How is it the Wizzard made the list. Perhaps if that movie did not exist, there may not have been as many computer game loving geeks in the world. I myself would never have wanted to play video games for a living if that movie didn't exist. I can't believe a site like gamepro would allow that movie to make the list. They should have place the epic story "The Posse" starring Mario Van Peeples in its place.
When it comes to new genres, I'd have to say that Tribes is the beginning of a new style of 1st person shooter. In previous games like Quake, Halflife, etc... there really wasn't a strong amount of strategy involved. Then came Tribes. This was a game that required strategy to suceed. You have to spend hours figuring out the best spots for turrets. Hours on defensive strategy and hours on finding the fastest and best paths to enemy flags. Sure it was still CTF, but you couldn't just leave 2 guys back to guard the flag and take the rest of your team out to get the enemy flag. You need to have a plan.
To me, that seems to bring a whole new demension to the 1st person shooter. We no longer can play online games without Roger Wilco. We need to communicate to every member what is going on at all times. With Tribes2 on the way, we will find that teamwork is even more important. Then there is the promise of Halo. If you haven't seen the game, go to this site. Graphically, it is the most impressive game I have ever seen. (Good enough reason to buy the Nvida GTS Ultra:)
http://halo.bungie.org
I suggest watching the E3 trailer. Keep in mind that the trailer was done completely in-game using the Halo engine.
That the program and the source are not to blame for people violating copyright. If that is the case, why didn't they make cd writer's illegal? They too are an tool used to violate copyright protection. Why not make tape recorders illegal. Better yet, lets make guns illegal. They are used as tools to kill people. DeCss in itself is not breaking any laws. It's the people who are using DeCss to violate copyright law (placing Decrypted DVD's on ftp servers etc...) ARGH!
CmdrTaco will not have the oportunity of having me try and buy his "I got sloshed at slashdot" T-shirt for 80 bucks. Nor will Linus hear me mention anything about eating at "The Jack in the Box":P
brought up the issue that UNIX in general, lacks a set of reusable code for various applications. We know that both the GNOME and KDE fronts are working hard to achieve this. With Microsoft working on porting their applications, won't this mean they will have to develop a standard set of reusable code for LINUX? Could this be a blessing in disguise?
It is obvious to me that we can no longer get upset over laws etc... that supplant common sense.
We have people who try to dry their hair in the show, People who shove forks into running toasters, People who eat KY jelly thinking it will prevent pregnancy. Where is the common sense there? Our country can no longer assume that anyone has common sense because a large portion of it do not.
Laws like this might very well be a weak replacement for common sense. But it is needed none the less. If parents were monitoring what their children were doing, we wouldn't need this law. However, many kids today have little to no parental supervision. So, our government has taken it upon itself to pick up the fumble that America's parents caused.
I would love to see a better solution. Perhaps our government should focus more on getting parents to do their jobs. How do you do that? I have my theories but if I place them here, I will surely be blasted for them.
Why would everyone with half a mind take advantage of a utopian society? What's to take advantage? If everything you want is available for you to have, what is there to take advantage of?
You stated that free software works because it is a limitless resource. I say that "if" free software is limitless than so is everything else. Energy never goes away, it just changes into other forms. Usually from static to kinetic and then back. Various elements never go away, they just get jumbled up with other elements which makes things too expensive to fix. I say, if money doesn't exist then there is no expense to pay to fix those things.
As far as free software has enough people who enjoy it. I say that in the future the things that people don't enjoy doing (Working in fast food for example) will be completely automated. The jobs that will be left will be things people enjoy doing. So why not just do them because you enjoy it?
I never stated once that a utopian society was even close to existing. I feel there are several things that will need to take place before that can happen. One of the major ones is we need a cheep and extemely abundant power source. (If fusion would ever be realized that would definately be a good option)
I would like to read a reply from you to this as I think you didn't get all your points stated clearly so I would understand them. I'm sure if you restate them, I will have a better understanding of why you feel a utopian society would never work. So far, all I've seen are reason's why a utopian society won't work today. That I agree with. But as we move into the future, I think you will find that a capitalist society will become more and more of a hinderance. (PS my spelling is bad. That's why I wasn't an English major:)
I'm not sure how I would feel about Bruce Campbell replacing Moulder. I could see it now. Every time he encounters some bizarre situation the puns start flying.
