me included, prefer to have windows in a "container" window as opposed to spread all over the desktop (perhaps because we are able to multitask;)
That's what multiple desktops are for.
No - that's not the choice of the program to make. Then I choose another program that does it right.
1. Editing or forcing producers to make Blockbuster-friendly versions of films. 2. Reinforcing the encrypted DVD business model...Blockbuster still pays for the rental DVDs, MPAA keeps producing them. 3. Reinforcing Hollywood's trend of making Bruckheimer-esque crapulescant action films with recycled plots and oneliners.
Except when Joss Whedons "Serenity" comes out, September 2005, it will as far from recycled crap you can imagine. Remember to go actually pay for that one.
Look, if you insit on violating the IP rights of others, or supporting that violation
We support the notion that "IP" is imoral and should be discarded.
(whether explicitly or implicitly, eg by modding up this sort of comment), then don't complain when someone takes GPLed code, modifies it, then releases it without making the source available.
You miss the point: The point is to do the right thing because its right, not because the law will be used against you if you don't. Ie, screw GPL if they don't release the source they are bastards, regardless of the state of "IP"
People also seem to have this irrational fear that the old technology will suddenly disappear. My digital camcorder is pretty good, and it will still exist when the world is DRM'd. So will my mp3 player, and so will my non-DRM compliant microphones.
Except they weren't - you can hear the music if you follow the instructions. If you don't want to follow the instructions - well that's not their problem.
But think about it - the alternative is that the masses will quietly be the sheep that they are and accept that in order to watch a DVD they have to run a Microsoft Windows-based media player that requires a full-time net connection,
Just look what the sheep here thought about Steam and Halflife 2 - oooh its fine and allright that i'm a slave to their internet validation server.
I agree, it doesn't have some of Photoshop's features, but we need to stop complaining about the UI.
Sure, as soon as they change it or you lot stop trying to pretend its so great everybody else should be forced to use it.
As I see it, we shouldn't try to convert the professional full-time users of Photoshop, but rather the people who pirate it. Piracy is a bigger threat to Free Software than it is to entrenched industry standard software, IMO.
Ie, when you can't pirate a program with a good interface you are stuck with a free program with a bad one?
Even Photoshop never used that clunky interface originally. The Photoshop MDI originated from the fact that on the Macintosh, Photoshop looked a lot more like the GIMP -- except that the menubar was on top, mac-related stuff, etc. However, the Photoshop programming team didn't want to figure out how to do that on Windows, so they simply made a "container window" to hold everything.
Interesting anecdote, but doesn't change the fact that some of us, me included, prefer to have windows in a "container" window as opposed to spread all over the desktop (perhaps because we are able to multitask;)
I don't understand this permanent woody for boxes in boxes, the non-Photoshop world abandonded that GUI a decade ago.
Did they? Why all the rave about browsers who have Tab's then? Once in a while i try the gimp and i uninstall it 30 seconds later when it has scattered 50 windows all over my desktop - I HATE IT. Not only do I think it looks fucking amateurish it slows down my work processes (don't ask, it doesn't matter to me HOW you work) - I don't see why they couldn't have included an option to include this - open all windows on the a container window - except of course that its free software and they do stuff because they like it not because some users might want it. Fair enough, as long as I don't have to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at those screens shots its like being back in the 1970ies *g*
MMORPG games such as World of Warcraft get a hit of cash up front and then involve monthly revenue. Hollywood has nothing like that.
*YET* - it will come.
A bit? I hate to break it to you, but there was *nothing* groundbreaking about FarCry. It was your standard Soldier of Fortune 2-esque FPS knockoff. The story was your typical "nazi scientist" drivel, the main character was, again, your typical no-nonsense hardcore spec-ops/government agent, the weapons were exceedingly average and typical, and finally, the much lauded AI was seriously wanting.
*AND* with menus which were with tiny tiny fonts unreadable to a lot of us (even at low res) - its funny those game making morons don't get it: Its not enough to let the user select a resolution, you also need to let them scale the interface.
Do you read complete
Sure do you? I'm just tired of that phrase, everytime someone dares suggest something about open source software you always get that thrown back in your face "Change it yourself". It becomes annoying.
That was Tapping adlibbing, and they decided to keep it in.
You're certainly free to prefer programs with UI designs that are constrained by the limitations of crippled window managers..
*BEEP* Amoral strawman argumentation techniques. End of disgussion.
