I can't remember where I heard this story or if there is any truth to it, but I don't care. Apparently some major art buyer picked up a bunch of picassos and wanted to separate the real from the fake. Since he didn't have a computer that would do it he went to Picasso himself and asked him to go through them for him and let him know which ones were true Picassos. So Picasso puts the paintings in two piles, real and fake. The buyer watches the artist do this for a while and then suddenly stops him as he's putting one in the fake pile and says, "That's not fake; I just bought that from you yesterday; I saw you finish painting it myself!" Picasso looks him in the eye, slightly offended, and says, "I can fake a Picasso as well as anyone else out there."
Something that is as intiitive and simple as dragging an icon to the applications folder to install and then dragging it to the trash to uninstall.
Why would you bother with clicking and dragging when you can simply edit the compile script to your liking, then./configure with whatever tags suit you, make, make install, go through the output to figure out the dependency errors, download and install the necessary libs, re-edit your compile script,./configure, make, make install again? That should really be all you need unless you're doing something fancy.
If you don't like where the package manager decided it should go, grab a source package and edit the compile script to make it compile with the paths you want, then rebuild the package
I can definitely see how that would be easier than dragging the icon from one folder to another.
Google displays the images from rogue Web sites operated in foreign countries, according to Perfect 10's lawsuit
So they're not suing google for linking to images on their own servers, but for linking to images on someone else's site who they don't have the energy to go after. (Or perhaps just b/c google has deeper pockets). I wonder whether google will bother to fight it; this could probably be settled with some $ and then google could quietly close their images search since they didn't bother much to maintain it anyway. But if google can be sued for linking to material on other servers, it will seriously decrease the functionality of the internet. Not for free porn - I'm pretty sure that is on the net to stay - but for more useful information. The beauty of an automatic search engine is lost if someone has to screen every link for illicit content; eventually nobody will want the hassle of running a free search engine.
Well, I wouldn't say there is no qualitative difference between those people, but thanks for jumping to conclusions. My point is not that they are morally equal but rather that they are all public figures. Is this really that difficult to understand? Sure, I think JFK is a much more positive public figure than UBL -- but, frankly, there are millions of people in the world who think the opposite. And who cares? That's not the point -- the point is that as public figures they are all fair game for documentaries, scandal stories, fictional and nonfictional narratives, movies, and, yes, videogames.
Why is it that this video game is more morally offensive than the Oliver Stone movie? I've agreed all along this game is in poor taste, so don't twist my argument, but I do think public leaders are fair game for such narratives, even those of questionable taste.
What ad hominems? Are you offended I said I didn't think you played too many games? I don't play that many myself. It's not an insult; I was just pointing out that there actually were games that did what you said they didn't.
On the narrative thing, I think you're the one stamping your foot. Would you care to actually provide a rationale for your claim? Or do you feel the mere assertion makes you correct? Like I said, games DO tell stories, which makes them narratives, do I really need to provide a dictionary link to convince you of the meaning of that word? They may be other things as well as narratives, but that doesn't take away their narrativity.
"obviously meant to be 'just entertainment'" is quite different from "is just entertainment." There is no contradiction. Perhaps your ability to comprehend the thoughts of others is what really "needs quite a bit of work" here.
I'm not going to argue with your simplistic reading of the movie, because you're being a twit. I'll be as clear and concise as I like with my posts, because they are mine.
Now does that make me a dick, a pussy, or an asshole?
I don't think you've played too many games. I haven't played many myself but I can think of several where named real historical figures are targeted, some even by assassination. I've seen games where Saddam Hussein and other living people are similarly targeted. Remember the post-911 flash where you got to shoot UBL who was dressed as a 7-11 clerk? Of course, I'd agree that's pretty damn offensive, but more because of the 7-11 uniform (generalizing UBL to be any Arab convenience store clerk) than because of the idea of taking potshots at a major public figure.
As for your comment about a game featuring someone in my family, if they were a major public official, such as a head of state, yes it would bother me, but no there is not much I could do about it except whine, because as I wrote above, that is one of the costs of being a head of state.
Finally, if you think "games aren't narratives," you need to either play a game or look up the word "narrative." If you don't think games like this tell stories (and allow you to participate in those stories) you aren't paying attention.
