LOL. Here goes my karma. You just aren't allowed to talk about Christianity in a positive light without losing some points...oh well.:)
1 - God knows what it good.
2 - Whatever god says by definition is good.
3 - "God is Good". God and "Good" are not necessarily external enitities. "Good" is an adjective used by many Christians to describe "God" and, in that context, also can mean "righteous" and "holy".
I.e. if god commanded you to kill rape torture and steal, as he did in the Old testament then that would be moral and good.
Okay, this is going a bit over the top, don't you think? Have you actually read the The Old Testament? I have read it twice in toto and have read numerous passages throughout the course of my life. God did command the Israelites at various times to make war against their neighbors and to take their lands but I do not remember him EVER commanding them to either rape or torture. In fact, this would seem to contradict with much of Jewish law (The Law of Moses) which Jews took very seriously since strict obedience to the Law, fulfillment of prescribed sacrifices for the redemption of their sins, etc. were the path laid before them for salvation.
In most cases, from what I remember (and it has been awhile since I studied the Old Testament) the Israelites were generally forbidden from marrying outside of themselves so that they would not become "tainted" by other beliefs or begin worshipping their Gods. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (I think) lay out the Law of Moses wherein I think sex outside of marriage is sinful (could be wrong on that one but I'm pretty sure I'm not). This would put the blame back on the Israelites and not God...if he was not supposed to marry outside of the Israelites and he was not supposed to have sex with someone who was not his wife any rape would clearly be sinful (unless God commanded him to do it; which I think you'll be hard to prove -- you sound like you are extrapolating e.g. if the Israelites made war on their neighbors AND the Israelites took their lands AND the Israelites said God commanded them do it THEN any rapes that were committed were commanded by God.)
On the issue of the Israelites warring (killing) with their neighbors and taking (stealing) their lands, I think that an argument can be made (if you believe in God -- which you apparently don't but bear with me anyways) that the Israelites were used by God as a tool against wickedness. If God sent the Israelites in to possess the lands of their neighbors, it is quite possible that those neighbors were guilty of great immorality and were then being punished by God. Is this a bit hard to swallow...yeah, I admit that it might be if you do not believe or trust in God...but if you do believe in God, it can also be viewed as giving good things to those who are good (for the most part -- after all, we all make mistakes) and taking good things (i.e. punishing) those who are not. From another point of view, part of God's description is "righteousness" which, in part, means that he follows through on his word. If he calls something a Sin and you commit that Sin, the penalty for that Sin must be paid. In The Old Testament, Sins were atoned for in blood -- blood sacrifices usually but death of the sinner in some cases (murder and rape being two that I can think of -- and keep in mind that "killing" in the context of war is not necessarily "murder" nor is killing to fulfill the penalty of law -- obviously, opinions on this topic will vary).
This brings us to a need to reconcile the seeming contradiction between The Law of Moses and The New Testament of Christ. In Christ's Sermon on the Mount he told the Jewish Pharisees that he had come to fulfill The Law not to abolish it ("Not one jot nor one tittle..."). To fulfill the law he had to pay the penalty for breaking the law (i.e. the point of a law is not fulfilled until the penalty prescribed by that law has been paid). The only way to fulfill the law, therefore, was for him to die upon the Cross -- to shed his blood. His death enabled us to live under God's Grace where any of us could be redeemed from our Sins by trusting in God because CHRIST ALREADY PAID THE PRICE and not by sacrificing doves and lambs on an alter or being strictly obedient to The Law of Moses (though, obviously, it should be our intention to follow prescribed laws).
If you've got Biblical references to where God commands the Israelites to rape and torture, I really would be interested in seeing them. If you don't...
Your 10 commandments also contains such silly rules as "Do not have other Gods before me". This violates freedom of religion. Something I for one think is a good thing.
Yeah, except that both "Freedom of/from Religion" and religion itself are Man-made things and we are talking about God and morality here. It is an unfortunate reality that Man has done a lot of harm in the name of both religion and God...but don't ever forget that the two are not synonymous. Just because Man makes up a new ritual or commits some atrocity in the name of religion does not mean that God either condoned it or was part of it -- Men have free wills; just because they make bad decisions with how they choose to exercise that will does not mean that God had anything to do with it. To bring it way back on topic: its an issue of personal responsibility -- when Man works evil in the name of God, he hurts not only himself but he also hurts the name of God. His actions have ramifications on others. Consider also: if I kill someone and say you told me to do it -- even if I believe it is true -- does it mean that you did? No, of course it doesn't. Same situation. Just because someone claims to come in the name of God does not mean it is so -- heck, The Bible even warns us about this very occurrence saying that many will come in the name of God but that God is not with them (New Testament -- I'd have to look up the specific verses for you if you are interested). The only way to know the difference is to be familiar with The Bible -- if the person is acting in a manner contrary to The Word of God, it is not likely that God is with him .
There is nothing preventing you from choosing to follow whatever god you want to or practicing whatever religion you choose to...The Ten Commandments are for Jews and Christians. If you are neither, they really have no meaning for you and I can understand your point. They are not, however, silly.
What if I want different characters at different power levels so I can play with different groups of people?
I agree with you that this is a very real problem and is probably the only worthwhile argument against single-character servers (SCS). I believe the benefits of SCS outweigh this disadvantage. If you are as casual a player as you say you are, you probably will not use all 10 of the characters you are allotted (1 per server) and can satisfy this need by creating lower-level characters on other servers.
BTW, I [sic] clever GM could find away aroung those problems.
What are you saying? That I'm not a "clever GM"?:)
Perhaps the merchent guild shows up a demands a cut?
Yes, that is a possibility. But it is a possibility that assumes the healer is the primary character and not just a support character (which in this scenario he is) and it is a possibility over which a Player might have a legitimate reason to cry foul. The way it could come across to the player is: you stole my gold/whatever just because you didn't like how I solved the problem you gave me -- it seems retributive. The simpler solution is just to never allow the situation to occur.
Or the local healer leaves town, thus putting the burden of being the town healer onto the character.
Not sure I see how this is a solution to preventing a Player from using one of his characters to benefit another. Just because the Player's character is now in a more prestigious role or a role with more responsibility does not prevent the Player from abusing the character. Remember, the Healer is in a support role in this scenario. Care to explain your point on this one?
...what if a bunch of your friends want to play that way? do you not play with them, or just force them into a game they don't enjoy as much as they could?
Well, here is what I normally do:
Typically, I'm the GM. I like to world-build and enjoy GM'ing much more than I ever enjoy actually playing (I guess it is the Catbert part of me coming out:) ). I always start off a new campaign with a list of written ground rules that state how I expect the game to go -- some of these rules are written in stone, some are not. The purpose of the ground rules is to give the Players an idea of where I see the campaign going: whether it is likely to be dark or light, humorous or serious, serial or episodic, etc. I also try to indicate the main thrust of the campaign: heavy role-playing, questing, monster-bashing, war campaigns, etc. and provide suggestions on the types of characters that I think would be successful in the campaign. It is then up to the Players what they want to do -- key point: they've been warned.
