Is it art? Who really cares. The interesting question is, is the output copyrightable?
I have a fuller discussion of the theory here, as part of a larger discussion demonstrating why the entire idea of "expression" in copyright theory has been destroyed. But for this post, and in summary, I will try to use the current copyright system, instead of destroying it.
First, this is still on topic, because while we don't agree what art is and we never will, most definitions contain a creativity requirement. Copyright also contains a creativity requirement, and it is at least a little more concrete to discuss creativity in a copyright context than an art context.
To make the issue even starker, I refer you to the Random Art page, where random art is created from scratch. (This also avoids one legal answer for TypoGenerator, that it has no copyright because it is infringing on the source images. That kind of ducks the issue.) Random Art is a program that generates an image purely from a random number generator; once the program is written, there is no additional input.
Thus, there are two questions, which I believe do fairly directly pertain to the "is it art?" issue:
Is this creative enough to qualify for copyright? There are two conflicting answers here:
No, a computer can not be creative, at least in the legal sense. (Forget AI for the moment, it's not on the table right now anyhow and the problem is hard enough as it is!)
Yes, on the grounds that if a human produced the exact same image, it would fully and unquestionably qualify for copyright.
How to resolve it? Is calling some creative merely a description of the process, not the result as we would normally think of it? My full answer is in the essay above, but given the ground rules for this post of staying in the current system instead of my own ethical system, I don't have an answer for this. We'd have to wait for a judge.
As an interesting side note, I note the Random Art program owner is now offering his prints for sale, so there is a commercial component at play here too. It technically doesn't affect the copyrightability or art question either way, but it would get a judge's attention, don't you thing?
If this qualifies for copyright, who gets it? This sharpens the previous question all the more... there is really only one candidate in the Random Art case, the program owner. Yet, if creativity is a process, not a result, for any given image he applied no creativity at all; in fact the site periodically cycles images and I'd imagine it is a fully automated process by now. So by copyright criteria, he probably doesn't hold the copyright; he applied all his creativity in the creation of the generation program, which of course he fully owns. On the other hand, if creativity is an adjective applied to a final work, clearly the output itself is copyrightable; many things of lesser visual creativity are as well.
This sort of thing doesn't just raise questions about art, it strikes to the heart of our hundreds-of-years-old way of conceptualizing "works" in general; it is one step beyond the usual meaning of the venerable "what is art" question. Our definition of work is too intimately tied with the physical world and breaks down completely in the modern computer era. This is just one such issue, but it is one of the rather sharp examples.
(If this interests you, I encourage you to check out the full section on this issue.)
I too was going to post a "WTF?" post, but are you saying the SDK for the PSP has native and at least somewhat optimized support for OO?
First, I find this interesting, do you have a link to back it up? I tried to Google 'PSP "object oriented"' but I got a lot of false positives for PSP, mostly from something called a "Personal Software Process".
Second, that would make sense and you probably should have made that more clear in your original post; I'm keeping up with the PSP news but I haven't been obsessive about it, and this is the first hint I've heard that there is anything special about the SDK in that regard.
OO certainly isn't a miracle drug, but for game development, it's a better start than an assembler and a handful of libraries.
You probably shouldn't put people in the license like that; what if, sometime over the next 150 years or so that code I write now is owned by me, OSI is hijacked?
Better to refer to their current standards, and thereby #include them (to use a code concept), so they can't be changed later unless the FSF wants to update the GPL later.
Actual OSI certification would, until such time as they are hijacked if ever, constitute extremely good evidence that a license meets their standards.
Other that that, I see your point, and hope the comment about the IBM patents in reply to someone is modded up.
Doing illegal things with a computer is dastardly and all, and everyone with a brain agrees that automatically multiplies the necessary punishment by a factor of ten, vs. committing that crime without a computer.
But committing crimes when the victim isn't looking? That passes the bounds of civilized behavior, and as you pass out of civilization, you pass the boundaries of its protection.
This clearly calls for the Death Penalty.
Remember to support me for my election in 2006 when I run on a platform of making it illegal to break the law, thus ending all crime in one fell swoop!
(What's that you're yelling at me? THEENK? Never heard of that, is that some sort of foreign language way of saying you agree with me? Must be. Nobody'd disagree with me, at least not nobody with a brain.)
Stargate SG-1, the show, is doing OK. It's SG-1 itself that is mostly played out; most of the actors seem to be playing "Who can be on the screen for the least amount of time?", which is pretty tought to work with.
