...or better yet, it never should have been implemented at all.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Usenet exists solely as an online (toxic, dysfunctional) replacement for the conventional mental health system. It is a haven for Scientologists past and present, sexual deviants, and the barking, gibbering nutcases that inhabit the talk.* and alt.* heirarchies. It does not serve any other purpose whatsoever than as a virtual padded cell...a holding pen for the chronically mentally ill, or the type of people who in ages past would have lived under bridges, and who in a physical sense quite possibly do.
IMHO, a special commission of psychiatrists from the WHO should be deployed to determine the specific nature of the various mental diseases of its inhabitants and to learn their real world locations so that they can then be placed in a legitimate offline mental health facilit(y,ies), and the protocol itself should then be retired from use, as even from a technical standpoint it is now genuinely vestigial and redundant.
The whole avian influenza thing is a complete scam, at least in the US. It is designed purely to make money for the pharmaceutical companies and some individuals within the US government.
Read about how much difficulty the virus has spreading from birds to humans, before freaking out about it. It does not spread easily at all, which is also demonstrated by there having been less than 200 human cases of it worldwide.
SARS was a non-event...this will be too. Wait and see.
The lawyers have learnt their lesson now...When the next disruptive communications technology - the next worldwide web - is thought up, the lawyers and the logic of control will be much more evident. That is not a happy thought.'"
James Boyle might write in a formalised and superficially eloquent style, but this last sentence proves that he is still what is referred to on Usenet (and here) as a troll.
A question for Boyle and all the other such fearmongers:- If Disney and the other robber baron conglomerates have such omniscient power, how come eDonkey and all the other p2p networks are still in operation? How come things like this are able to be circulated online without their authors being murdered by Big Oil?
In case you can't figure it out, I'll give you a hint. It's because the rest of us outnumber the management of such corporations by a factor of at least a few hundred million to one. Thus, although in some ways they are able to make our lives difficult and win some minor battles, ultimately they are entirely assured of losing the war.
Get it through your heads, everyone; The Evil People (the heads of most multinational corporations and the senior staff of the current US government are the primary groups I'm talking about here) are NOT going to accomplish their goal of enslaving the lot of us. By believing for even a moment that they are going to, you actually give them what they need to continue to cause problems...in the sense that they can only be a threat to anyone if we allow them to be. Continue to actively oppose them, yes, but don't give ANY mental, verbal, or literary airtime whatsoever to the idea that they have even a chance of succeeding...because a) that isn't what any of us want, and b) because of a, it ain't going to happen anywayz.
We need to spend more time creating the kind of world that we *do* want to live in, and give a lot less focus to the tiny minority of individuals who don't want to allow anyone to move forward. Not only will they fail, as I have said, but we need to start consistently knowing and realising, as an entire race, that they will. Once they have failed once and for all, we will be able to use p2p and other such technologies as much as we want or need, without interference. We will also be able to continue to research and implement things in various areas which can be of enormous benefit to all of us, but which have currently been forced underground by the aforementioned corporations.
The thing to realise though, is that this new society...without the corporate greed addicts and corrupt politicians...is coming, and there's nothing that they or anyone else can do about it. They know that, and they're terrified and desperate...because they know their time is almost permanently up.
Am I a crazed Utopian here, talking about a scenario where nobody will have any problems? No...I'm not implying that we will be free of problems at all. What I am implying however is that we are about to enter a scenario where we will be able to find solutions to said problems much more easily and freely, and where Disney and all of their kind will have evaporated into the past like fog at midday.
Don't count on it -- the great consolidation of media has made it possible to control most mainstream literature and recordings. Do you expect somebody on Viacom/CBS/Simon&Schuster's CBS to speak out about copyright injustices?
No, but they don't need to. The internet allows people to entirely create their own artistic/journalistic infrastructure/ecosystem. There are tons of alternative news sources online now, and they're not all run/participated in by the left, either.
Broadband Internet access, peer to peer distribution, and widely available 3D/video editing software mean that individuals don't need to rely on conventional media for their news any more, and if people were more proactive, it'd mean we wouldn't have to rely on conventional media for entertainment, either. If not enough people know how to use 3D editing software, they should learn. It's not difficult, and there are several packages available now, the combination of which mean that laypeople can now do anything TV stations can. The tools are available for people to bypass the media conglomerates completely...they know this, and they're extremely worried about it. People just need to start using said tools.
One feature of communism that I don't think features much with progressives etc, is the idea of revolution and the (armed) overthrow of the capitalist state.
This depends on your definition of the term revolution. They generally don't advocate doing it by force of arms, no...but even the mildest definition of a progressive would usually in my observation imply someone who sees society as a dynamic, changing entity, and they very often have a vision of what they want to see society move towards, as well. So it could to a degree be defined as revolutionary, if the person in question seeks replacement of the paradigms/institutions that exist at the current time. Wikipedia talks about there being some socialists/Communists who have the idea that a capitalist state's own institutions should be used to assist in the process of destroying it.
It's also worth remembering that pacifism is a concept primarily associated with the left, so while they don't advocate armed revolution, in many cases with different things they will advocate what they see as passive forms of civil disobedience. (At least a thirst for) martyrdom and attempting to at least appear to take the moral high ground are two signature tactics of Richard Stallman in particular, and the left in general. The left know from long experience that the appearance at least of having the moral high ground is of extreme importance in asymmetrical (geurilla) warfare. (Stallman vs corporations like Microsoft, as one example)
Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.