Having been warned ahead of time about my expectations and where I see the game going they are free to play or not to play and to leave at any time they cease to have fun playing. RPG game players come in a variety of shapes and sizes -- there are so many different play styles out there that if a player is not comfortable with my style they are free to find another game elsewhere. No hard feelings, I understand -- been doing this for a long time.
I have found that warning players ahead of time about what my style of play is and laying out my expectations for the campaign have prevented many problems. Bringing new players into an existing campaign is just as easy; they get the "Ground Rules" handout and are normally encouraged to come to watch for a session or two -- gives all the current players a chance to get to know them and gives them a chance to see how we play and interact. If they want to join, "Welcome aboard!" if not then no hard feelings.
I'm almost 31 years old, a Senior Software Developer at my company, have a beautiful wife and a great almost-2-year-old i.e. Given the demands on my time, I game for pure enjoyment, and the chance to write and think creatively. If I'm a Player in a game (rare) and I'm not having fun, I politely drop out of the game (did that recently in a Champions game). If I'm the GM in a game and I'm not having fun, I recess the game for a while (if I'm the GM and I'm not having fun, odds are no one else is either and its time to take a break). Which leads me to:
...or just force them into a game they don't enjoy as much as they could? (I'm not saying that is the case, just curiose what you would do all you rplayer said, "Look, we want to have secondary charater, they game would be more enjoyable for us"
I have never had this situation occur but I would never force a player to play according to my style. They are always free to seek out another GM that is more compatible with their desires; I won't change my style to fit theirs -- the GM:Player ratio is probably 1:6 or so. I can always find other players if I really want. Again, it is just a game -- there are no hard feelings associated with players moving on. If the entire troupe moved on, I'd probably do some soul-searching to see if I did something to offend them but I would not compromise any principle or rule I felt strongly about. Personally, I feel that Players should find GMs they are comfortable with but the last thing you want is to force the hand of a GM -- if he is not having fun, you probably will not either. GM'ing can take up a lot of time and effort; he is less likely to invest the time and effort if he is not having fun.
The question is, Is having a game that ONLY allowed roleplayers giong to survive at 10 bucks a month? I hope so, but I doubt it.
To be honest, I doubt it will either...but that is more a testimony to what the medium lacks than a reflection on the quality of the game. MMORPGs are not RPGs. I think SWG is heading in the right direction but I think there are too many computer gamers who think hack-slash-kill-steal-wash-repeat is the only way to have a good time. Having loved face-to-face RPGs for the majority of my life, I have never been enamored of computer games of any sort. SWG's stance is intriguing, though.
While there are morons who will corrupt any game, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a RTS game, it's a big game of pretend. This rule change takes out the ability to have fun playing pretend, and makes the focus developing the power and abilities of your only character, who will inevitibly compromise the role to the circumstances and come to resemble you.
First of all, MMORPGs (as I have already stated) are not really RPGs -- when your MMORPG character stands in front of mine there is very little of the "role" that comes through. I see an avatar who is either stronger or weaker than I am...I see words you write (if you are 'talking' to me) but I do not get the benefit of facial expression, voice tone, inflected language, etc. This rule change opens up possibilities to players, it does not restrict them.
Restricting players to one character per server offers the possibility that you do NOT have to adventure or be the best at a particular skill in order to be successful. If you do not want to adventure, if you do not want to slay other characters/creatures and steal coins or whatever, you do not have to. You can open a shop, develop a merchant persona and interact with the local mercenary/bounty hunter/adventurer population. If your merchant is not as skilled as the next, you charge less and attract customers that way. One role that could be very satisfying along these lines is the role of Fixer/Fence; the "I can get you anything you want if the price is right" guy. Your merchant develops relationships with other merchants, your merchant hires body guards, bounty hunters, whatever to get the items he requires for his customers. In this way, you become a focal character of the local economy, you become a source of adventure rather than just a participant. This type of role would be very difficult to sustain if there are a lot of mules present and Players have no reason to search out local merchants.
Another point you have not addressed is the fact that you are allowed 1 character per server per account. So...if you want to explore multiple characters, you are free to do so...just put them on different servers so that they cannot help each other. They are not friends/relatives/associates; they are strangers to each other. Your main complaint seems to be satisfied by this point...depending on your mood, you log on to a different server.
The one disadvantage I see to single-character-servers is that of disparate power-levels among groups of real-life friends. If your buddy joins the game six months after you, your only options are to dump your current character (not likely) or play on a server where you do not have another character or help your buddy out via advice until he is at a comparable level to you to adventure with. This is a problem but I feel it is a minor one because you are probably not actively playing ten characters (1 per server) and can probably find one that you can dump if you are. At this point, if you are worried about losing Item X or Z number of coins, then that character is a mule and should be dumped anyways for all the reasons I've already stated. If you are about ROLE playing, the items you have should not matter.
Thus, you've killed the last vestige of role-playing in the game.
I would argue, again, that MMORPGs are NOT role-playing games...if they were, or if people treated them more as such, then EQ would not have had to go through the hassle of setting up an entire server just to support the players who are interested in actually role-playing and not just increasing the size of their hoards/powers/whatever.
"Why does everyone always talk about this "Mule" crap when this subject is brought up? I've been into RPGs off and on since '81, and I can't remember a long running campaign EVER where I just used a single character. Why? I would periodically feel like PLAYING a different ROLE. That is, after all, the entire purpose of a ROLE PLAYING game...."
Yes...but did your other roles exist solely to support your primary role. For example, did you create a Cleric/Healer character in order to have someone whose sole reason for existence was to act as paramedic to your Warrior (and I'm not talking about the initial investment in time -- obviously, you had to spend some time getting the Healer's level up to a respectable point so he could meet all of your Warrior's needs -- not only routine healings but resurrections and such, as needed)?
The issue becomes particularly cloudy if your Cleric/Healer does not actually adventure with you and instead waits for you to visit him whenever you need something....or when you want to store some gold....or for any other reason that places the Cleric/Healer in a pure support/increased carrying capacity role.
Your Cleric/Healer has now destabilized the local economy. If you can get free healing from your Cleric/Healer, why would you ever go to any of the other Healers in town? (And even if you move money from one character to the other in order to simulate "paying" for the healing service, you haven't really paid for anything -- you've moved money from one storage location to another; both of which you own).
As a Gamemaster, I have always allowed my Player's to create and play multiple characters but I have never allowed them to create/play them simultaneously and I have never allowed one Player's character to support another of that same Player's characters. My reasons? Economics -- it is a lot easier to motivate players to take on adventures when they are strapped for cash. If Joe never had to seek assistance outside his own pack of PCs, he'd become fabulously wealthy and overly powerful -- not on the basis of his excellent skills but on the basis of exploiting a loop-hole in the game mechanics.
