Ok, the guy is more or less well known, for something he did 13 years ago, but does that really qualify as "fame"? All this talk about how his "fame" doesn't go to his head has a distinct "protesting too much" feel to it.
Alright. Too much nonsense about John Romero. The guy was a part of a revolution in computer gaming. Doom is the most influential game in the last 15 years, at least. There has been no new breakthroughs since. It's ok he never did anything after that, for for that matter, no one managed to pull off a breakthrough that compares to what Id software was doing at that time.
As another poster said, the YouTube users the article deals with are not consumers. In fact, they are providers, just the opposite. You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.
Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case you are a stupid bastard who would sue them for publishing for example portions of your video instead of the whole of it. The part where they retain rights to other distribution means is fair enough, provided they are actually paying for your distribution, they get some potential earnings, aside from the ads they can run with your videos.
Blender code was salvaged that way, when the company went down. A foundation was created, and now it is a healthy project, at http://www.blender.org/ . A movie was recently made showing how advanced it has become, at http://orange.blender.org/ .
At that time, they raised one hundred thousand Euros, I believe OpenGL might be a tad more costly, but one shouldn't underestimate the power of individuals to get together and raise some money.
Maybe even the Blender foundation is a good place to start. Someone big enough should talk to SGI and ask how many millions of dollars they want.
Hey, come to think of it, another ocmpany that would like buying OpenGL could be ID Software! It's close to their core- bussiness, game engines.
Open source actually doesn't mean much. You could do whatever and call it open source. That's the marketing beauty of the term, but it has nothing to do with it.
Open source doesn't require you to share the information you have, or the source.
Even free software doesn't. When you distribute GPLed software, you are obliged to distribute the source too, and pass certain freedoms to the guy that receives it. But most important, it doesn't say that you have to share it at all!!! If you have a lab, for example, and make a special linux kernel for your propriteary hardware, for internal use, you don't have to share it with anyone!.
Probably software plays a big role in the development of vaccines. Statistics can be better treated, some times, with custom software. Machine learning of course can play its role, lots of software stuff does.
Well, I don't care that "is there a me", I care a lot more about "is it me?", Because I don't care about my existence and the great scheme of things. I just want to bee there to experience. And if there was a "me", who could be there, I wouldn't experience anything, anyway.
If I wanted to keep a copy of me, so it can do what I would do, maybe I should care more about doing stuff right now that actually have significance in the future, like doing stuff, or having kids, something like that.
I am an atheist, to start. I dont believe there is a soul, either.
I believe in life, and consciousness, though. I think that it should become some day possible, to put someone to sleep for a thousand years, and then wake "them" up, and "they" would feel like they just woke up from a nap.
My problem, from a philosophical point of view, is that I have an experience every day, when I go to sleep, and then I wake up, and _I_ believe in the continuity of that experience.
It's like a function with a single point discontinuity, something like lim(f(x)) = 5 when x -> 1, but f(5) does not exist. My problem is that I should think a lot more about this in order to be able to explain it, but I kind of feel that there is something to that discontinuity, and that the continuity of consciousness is what defines being dead from beaing alive.
Of course I am using a "special" definition of consciousness, and I know that's an issue with my reasoning.
The problem I see is that if my conjectures were right, there would be no way to experiment with it and prove it wrong.
It is my belief that my soul is encoded in my pattern of neural connections, and therefore the only way for me to preserve my soul at this time is to preserve my physical brain. In accordance with my belief, I spend my own money on a life insurance policy and name a cryonics company as the beneficiary.
And what proves that you don't cease to exist? Maybe a long time after you are frozen, people wake up someone who swears it is you, but I have given it some thought, and I am sure that life is a continuous thing, and that once you are dead, you are dead. And that, even if they can wake up a conscious person, you would be dead.
The real problem with that way of seeing it, is that the woken-up guy would think that the procedure actually worked, but you would be dead. so there would be no experimental way of finding out if am wrong.
I am really concerned about that, specially, because I haven't seen anyone with my same view of things.
Of course, my point is easier to get, when you use the example of star trek style teletransportation, but this case gives me the creeps too.
"_If_ ReactOS ever comes to be a viable solution,"
There was an emphasized "If" in my post. Of course, is ReactOS is "kludgey", there will be no use for it, but _if_ it isn't, it _will_ be a viable solution.
