The problem I see here is that most of AIM's Linux clones are both open sourced and of at least questionable legality.
Of all the companies out there, AOL seems most likely to work with an open source program, particularly given their connection to a number of open source projects like Mozilla, but it still raises a lot of issues regarding their technology they may not like to get into.
Still, even though it may not be as impressive as gaim or some other AIM clones out there for Linux, it's never a bad thing, IMO, when a company at least makes an effort to support the system. It may never be as nice as the alternatives, but that doesn't make it a bad thing by any means.
Because it removes a large chunk of the supposed benefits of computer gaming, namely, not having to put up with the rather crappy NTSC display standard.
There are a number of problems with both formats, truth be told. Here's how I see it:
Computer games:
Are easily upgradable, comparatively speaking.
Give the gamer more choices in gaming. Don't like the PSX's conroller? Tough. On the PC, though, you've got the choice of mouse, keyboard, joystick (analog or digital), gamepad, or whatever your pleasure may be (depending on the game)
Aesthetically can be much better looking: a good sound card and video card on the PC will blow away any console competition.
Console games:
Ensure out-of-the-box compatibility with your hardware. Slashdot may not be the best place to judge how important this is, since we all are self-proclaimed nerds, but the average user who isn't interested in continually tweaking their system and upgrading to the next cool thing can get rather frustrated.
As a result of this, standards are a bit more reliable. Anyone remember when Id had to provide a patch for Quake because Nvidia's cards gave users playing with them the ability to see through the water? Everyone's working off the same page in hardware and control issues.
Simplicity. Though not as much of an issue as it once was, a computer game has to deal with a lot more overhead than a console game.
More portable. If I wanted to take my copy of Vagrant Story to go show a friend, all I'd need is the game CD and perhaps my memory card. If he didn't have a PSX, I'd need to pack the console and one or two wires. Even so, its still easier than having to go install, cross my fingers, and hope I don't run into any compatibility issues.
Personally, I've always preferred playing games with a nice controller than a rather unwieldy keyboard or mouse.
I'm an old-time console gamer, having owned consoles since before the days of the NES. Until a few years ago, the only computer games I played were Maxis-style simulations or strategy games (the one type of game I feel is suited to a mouse-driven interface). Since getting my new system, I've been delving more into the computer gaming world, but I do think I get more enjoyment out of my Playstation than my computer in gaming terms. This may change, but I'm not ready to give up my consoles yet.
Oh, please, let's not dillute the importance of the concept of human rights by tieing it up in capitalism. The traditional definition of human rights, practiced by what would we call "enlightened" governments is taken directly from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it doesn't say a damned thing about the right to make investments, let alone to earn profit from said investment (in which case the 1929 stock market crash would be the worst violation of human rights in history...).
This is true, but generally untested, and about the same as saying "indecency" shouldn't be allowed on the Internet: the definition of "hostile speech" is difficult to make, and any attempt to prosecute would be held up for a rather long time trying to make sure everyone was working off the same page of the dictionary.
You are not required to show anything to the police unless they can present you with just cause (or a warrant, but theoretically you can't be issued a warrant without just cause anyway, its a moot point), and though in some places pissing off a police officier might be considered sufficient suspicion, in general it is not. Legally speaking, its generally a very bad idea to do so even if you aren't carrying anything illegal because its amazing what a bad-tempered cop with an axe to grind can dig up, if not to actually arrest, harrass mightily.
Not that all cops are bad-tempered and not that the approach taken by the protestors was the smartest one available, but you get the idea. The police aren't required to tell you that you're not required to cooperate unless you can be told what the suspicion is, so a lot of people don't realize.
Oh, I don't know. I'm a quasi-Marxist socialist (that is to say, I'm not 100% reconciled with Marx's views, but speaking in the wider spectrum, I am a socialist), I've noticed a wide array of opinions here on Slashdot. Few of which I agree with, mind you, but I suspect I'm further left on the political spectrum than almost anyone else here, so its not surprising.
But, in any case, I'm voting Green, at least until something better comes along.
The problem with Reagan is that he wasn't so much a leader as a figurehead. He may not have been personally implicated in Iran-Contra, which, IMO, was just as bad, if not worse, than Watergate (Nixon and may have been a criminal and a creep, but at least he wasn't using US citizens as political capital), but he damn well should have had enough oversight to stop those under him from getting away with such grossly unconstitutional acts.