One positive in most face-to-face RPGs, at least, is that your character typically does not improve in skills when you are not actively playing them (I am aware that some RPG Systems support "off-time" skill advancement but have never seen it widely used after playing RPGs for over 20 years). Now consider MMORPGs where you do not even have to be present for your character to be gaining/improving skills. Now not only have you destabilized the local economy but you have also turned that "extra character" into a factory. Now...maybe "Sword Factory" is an interesting role to you...
With mules existing to solely support primary characters, why would anyone bother playing a character with a support role? Why would I bother to play a weaponsmith or other artisan when I know other players can create their own, tell them to study/learn their craft, leave them and come back to an accomplished character who can now provide a service to them for, essentially, free.
Most MMORPGs I have seen (and most MMORPG players I have talked to) are more about accumulation of wealth and power than they are about ROLE-playing. SWG, it seems, is actually attempting to provide a ROLE-playing experience -- you don't have to be a combatant to make a difference. Choosing to be a merchant, opening a shop and supplying other adventurers can be a fun role (I'm thinking about the barkeep or equipment supplier who can function as the local rumor mill here...) as long as "mule" characters are eliminated...if a Player has no reason to visit your store because he's got a pack of mules meeting his every need then there is no reason for you to create that merchant character.
Do I get to keep the songs and movies that I downloaded if I pay up?
No.
From the article:
"If they pay now - and delete the illegal content from their hard drives - then the amount is cut in half and they avoid going to court. Those who don't pay up are to be sued."
...other than the gross generalization you make MG, your comment has merit.
Before I go any further, let me say that while I am a born-again Christian, I am also against filtering software and tend to lean towards moderate libertarian (i.e. I tend to vote a mixture of Libertarian and Republican based on the issues and not on the party). I have always been against filtering software because of the all-to-likely possibility that perfectly good content will be blocked unreasonably; filter software companies have been shown to purposely block commentary critical of their product, websites for competing products, views contrary to their agenda, etc; finally, I would rather not have someone block the content I value (whether it be religious or secular).
As a result of my convictions, I have taken the responsibility of "protecting" my children to heart; I or my wife is present when they are online.
Based on your list, I fall either into (a) (because I would like to be able to assign a "safe" playpen (if I chose to) for my kids) or (c) (because I am willing to allow my children access out of the.kids domain -- with appropriate monitoring by myself or my wife).
It is too bad you couldn't let it go without:
(a) allows parents who'd rather not teach their kids about using their brains (an amazing majority in these days of babysitting-by-TV) to assign a "safe" playpen.
(c) Does not coerce intelligent parents into restricting access to their kids to the domain alone
So...just because I would rather not make my children available as potential prey to pedophiles, potential prey to pornographers (moral issues aside on this one there are still plenty of reasons not to encourage pornography), I'm unintelligent? Just because I would rather know that my child can sit by himself at the computer, use the internet and have unfettered access to lots of good, kid-relevant information, educational games, and educational material without me having to be present, I'm unintelligent?
Ha!
I'm all for giving children the chance to prove they can handle responsibility. You either do that or you potentially raise children who are unable to handle responsibility. However, you wouldn't ask a four-year old to carry a heavy suitcase up a flight of stairs; likewise, their are certain topics that are "heavy" (pornography, sex, etc.) and should be dealt with at an appropriate age -- which is a determination to be made by the parent. kids.us, as you have pointed out, provides a great tool for exercising parental responsibilities -- and it provides a great way for a parent to implement a blanket policy that allows a child to explore without the parent present at every click.
Will kids.us filter content? You bet. But, you know, my two-year old son does not need to see the latest pictures of Susie Sucksall and her friends Peter Penis and Tandy Twat. He does not need to be force-fed the impression that women are just sexual objects present to gratify men whenever some porn-king uses deceptive advertising practices to lure people to their sites. That also goes for a six-year old, eight-year old, ten-year old, etc.
I'd rather he was taught right -- by me -- that a woman is to be cherished and loved. Not exploited.
I realize this might be more than you meant to bite off; but I felt your generalizations warranted a response. It is not my intent to offend you -- despite the fact that I might have done so.
Well...you could be way off. The Vanessa Williams who was dethroned for posing nude in a magazine was selected as Miss America (I think she was the first black woman to receive the honor), was dethroned for violating the purity standards set by the Miss America pageant and did go on to be a rather successful singer and actress.
Then again...you could know of a different Vanessa Williams that I do not know about.
But what prevents Sci-Fi, et al from making themselves available as "premium" channels?
Come on now! There's obviously nothing preventing any channel from making themselves available as a "premium" channel...other than the unwillingness of cable providers to pick them up and treat them like premium channels. Regardless, that is neither how it is done today nor is it how it has been done in the past (TTBOMK).
If Cox, TWC, Cable-Company-In-Your-Area wants to offer it as a premium channel they could....given other discussions in this thread, I'd say it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen.
I think you've got it wrong...
on
Cable TV A La Carte?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The article does not talk about any of those channels -- it seems the gist of the article is that: if you want a movie channel (Showtime, Starz, HBO, etc.) you do not have to purchase the "basic", "expanded", whatever, package in order to satisfy some sort of pre-requisite before you are allowed to purchase a Premium Movie Channel.
I think you've got it wrong -- it sounds like you'll still get forced to buy the complete "expanded" package if you want ANY of the channels in it.
Not only that, but a Civil Servant with an $80,000.00 a year salary is not going to be doing "maintenance" on ANY software. Civil Servants making $80,000 are big-wig managers...not everyday codemonkeys.
A GS-11 is the highest (theoretically) civil servant position that does not come with a mandatory "Management" hat. When I worked for the US Governement (2 years ago), GS-11's were making right around $50K (from what I remember).
Assuming the employee in question is a government contractor, he is probably still not making $80K.
From what I've been told, goverment contracts come with a max 8% profit cap which typically means that the contracting company is going to get the cheapest labor they can find. Any attempt to get "expensive" labor will probably mean losing the contract because, unfortunately, the Government likes low bidders.
Nice opening. Just because I'm advocating temperance over foolishness and willing to accept that there are limits to acceptable behavior does not mean I am "preaching".
Nobody listens to it.
You know, this is the funny part: you call me a
"preacher" and then go on to prove a major point of my post (that with age comes wisdom), copping out at the end with "Nobody listens to it." Just because nobody listens to it does not make it any less true. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan but as Obi-wan would say: "Who is more the fool: The Fool or The Fool who follows him?"
As you have proven, with age we gain insight and are better able to discern foolish behavior from responsible. Given that our elders have insight and perspectives (wisdom?) hard won through age, wouldn't it be prudent to occasionally listen to them and not always paint ourselves as victims of morality run amok.
Yeah..something like that...since its a lot harder to hide a SHOTGUN or RIFLE than it is to hide a HANDGUN.
Its not just an issue of responsibility but also of portability.
Frankly, while I've seen plenty of 21 year-olds make complete @$$es of themselves after drinking a few beers, I've seen far more under-21 year-olds do the same. Many under-21 year olds are not ready to drink responsibly and, as a result, all under-21 year-olds pay the price in America. Is it right...not necessarily. Is it fair...not necessarily. Is it safer...you bet.
