Jack Trammiel, founder (forcibly retired) of Commodore
Hmmm...my understanding was that Jack had always said that he'd sell the company when it hit $10 million (or some such figure) because it would be too big to be any fun, so it did and he did.
Yeah, that was one of the first things I noticed about Windows, way back when. CP/M shipped with an assembler, but DOS gave you BASIC instead (although they continued to give you the linker), then with Windows they dropped even that. Think maybe they'd prefer you to buy apps instead of throwing them together yourself?
Anyway, there's always SmallBASIC. You can gosub to line numbers and everything, just like the old days.:)
Well, if by "changed its name to" you mean "bought the company", then yeah, I guess. The Santa Cruz Operation was founded in 1979, fifteen years before Caldera.
Yeah, you're right. Those special interest groups are just out of step with the majority. Take blacks, for instance. They were never a majority in this country, so why aren't they still in chains? Special interests, that's why, the bastards!
The whole point of a free country is to make sure that the largest block of people is fat and happy. Who cares about right and wrong? It's numbers that matter!
I say we toss out that irritating Constitution and just go with angry mobs of right-thinking Americans.
I could be wrong here, but I think there is a history involved. Back in the day, there was no good plural for "VAX", and many DEC people started referring to "VAXen" (these were, after all, the same people who often called themselves "VAXherds".) I believe "boxen" to be derived from "VAXen", and as such I find it has a certain old-fashioned charm.
There is a system based on fundamental constants, the Planck Units.
Still, just try getting a.75 centipace wrench. You can't even order them, and without that, just how the hell are you supposed to repair the flux capacitor?
Well, my point is that Canada has conflicting, or perhaps counter-vailing, biases here. On the one hand, they are a US ally, and one might suspect their state-funded agency of being biased in favour of the US, but on the other hand they disagree with us on this particular issue and therefore might present that side of it as well.
Other news sources might be thought to have an attitude of "my ally right or wrong", or alternatively "the US can do no right". The Canadians seem to slip between those extremes.
How do you figure Gemany had democracy before America? Germany wasn't even Germany before the US was formed, it was just a part of Europe where most people spoke German.
If they were disinterested, the reports wouldn't be reliable (in terms of either timely or well researched).
I don't follow, unless you misread "disinterested" as "uninterested".
"Disinterested" simply means that they don't have an interest or agenda themselves, that they have nothing to gain. It's not that they're bored, but rather impartial.
Mind you, since the UK is an interested party in the war, I'm not sure that the BBC is neccesarily the best way to go. I've been looking at the CBC page as well -- Canada is of course a US ally, but they're not happy with this whole thing and they don't mind saying so.
Well, it looks like GNU jammed on that cheap hack around 1997. Maybe there's a case to be made for updating.
While we're at it, President Clinton is out of office now, Puff Daddy has changed his name two or three times, and the Florida Marlins are no longer the World Champions.
Ah, I should have noticed the "co.uk" in your address. US law (as discussed in the article) is different.
Doesn't
A foreign DVD offered for sale in the UK is likely to be illegal under the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 unless its content (including any additional material) has been classified by the BBFC.
bother you? How long, for instance, could the BBFC sit on a movie, not classifying it and therefore forbidding its distribution? I'm not claiming that their intentions are evil, but I'm struck by the idea of an "illegal DVD".
I'm simply speculating here, but whatsay I had a movie that "exposed the seamy underside of the British film industry"? Could this board simply refuse to classify it and thereby block its distribution for weeks or months or whatever?
I guess what I'm saying is that "independent", per se, doesn't reassure me. The Klu Klux Klan is (God I hope) independent of my local government, but I don't want them deciding what I can show my kids either.
Yes, we do. My local system doesn't carry TechTV, and I don't spend much time on the other ones. Try TNT, NBC, Cartoon Network, or Fox ('cause pretty much all I watch regularly, besides news, in Law and Order, Twentyfour, and Futurama, so I've probably mostly seen the ads in those places.)
The legal issue revolved around the question of free speech and possible damage to children. The court didn't seem concerned with whether or not the games were commercial, just with whether or not they were influential. You brought up commercial.