I think the writers have actually risen to the challenge and the last couple of eps I've seen are handling that in a creative way.
Nevertheless, that will wear thin and they will need to re-fill out the team and get some more interesting dynamics going. I know they've got step one covered, we'll have to see how step two goes.
SG:A is, as you say, still looking for their footing, but I believe they will find it.
Somebody else must have been thinking as I did in time: Try the Coral Cache of the Stopdesign site. (I usually try that, but I'm already too late; you can't cache a site that can't respond to the cacher, either.)
(Karma whoring accusers: Look at the UID. Statistically speaking, it is likely I've been capped since before you had an account.)
Not bad, not bad at all. Contrasts nicely with "analog intelligence" in a number of meaningful ways, and actually flows pretty well. (I didn't find any 3-syllable words that had the right accent.)
Now, if only "deeply embedded in a Slashdot thread" was a place where we could actually effect this sort of change on an entire 50+-year-old discipline:-)
Looking at it from a poetic viewpoint, I'm not sure anything else has the proper euphony, though. You really ought to lead with a four-syllable word if you want to displace Artificial; a two-syllable might work. "Generated Intelligence"? "Machine Intelligence" might work, but it's still not quite as flowing.
For those who wish to go hunting, you can start in the thesaurus, but it should be pointed out that the definition of artificial in question doesn't even show up there; there don't seem to be many word options here.
(Just rambling; I understand that finding a better alternative isn't a pre-requisite to your complaint. But as an engineer, trying to find a real solution is almost reflex.)
artificial: 1. a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural....
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.
It's nobody else's fault if you pick the wrong definition, especially when you are preferring a less popular definition. It's also nobody else's fault when you get your etymology wrong; at least according to that entry, "artifice" and "artificial" are siblings, not ancestor-descendant, so drawing conclusions about the meaning of "artificial" from "artifice" is highly suspect at best.
From where I sit, people associating "artificial" with "fake" are mostly the people who want you to believe that all atoms are labelled as "natural" or "artificial" and the artificial ones are mystically inferior to the natural ones. In general, artificial simply means made, and only in dodgy medicine and food arenas is "artificial" suspect. (Dodgy because there is reason to be concerned about any new chemical, but "artificial" and "natural" isn't a useful catagory with which to think about such things; it makes it almost impossible to avoid a category error by trying to label natural "safe" and artificial "unsafe", whereas in reality neither label provides useful information about the safety of the labelled substance; if you truly can't come up with a perfectly safe artificial substance and truly dangerous natural one without particularly trying, you've fallen into this trap.)
I didn't know if he was joking or not, but I considered it likely enough that it was worth googling. It actually took a bit, but I believe he was referring to this, wherein it is basically revealed that there is no difference between 16 gauge cabling and, well, anything, even up into the thousands of dollars.
I have no counter examples to offer up. I see no reason why this shouldn't be true.
I believe the snarky comments should be saved for those falling for the hype, not those who do actual scientific testing and puncture it.
Have you considered moving into the so-called "human-horn" trade?
There is rumor that there is a second, more potent "horn" available near where the legs meet the torso, though you need to remove the "clothing". Best of luck with that, though; I've tried it but I only find one about half the time. Still, it keeps the belligerent and numerous children fed with something other than "me".
How am I going to understand how high explosives work when you won't let me play with them?
Nothing like a counterexample that just proves your opponents point all the more.
I am aware of how high explosives work in the academic sense. But I could not use them for any practical purpose, and I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't used them to do something like take a building down. They don't have real, practical understanding.
Since experience says I have to spell this out: Schoolchildren are aware of free speech in the academic sense (if that). But they've got no real understanding of it, as evidenced by the horribly wrong answers they are giving to questions that ask them to apply knowledge rather than parrot answers.
"The" infamous bug? Believe me, it takes more than one infamous bug to gain a well-deserved reputation as a purveyor of crap.
I hit the one with the Soundblaster 128 + Via motherboard. Turns out Via's PCI was shit, and while the Soundblaster 128 did happen to really whale on the particular way in which it was shit, you could randomly lock the system up (completely unstoppably) with any high PCI load.
Mind you, this isn't their first PCI chipset. PCI had been out for years; we were just starting to see computers coming out that had no ISA connectors at all.
That motherboard, as I recall, also had memory issues.