That said, all things considered, I think Reagan was probably better than Thatcher over in Britain, but I personally wouldn't have wanted either of them.
Are we really still lamenting that we lost Vietnam? I mean, sure, the communist government wasn't exactly a paragon of individual rights and liberties, but neither was the nationalist government the US was promoting. I mean, at least the communists did, when the situation suited them, promote human rights (Cambodia/Kampuchea and the Khmer Rouge).
And, of course, Kennedy didn't start WWIII because he wasn't a wimp, but, by the same token, wasn't a hotheaded military man either. He stared down the Soviets and came out of the Cuban crisis not only without loss of life, but with the prospect of detente stronger than Eisenhower had ever managed.
And finally, yeah, there are jobs. But you try to go out and make a living on minimum wage and tell me how much good that does you.
The issue I see here is not one of taxes being a problem, but utilization of funds.
I'm not fully convinced funds are adequate, but its really something of a moot point until spending is reconsidered. This includes cutting a variety of things, and social security is not very high on my personal list. "Defense" spending is a far bigger monetary sinkhole and are held far less accountable then social programs generally are.
It is the responsibility of society of make sure all of its members can meet basic requirements for life; it's a basic tenet of the social contract. Pretending that it is possible for every member of society to succeed, particularly considering that povety tends to be a vicious circle, is somewhat jingoistic; at the very least a little naive.
I think its an issue of whether or not we want Linux to stay a niche operating system, appreciated by the iniated, and those who like tinkering with their machines, or whether or not we want to fulfill the dream exemplified by Penguin Computing's "Good evening, Mr. Gates..." ad.
It's a pretty common dilemma for something poised on the brink of the mainstream. People want their passion to be widely accepted, but only if the new converts are willing to embrace the "old way" of doing things. I think, in this case, it ain't gonna work that way. We're deluding ourselves if we think a generation of people raised under the misapprehension that Microsoft *is* personal computing are going to be in anyway interested in learning how to navigate a proc-based filesystem, or recompile a kernel, or whatnot.
This isn't an attack against Linux: quite the opposite. I use Linux precisely because I enjoy the greater control over the inner workings of my computer than an MS system will allow. But not everyone needs, or wants, the responsibility of having to edit a bootloader entry to get their ATAPI CD-writer to work, or wading through the/etc directory to get their office network functioning properly. A lot of people demand relative stability, without the neccessity of trial-and-error to make sure everything works right. A finely tuned Linux system may be far more productive than a Microsoft system, but the tuning takes much longer, and not everyone is willing to expend the time and effort.
I think the best way to go about reconciling these different approaches is exactly what is happening now: keep the underlying system for those who are interested in mucking around directly with their system, but provide tools which will make the more difficult aspects of system maintenance assessible to those daunted by the learning curve.
Basically, the original Bubblegum Crisis spawned both an ill-concieved sequel ("Bubblegum Crash") and a prequel (the original "AD Police"). "BGC 2040" is a complete retelling of the story. The character designs (both graphically, and, in many cases, storywise) have changed, and the feel, IMO, is quite different. Not bad, mind you, just different.
It's rather controversial, at least in the circles I hang around in. It does seem to lack something that the original had, but its still worth a watch. All in my not so humble opinion, mind you.
Is this really an appropriate venue for civil disobediance? Not that I'm supporting the movie industry, but the major point of civil disobediance is to draw attention to a cause, right? I'm not sure that in this case the disobediance has enough of a public profile in this case to make a real effect.
A letter-writing campaign does sound good, as does a few petitions. But civil disobediance in the traditional Thoreau sense doesn't seem appropriate somehow...
This case will probably be looked at in the future as the defining moment in determining how traditional laws regarding copyright and intellectual property adapt to changing technology and commercial exchange.
As a Linux user and GPL advocate, I'm behind the defense all the way, but I do see the case the industry is trying to make, even if I don't agree. The repurcussions of this will affect not only the movie and information technology industries, but most likely the future of things such as the GPL, which rely heavily on the sort of backwards engineering-ethic that, to me, at least, seems to be in play in this case.
Ideally, I'd like to see the industry open up and stop guarding their secrets in such a strong-armed manner. There are other ways to turn a profit, that, as a bonus, will endear one to their consumer base more. But I still hesitate to point a direct finger of blame; the issue is too complex. All in my oh-so-very humble opinion, naturally.