If you are under-21, reading this, and disagree, save the vitriolic response for someone else. The simple fact of the matter is: as you get older, you have the luxury of looking back on your youth and seeing how much you've changed. I've met few people over the age of 25 who are not able to honestly look back at their lives between the ages of 18 and 21+ and not see tremendous differences in their own maturity and growth.
Geez, if you care so much about drinking a beer, don't you think you need to take a closer look at your motivations, drives and direction. Its a beer for crying out loud! You've got plenty of drinking days ahead of you...don't worry.
Before you go bashing George W. Bush, keep in mind whose signature is on the DMCA.
An excellent point that I hope other slashdotters will take to heart -- the totality of a manager's actions (or inactions) are often not felt until 2-3 years after the manager has left. This is a well-known axiom in business (the name of which escapes me at the moment).
Many (not all) of the problems we are experiencing are the legacy of the Clinton administration just like Clinton probably inherited a number of problems from the Bush Sr. administration. The unfortunate part is that in a two-party government, the blame for present woe falls on the "new" President or the "new" President's party when a key position switches hands.
Personally, I think it is a bit early to judge the full impact (for better or for worse) of George W.'s administration and George W.'s administration has little to do with the war we are waging either with the RIAA or with the MPAA.
First, the article states that the patents were filed for in 1995, five months before the first iteration of eBay ever went on line...there is no "IF" there.
Second, it doesn't matter whether the patents were granted or not...the point is that the "inventor" applied for a patent in 1995 before eBay went online. It is the filing that matters. I believe this is a contributing reason to why scientists (particularly in the private sector) working on the same research are often "racing" each other. The person who files for the patent first "wins" -- they "own" the intellectual property.
As an analogy, if you and I both want the same domain name but I file for it first, I get it. It doesn't matter what you were doing or whether I've put the domain name into use yet. It belongs to me.
As a side note, I believe it was these types of issues that persuaded the USPTO to stop hiding the details of patent applications. It was difficult, if not impossible, for an up-and-coming business to keep track of what intellectual property was out there if they couldn't even see a description of the property.
"At the heart of the case is patent paperwork Woolston filed less than five months before eBay founder Pierre Omidyar spent Labor Day weekend of 1995 creating the first iteration of his auction site"
and
"He filed his idea with the patent office in April 1995 and founded MercExchange to try to turn the idea into a business. But he couldn't raise the funding and eventually turned to the business of licensing his patents to other companies."
He filed in 1995 and the patents were awarded in 1998.
"Microsoft's extensions were better. Sun would have done better to be pragmatic and possibly save Java, rather than run it into the ground."
Maybe they were (I wasn't doing much Java programming back then, so I cannot comment on whether or not those extensions were better) but whether they were or not is irrelevant when one of your design goals is cross-platform compatibility.
Sun did the right thing: they kept Microsoft from essentially stealing their work. If Sun had capitulated to Microsoft, Microsoft would have had.Net years ago -- only it would still be called J++. This would have been a terrible thing -- Microsoft has never shown themselves to be particularly good at "playing well with others".
Had Sun not prevented Microsoft's usurpation of their platform, which at least offers a chance at easy cross-platform development, Microsoft would have continued to embrace and extend Java until it was, essentially,.Net -- a technology designed to work only on Microsoft platforms (unless exhaustively reengineered by some poor team of hackers -- *cough* Mono *cough* -- who are going to spend a lot of time in rework everytime Microsft feels a bit frisky).
"The complaint from Sun is not that Microsoft's Java was crippled, but Microsoft's Java introduced certain features which Sun found it threating to its Java platform, because Sun wants its Java platform to stay totally hardware independent, because of the threat from Intel and Windows."
When a major part of your marketing is the ability to "Write Once, Run Anywhere" any attempts by an OS vendor, especially one who controls over 90% of the desktop market, to "improve" or otherwise break the separation between the Virtual Machine and the underlying OS is a very real threat. It significantly impacts the portability of the code developed on the "offending" platform -- particularly if the developers are not aware of which "extensions" create problems.
Sun's "crippled" complaint is valid -- Microsoft introduced an incompatible VM that "crippled" the portability of the code, a key design goal of Java.
That is why Sun withheld certification of the MS JVM -- because, in typical MS fashion, MS was attempting to embrace, extend and extinguish Sun's Java and replace it with its own version.
...and now we have C# and.Net (whatever that is:]).
In general, I agree with you. That having been said...
In today's competitive online market, news publishers are pushing their journalists to get the "scoop" on everyone else. The publication that publishes first will get the advertising dollars that go with it as word spreads of some breaking news and the masses head over to the site to check out the story. As a result, mistakes, misquotes and other misunderstandings are going to happen...not unlike how things work(ed) on the "press wire" (or did work in the "good ol' days":) ). In fact, it is probably not far from the truth to say that the online publishers of today view themselves as the "wired" publishers of yesteryear. "Get the story NOW! Sort out the details later."
Unlike print publishers who can publish a retraction or updated story and be reasonably certain that readers will see the correction in the next issue, online publishers do not have the luxury of "issues". The boundaries between "issues" are nebulous in the online world. An online publisher can publish a retraction, update a timestamp, whatever and people who have read the article will likely never know a retraction or correction has occurred -- they aren't "flipping" through the pages.
Don't ascribe to conspiracy theory, censorship or crimes against humanity that which can most easily be ascribed to greed and advertising.:)
This actually brings to mind the question of "micropayments"...I'd be willing to shell out $0.75 USD to the guys and gals at XMMS for the right to use MP3 with a clear concscience on Linux. Would it decrease the popularity of XMMS -- or any FS/OSS MP3 decoder? Probably...but it is still an option.
Still might be a problem for GNU/Linux distributions...but the software would still be available.
If it really becomes that much of an issue, though, I guess I'll just move to Ogg -- thankfully, I've only recently begun to convert my CDs to MP3 and I have plans to buy a Zaurus in the near future anyways.
The problem with the DMCA has more to do with the threat (the bark) than the reality (the bite)--
"For its part, the EFF points to the potential chilling effect of even unfounded DMCA threats, saying that "nastygrams" can halt a lot of legal acts--and most people are not willing to risk being right at the cost of civil fines that swallow their kids' college funds."
Classic case of holding a mob at bay with a six-shot revolver and one bullet. Nobody wants to be the one to take the bullet.
Again...
"Not every grad student or even professor is going to have easy access to free counsel who can provide a counterweight to the university lawyers," says Lee Tien, an EFF staff attorney. "Even if the paper were published, was it somehow bowdlerized? This is corrosive to scientific discourse."
and again...
"Back in 1977, cryptographers Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Len Adleman, and lawyers at MIT showed commendable mettle when standing up to threats from the National Security Agency related to their encryption research."