Almost everything I've owned has been Via because I've been a poor college student or worse, and almost everything I've owned has been crap, except the Asus based computer I have. I bought this cheap laptop with a damned Via chipset, and it is the only laptop (even in the cheap-ass class) that runs so hot it burns you when it is idling. Yup, it's the chipset. I wish to high heaven I could replace it.
"Not Via", after extensive experience, is now my #1 criterion when buying new computers. I don't even care if they've improved; they screwed up so many times over such a long period of time in such stupid ways that it has to be systematic; unless they restructured if they've been "good lately" it's either luck, or simply that you haven't heard of the errors their stuff has yet.
Alpha Centauri was a perhaps unique chance to "play philosopher".
Some of us noticed. And it was definately appreciated. It added a dimension to the gameplay that I have never seen in anything else... System Shock touches on it at a couple of points but just can't do much more than that because the story doesn't permit.
I knew, even on the first playthrough, that this was something special after two of the voiceovers: "Air power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines Mobility, Flexibility, and Initiative.", and I'm thinking, hey, that makes sense, and the first use I've ever seen in a computer game of the word nihilistic, also used not just correctly but intelligently (i.e., not just an adjective used to describe someone that somebody yanked out of a thesaurus with no real understanding, but in a statement that may be short but had actual philosophical meat attached to it). Both of these came fairly early, so I was fairly tuned in to the rest of them.
Gameplay-wise, I hope for an Alpha Centauri 2 someday; it is still my favorite Civ so far, though I have high hopes for 4. (Boy, it'd be fun to program the AI for that...) Artistically, I don't think you've left any more room for a "remake" of Alpha Centauri than there is room for a "remake" of Dune. High praise. (But something can always be worked out with sufficient creativity, of course; one of the great things about science fiction, no?)
Thank you, and your team. I think I'll cry if anybody else ever does SMAC2.
I'm not meaning to troll or to be 'flamebait' here, just to point out a disturbing trend I've noticed in biased story submissions.
I tend to agree that there is a trend problem, though it isn't the mere presence of editorializing; that's always been there. It's the breathtaking inanity of the editorials of late, both from submitters and the editors. One good way of measuring the information value of a piece of information is the extent to which it is a surprise; I see a surprising editorial comment about once a week now (like "this wasn't really Microsoft's fault, you have to blame the user for giving his password out to a stranger"), the rest are total Slash-think that can and have had Perl scripts written to replace them. ("Go away, or I shall replace you with a very small shell script.")
The only thing maintaining Slashdot's reputation is Slashdot's reputation, and that's a formula for a dangerous and sudden collapse. Were I economically dependant on Slashdot, that would concern me.
But this particular editorial does have the virtue of being almost empirically true. Microsoft, as the current owner of the least secure software in common use, just isn't in a position to be criticizing others about security. Evidentally, whatever things they are trumpeting about themselves must not be important, because they are clearly not being reflected in actual results. Something that, if provided, most IT managers will prefer even over the ever-popular empty platitudes, and most IT managers are hardly able to ignore the results of Microsoft security.
My favorite, at least in a way, for the Punishment Sphere (no drones in the city you build it in, production drops 50% (think rebels if you haven't play SMAC)):
It is not uncommon to see patients undergo permanent psychological trauma in the presence of the Sphere, before the nerve stapler has even been strapped into position. Its effect on the general consciousness of the culture is profound: husbands have seen wives go inside, and mothers their children. Dr. Xynan left the surface of the sphere semitranslucent for a reason. You can hear them in there; you can see them. It is a thing of terrible beauty.
Baron Klim: "The Music of the Spheres"
I kid you not: I have build precisely one of those things. I almost can't stand the thought of building them after the quote.
For full effect, you need to hear it. Here's another good one:
'Abort, Retry, Fail?' was the phrase some wormdog scrawled next to the door of the Edit Universe project room. And when the new dataspinners started working, fabricating their worlds on the huge organic comp systems, we'd remind them: if you see this message, {always} choose 'Retry.'
Bad'l Ron, Wakener: Morgan Polysoft
If the game came out today, the voice acting would still be considered superb.
I guess that explains why it didn't work. I thought std_generalization_disclaimer was a text file containing a string, but if it really re-defined my functions after the fact, no wonder it didn't work like expected.