The feasibility of a good clone of winxp is another issue completely. Of course, I agree that it's difficult, and that it's not a good idea, but the motivation to d it, of course, is that if they succeed in their huge task, there is in the end some use for the project.
There are actually lots of places that use 2000, because they have no need for XP. The migration to vista should be more difficult than the migration to a good xp clone.
A good xp clone _is_ something else, specially if it has some hidden advantages you can enjoy, like better licensing, support and stuff.
GNU/Linux is a unix clone, and people choose it instead of the real thing, even if it's not 100% compatible. Functional compatibility is important, but other things are important too.
There is actually no need to change to msvista, because most people won't do it. But MS will try and force them to do it. When MS end-of-lifes winxp, they will have a supported replacement. Even right now, MS support for XP is no good, for some people who are concerned with security and stuff. With a non proprietary solution, support is a free market, and you are not stuck with the same provider that keep giving you the shaft. _If_ ReactOS ever comes to be a viable solution, it would be much more sensible migration path than going to msvista, if only because you would have a choice for support, and you wouldn't be subject to MS marketing decisions about the life of your installations.
As much as you would like to see them _out_ of their speedos, there are probably lots of people who enjoy the view of guys in speedos. I'm not one of them. I think that hot grits on a petrified movie actress would be a better aquadynamic profile.
That's interesting. I wonder instead whether not invading countries that pose absolutely no threat to us is cheaper than proper body and vehicle armor. But that's just me... Oh wait, it's not. It's a majority of the American people.
Sadly, it's probably not cheaper. The US need to defend their foreign interests, if they want to keep the stability of their economy. I had read about that here in Latin America, and now I saw a reference to this guy, Ron Paul, that makes the point of why the US needs to sped all that money overseas http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr02 1506.htm
Actually, they should be better, because OpenXML is, after all, a standard. There are some specs to read..DOC is a reverse-engineered binary, moving-target, format.
The fact is that, given enough effort (or money) it would be feasible to write a good OpenXML - ODF converter. With.DOC, you never know, it's more of a trial and error procedure.
They had some success implanting the practices you like. A backpack in the subway? Brown skin? Kill the fuckin' nigga^H^H^H^H^Htowelhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterroris t!
There's no novelty in prostitutes. They are not fun, it's kind of a sad profession. No novelty in drunk girls from the bar, every time. Or groupies, for that matter, if you have access to them ("artist" friends, yay!). On the other hand you keep getting nice pretty girls, one of them is going to end up catching you.
So the real alternatives are either chastity, or at least as boring as than getting a girlfriend. Deal with it.
That really shows. I live in a Spanish-speaking country, and here we can watch them subtitled, or spoken in spanish. Some time ago, it was a no-brainer, subtitled pictures were much better. Recently, it does really notice that proffesional voice actors are much better than tv/cinema stars at doubling CG characters. I like Elen Degeneres, but Dori (?), her character in Nemo, pales in comaprison with its spanish counterpart, my friends and I keep laughing at some lines we heard in that movie (in spanish; -tortugas!!- ). Then we rented it in english, and we didn't laugh at all at the same spots, and little anywhere else.
Shrek is great in spanish, too, its played by the same guy that doubles Homer Simpson in spanish.
That shows that the guys who did the translation did a better work than the original actors, while playing with the handicap of a translated comedy script, that loses lots of lines and jokes.
Stolen doesn't describe the picture. If you want to steal something, you have to go, and take something from someone.
All that copying-is-stealing stuff is just make-believe. Why do _you_ think people who copy stuff are stealing from someone? Because they built some software, and now they expect to be paid? General Motors paid for the air TV I'm watching, they expect to get money from me because of that, and I'm not giving them any. I am stealing from them, too? Reapeat after me: freeloaders are not thieves, thieves are thieves. Copying is not stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
More like Internet, Phone, and TV for 107.6 dollars.
And that would be another reason why you could hate the french.
Ok, the guy is more or less well known, for something he did 13 years ago, but does that really qualify as "fame"? All this talk about how his "fame" doesn't go to his head has a distinct "protesting too much" feel to it.
Alright.
Too much nonsense about John Romero.
The guy was a part of a revolution in computer gaming. Doom is the most influential game in the last 15 years, at least.
There has been no new breakthroughs since.
It's ok he never did anything after that, for for that matter, no one managed to pull off a breakthrough that compares to what Id software was doing at that time.
As another poster said, the YouTube users the article deals with are not consumers.