Most of what I've heard on the subject indicates that the push for season eight, despite Duchovny's vocal attempts to get out, were to provide closure, both for Carter (who already had the rug pulled out from him during a cliffhanger on his "Millenium") and for Fox, who would concievably be in better shape to push for a big finale.
However, the Variety article linked in the article has Carter hinting that the inclusion of Patrick may be the series' ticket beyond this upcoming season. I'm torn on this; I think Patrick could provide an interesting new dynamic in the series, and I wasn't as displeased with the previous season as some, but it may not be a good idea to push it too far....
China is a rather poor example of a communist country, particularly given its recent capitalistic changes, and even back when Mao was in charge, it was hardly a shining example of Marxist ideology.
But that's not the point. The open source movement, with Linux as it gleaming frontpiece, has to do with freedom, not economics. Capitalism does not inherently equate to freedom, nor does communism. Even in a supposedly "free" nation, there are limits to what the people are allowed to do to maintain a stable society, which basically comes down to the old saying "your freedom to swing your fist ends at somebody else's face." Communism merely takes a hard look at the free market model and assumes that, since wealth and resources are limited in any closed system, the freedom of individuals to amass massive quantities of personal wealth inherently limits the safety and freedoms of others.
Really, the open source model is both amenable to capitalism and communism and amenable to neither, depending on how you look at it. But the issue here that does make one wonder about the Peoples' Republic's adoption of the OS has less to do with capitalism vs. communism than with freedom of expression vs. governmental regulation of speech and opinion (which neither capitalism or communism ever directly address, both assuming that it would all fall into place after the economic side had been dealt with, which has, IMO, been historically proven wrong).
It seems somehow hypocritical that a country that so firmly believes that its people need to be protected from their own opinions would embrace a movement that not only celebrates, but relies upon, the idea that people possess different opinions, beliefs, etc., and that these differences are not only not to be avoided, but turned into an advantage (a collectivist notion that seems more at home with Marxist dogma than both traditional capitalism and Stalinist/Maoist communism). But then again, its doubtful any of this entered into the minds of the powers-that-be in China. Leave that to the peanut gallery philosophers ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
Of all the companies out there, AOL seems most likely to work with an open source program, particularly given their connection to a number of open source projects like Mozilla, but it still raises a lot of issues regarding their technology they may not like to get into.
Still, even though it may not be as impressive as gaim or some other AIM clones out there for Linux, it's never a bad thing, IMO, when a company at least makes an effort to support the system. It may never be as nice as the alternatives, but that doesn't make it a bad thing by any means.
There are a number of problems with both formats, truth be told. Here's how I see it:
Computer games:
Console games:
I'm an old-time console gamer, having owned consoles since before the days of the NES. Until a few years ago, the only computer games I played were Maxis-style simulations or strategy games (the one type of game I feel is suited to a mouse-driven interface). Since getting my new system, I've been delving more into the computer gaming world, but I do think I get more enjoyment out of my Playstation than my computer in gaming terms. This may change, but I'm not ready to give up my consoles yet.
Oh, please, let's not dillute the importance of the concept of human rights by tieing it up in capitalism. The traditional definition of human rights, practiced by what would we call "enlightened" governments is taken directly from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it doesn't say a damned thing about the right to make investments, let alone to earn profit from said investment (in which case the 1929 stock market crash would be the worst violation of human rights in history...).
This is true, but generally untested, and about the same as saying "indecency" shouldn't be allowed on the Internet: the definition of "hostile speech" is difficult to make, and any attempt to prosecute would be held up for a rather long time trying to make sure everyone was working off the same page of the dictionary.
Not that all cops are bad-tempered and not that the approach taken by the protestors was the smartest one available, but you get the idea. The police aren't required to tell you that you're not required to cooperate unless you can be told what the suspicion is, so a lot of people don't realize.
But, in any case, I'm voting Green, at least until something better comes along.
That said, all things considered, I think Reagan was probably better than Thatcher over in Britain, but I personally wouldn't have wanted either of them.
And, of course, Kennedy didn't start WWIII because he wasn't a wimp, but, by the same token, wasn't a hotheaded military man either. He stared down the Soviets and came out of the Cuban crisis not only without loss of life, but with the prospect of detente stronger than Eisenhower had ever managed.