I'd fix the bug, but the Slashdot source control system leaves something to be desired in that regard. You can only commit once, and never check anything out again. Seriously, who's idea was that?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a fuller discussion of the theory here, as part of a larger discussion demonstrating why the entire idea of "expression" in copyright theory has been destroyed. But for this post, and in summary, I will try to use the current copyright system, instead of destroying it.
First, this is still on topic, because while we don't agree what art is and we never will, most definitions contain a creativity requirement. Copyright also contains a creativity requirement, and it is at least a little more concrete to discuss creativity in a copyright context than an art context.
To make the issue even starker, I refer you to the Random Art page, where random art is created from scratch. (This also avoids one legal answer for TypoGenerator, that it has no copyright because it is infringing on the source images. That kind of ducks the issue.) Random Art is a program that generates an image purely from a random number generator; once the program is written, there is no additional input.
Thus, there are two questions, which I believe do fairly directly pertain to the "is it art?" issue:
- Is this creative enough to qualify for copyright? There are two conflicting answers here:
- If this qualifies for copyright, who gets it? This sharpens the previous question all the more... there is really only one candidate in the Random Art case, the program owner. Yet, if creativity is a process, not a result, for any given image he applied no creativity at all; in fact the site periodically cycles images and I'd imagine it is a fully automated process by now. So by copyright criteria, he probably doesn't hold the copyright; he applied all his creativity in the creation of the generation program, which of course he fully owns. On the other hand, if creativity is an adjective applied to a final work, clearly the output itself is copyrightable; many things of lesser visual creativity are as well.
This sort of thing doesn't just raise questions about art, it strikes to the heart of our hundreds-of-years-old way of conceptualizing "works" in general; it is one step beyond the usual meaning of the venerable "what is art" question. Our definition of work is too intimately tied with the physical world and breaks down completely in the modern computer era. This is just one such issue, but it is one of the rather sharp examples.- No, a computer can not be creative, at least in the legal sense. (Forget AI for the moment, it's not on the table right now anyhow and the problem is hard enough as it is!)
- Yes, on the grounds that if a human produced the exact same image, it would fully and unquestionably qualify for copyright.
How to resolve it? Is calling some creative merely a description of the process, not the result as we would normally think of it? My full answer is in the essay above, but given the ground rules for this post of staying in the current system instead of my own ethical system, I don't have an answer for this. We'd have to wait for a judge.As an interesting side note, I note the Random Art program owner is now offering his prints for sale, so there is a commercial component at play here too. It technically doesn't affect the copyrightability or art question either way, but it would get a judge's attention, don't you thing?
(If this interests you, I encourage you to check out the full section on this issue.)
What makes you think they told the couples their predictions?
I don't know for certain, but I would expect they didn't. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be proper science.
In which case my response would be, "That's hardly news, is it?" :-)
(Gotta keep an open mind, right? Like I said, I haven't heard any details about the SDK.)
I too was going to post a "WTF?" post, but are you saying the SDK for the PSP has native and at least somewhat optimized support for OO?
First, I find this interesting, do you have a link to back it up? I tried to Google 'PSP "object oriented"' but I got a lot of false positives for PSP, mostly from something called a "Personal Software Process".
Second, that would make sense and you probably should have made that more clear in your original post; I'm keeping up with the PSP news but I haven't been obsessive about it, and this is the first hint I've heard that there is anything special about the SDK in that regard.
OO certainly isn't a miracle drug, but for game development, it's a better start than an assembler and a handful of libraries.
You probably shouldn't put people in the license like that; what if, sometime over the next 150 years or so that code I write now is owned by me, OSI is hijacked?
Better to refer to their current standards, and thereby #include them (to use a code concept), so they can't be changed later unless the FSF wants to update the GPL later.
Actual OSI certification would, until such time as they are hijacked if ever, constitute extremely good evidence that a license meets their standards.
Other that that, I see your point, and hope the comment about the IBM patents in reply to someone is modded up.
Doing illegal things with a computer is dastardly and all, and everyone with a brain agrees that automatically multiplies the necessary punishment by a factor of ten, vs. committing that crime without a computer.
But committing crimes when the victim isn't looking? That passes the bounds of civilized behavior, and as you pass out of civilization, you pass the boundaries of its protection.
This clearly calls for the Death Penalty.
Remember to support me for my election in 2006 when I run on a platform of making it illegal to break the law, thus ending all crime in one fell swoop!