I wonder if Rivest, Shamir and Adleman would have been so quick to stand "...up to threats from the National Security Agency..." if they had not had those MIT lawyers backing them.
How about "The Genie's Lamp" (y'know, from Disney's "Aladdin")
"Ah, Salaam and good evening to you worthy friend. Please, please, come closer-- Too close, a little too close. There. Welcome to Agrabah. City of mystery, of enchantment, and the finest merchandise this side of the river Jordan, on sale today, come on down! Heh, heh. Look at this! Yes! Combination hookah and
coffee maker--also makes Julienne fries. Will not break, will not------it broke. Ooohhh! Look at this! I have never seen one of these intact before. This is the famous Dead Sea Tupperware. Listen. Pppbp! Ah, still good....."
Okay...so I have an 18-month old at home...sue me!
More importantly, Linux has become easier to install and maintain making it less important to purchase a packaged-with-support distribution (such as RedHat). Network Admins -- and we all know that, whether we like it or not, Linux dominates the server, not the desktop -- can download/burn/install a distro themselves.
Sales are likely down for a great number of reasons:
Linux is getting easier to install everyday -- why buy prepackaged when you can do it yourself?
Network Admins (who are the ones installing Linux) have access to better resources about installation
IT budgets are falling drastically at the same time that Linux-savvy admins are pushing the Free-As-In-Beer argument for Linux -- Suits are more willing to listen in order to make dollars stretch
Desktop users are less likely to pay for Linux today because Linux exposure has increased which, in turn, has made it easier to find someone (a buddy or LUG member) to hold their hand and help get them started ("Don't buy that! Here, use this Mandrake 8.1 CD I got from the 'net. It's free!"
Slashdot Mirror
1 - God knows what it good.
2 - Whatever god says by definition is good.
3 - "God is Good". God and "Good" are not necessarily external enitities. "Good" is an adjective used by many Christians to describe "God" and, in that context, also can mean "righteous" and "holy".
I.e. if god commanded you to kill rape torture and steal, as he did in the Old testament then that would be moral and good.
Okay, this is going a bit over the top, don't you think? Have you actually read the The Old Testament? I have read it twice in toto and have read numerous passages throughout the course of my life. God did command the Israelites at various times to make war against their neighbors and to take their lands but I do not remember him EVER commanding them to either rape or torture. In fact, this would seem to contradict with much of Jewish law (The Law of Moses) which Jews took very seriously since strict obedience to the Law, fulfillment of prescribed sacrifices for the redemption of their sins, etc. were the path laid before them for salvation.
In most cases, from what I remember (and it has been awhile since I studied the Old Testament) the Israelites were generally forbidden from marrying outside of themselves so that they would not become "tainted" by other beliefs or begin worshipping their Gods. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (I think) lay out the Law of Moses wherein I think sex outside of marriage is sinful (could be wrong on that one but I'm pretty sure I'm not). This would put the blame back on the Israelites and not God...if he was not supposed to marry outside of the Israelites and he was not supposed to have sex with someone who was not his wife any rape would clearly be sinful (unless God commanded him to do it; which I think you'll be hard to prove -- you sound like you are extrapolating e.g. if the Israelites made war on their neighbors AND the Israelites took their lands AND the Israelites said God commanded them do it THEN any rapes that were committed were commanded by God.)
On the issue of the Israelites warring (killing) with their neighbors and taking (stealing) their lands, I think that an argument can be made (if you believe in God -- which you apparently don't but bear with me anyways) that the Israelites were used by God as a tool against wickedness. If God sent the Israelites in to possess the lands of their neighbors, it is quite possible that those neighbors were guilty of great immorality and were then being punished by God. Is this a bit hard to swallow...yeah, I admit that it might be if you do not believe or trust in God...but if you do believe in God, it can also be viewed as giving good things to those who are good (for the most part -- after all, we all make mistakes) and taking good things (i.e. punishing) those who are not. From another point of view, part of God's description is "righteousness" which, in part, means that he follows through on his word. If he calls something a Sin and you commit that Sin, the penalty for that Sin must be paid. In The Old Testament, Sins were atoned for in blood -- blood sacrifices usually but death of the sinner in some cases (murder and rape being two that I can think of -- and keep in mind that "killing" in the context of war is not necessarily "murder" nor is killing to fulfill the penalty of law -- obviously, opinions on this topic will vary).
This brings us to a need to reconcile the seeming contradiction between The Law of Moses and The New Testament of Christ. In Christ's Sermon on the Mount he told the Jewish Pharisees that he had come to fulfill The Law not to abolish it ("Not one jot nor one tittle..."). To fulfill the law he had to pay the penalty for breaking the law (i.e. the point of a law is not fulfilled until the penalty prescribed by that law has been paid). The only way to fulfill the law, therefore, was for him to die upon the Cross -- to shed his blood. His death enabled us to live under God's Grace where any of us could be redeemed from our Sins by trusting in God because CHRIST ALREADY PAID THE PRICE and not by sacrificing doves and lambs on an alter or being strictly obedient to The Law of Moses (though, obviously, it should be our intention to follow prescribed laws).
If you've got Biblical references to where God commands the Israelites to rape and torture, I really would be interested in seeing them. If you don't...
Your 10 commandments also contains such silly rules as "Do not have other Gods before me". This violates freedom of religion. Something I for one think is a good thing.
Yeah, except that both "Freedom of/from Religion" and religion itself are Man-made things and we are talking about God and morality here. It is an unfortunate reality that Man has done a lot of harm in the name of both religion and God...but don't ever forget that the two are not synonymous. Just because Man makes up a new ritual or commits some atrocity in the name of religion does not mean that God either condoned it or was part of it -- Men have free wills; just because they make bad decisions with how they choose to exercise that will does not mean that God had anything to do with it. To bring it way back on topic: its an issue of personal responsibility -- when Man works evil in the name of God, he hurts not only himself but he also hurts the name of God. His actions have ramifications on others. Consider also: if I kill someone and say you told me to do it -- even if I believe it is true -- does it mean that you did? No, of course it doesn't. Same situation. Just because someone claims to come in the name of God does not mean it is so -- heck, The Bible even warns us about this very occurrence saying that many will come in the name of God but that God is not with them (New Testament -- I'd have to look up the specific verses for you if you are interested). The only way to know the difference is to be familiar with The Bible -- if the person is acting in a manner contrary to The Word of God, it is not likely that God is with him .
There is nothing preventing you from choosing to follow whatever god you want to or practicing whatever religion you choose to...The Ten Commandments are for Jews and Christians. If you are neither, they really have no meaning for you and I can understand your point. They are not, however, silly.
codemonkey
I agree with you that this is a very real problem and is probably the only worthwhile argument against single-character servers (SCS). I believe the benefits of SCS outweigh this disadvantage. If you are as casual a player as you say you are, you probably will not use all 10 of the characters you are allotted (1 per server) and can satisfy this need by creating lower-level characters on other servers.
BTW, I [sic] clever GM could find away aroung those problems.