I too have thought about that. It does seem to be a nice compromise between Closed and Free Software. It is a realist approach to the issue. However, there are people out there who won't settle for reality. (I am one of them:P)
Often times when someone debates Free Software vs. Closed Software, the main issue brought up by the CS advocates is money. "I want to get paid for the work I do!"
Keep in mind that the FS approach is a Socialist approach. This means that Free Software is not the end goal. It is just a small piece. A starting point. The actual goal is a utopian society where money no longer matters and mankind lives in peace with one another. That, at this time, is too large a goal. Hence Free Software.
People might say that the world would never put up with that sort of society. Yet many science fiction writers write about Utopia. In fact every writer who wrote about "more advanced civilizations" described them in a very utopian way. Perhaps some day we will achieve that sort of world. Perhaps not. But for now, baby steps...
This is another example of how cyberspace and realspace don't mix too well. Most of us agree that our realspace laws don't work right in cyberspace. Our government obviously has not been convinced yet. The only way to convince our government is to keep bombarding them with issues. This meta-browsing may be the straw that breaks the cammel's back. Then again maybe not...
I work for a cellular provider. One of the top 5 reasons we push digital phones over analog is due to high radiation from analog phones. Think about it. It requires 2 to 3 watts analog, in order to maintain the same amount of coverage as a 2/10 of a watt digital phone requires. This dramatically reduces the amounts of radiation.
I'll try to explain. Suppose I purchase a Linux driver from this board manufacturer. I then discover that there is a flaw in that driver. (We all know that never happens) Since I own that driver, why don't I have the choice to modify it?
Having "Open Software" means just that. If you own the software, you have every right to do with it as you please. In order to have that freedom the source code must also be available for you. It's that simple. I'm not going to tell anyone that all software must be open. All I can tell you is that I will only obtain/buy open software. That is a personal decision. I want that freedom. For those that don't care about that freedom, well, that is their decision.
Are you misinterpreting what I stated or are you stating another side effect of dealing with SUV's?
I meant to state that if your in the SUV you can see things a lot better.
If you were adding to the list, then I get your point. In fact my Olds Bravada (being a soccer mom SUV) has a hard time seeing past an excursion/suburban/navagator or any "large" SUV.
The Hummer is not all its cracked up to be. In my 4 wheeling club one of the guys owns a hummer. It's gotten stuck in the mud 3 times now. Believe me when I tell you it takes 3 cars to pull that fat bastard out of the mud. The reason it gets stuck is it has a high axel ratio, its too f*cking heavy, in this particular hummer's tires aren't designed for offroading. Just about the only thing the hummer has on it's side is its ground clearance.
I just wanted to point out a few things to consider.
1. SUV's sit higher on the road allowing for better vision. Sit in a Honda Civic and see if you can get as good a view as you do in an Explorer.
2. SUV's have the tendancy to roll when turned sharply. This is also true for full size vans and many minivans. (Not that anyone would drive a minivan:P)
3. SUV's consume a lot of gas. My Olds bravada got in the city 15mpg and 18mpg on the highway. (The Olds is a 6 banger and a fairly light SUV. This should be a best case scenario)
4. SUV's have a lot more room. It's nice to be able to fit all your friends in your car. (In my case I could fit all my friends into the Honda mentioned above:P)
5. According to a recent 20/20 special on SUV crash tests, less than half the SUV's tested, pass the various tests. (Side impact*, front impact, and angled impact) The few that passed, passed with flying colors. (The Olds Bravada being one of them) However, the others failed because of rolling over issues (Side impact only)
6. SUV's are fun to drive. (Not as much fun as a 300ZX) I take mine 4 wheeling whenever I can and it's a lot of fun.
7. In accidents, SUV drivers tend to survive while the other driver tends to not fair nearly as well.
8. SUV's are more expensive to insure. This is due to the fatalities that SUV's are known to cause and the roll over factor.
*Note the side impact test is the one that determined that SUV's in general have a tendancy to roll.
I hoped this has helped. Most of the facts listed here come from an actuary friend of mine. (For those who don't know what an actuary does, they come up with all the goofy statistics used to determine how much insurance you have to pay for various things.)