You mean you haven't seen the, "It worked -- Dave's a chicken!" commercial, or that kind of spooky one with the little old lady in the nursing home muttering about dragons and whatnot (to her daughter's obvious consternation) until her grandson tells her about the gold crystal or somesuch?
Maybe we just watch different channels, but I've been seeing a fair number of ads for specific carts as well as consoles themselves. Dothack, Xenosaga -- I don't even own a console (well, I've got a VCS) but I've seen and noticed the ads.
You're dead right about reviews, though -- they're only sporadic in the mainstream press, and generally in the form of "will this permanently damage your children, or do the effects wear off after while?",
I see NO difference between rating and restricting movie and doing the same with video games.
Fine then. Tell me, who in your state sets those ratings, and who enforces them? AFAIK, the MPAA ratings are just that -- industry ratings, not law. Your local theatre chooses to bar minors, because if they did otherwise the distributors might not agree to rent films to them.
Now if your local XXX theatre admits a minor, then the police can get involved under whatever local laws you have regarding pornography, not the MPAA ratings (does the MPAA even have a "XXX"?)
I guess my point is this -- showing obscene materials to minors is generally illegal now, and I doubt that the laws on the books make much reference to medium. If the image on the screen is defined as "obscene", then it's already covered, and if it's not, then we're talking here about expanding the definition of obscenity, which is not, to my mind, a trivial or simply procedural matter. Does your state have laws classifying violent images as obscene, and if they do, why aren't they being enforced now?
(I'm reminded of a point made by George Will one time, with regard to dirty movies. All kinds of laws were being proposed to stop distribution, and he suggested instead that a perfectly good body of law already existed: the prostitution laws. It's illegal to pay somebody to have sex, and it's illegal to be paid to have sex, and porn producers and porn performers do those things. Why, he asked, are we looking to write laws that could have a spill-over effect into other areas, like political speech, when a direct and obvious approach already exists? It was and is a good question.)
OK, now I'm a little more confused. Help me out -- if your problem is with content (as suggested by " if NYT filled their pages with pornography"), why bring up the commercial aspect at all? Would you be OK with giving pornography to children?
Maybe because it's captioned for the visually impaired?:)
No, I went and looked before I posted, and yes, in that page the name is in caps, but so's everything else.
Further into the site they start using normal case and sentences and paragraphs and stuff, and there they refer to themselves as Weta.
Either way it's no big thing, of course. It's just that I expected a story with a local connection and got something very different. Very interesting, but very different nonetheless, and I found it needlessly (and oddly -- maybe caps lock was on and somebody didn't notice?) confusing.
I'd say the "anti-corporate mindeset" is on your side of the screen. Me, I notice that publishers of books and newspapers are commercial enterprises, but I'm glad that I can read dangerous and provocative books and the daily news without undue hinderance.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm...my understanding was that Jack had always said that he'd sell the company when it hit $10 million (or some such figure) because it would be too big to be any fun, so it did and he did.
Anyway, there's always SmallBASIC. You can gosub to line numbers and everything, just like the old days. :)
Here you go -- Inform supports PalmOS.
Well, if by "changed its name to" you mean "bought the company", then yeah, I guess. The Santa Cruz Operation was founded in 1979, fifteen years before Caldera.
The whole point of a free country is to make sure that the largest block of people is fat and happy. Who cares about right and wrong? It's numbers that matter!
I say we toss out that irritating Constitution and just go with angry mobs of right-thinking Americans.
I could be wrong here, but I think there is a history involved. Back in the day, there was no good plural for "VAX", and many DEC people started referring to "VAXen" (these were, after all, the same people who often called themselves "VAXherds".) I believe "boxen" to be derived from "VAXen", and as such I find it has a certain old-fashioned charm.
Still, just try getting a .75 centipace wrench. You can't even order them, and without that, just how the hell are you supposed to repair the flux capacitor?
Other news sources might be thought to have an attitude of "my ally right or wrong", or alternatively "the US can do no right". The Canadians seem to slip between those extremes.
How do you figure Gemany had democracy before America? Germany wasn't even Germany before the US was formed, it was just a part of Europe where most people spoke German.
I don't follow, unless you misread "disinterested" as "uninterested".
"Disinterested" simply means that they don't have an interest or agenda themselves, that they have nothing to gain. It's not that they're bored, but rather impartial.