What are you saying? That I'm not a "clever GM"? :)
Perhaps the merchent guild shows up a demands a cut?
Yes, that is a possibility. But it is a possibility that assumes the healer is the primary character and not just a support character (which in this scenario he is) and it is a possibility over which a Player might have a legitimate reason to cry foul. The way it could come across to the player is: you stole my gold/whatever just because you didn't like how I solved the problem you gave me -- it seems retributive. The simpler solution is just to never allow the situation to occur.
Or the local healer leaves town, thus putting the burden of being the town healer onto the character.
Not sure I see how this is a solution to preventing a Player from using one of his characters to benefit another. Just because the Player's character is now in a more prestigious role or a role with more responsibility does not prevent the Player from abusing the character. Remember, the Healer is in a support role in this scenario. Care to explain your point on this one?
Well, here is what I normally do:
Typically, I'm the GM. I like to world-build and enjoy GM'ing much more than I ever enjoy actually playing (I guess it is the Catbert part of me coming out :) ). I always start off a new campaign with a list of written ground rules that state how I expect the game to go -- some of these rules are written in stone, some are not. The purpose of the ground rules is to give the Players an idea of where I see the campaign going: whether it is likely to be dark or light, humorous or serious, serial or episodic, etc. I also try to indicate the main thrust of the campaign: heavy role-playing, questing, monster-bashing, war campaigns, etc. and provide suggestions on the types of characters that I think would be successful in the campaign. It is then up to the Players what they want to do -- key point: they've been warned.
Having been warned ahead of time about my expectations and where I see the game going they are free to play or not to play and to leave at any time they cease to have fun playing. RPG game players come in a variety of shapes and sizes -- there are so many different play styles out there that if a player is not comfortable with my style they are free to find another game elsewhere. No hard feelings, I understand -- been doing this for a long time.
I have found that warning players ahead of time about what my style of play is and laying out my expectations for the campaign have prevented many problems. Bringing new players into an existing campaign is just as easy; they get the "Ground Rules" handout and are normally encouraged to come to watch for a session or two -- gives all the current players a chance to get to know them and gives them a chance to see how we play and interact. If they want to join, "Welcome aboard!" if not then no hard feelings.
I'm almost 31 years old, a Senior Software Developer at my company, have a beautiful wife and a great almost-2-year-old i.e. Given the demands on my time, I game for pure enjoyment, and the chance to write and think creatively. If I'm a Player in a game (rare) and I'm not having fun, I politely drop out of the game (did that recently in a Champions game). If I'm the GM in a game and I'm not having fun, I recess the game for a while (if I'm the GM and I'm not having fun, odds are no one else is either and its time to take a break). Which leads me to:
I have never had this situation occur but I would never force a player to play according to my style. They are always free to seek out another GM that is more compatible with their desires; I won't change my style to fit theirs -- the GM:Player ratio is probably 1:6 or so. I can always find other players if I really want. Again, it is just a game -- there are no hard feelings associated with players moving on. If the entire troupe moved on, I'd probably do some soul-searching to see if I did something to offend them but I would not compromise any principle or rule I felt strongly about. Personally, I feel that Players should find GMs they are comfortable with but the last thing you want is to force the hand of a GM -- if he is not having fun, you probably will not either. GM'ing can take up a lot of time and effort; he is less likely to invest the time and effort if he is not having fun.
The question is, Is having a game that ONLY allowed roleplayers giong to survive at 10 bucks a month? I hope so, but I doubt it.
To be honest, I doubt it will either...but that is more a testimony to what the medium lacks than a reflection on the quality of the game. MMORPGs are not RPGs. I think SWG is heading in the right direction but I think there are too many computer gamers who think hack-slash-kill-steal-wash-repeat is the only way to have a good time. Having loved face-to-face RPGs for the majority of my life, I have never been enamored of computer games of any sort. SWG's stance is intriguing, though.
codemonkey
First of all, MMORPGs (as I have already stated) are not really RPGs -- when your MMORPG character stands in front of mine there is very little of the "role" that comes through. I see an avatar who is either stronger or weaker than I am...I see words you write (if you are 'talking' to me) but I do not get the benefit of facial expression, voice tone, inflected language, etc. This rule change opens up possibilities to players, it does not restrict them.
Restricting players to one character per server offers the possibility that you do NOT have to adventure or be the best at a particular skill in order to be successful. If you do not want to adventure, if you do not want to slay other characters/creatures and steal coins or whatever, you do not have to. You can open a shop, develop a merchant persona and interact with the local mercenary/bounty hunter/adventurer population. If your merchant is not as skilled as the next, you charge less and attract customers that way. One role that could be very satisfying along these lines is the role of Fixer/Fence; the "I can get you anything you want if the price is right" guy. Your merchant develops relationships with other merchants, your merchant hires body guards, bounty hunters, whatever to get the items he requires for his customers. In this way, you become a focal character of the local economy, you become a source of adventure rather than just a participant. This type of role would be very difficult to sustain if there are a lot of mules present and Players have no reason to search out local merchants.
Another point you have not addressed is the fact that you are allowed 1 character per server per account. So...if you want to explore multiple characters, you are free to do so...just put them on different servers so that they cannot help each other. They are not friends/relatives/associates; they are strangers to each other. Your main complaint seems to be satisfied by this point...depending on your mood, you log on to a different server.
The one disadvantage I see to single-character-servers is that of disparate power-levels among groups of real-life friends. If your buddy joins the game six months after you, your only options are to dump your current character (not likely) or play on a server where you do not have another character or help your buddy out via advice until he is at a comparable level to you to adventure with. This is a problem but I feel it is a minor one because you are probably not actively playing ten characters (1 per server) and can probably find one that you can dump if you are. At this point, if you are worried about losing Item X or Z number of coins, then that character is a mule and should be dumped anyways for all the reasons I've already stated. If you are about ROLE playing, the items you have should not matter.
Thus, you've killed the last vestige of role-playing in the game.
I would argue, again, that MMORPGs are NOT role-playing games...if they were, or if people treated them more as such, then EQ would not have had to go through the hassle of setting up an entire server just to support the players who are interested in actually role-playing and not just increasing the size of their hoards/powers/whatever.
codemonkey
Then I choose "Beowulf Cluster" -- it must be an unwritten option, right?
Yes...but did your other roles exist solely to support your primary role. For example, did you create a Cleric/Healer character in order to have someone whose sole reason for existence was to act as paramedic to your Warrior (and I'm not talking about the initial investment in time -- obviously, you had to spend some time getting the Healer's level up to a respectable point so he could meet all of your Warrior's needs -- not only routine healings but resurrections and such, as needed)?
The issue becomes particularly cloudy if your Cleric/Healer does not actually adventure with you and instead waits for you to visit him whenever you need something....or when you want to store some gold....or for any other reason that places the Cleric/Healer in a pure support/increased carrying capacity role.