I don't think a compromise is the solution to this dilema. The record industry thinks they've figured out what we want. They think we are upset because they threaten this wonderful new technology. So, they made an effort to allow us to continue to utilize this wonderful technology and at the same their revenue won't be threatened.
What they fail to realize is that this fight isn't about the technology. What we are fighting for is the right to share with others. Why should the record industry be allowed to dictate who can share, what can be shared, and how it can be shared?
The solution is simple, place the power back into the hands of the consumer. Copyright was designed to promote innovation, not to protect Large business interests. The record industry may win this battle but they cannot win the war. Change is inevitable, it's just a matter of time.
You bring up some excellent points. I do however feel that art is subjective. What is one man's trash is another man's treasure is how the saying goes. I feel that in this day and age, I should be free to decide what music I like on my own. I don't think the minority need to decide for the majority. Sites like mp3.com allow you to rate artists. This allows the majority to decide what is good not a few suites who care about revenue.
I wanted to comment on your opinion that copying and redistributing a performance is "not" exceptible and desirable. I myself feel there is nothing wrong with copying music and giving that copy to a friend or whoever. When Metallica first started, they got their initial audience through bootlegs. Bootlegs are essentially copying and redistributing a performance. When you or anyone else makes a Mix tape and gives it to someone, that is copying and redistributing a performance.
The point is, when I purchase a CD from a record store, I want to own it. I want to be able to do with it as I please. Set fire to it, use it as a coaster, listen to it, copy it, etc... I don't think that anyone has the right to tell me that I can't do what I want to do with something I own. That goes for books, movies, music, anything. Everyone is intitled to their own opinion. However, before you consider this illegal or morally wrong, ask yourself "Have I ever copied anything and gave that copy to someone?" Perhaps you own two VCR's and copied Caddyshack from a rental store. Maybe you made a love songs tape for that someone special. Maybe you simply stole a quote from a poem and forgot to mention the original author. Who knows. Just remember, if your going to ban copying and redistribution, do it all the way or none of the way. Being one who enjoys freedom, I choose none of the way.
I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this aspect of finding life on Mars. If there is life elsewhere, would that invalidate Christian dogma? I know this is a grey area. Will Christians simply deny the evidence like they do with evolution? Would they make up some excuse like they did for Y2K? Will they come out with a new revised edition of the Bible?
Genesis 1:15 and 3/4 "and God created planera on Mars and saw that it was good."
Why do companies keep trying to come up with new ways to identify people on the net? The best way to my knowledge is via digital certificate. Perhaps digital certificates should be issued to everyone for free. That way, vendors could guarantee that the person that they are exchanging data with is in fact the person who paid for this particular service. I'm sure a company that wants to offer Music etc... over the net can do this if they implement a DC strategy. The only reason that DC's are not being used is because they cost money. Why doesn't the US government take control of this and issue DC's to people who want them. (Hell maybe we could even vote on-line if something like this was available.)
What about how we feel
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
"This is not just about online vs. offline," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA. "Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong."
Notice that they only seem to recognize the business community. It appears as though the consumer has no say in this what so ever. I don't know about you, but I feel that sharing is not morally wrong. I've been copying material for as long as I can remember. (Road trip tapes, etc...)
I should stop rambling now because it isn't like the RIAA can stop this even if Napster dies there have always been alternative methods.
I want to know if SCO is going to make their distribution free (As in speech) I understand that the existing components of GNU/LINUX are in fact free already. How about the parts that SCO is going to introduce. The clustering, the FNP, Symmetric multiprocessing, etc... Will the GPL apply to these enhancements as well? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I agree. In fact I will give you another example of Monopolies forming. Verizon Wireless. I work for the company. Basically, Verizon is Bell Atlantic Mobile, Air Touch, Vodaphone, Frontier Cellular, and soon GTE. There will be something like 29 million subsribers by the end of the year covering almost every inch of the US. (Hell even some Cell One customers are now Verizon. They just don't know it yet.) Buy outs are occuring all over the place and nobody seems to be noticing.
I just felt the need to point out that the precious "Start" button was not first seen in Microsoft's Windows 95. I remember seeing that particular type of button on OS2. Hrmmm... maybe Microsoft's sole innovation is stealing other company's ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now my new Dell will look like my Nescape on Linux!! Whoo Hoo
How is it the Wizzard made the list. Perhaps if that movie did not exist, there may not have been as many computer game loving geeks in the world. I myself would never have wanted to play video games for a living if that movie didn't exist. I can't believe a site like gamepro would allow that movie to make the list. They should have place the epic story "The Posse" starring Mario Van Peeples in its place.