Mind you, since the UK is an interested party in the war, I'm not sure that the BBC is neccesarily the best way to go. I've been looking at the CBC page as well -- Canada is of course a US ally, but they're not happy with this whole thing and they don't mind saying so.
Thus demonstrating that almost every post made to correct spelling will itself contain a spelling error.
While we're at it, President Clinton is out of office now, Puff Daddy has changed his name two or three times, and the Florida Marlins are no longer the World Champions.
Sorry. Hope you're all better soon. :)
Kind of tough to get up here in Baltimore, regrettably, but I'd be willing to try. What sort of programming do they have?
Doesn't
bother you? How long, for instance, could the BBFC sit on a movie, not classifying it and therefore forbidding its distribution? I'm not claiming that their intentions are evil, but I'm struck by the idea of an "illegal DVD".
I'm simply speculating here, but whatsay I had a movie that "exposed the seamy underside of the British film industry"? Could this board simply refuse to classify it and thereby block its distribution for weeks or months or whatever?
I guess what I'm saying is that "independent", per se, doesn't reassure me. The Klu Klux Klan is (God I hope) independent of my local government, but I don't want them deciding what I can show my kids either.
Yes, we do. My local system doesn't carry TechTV, and I don't spend much time on the other ones. Try TNT, NBC, Cartoon Network, or Fox ('cause pretty much all I watch regularly, besides news, in Law and Order, Twentyfour, and Futurama, so I've probably mostly seen the ads in those places.)
The legal issue revolved around the question of free speech and possible damage to children. The court didn't seem concerned with whether or not the games were commercial, just with whether or not they were influential. You brought up commercial.
Maybe we just watch different channels, but I've been seeing a fair number of ads for specific carts as well as consoles themselves. Dothack, Xenosaga -- I don't even own a console (well, I've got a VCS) but I've seen and noticed the ads.
You're dead right about reviews, though -- they're only sporadic in the mainstream press, and generally in the form of "will this permanently damage your children, or do the effects wear off after while?",
Fine then. Tell me, who in your state sets those ratings, and who enforces them? AFAIK, the MPAA ratings are just that -- industry ratings, not law. Your local theatre chooses to bar minors, because if they did otherwise the distributors might not agree to rent films to them.
Now if your local XXX theatre admits a minor, then the police can get involved under whatever local laws you have regarding pornography, not the MPAA ratings (does the MPAA even have a "XXX"?)
I guess my point is this -- showing obscene materials to minors is generally illegal now, and I doubt that the laws on the books make much reference to medium. If the image on the screen is defined as "obscene", then it's already covered, and if it's not, then we're talking here about expanding the definition of obscenity, which is not, to my mind, a trivial or simply procedural matter. Does your state have laws classifying violent images as obscene, and if they do, why aren't they being enforced now?
(I'm reminded of a point made by George Will one time, with regard to dirty movies. All kinds of laws were being proposed to stop distribution, and he suggested instead that a perfectly good body of law already existed: the prostitution laws. It's illegal to pay somebody to have sex, and it's illegal to be paid to have sex, and porn producers and porn performers do those things. Why, he asked, are we looking to write laws that could have a spill-over effect into other areas, like political speech, when a direct and obvious approach already exists? It was and is a good question.)
OK, now I'm a little more confused. Help me out -- if your problem is with content (as suggested by " if NYT filled their pages with pornography"), why bring up the commercial aspect at all? Would you be OK with giving pornography to children?
No, I went and looked before I posted, and yes, in that page the name is in caps, but so's everything else.
Further into the site they start using normal case and sentences and paragraphs and stuff, and there they refer to themselves as Weta.
Either way it's no big thing, of course. It's just that I expected a story with a local connection and got something very different. Very interesting, but very different nonetheless, and I found it needlessly (and oddly -- maybe caps lock was on and somebody didn't notice?) confusing.
WETA is a public television station in DC. Weta is where this guy works.
I'd say the "anti-corporate mindeset" is on your side of the screen. Me, I notice that publishers of books and newspapers are commercial enterprises, but I'm glad that I can read dangerous and provocative books and the daily news without undue hinderance.
Actually, I have one for you, although I doubt it sold many copies: Send Bygraves, by Martha Grimes.
He'd actually failed the test?