Your Cleric/Healer has now destabilized the local economy. If you can get free healing from your Cleric/Healer, why would you ever go to any of the other Healers in town? (And even if you move money from one character to the other in order to simulate "paying" for the healing service, you haven't really paid for anything -- you've moved money from one storage location to another; both of which you own).
As a Gamemaster, I have always allowed my Player's to create and play multiple characters but I have never allowed them to create/play them simultaneously and I have never allowed one Player's character to support another of that same Player's characters. My reasons? Economics -- it is a lot easier to motivate players to take on adventures when they are strapped for cash. If Joe never had to seek assistance outside his own pack of PCs, he'd become fabulously wealthy and overly powerful -- not on the basis of his excellent skills but on the basis of exploiting a loop-hole in the game mechanics.
One positive in most face-to-face RPGs, at least, is that your character typically does not improve in skills when you are not actively playing them (I am aware that some RPG Systems support "off-time" skill advancement but have never seen it widely used after playing RPGs for over 20 years). Now consider MMORPGs where you do not even have to be present for your character to be gaining/improving skills. Now not only have you destabilized the local economy but you have also turned that "extra character" into a factory. Now...maybe "Sword Factory" is an interesting role to you...
With mules existing to solely support primary characters, why would anyone bother playing a character with a support role? Why would I bother to play a weaponsmith or other artisan when I know other players can create their own, tell them to study/learn their craft, leave them and come back to an accomplished character who can now provide a service to them for, essentially, free.
Most MMORPGs I have seen (and most MMORPG players I have talked to) are more about accumulation of wealth and power than they are about ROLE-playing. SWG, it seems, is actually attempting to provide a ROLE-playing experience -- you don't have to be a combatant to make a difference. Choosing to be a merchant, opening a shop and supplying other adventurers can be a fun role (I'm thinking about the barkeep or equipment supplier who can function as the local rumor mill here...) as long as "mule" characters are eliminated...if a Player has no reason to visit your store because he's got a pack of mules meeting his every need then there is no reason for you to create that merchant character.
Just my opinion...
codemonkey
Read The Register's article -- the fee is a FINE -- you are supposed to delete the content after paying the fine.
No.
From the article:
"If they pay now - and delete the illegal content from their hard drives - then the amount is cut in half and they avoid going to court. Those who don't pay up are to be sued."
Before I go any further, let me say that while I am a born-again Christian, I am also against filtering software and tend to lean towards moderate libertarian (i.e. I tend to vote a mixture of Libertarian and Republican based on the issues and not on the party). I have always been against filtering software because of the all-to-likely possibility that perfectly good content will be blocked unreasonably; filter software companies have been shown to purposely block commentary critical of their product, websites for competing products, views contrary to their agenda, etc; finally, I would rather not have someone block the content I value (whether it be religious or secular).
As a result of my convictions, I have taken the responsibility of "protecting" my children to heart; I or my wife is present when they are online.
Based on your list, I fall either into (a) (because I would like to be able to assign a "safe" playpen (if I chose to) for my kids) or (c) (because I am willing to allow my children access out of the .kids domain -- with appropriate monitoring by myself or my wife).
It is too bad you couldn't let it go without:
(a) allows parents who'd rather not teach their kids about using their brains (an amazing majority in these days of babysitting-by-TV) to assign a "safe" playpen.
(c) Does not coerce intelligent parents into restricting access to their kids to the domain alone
So...just because I would rather not make my children available as potential prey to pedophiles, potential prey to pornographers (moral issues aside on this one there are still plenty of reasons not to encourage pornography), I'm unintelligent? Just because I would rather know that my child can sit by himself at the computer, use the internet and have unfettered access to lots of good, kid-relevant information, educational games, and educational material without me having to be present, I'm unintelligent?
Ha!
I'm all for giving children the chance to prove they can handle responsibility. You either do that or you potentially raise children who are unable to handle responsibility. However, you wouldn't ask a four-year old to carry a heavy suitcase up a flight of stairs; likewise, their are certain topics that are "heavy" (pornography, sex, etc.) and should be dealt with at an appropriate age -- which is a determination to be made by the parent. kids.us, as you have pointed out, provides a great tool for exercising parental responsibilities -- and it provides a great way for a parent to implement a blanket policy that allows a child to explore without the parent present at every click.
Will kids.us filter content? You bet. But, you know, my two-year old son does not need to see the latest pictures of Susie Sucksall and her friends Peter Penis and Tandy Twat. He does not need to be force-fed the impression that women are just sexual objects present to gratify men whenever some porn-king uses deceptive advertising practices to lure people to their sites. That also goes for a six-year old, eight-year old, ten-year old, etc.
I'd rather he was taught right -- by me -- that a woman is to be cherished and loved. Not exploited.
I realize this might be more than you meant to bite off; but I felt your generalizations warranted a response. It is not my intent to offend you -- despite the fact that I might have done so.
Then again...you could know of a different Vanessa Williams that I do not know about.
Come on now! There's obviously nothing preventing any channel from making themselves available as a "premium" channel...other than the unwillingness of cable providers to pick them up and treat them like premium channels. Regardless, that is neither how it is done today nor is it how it has been done in the past (TTBOMK).
If Cox, TWC, Cable-Company-In-Your-Area wants to offer it as a premium channel they could....given other discussions in this thread, I'd say it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen.
I think you've got it wrong -- it sounds like you'll still get forced to buy the complete "expanded" package if you want ANY of the channels in it.
A GS-11 is the highest (theoretically) civil servant position that does not come with a mandatory "Management" hat. When I worked for the US Governement (2 years ago), GS-11's were making right around $50K (from what I remember).
Assuming the employee in question is a government contractor, he is probably still not making $80K. From what I've been told, goverment contracts come with a max 8% profit cap which typically means that the contracting company is going to get the cheapest labor they can find. Any attempt to get "expensive" labor will probably mean losing the contract because, unfortunately, the Government likes low bidders.
Nice opening. Just because I'm advocating temperance over foolishness and willing to accept that there are limits to acceptable behavior does not mean I am "preaching".
Nobody listens to it.
You know, this is the funny part: you call me a "preacher" and then go on to prove a major point of my post (that with age comes wisdom), copping out at the end with "Nobody listens to it." Just because nobody listens to it does not make it any less true. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan but as Obi-wan would say: "Who is more the fool: The Fool or The Fool who follows him?"
As you have proven, with age we gain insight and are better able to discern foolish behavior from responsible. Given that our elders have insight and perspectives (wisdom?) hard won through age, wouldn't it be prudent to occasionally listen to them and not always paint ourselves as victims of morality run amok.
Its not just an issue of responsibility but also of portability.
Frankly, while I've seen plenty of 21 year-olds make complete @$$es of themselves after drinking a few beers, I've seen far more under-21 year-olds do the same. Many under-21 year olds are not ready to drink responsibly and, as a result, all under-21 year-olds pay the price in America. Is it right...not necessarily. Is it fair...not necessarily. Is it safer...you bet.