When it comes to new genres, I'd have to say that Tribes is the beginning of a new style of 1st person shooter. In previous games like Quake, Halflife, etc... there really wasn't a strong amount of strategy involved. Then came Tribes. This was a game that required strategy to suceed. You have to spend hours figuring out the best spots for turrets. Hours on defensive strategy and hours on finding the fastest and best paths to enemy flags. Sure it was still CTF, but you couldn't just leave 2 guys back to guard the flag and take the rest of your team out to get the enemy flag. You need to have a plan.
:)
To me, that seems to bring a whole new demension to the 1st person shooter. We no longer can play online games without Roger Wilco. We need to communicate to every member what is going on at all times. With Tribes2 on the way, we will find that teamwork is even more important. Then there is the promise of Halo. If you haven't seen the game, go to this site. Graphically, it is the most impressive game I have ever seen. (Good enough reason to buy the Nvida GTS Ultra
http://halo.bungie.org
I suggest watching the E3 trailer. Keep in mind that the trailer was done completely in-game using the Halo engine.
That the program and the source are not to blame for people violating copyright. If that is the case, why didn't they make cd writer's illegal? They too are an tool used to violate copyright protection. Why not make tape recorders illegal. Better yet, lets make guns illegal. They are used as tools to kill people. DeCss in itself is not breaking any laws. It's the people who are using DeCss to violate copyright law (placing Decrypted DVD's on ftp servers etc...) ARGH!
CmdrTaco will not have the oportunity of having me try and buy his "I got sloshed at slashdot" T-shirt for 80 bucks. Nor will Linus hear me mention anything about eating at "The Jack in the Box" :P
An earlier article posted here
h tml
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/07/20/1255251.s
brought up the issue that UNIX in general, lacks a set of reusable code for various applications. We know that both the GNOME and KDE fronts are working hard to achieve this. With Microsoft working on porting their applications, won't this mean they will have to develop a standard set of reusable code for LINUX? Could this be a blessing in disguise?
It is obvious to me that we can no longer get upset over laws etc... that supplant common sense.
We have people who try to dry their hair in the show, People who shove forks into running toasters, People who eat KY jelly thinking it will prevent pregnancy. Where is the common sense there? Our country can no longer assume that anyone has common sense because a large portion of it do not.
Laws like this might very well be a weak replacement for common sense. But it is needed none the less. If parents were monitoring what their children were doing, we wouldn't need this law. However, many kids today have little to no parental supervision. So, our government has taken it upon itself to pick up the fumble that America's parents caused.
I would love to see a better solution. Perhaps our government should focus more on getting parents to do their jobs. How do you do that? I have my theories but if I place them here, I will surely be blasted for them.
Why would everyone with half a mind take advantage of a utopian society? What's to take advantage? If everything you want is available for you to have, what is there to take advantage of?
:)
You stated that free software works because it is a limitless resource. I say that "if" free software is limitless than so is everything else. Energy never goes away, it just changes into other forms. Usually from static to kinetic and then back. Various elements never go away, they just get jumbled up with other elements which makes things too expensive to fix. I say, if money doesn't exist then there is no expense to pay to fix those things.
As far as free software has enough people who enjoy it. I say that in the future the things that people don't enjoy doing (Working in fast food for example) will be completely automated. The jobs that will be left will be things people enjoy doing. So why not just do them because you enjoy it?
I never stated once that a utopian society was even close to existing. I feel there are several things that will need to take place before that can happen. One of the major ones is we need a cheep and extemely abundant power source. (If fusion would ever be realized that would definately be a good option)
I would like to read a reply from you to this as I think you didn't get all your points stated clearly so I would understand them. I'm sure if you restate them, I will have a better understanding of why you feel a utopian society would never work. So far, all I've seen are reason's why a utopian society won't work today. That I agree with. But as we move into the future, I think you will find that a capitalist society will become more and more of a hinderance.
(PS my spelling is bad. That's why I wasn't an English major
I'm not sure how I would feel about Bruce Campbell replacing Moulder. I could see it now. Every time he encounters some bizarre situation the puns start flying.