In fact, they are providers, just the opposite.
You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.
Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case you are a stupid bastard who would sue them for publishing for example portions of your video instead of the whole of it.
The part where they retain rights to other distribution means is fair enough, provided they are actually paying for your distribution, they get some potential earnings, aside from the ads they can run with your videos.
You have a point!
It could be the OpenGL Foundation, or something.
Blender code was salvaged that way, when the company went down.
A foundation was created, and now it is a healthy project, at http://www.blender.org/ .
A movie was recently made showing how advanced it has become, at http://orange.blender.org/ .
At that time, they raised one hundred thousand Euros, I believe OpenGL might be a tad more costly, but one shouldn't underestimate the power of individuals to get together and raise some money.
Maybe even the Blender foundation is a good place to start. Someone big enough should talk to SGI and ask how many millions of dollars they want.
Hey, come to think of it, another ocmpany that would like buying OpenGL could be ID Software! It's close to their core- bussiness, game engines.
A monkey once bit my small finger.
Open source actually doesn't mean much. You could do whatever and call it open source. That's the marketing beauty of the term, but it has nothing to do with it.
Open source doesn't require you to share the information you have, or the source.
Even free software doesn't. When you distribute GPLed software, you are obliged to distribute the source too, and pass certain freedoms to the guy that receives it.
But most important, it doesn't say that you have to share it at all!!!
If you have a lab, for example, and make a special linux kernel for your propriteary hardware, for internal use, you don't have to share it with anyone!.
Probably software plays a big role in the development of vaccines. Statistics can be better treated, some times, with custom software. Machine learning of course can play its role, lots of software stuff does.
For lots of applications, it is a perceived improvement, it gives a sense of privacy.
Well, I don't care that "is there a me", I care a lot more about "is it me?",
Because I don't care about my existence and the great scheme of things.
I just want to bee there to experience. And if there was a "me", who could be there, I wouldn't experience anything, anyway.
If I wanted to keep a copy of me, so it can do what I would do, maybe I should care more about doing stuff right now that actually have significance in the future, like doing stuff, or having kids, something like that.
I am an atheist, to start.
I dont believe there is a soul, either.
I believe in life, and consciousness, though.
I think that it should become some day possible, to put someone to sleep for a thousand years, and then wake "them" up, and "they" would feel like they just woke up from a nap.
My problem, from a philosophical point of view, is that I have an experience every day, when I go to sleep, and then I wake up, and _I_ believe in the continuity of that experience.
It's like a function with a single point discontinuity, something like lim(f(x)) = 5 when x -> 1, but f(5) does not exist.
My problem is that I should think a lot more about this in order to be able to explain it, but I kind of feel that there is something to that discontinuity, and that the continuity of consciousness is what defines being dead from beaing alive.
Of course I am using a "special" definition of consciousness, and I know that's an issue with my reasoning.
The problem I see is that if my conjectures were right, there would be no way to experiment with it and prove it wrong.
It is my belief that my soul is encoded in my pattern of neural connections, and therefore the only way for me to preserve my soul at this time is to preserve my physical brain. In accordance with my belief, I spend my own money on a life insurance policy and name a cryonics company as the beneficiary.
And what proves that you don't cease to exist?
Maybe a long time after you are frozen, people wake up someone who swears it is you, but I have given it some thought, and I am sure that life is a continuous thing, and that once you are dead, you are dead. And that, even if they can wake up a conscious person, you would be dead.
The real problem with that way of seeing it, is that the woken-up guy would think that the procedure actually worked, but you would be dead. so there would be no experimental way of finding out if am wrong.
I am really concerned about that, specially, because I haven't seen anyone with my same view of things.
Of course, my point is easier to get, when you use the example of star trek style teletransportation, but this case gives me the creeps too.
"_If_ ReactOS ever comes to be a viable solution,"
There was an emphasized "If" in my post. Of course, is ReactOS is "kludgey", there will be no use for it, but _if_ it isn't, it _will_ be a viable solution.
The feasibility of a good clone of winxp is another issue completely. Of course, I agree that it's difficult, and that it's not a good idea, but the motivation to d it, of course, is that if they succeed in their huge task, there is in the end some use for the project.
There are actually lots of places that use 2000, because they have no need for XP. The migration to vista should be more difficult than the migration to a good xp clone.
A good xp clone _is_ something else, specially if it has some hidden advantages you can enjoy, like better licensing, support and stuff.