Some of us don't. If you don't like it, change it yourself,
Ah, so Gimp is only for programmers. Well, why don't they say so upfront and stop prending its for everone.
Ok, well I wasn't there of course. My instinctive reaction though, is that they haven't implemented this level of protection and that it must be something else.
There are areas where OOo just BLOWS MS Office away - open file format, open code, little to no security risks, smaller size, legally free, etc., etc.
Which to most the population matters very little...
Interesting anecdote, but doesn't change the fact that some of us, me included, prefer to have windows in a "container" window as opposed to spread all over the desktop (perhaps because we are able to multitask ;)
That's what multiple desktops are for.
No - that's not the choice of the program to make. Then I choose another program that does it right.
Or not...
1. Editing or forcing producers to make Blockbuster-friendly versions of films.
2. Reinforcing the encrypted DVD business model...Blockbuster still pays for the rental DVDs, MPAA keeps producing them.
3. Reinforcing Hollywood's trend of making Bruckheimer-esque crapulescant action films with recycled plots and oneliners.
Except when Joss Whedons "Serenity" comes out, September 2005, it will as far from recycled crap you can imagine. Remember to go actually pay for that one.
Look, if you insit on violating the IP rights of others, or supporting that violation
We support the notion that "IP" is imoral and should be discarded.
(whether explicitly or implicitly, eg by modding up this sort of comment), then don't complain when someone takes GPLed code, modifies it, then releases it without making the source available.
You miss the point: The point is to do the right thing because its right, not because the law will be used against you if you don't. Ie, screw GPL if they don't release the source they are bastards, regardless of the state of "IP"
So it's the adobe program which wont save it. Use something else.
People also seem to have this irrational fear that the old technology will suddenly disappear. My digital camcorder is pretty good, and it will still exist when the world is DRM'd. So will my mp3 player, and so will my non-DRM compliant microphones.
But what will your grandchildren do?
As for watermarking: pay cash.
One day paper money will be gone.
You should have returned those CDs as defective.
Except they weren't - you can hear the music if you follow the instructions. If you don't want to follow the instructions - well that's not their problem.
The T2 extreme edition WM9 disc isn't a DVD-Video.
This is also old news, I think as of last year?
This is the first time someone bought it!
But think about it - the alternative is that the masses will quietly be the sheep that they are and accept that in order to watch a DVD they have to run a Microsoft Windows-based media player that requires a full-time net connection,
Just look what the sheep here thought about Steam and Halflife 2 - oooh its fine and allright that i'm a slave to their internet validation server.
I agree, it doesn't have some of Photoshop's features, but we need to stop complaining about the UI.
Sure, as soon as they change it or you lot stop trying to pretend its so great everybody else should be forced to use it.
As I see it, we shouldn't try to convert the professional full-time users of Photoshop, but rather the people who pirate it. Piracy is a bigger threat to Free Software than it is to entrenched industry standard software, IMO.
Ie, when you can't pirate a program with a good interface you are stuck with a free program with a bad one?
First of all, the .NET framework is not badly designed. It's one of the best-designed products Microsoft ever came up with.
Just a pity it takes up so much space ('so much' is a subjective measurement) especially since you can make programs that run without it.
Even Photoshop never used that clunky interface originally. The Photoshop MDI originated from the fact that on the Macintosh, Photoshop looked a lot more like the GIMP -- except that the menubar was on top, mac-related stuff, etc. However, the Photoshop programming team didn't want to figure out how to do that on Windows, so they simply made a "container window" to hold everything.
Interesting anecdote, but doesn't change the fact that some of us, me included, prefer to have windows in a "container" window as opposed to spread all over the desktop (perhaps because we are able to multitask
I don't understand this permanent woody for boxes in boxes, the non-Photoshop world abandonded that GUI a decade ago.
Did they? Why all the rave about browsers who have Tab's then? Once in a while i try the gimp and i uninstall it 30 seconds later when it has scattered 50 windows all over my desktop - I HATE IT. Not only do I think it looks fucking amateurish it slows down my work processes (don't ask, it doesn't matter to me HOW you work) - I don't see why they couldn't have included an option to include this - open all windows on the a container window - except of course that its free software and they do stuff because they like it not because some users might want it. Fair enough, as long as I don't have to use it.
... I don't use Gimp either :)
No thanks.
What did you think they were paid to do, pull over and beat minorities?
:)
You mean that is something they do in their spare time?