And finally, yeah, there are jobs. But you try to go out and make a living on minimum wage and tell me how much good that does you.
I'm not fully convinced funds are adequate, but its really something of a moot point until spending is reconsidered. This includes cutting a variety of things, and social security is not very high on my personal list. "Defense" spending is a far bigger monetary sinkhole and are held far less accountable then social programs generally are.
It is the responsibility of society of make sure all of its members can meet basic requirements for life; it's a basic tenet of the social contract. Pretending that it is possible for every member of society to succeed, particularly considering that povety tends to be a vicious circle, is somewhat jingoistic; at the very least a little naive.
It's a pretty common dilemma for something poised on the brink of the mainstream. People want their passion to be widely accepted, but only if the new converts are willing to embrace the "old way" of doing things. I think, in this case, it ain't gonna work that way. We're deluding ourselves if we think a generation of people raised under the misapprehension that Microsoft *is* personal computing are going to be in anyway interested in learning how to navigate a proc-based filesystem, or recompile a kernel, or whatnot.
This isn't an attack against Linux: quite the opposite. I use Linux precisely because I enjoy the greater control over the inner workings of my computer than an MS system will allow. But not everyone needs, or wants, the responsibility of having to edit a bootloader entry to get their ATAPI CD-writer to work, or wading through the /etc directory to get their office network functioning properly. A lot of people demand relative stability, without the neccessity of trial-and-error to make sure everything works right. A finely tuned Linux system may be far more productive than a Microsoft system, but the tuning takes much longer, and not everyone is willing to expend the time and effort.
I think the best way to go about reconciling these different approaches is exactly what is happening now: keep the underlying system for those who are interested in mucking around directly with their system, but provide tools which will make the more difficult aspects of system maintenance assessible to those daunted by the learning curve.
It's rather controversial, at least in the circles I hang around in. It does seem to lack something that the original had, but its still worth a watch. All in my not so humble opinion, mind you.
A letter-writing campaign does sound good, as does a few petitions. But civil disobediance in the traditional Thoreau sense doesn't seem appropriate somehow...
As a Linux user and GPL advocate, I'm behind the defense all the way, but I do see the case the industry is trying to make, even if I don't agree. The repurcussions of this will affect not only the movie and information technology industries, but most likely the future of things such as the GPL, which rely heavily on the sort of backwards engineering-ethic that, to me, at least, seems to be in play in this case.
Ideally, I'd like to see the industry open up and stop guarding their secrets in such a strong-armed manner. There are other ways to turn a profit, that, as a bonus, will endear one to their consumer base more. But I still hesitate to point a direct finger of blame; the issue is too complex. All in my oh-so-very humble opinion, naturally.
However, the Variety article linked in the article has Carter hinting that the inclusion of Patrick may be the series' ticket beyond this upcoming season. I'm torn on this; I think Patrick could provide an interesting new dynamic in the series, and I wasn't as displeased with the previous season as some, but it may not be a good idea to push it too far....
But that's not the point. The open source movement, with Linux as it gleaming frontpiece, has to do with freedom, not economics. Capitalism does not inherently equate to freedom, nor does communism. Even in a supposedly "free" nation, there are limits to what the people are allowed to do to maintain a stable society, which basically comes down to the old saying "your freedom to swing your fist ends at somebody else's face." Communism merely takes a hard look at the free market model and assumes that, since wealth and resources are limited in any closed system, the freedom of individuals to amass massive quantities of personal wealth inherently limits the safety and freedoms of others.
Really, the open source model is both amenable to capitalism and communism and amenable to neither, depending on how you look at it. But the issue here that does make one wonder about the Peoples' Republic's adoption of the OS has less to do with capitalism vs. communism than with freedom of expression vs. governmental regulation of speech and opinion (which neither capitalism or communism ever directly address, both assuming that it would all fall into place after the economic side had been dealt with, which has, IMO, been historically proven wrong).
It seems somehow hypocritical that a country that so firmly believes that its people need to be protected from their own opinions would embrace a movement that not only celebrates, but relies upon, the idea that people possess different opinions, beliefs, etc., and that these differences are not only not to be avoided, but turned into an advantage (a collectivist notion that seems more at home with Marxist dogma than both traditional capitalism and Stalinist/Maoist communism). But then again, its doubtful any of this entered into the minds of the powers-that-be in China. Leave that to the peanut gallery philosophers ^_^