I too have thought about that. It does seem to be a nice compromise between Closed and Free Software. It is a realist approach to the issue. However, there are people out there who won't settle for reality. (I am one of them :P)
Often times when someone debates Free Software vs. Closed Software, the main issue brought up by the CS advocates is money. "I want to get paid for the work I do!"
Keep in mind that the FS approach is a Socialist approach. This means that Free Software is not the end goal. It is just a small piece. A starting point. The actual goal is a utopian society where money no longer matters and mankind lives in peace with one another. That, at this time, is too large a goal. Hence Free Software.
People might say that the world would never put up with that sort of society. Yet many science fiction writers write about Utopia. In fact every writer who wrote about "more advanced civilizations" described them in a very utopian way. Perhaps some day we will achieve that sort of world. Perhaps not. But for now, baby steps...
This is another example of how cyberspace and realspace don't mix too well. Most of us agree that our realspace laws don't work right in cyberspace. Our government obviously has not been convinced yet. The only way to convince our government is to keep bombarding them with issues. This meta-browsing may be the straw that breaks the cammel's back. Then again maybe not...
I work for a cellular provider. One of the top 5 reasons we push digital phones over analog is due to high radiation from analog phones. Think about it. It requires 2 to 3 watts analog, in order to maintain the same amount of coverage as a 2/10 of a watt digital phone requires. This dramatically reduces the amounts of radiation.
I'll try to explain. Suppose I purchase a Linux driver from this board manufacturer. I then discover that there is a flaw in that driver. (We all know that never happens) Since I own that driver, why don't I have the choice to modify it?
Having "Open Software" means just that. If you own the software, you have every right to do with it as you please. In order to have that freedom the source code must also be available for you. It's that simple. I'm not going to tell anyone that all software must be open. All I can tell you is that I will only obtain/buy open software. That is a personal decision. I want that freedom. For those that don't care about that freedom, well, that is their decision.
Are you misinterpreting what I stated or are you stating another side effect of dealing with SUV's?
I meant to state that if your in the SUV you can see things a lot better.
If you were adding to the list, then I get your point. In fact my Olds Bravada (being a soccer mom SUV) has a hard time seeing past an excursion/suburban/navagator or any "large" SUV.
The Hummer is not all its cracked up to be. In my 4 wheeling club one of the guys owns a hummer. It's gotten stuck in the mud 3 times now. Believe me when I tell you it takes 3 cars to pull that fat bastard out of the mud. The reason it gets stuck is it has a high axel ratio, its too f*cking heavy, in this particular hummer's tires aren't designed for offroading. Just about the only thing the hummer has on it's side is its ground clearance.
I just wanted to point out a few things to consider.
:P)
:P)
1. SUV's sit higher on the road allowing for better vision. Sit in a Honda Civic and see if you can get as good a view as you do in an Explorer.
2. SUV's have the tendancy to roll when turned sharply. This is also true for full size vans and many minivans. (Not that anyone would drive a minivan
3. SUV's consume a lot of gas. My Olds bravada got in the city 15mpg and 18mpg on the highway. (The Olds is a 6 banger and a fairly light SUV. This should be a best case scenario)
4. SUV's have a lot more room. It's nice to be able to fit all your friends in your car. (In my case I could fit all my friends into the Honda mentioned above
5. According to a recent 20/20 special on SUV crash tests, less than half the SUV's tested, pass the various tests. (Side impact*, front impact, and angled impact) The few that passed, passed with flying colors. (The Olds Bravada being one of them) However, the others failed because of rolling over issues (Side impact only)
6. SUV's are fun to drive. (Not as much fun as a 300ZX) I take mine 4 wheeling whenever I can and it's a lot of fun.
7. In accidents, SUV drivers tend to survive while the other driver tends to not fair nearly as well.
8. SUV's are more expensive to insure. This is due to the fatalities that SUV's are known to cause and the roll over factor.
*Note the side impact test is the one that determined that SUV's in general have a tendancy to roll.
I hoped this has helped. Most of the facts listed here come from an actuary friend of mine. (For those who don't know what an actuary does, they come up with all the goofy statistics used to determine how much insurance you have to pay for various things.)