GNU/Linux is a unix clone, and people choose it instead of the real thing, even if it's not 100% compatible.
Functional compatibility is important, but other things are important too.
There is actually no need to change to msvista, because most people won't do it.
But MS will try and force them to do it. When MS end-of-lifes winxp, they will have a supported replacement.
Even right now, MS support for XP is no good, for some people who are concerned with security and stuff. With a non proprietary solution, support is a free market, and you are not stuck with the same provider that keep giving you the shaft.
_If_ ReactOS ever comes to be a viable solution, it would be much more sensible migration path than going to msvista, if only because you would have a choice for support, and you wouldn't be subject to MS marketing decisions about the life of your installations.
God didn't make humans to become slaves of machines.
You are right.
God didn't make humans. It was the FSM with its noodly appendage.
And we are supposed to be pirates, not slaves, arrrr.
As much as you would like to see them _out_ of their speedos, there are probably lots of people who enjoy the view of guys in speedos.
I'm not one of them. I think that hot grits on a petrified movie actress would be a better aquadynamic profile.
The comment was strictly responding to the original poster.
Of course, I'm against killing civilians, in any context, and of course in London, too.
But the fact that London police officers killed a brazilian guy for carrying a backpack is an example of how the OP ideas can go wrong.
It is more of a semi-powered unstable glide and they can only maintain it for relatively short distances.
The same kind of stuff was said about Santos Dumont, or the Wright brothers.
That's interesting. I wonder instead whether not invading countries that pose absolutely no threat to us is cheaper than proper body and vehicle armor. But that's just me... Oh wait, it's not. It's a majority of the American people.
2 1506.htm
Sadly, it's probably not cheaper.
The US need to defend their foreign interests, if they want to keep the stability of their economy.
I had read about that here in Latin America, and now I saw a reference to this guy, Ron Paul, that makes the point of why the US needs to sped all that money overseas http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr0
Actually, they should be better, because OpenXML is, after all, a standard. .DOC is a reverse-engineered binary, moving-target, format.
.DOC, you never know, it's more of a trial and error procedure.
There are some specs to read.
The fact is that, given enough effort (or money) it would be feasible to write a good OpenXML - ODF converter.
With
But not in Cuba!
If you happen to get caught, and send to Guantanamo bay, there is a #4 , and it is not covered by the Geneva conventions.
They had some success implanting the practices you like.s t!
A backpack in the subway? Brown skin? Kill the fuckin' nigga^H^H^H^H^Htowelhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrori
Your Fail It
MSOffice97 was good enough for you when you bought it.
If your needs have changed it's only ok that you get a new version.
Of course, you could use OpenOffice 2.0, that works great indeed with MSOffice97 documents, and writes ODF natively.
There's no novelty in prostitutes. They are not fun, it's kind of a sad profession.
No novelty in drunk girls from the bar, every time.
Or groupies, for that matter, if you have access to them ("artist" friends, yay!).
On the other hand you keep getting nice pretty girls, one of them is going to end up catching you.
So the real alternatives are either chastity, or at least as boring as than getting a girlfriend.
Deal with it.
That really shows.
I live in a Spanish-speaking country, and here we can watch them subtitled, or spoken in spanish.
Some time ago, it was a no-brainer, subtitled pictures were much better.
Recently, it does really notice that proffesional voice actors are much better than tv/cinema stars at doubling CG characters.
I like Elen Degeneres, but Dori (?), her character in Nemo, pales in comaprison with its spanish counterpart, my friends and I keep laughing at some lines we heard in that movie (in spanish; -tortugas!!- ). Then we rented it in english, and we didn't laugh at all at the same spots, and little anywhere else.
Shrek is great in spanish, too, its played by the same guy that doubles Homer Simpson in spanish.
That shows that the guys who did the translation did a better work than the original actors, while playing with the handicap of a translated comedy script, that loses lots of lines and jokes.
Stolen doesn't describe the picture.
If you want to steal something, you have to go, and take something from someone.
All that copying-is-stealing stuff is just make-believe. Why do _you_ think people who copy stuff are stealing from someone?
Because they built some software, and now they expect to be paid?
General Motors paid for the air TV I'm watching, they expect to get money from me because of that, and I'm not giving them any. I am stealing from them, too?
Reapeat after me: freeloaders are not thieves, thieves are thieves. Copying is not stealing.