(What's that you're yelling at me? THEENK? Never heard of that, is that some sort of foreign language way of saying you agree with me? Must be. Nobody'd disagree with me, at least not nobody with a brain.)
I've actually thought about this.
Stargate SG-1, the show, is doing OK. It's SG-1 itself that is mostly played out; most of the actors seem to be playing "Who can be on the screen for the least amount of time?", which is pretty tought to work with.
I think the writers have actually risen to the challenge and the last couple of eps I've seen are handling that in a creative way.
Nevertheless, that will wear thin and they will need to re-fill out the team and get some more interesting dynamics going. I know they've got step one covered, we'll have to see how step two goes.
SG:A is, as you say, still looking for their footing, but I believe they will find it.
Sigh... Firefly...
What you think of as thinking is just neurological machinery over which you have no control - it controls you.
Close, but it's worse than that: Under that theory, there is no you, just the illusion that there is.
Seriously though, what is the incentive for robots to reproduce?
"Fembots", isn't that a question you should be answering and not asking?
With a name like that, surely you don't need the robotic birds and the robotic bees explained to you?
I mean, you do understand what all those male humans are doing to you, right?
(Maybe that just wasn't a necessary part of your programming...?)
Somebody else must have been thinking as I did in time: Try the Coral Cache of the Stopdesign site. (I usually try that, but I'm already too late; you can't cache a site that can't respond to the cacher, either.)
(Karma whoring accusers: Look at the UID. Statistically speaking, it is likely I've been capped since before you had an account.)
Not bad, not bad at all. Contrasts nicely with "analog intelligence" in a number of meaningful ways, and actually flows pretty well. (I didn't find any 3-syllable words that had the right accent.)
:-)
Now, if only "deeply embedded in a Slashdot thread" was a place where we could actually effect this sort of change on an entire 50+-year-old discipline
Fair enough.
Looking at it from a poetic viewpoint, I'm not sure anything else has the proper euphony, though. You really ought to lead with a four-syllable word if you want to displace Artificial; a two-syllable might work. "Generated Intelligence"? "Machine Intelligence" might work, but it's still not quite as flowing.
For those who wish to go hunting, you can start in the thesaurus, but it should be pointed out that the definition of artificial in question doesn't even show up there; there don't seem to be many word options here.
(Just rambling; I understand that finding a better alternative isn't a pre-requisite to your complaint. But as an engineer, trying to find a real solution is almost reflex.)
That should have been, "From where I sit, people associating 'artificial' with 'inferior' or 'not as good as the "real" thing' are mostly...".
From where I sit, people associating "artificial" with "fake" are mostly the people who want you to believe that all atoms are labelled as "natural" or "artificial" and the artificial ones are mystically inferior to the natural ones. In general, artificial simply means made, and only in dodgy medicine and food arenas is "artificial" suspect. (Dodgy because there is reason to be concerned about any new chemical, but "artificial" and "natural" isn't a useful catagory with which to think about such things; it makes it almost impossible to avoid a category error by trying to label natural "safe" and artificial "unsafe", whereas in reality neither label provides useful information about the safety of the labelled substance; if you truly can't come up with a perfectly safe artificial substance and truly dangerous natural one without particularly trying, you've fallen into this trap.)
I didn't know if he was joking or not, but I considered it likely enough that it was worth googling. It actually took a bit, but I believe he was referring to this, wherein it is basically revealed that there is no difference between 16 gauge cabling and, well, anything, even up into the thousands of dollars.
I have no counter examples to offer up. I see no reason why this shouldn't be true.
I believe the snarky comments should be saved for those falling for the hype, not those who do actual scientific testing and puncture it.
Have you considered moving into the so-called "human-horn" trade?
There is rumor that there is a second, more potent "horn" available near where the legs meet the torso, though you need to remove the "clothing". Best of luck with that, though; I've tried it but I only find one about half the time. Still, it keeps the belligerent and numerous children fed with something other than "me".
How am I going to understand how high explosives work when you won't let me play with them?
Nothing like a counterexample that just proves your opponents point all the more.
I am aware of how high explosives work in the academic sense. But I could not use them for any practical purpose, and I wouldn't trust anyone who hasn't used them to do something like take a building down. They don't have real, practical understanding.
Since experience says I have to spell this out: Schoolchildren are aware of free speech in the academic sense (if that). But they've got no real understanding of it, as evidenced by the horribly wrong answers they are giving to questions that ask them to apply knowledge rather than parrot answers.