Well if you recall the scenes where they BLOW SHIT UP, you'll recall that the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe and the pyramids and the Sphynx, along with countless civilian puppets, were destroyed by a bumbling and ignorant "Team America" trying to kill a few terrorists. I don't think this is support for the "extreme right" or "left" or the "middle" for that matter. Needless to say, whatever the point of the film, it supports my contention that the film cannot be seen as "merely" entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't remember where I heard this story or if there is any truth to it, but I don't care. Apparently some major art buyer picked up a bunch of picassos and wanted to separate the real from the fake. Since he didn't have a computer that would do it he went to Picasso himself and asked him to go through them for him and let him know which ones were true Picassos. So Picasso puts the paintings in two piles, real and fake. The buyer watches the artist do this for a while and then suddenly stops him as he's putting one in the fake pile and says, "That's not fake; I just bought that from you yesterday; I saw you finish painting it myself!" Picasso looks him in the eye, slightly offended, and says, "I can fake a Picasso as well as anyone else out there."
Actually, AIX was the true origin of AI. That's why they needed help from space aliens.
Somehow I don't think this will be as significant to future historians as the Great Wall or the Cultural Revolution.
Nah.... it's just beleagured.
;^P
Why would you bother with clicking and dragging when you can simply edit the compile script to your liking, then ./configure with whatever tags suit you, make, make install, go through the output to figure out the dependency errors, download and install the necessary libs, re-edit your compile script, ./configure, make, make install again? That should really be all you need unless you're doing something fancy.
I can definitely see how that would be easier than dragging the icon from one folder to another.
You do know that you can get a very capable G4-based computer running OS X for under $1000, right? That may not be in your budget either, of course.
You fix their computers without them? Isn't that illegal?
Norm Zada must have confused google with booble.
Well, you know.
So they're not suing google for linking to images on their own servers, but for linking to images on someone else's site who they don't have the energy to go after. (Or perhaps just b/c google has deeper pockets). I wonder whether google will bother to fight it; this could probably be settled with some $ and then google could quietly close their images search since they didn't bother much to maintain it anyway. But if google can be sued for linking to material on other servers, it will seriously decrease the functionality of the internet. Not for free porn - I'm pretty sure that is on the net to stay - but for more useful information. The beauty of an automatic search engine is lost if someone has to screen every link for illicit content; eventually nobody will want the hassle of running a free search engine.
is change the web addresses of their images, since google never updates their image database...
With keystroke logging, they can even snoop on what you post to slashdot!
Don't type anything important.
If you really want to watch a grown man anointing himself with oil and handling snakes while cringing from statues that feature boobies....
Where *hasn't* MS Word crashed?
Heard of TIPS?
The best defence before Soviet-style supervision is assuring your country isn't run by such kind of people.
Uh-oh....
Oh, sorry. Wrong discussion.
print in black and white.
Why is it that this video game is more morally offensive than the Oliver Stone movie? I've agreed all along this game is in poor taste, so don't twist my argument, but I do think public leaders are fair game for such narratives, even those of questionable taste.
On the narrative thing, I think you're the one stamping your foot. Would you care to actually provide a rationale for your claim? Or do you feel the mere assertion makes you correct? Like I said, games DO tell stories, which makes them narratives, do I really need to provide a dictionary link to convince you of the meaning of that word? They may be other things as well as narratives, but that doesn't take away their narrativity.
I'm not going to argue with your simplistic reading of the movie, because you're being a twit. I'll be as clear and concise as I like with my posts, because they are mine.
Now does that make me a dick, a pussy, or an asshole?
As for your comment about a game featuring someone in my family, if they were a major public official, such as a head of state, yes it would bother me, but no there is not much I could do about it except whine, because as I wrote above, that is one of the costs of being a head of state.
Finally, if you think "games aren't narratives," you need to either play a game or look up the word "narrative." If you don't think games like this tell stories (and allow you to participate in those stories) you aren't paying attention.
Well if you recall the scenes where they BLOW SHIT UP, you'll recall that the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe and the pyramids and the Sphynx, along with countless civilian puppets, were destroyed by a bumbling and ignorant "Team America" trying to kill a few terrorists. I don't think this is support for the "extreme right" or "left" or the "middle" for that matter. Needless to say, whatever the point of the film, it supports my contention that the film cannot be seen as "merely" entertainment.
It's called the iPod mini.