If you are under-21, reading this, and disagree, save the vitriolic response for someone else. The simple fact of the matter is: as you get older, you have the luxury of looking back on your youth and seeing how much you've changed. I've met few people over the age of 25 who are not able to honestly look back at their lives between the ages of 18 and 21+ and not see tremendous differences in their own maturity and growth.
Geez, if you care so much about drinking a beer, don't you think you need to take a closer look at your motivations, drives and direction. Its a beer for crying out loud! You've got plenty of drinking days ahead of you...don't worry.
An excellent point that I hope other slashdotters will take to heart -- the totality of a manager's actions (or inactions) are often not felt until 2-3 years after the manager has left. This is a well-known axiom in business (the name of which escapes me at the moment).
Many (not all) of the problems we are experiencing are the legacy of the Clinton administration just like Clinton probably inherited a number of problems from the Bush Sr. administration. The unfortunate part is that in a two-party government, the blame for present woe falls on the "new" President or the "new" President's party when a key position switches hands.
Personally, I think it is a bit early to judge the full impact (for better or for worse) of George W.'s administration and George W.'s administration has little to do with the war we are waging either with the RIAA or with the MPAA.
Second, it doesn't matter whether the patents were granted or not...the point is that the "inventor" applied for a patent in 1995 before eBay went online. It is the filing that matters. I believe this is a contributing reason to why scientists (particularly in the private sector) working on the same research are often "racing" each other. The person who files for the patent first "wins" -- they "own" the intellectual property.
As an analogy, if you and I both want the same domain name but I file for it first, I get it. It doesn't matter what you were doing or whether I've put the domain name into use yet. It belongs to me.
As a side note, I believe it was these types of issues that persuaded the USPTO to stop hiding the details of patent applications. It was difficult, if not impossible, for an up-and-coming business to keep track of what intellectual property was out there if they couldn't even see a description of the property.
and
"He filed his idea with the patent office in April 1995 and founded MercExchange to try to turn the idea into a business. But he couldn't raise the funding and eventually turned to the business of licensing his patents to other companies."
He filed in 1995 and the patents were awarded in 1998.
IANAL, but it still sounds like he has a case.
Maybe they were (I wasn't doing much Java programming back then, so I cannot comment on whether or not those extensions were better) but whether they were or not is irrelevant when one of your design goals is cross-platform compatibility.
Sun did the right thing: they kept Microsoft from essentially stealing their work. If Sun had capitulated to Microsoft, Microsoft would have had .Net years ago -- only it would still be called J++. This would have been a terrible thing -- Microsoft has never shown themselves to be particularly good at "playing well with others".
Had Sun not prevented Microsoft's usurpation of their platform, which at least offers a chance at easy cross-platform development, Microsoft would have continued to embrace and extend Java until it was, essentially, .Net -- a technology designed to work only on Microsoft platforms (unless exhaustively reengineered by some poor team of hackers -- *cough* Mono *cough* -- who are going to spend a lot of time in rework everytime Microsft feels a bit frisky).
When a major part of your marketing is the ability to "Write Once, Run Anywhere" any attempts by an OS vendor, especially one who controls over 90% of the desktop market, to "improve" or otherwise break the separation between the Virtual Machine and the underlying OS is a very real threat. It significantly impacts the portability of the code developed on the "offending" platform -- particularly if the developers are not aware of which "extensions" create problems.
Sun's "crippled" complaint is valid -- Microsoft introduced an incompatible VM that "crippled" the portability of the code, a key design goal of Java. That is why Sun withheld certification of the MS JVM -- because, in typical MS fashion, MS was attempting to embrace, extend and extinguish Sun's Java and replace it with its own version.
C0deM0nkey
In today's competitive online market, news publishers are pushing their journalists to get the "scoop" on everyone else. The publication that publishes first will get the advertising dollars that go with it as word spreads of some breaking news and the masses head over to the site to check out the story. As a result, mistakes, misquotes and other misunderstandings are going to happen...not unlike how things work(ed) on the "press wire" (or did work in the "good ol' days" :) ). In fact, it is probably not far from the truth to say that the online publishers of today view themselves as the "wired" publishers of yesteryear. "Get the story NOW! Sort out the details later."
Unlike print publishers who can publish a retraction or updated story and be reasonably certain that readers will see the correction in the next issue, online publishers do not have the luxury of "issues". The boundaries between "issues" are nebulous in the online world. An online publisher can publish a retraction, update a timestamp, whatever and people who have read the article will likely never know a retraction or correction has occurred -- they aren't "flipping" through the pages.
Don't ascribe to conspiracy theory, censorship or crimes against humanity that which can most easily be ascribed to greed and advertising. :)
Rob
Still might be a problem for GNU/Linux distributions...but the software would still be available.
If it really becomes that much of an issue, though, I guess I'll just move to Ogg -- thankfully, I've only recently begun to convert my CDs to MP3 and I have plans to buy a Zaurus in the near future anyways.
"For its part, the EFF points to the potential chilling effect of even unfounded DMCA threats, saying that "nastygrams" can halt a lot of legal acts--and most people are not willing to risk being right at the cost of civil fines that swallow their kids' college funds."
Classic case of holding a mob at bay with a six-shot revolver and one bullet. Nobody wants to be the one to take the bullet.
Again...
"Not every grad student or even professor is going to have easy access to free counsel who can provide a counterweight to the university lawyers," says Lee Tien, an EFF staff attorney. "Even if the paper were published, was it somehow bowdlerized? This is corrosive to scientific discourse."
and again...
"Back in 1977, cryptographers Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Len Adleman, and lawyers at MIT showed commendable mettle when standing up to threats from the National Security Agency related to their encryption research."
I wonder if Rivest, Shamir and Adleman would have been so quick to stand "...up to threats from the National Security Agency..." if they had not had those MIT lawyers backing them.
Food for thought.
nuff said.
"Ah, Salaam and good evening to you worthy friend. Please, please, come closer-- Too close, a little too close. There. Welcome to Agrabah. City of mystery, of enchantment, and the finest merchandise this side of the river Jordan, on sale today, come on down! Heh, heh. Look at this! Yes! Combination hookah and coffee maker--also makes Julienne fries. Will not break, will not------it broke. Ooohhh! Look at this! I have never seen one of these intact before. This is the famous Dead Sea Tupperware. Listen. Pppbp! Ah, still good....."
Okay...so I have an 18-month old at home...sue me!
Sales are likely down for a great number of reasons:
- Linux is getting easier to install everyday -- why buy prepackaged when you can do it yourself?
- Network Admins (who are the ones installing Linux) have access to better resources about installation
- IT budgets are falling drastically at the same time that Linux-savvy admins are pushing the Free-As-In-Beer argument for Linux -- Suits are more willing to listen in order to make dollars stretch
- Desktop users are less likely to pay for Linux today because Linux exposure has increased which, in turn, has made it easier to find someone (a buddy or LUG member) to hold their hand and help get them started ("Don't buy that! Here, use this Mandrake 8.1 CD I got from the 'net. It's free!"
I'm sure you can think of others...