The infamous bug
"The" infamous bug? Believe me, it takes more than one infamous bug to gain a well-deserved reputation as a purveyor of crap.
I hit the one with the Soundblaster 128 + Via motherboard. Turns out Via's PCI was shit, and while the Soundblaster 128 did happen to really whale on the particular way in which it was shit, you could randomly lock the system up (completely unstoppably) with any high PCI load.
Mind you, this isn't their first PCI chipset. PCI had been out for years; we were just starting to see computers coming out that had no ISA connectors at all.
That motherboard, as I recall, also had memory issues.
Almost everything I've owned has been Via because I've been a poor college student or worse, and almost everything I've owned has been crap, except the Asus based computer I have. I bought this cheap laptop with a damned Via chipset, and it is the only laptop (even in the cheap-ass class) that runs so hot it burns you when it is idling. Yup, it's the chipset. I wish to high heaven I could replace it.
"Not Via", after extensive experience, is now my #1 criterion when buying new computers. I don't even care if they've improved; they screwed up so many times over such a long period of time in such stupid ways that it has to be systematic; unless they restructured if they've been "good lately" it's either luck, or simply that you haven't heard of the errors their stuff has yet.
Alpha Centauri was a perhaps unique chance to "play philosopher".
Some of us noticed. And it was definately appreciated. It added a dimension to the gameplay that I have never seen in anything else... System Shock touches on it at a couple of points but just can't do much more than that because the story doesn't permit.
I knew, even on the first playthrough, that this was something special after two of the voiceovers: "Air power rests at the apex of the first triad of victory, for it combines Mobility, Flexibility, and Initiative.", and I'm thinking, hey, that makes sense, and the first use I've ever seen in a computer game of the word nihilistic, also used not just correctly but intelligently (i.e., not just an adjective used to describe someone that somebody yanked out of a thesaurus with no real understanding, but in a statement that may be short but had actual philosophical meat attached to it). Both of these came fairly early, so I was fairly tuned in to the rest of them.
Gameplay-wise, I hope for an Alpha Centauri 2 someday; it is still my favorite Civ so far, though I have high hopes for 4. (Boy, it'd be fun to program the AI for that...) Artistically, I don't think you've left any more room for a "remake" of Alpha Centauri than there is room for a "remake" of Dune. High praise. (But something can always be worked out with sufficient creativity, of course; one of the great things about science fiction, no?)
Thank you, and your team. I think I'll cry if anybody else ever does SMAC2.
Read them.
I'm not meaning to troll or to be 'flamebait' here, just to point out a disturbing trend I've noticed in biased story submissions.
I tend to agree that there is a trend problem, though it isn't the mere presence of editorializing; that's always been there. It's the breathtaking inanity of the editorials of late, both from submitters and the editors. One good way of measuring the information value of a piece of information is the extent to which it is a surprise; I see a surprising editorial comment about once a week now (like "this wasn't really Microsoft's fault, you have to blame the user for giving his password out to a stranger"), the rest are total Slash-think that can and have had Perl scripts written to replace them. ("Go away, or I shall replace you with a very small shell script.")
The only thing maintaining Slashdot's reputation is Slashdot's reputation, and that's a formula for a dangerous and sudden collapse. Were I economically dependant on Slashdot, that would concern me.
But this particular editorial does have the virtue of being almost empirically true. Microsoft, as the current owner of the least secure software in common use, just isn't in a position to be criticizing others about security. Evidentally, whatever things they are trumpeting about themselves must not be important, because they are clearly not being reflected in actual results. Something that, if provided, most IT managers will prefer even over the ever-popular empty platitudes, and most IT managers are hardly able to ignore the results of Microsoft security.
For full effect, you need to hear it. Here's another good one:If the game came out today, the voice acting would still be considered superb.
List of SMAC quotes.
I guess that explains why it didn't work. I thought std_generalization_disclaimer was a text file containing a string, but if it really re-defined my functions after the fact, no wonder it didn't work like expected.
I'd fix the bug, but the Slashdot source control system leaves something to be desired in that regard. You can only commit once, and never check anything out again. Seriously, who's idea was that?
Oh god. Now you've retconned Jar-Jar into the old series in my memory. Curse you!
"Hesaa dead, Massa Jimmie!"
"Yousa and-a yousa damn greenie vullan blood!"
What part of
#include <std_generalization_disclaimer>
did you not understand?