I don't think a compromise is the solution to this dilema. The record industry thinks they've figured out what we want. They think we are upset because they threaten this wonderful new technology. So, they made an effort to allow us to continue to utilize this wonderful technology and at the same their revenue won't be threatened.
What they fail to realize is that this fight isn't about the technology. What we are fighting for is the right to share with others. Why should the record industry be allowed to dictate who can share, what can be shared, and how it can be shared?
The solution is simple, place the power back into the hands of the consumer. Copyright was designed to promote innovation, not to protect Large business interests. The record industry may win this battle but they cannot win the war. Change is inevitable, it's just a matter of time.
You bring up some excellent points. I do however feel that art is subjective. What is one man's trash is another man's treasure is how the saying goes. I feel that in this day and age, I should be free to decide what music I like on my own. I don't think the minority need to decide for the majority. Sites like mp3.com allow you to rate artists. This allows the majority to decide what is good not a few suites who care about revenue.
I wanted to comment on your opinion that copying and redistributing a performance is "not" exceptible and desirable. I myself feel there is nothing wrong with copying music and giving that copy to a friend or whoever. When Metallica first started, they got their initial audience through bootlegs. Bootlegs are essentially copying and redistributing a performance. When you or anyone else makes a Mix tape and gives it to someone, that is copying and redistributing a performance.
The point is, when I purchase a CD from a record store, I want to own it. I want to be able to do with it as I please. Set fire to it, use it as a coaster, listen to it, copy it, etc... I don't think that anyone has the right to tell me that I can't do what I want to do with something I own. That goes for books, movies, music, anything. Everyone is intitled to their own opinion. However, before you consider this illegal or morally wrong, ask yourself "Have I ever copied anything and gave that copy to someone?" Perhaps you own two VCR's and copied Caddyshack from a rental store. Maybe you made a love songs tape for that someone special. Maybe you simply stole a quote from a poem and forgot to mention the original author. Who knows. Just remember, if your going to ban copying and redistribution, do it all the way or none of the way. Being one who enjoys freedom, I choose none of the way.
I was wondering if anyone had any comments on this aspect of finding life on Mars. If there is life elsewhere, would that invalidate Christian dogma? I know this is a grey area. Will Christians simply deny the evidence like they do with evolution? Would they make up some excuse like they did for Y2K? Will they come out with a new revised edition of the Bible?
Genesis 1:15 and 3/4 "and God created planera on Mars and saw that it was good."
Why do companies keep trying to come up with new ways to identify people on the net? The best way to my knowledge is via digital certificate. Perhaps digital certificates should be issued to everyone for free. That way, vendors could guarantee that the person that they are exchanging data with is in fact the person who paid for this particular service. I'm sure a company that wants to offer Music etc... over the net can do this if they implement a DC strategy. The only reason that DC's are not being used is because they cost money. Why doesn't the US government take control of this and issue DC's to people who want them. (Hell maybe we could even vote on-line if something like this was available.)
"This is not just about online vs. offline," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA. "Most in the online business community recognize that what Napster is doing threatens legitimate e-commerce models and is legally and morally wrong."
Notice that they only seem to recognize the business community. It appears as though the consumer has no say in this what so ever. I don't know about you, but I feel that sharing is not morally wrong. I've been copying material for as long as I can remember. (Road trip tapes, etc...)
I should stop rambling now because it isn't like the RIAA can stop this even if Napster dies there have always been alternative methods.
I want to know if SCO is going to make their distribution free (As in speech) I understand that the existing components of GNU/LINUX are in fact free already. How about the parts that SCO is going to introduce. The clustering, the FNP, Symmetric multiprocessing, etc... Will the GPL apply to these enhancements as well? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I agree. In fact I will give you another example of Monopolies forming. Verizon Wireless. I work for the company. Basically, Verizon is Bell Atlantic Mobile, Air Touch, Vodaphone, Frontier Cellular, and soon GTE. There will be something like 29 million subsribers by the end of the year covering almost every inch of the US. (Hell even some Cell One customers are now Verizon. They just don't know it yet.) Buy outs are occuring all over the place and nobody seems to be noticing.
I just felt the need to point out that the precious "Start" button was not first seen in Microsoft's Windows 95. I remember seeing that particular type of button on OS2. Hrmmm... maybe Microsoft's sole innovation is stealing other company's ideas.
:P
P.S. OS2 = -2Karma