This would be true if it wasn't for Stallman's army of European socialist attack bots, many of whom are to be found on this site. Said attack bots begin foaming at the mouth and experiencing violent seizures when they hear about even the remote suggestion that someone might be doing something commercial with Linux. They begin screeching like banshees about the all-pervading importance of "giving back to the community", (which is itself basically a euphemism for saying, "if we're not earning money for this, you'd better make damn sure that you're not." Never mind that the coding work itself is a contribution to their precious "community." If anyone starts up with the above phrase, you can rest assured that what they're really saying is that they resent the idea of somebody *else* making money from Linux) when most of them aren't even part of said "community" (a term which Stallman and his followers have managed to render a hated swearword in my vocabulary) in a development sense...They're basically just armchair FSF groupies.
Those who fail to understand philosophical distinctions and the fallacy of cold war ideological dichotomies are doomed to repeat them.
I understand that that is the convenient response, yes...the one that doesn't require thinking. I already responded to the "Communism is dead" canard though, so I don't really feel a need to again here. As I said though...I've noticed that the main people who object to my insistence that Communism is in fact not dead are among the aforementioned closet Commies themselves, who primarily resent the fact that I've blown their cover.;-)
Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist.
Actually, it does, for the reasons I've already outlined. The other thing you're missing is that the definition of freedom in Stallman's vocabulary is the freedom to do exactly what he decrees, and only what he decrees. He tries to marginalise licenses (the BSD and MIT licenses are both good examples) which don't conform with his ideas.
Just as the feudal lords demanded tribute from travellers moving across their lands, Disney, Time Warner, RIAA-labels, represent the other extreme that wants to control what you see, hear and read. Want to watch Disney's Song of the South? Too bad. Lose the DRM key that controls access to your media? Tough.
They're not going to succeed at doing that, though...and there are also enough other people opposed to that when they do fail, St Ignucius won't be able to claim complete credit for it, either...Not that that will prevent him from trying, mind you.
I've often wondered why Stallman is so desperate to be percieved as a Messiah. Methinks that he perhaps does not realise the scale of the burden that would be involved in actually being such a figure. Simply trying to *look* like one while taking credit for other people's work is easy. I realise however that that is the other (and probably the main) reason why he bothers me as much as he does; not only is he a narcissistic, demagogic Marxist fanatic, he's also a complete fraud, for the most part.
in my observation, at least, someone who thinks socialists or progressives are the same as communist is usually a closet facist, who would protest violently if called so. Do you feel like protesting?
Not particularly. I'm not authoritarian, but I suppose I do have some views which would probably be characterised as right wing...at least from the point of view that most of the people on Slashdot from what I've seen have tended to consider Capitalism the spawn of Hell. One thing which I *have* been known to react strongly to in the past is attempts to dominate me, and I'm far too lazy to want to rule the planet myself.
Now define antiwar.com. A rightwing site with many the same analyses and conclusions. You know what, even Pat Buchanan actually has some interesting things to say now and then.
Antiwar.com is most definitely NOT right wing. Justin Raimondo, the site's owner and lead columnist, is fairly openly homosexual. Buchanan might be right wing himself, (albeit in the original sense of the term, mind you...not a closet Trotskyite like most in the current US government) but Raimondo adheres to the old left activist's saying that if none of your allies make you uncomfortable, you haven't cast your net widely enough. What that means in the case of people like Buchanan is that, although it so happens that despite him being right and Raimondo being closer to left, Buchanan wants the Iraq war over for his own reasons, and thus he and Raimondo have at least some degree of common focus.
Being inclusive and accepting of diversity is, in my observation, a major characteristic of the left. I've tended to suspect that as an autistic individual myself, if I was ever going to become politically active, it would have to be with a left party, simply because right wing groups would not accept me.
Socialism is a hard to define bastard term- it originally was an offshoot of communism, but now tends to be used to describe economic systems where the government (not the people!) control the means of production.
No...A socialist more honestly (in my observation, at least) is usually a closet Communist who doesn't want to admit such to himself or other people. (usually because he's scared that nobody will listen to his opinions if he does) The term "progressive" is another such euphemism for closet Communism. Most of the authors on commondreams.org (as but one example of "progressive" closet Communist websites) would protest violently if accused of being Communist, but yet the site hosts blatant Marxist advocacy such as this.
Ditto for the Nazis. (Although they were fascists, not Commies) They used the term "national socialist" because it combined connotations of nationalism/patriotism, and socialism...both terms which they thought would appeal to the population and sound like what they wanted to hear.
There's never been a bigger lie told than the one about Communism dying with the collapse of the Soviet Union. What that lie has done has been to make Communism far more palatable...because it enables Communists to maintain and propogate their existing belief systems under such euphemisms as the above.
Microsoft were correct to call Stallman a Communist. By definition, he is...because he insists that the means of production (source code/tools for creating programs in this case) be owned/freely usable by the workers. (programmers) You might say that there is a distinction between end users and programmers (the "workers" in this context) but the UNIX paradigm in particular makes no such distinction. Whether or not it is a good or bad thing is a subject for another debate, but it is true that the paradigms Stallman advocates put capitalism (at least where software is concerned) on the endangered species list. The reason why is because Stallman has the attitude that his way is the *only* correct or acceptable way...he is completely intolerant of views differing from his own.
In some situations, I do actually think that a Communist-like economic approach can be a good thing...for intangibles like power generation, net access, software, and so on. But for physical objects it doesn't work.
Capitalism works on the presumption of the creation of a monopoly, or the *scarcity* of a given commodity...so for physical non-renewables like oil, precious metals, and even agriculture, it works well. Economic Communism on the other hand does have some viable applications, but is much more favourable to dealing with intangible commodities that are abundant/inexhaustible. (Which is why software piracy/trading is as prevalent as it is, and why open source itself can work) This is repugnant to the exclusively capitalistic mind because it does not involve hard fiat currency changing hands, but what such capitalist fanatics are missing is that trade still takes place, just not in monetary form...if you have a file that I want, and I have a file that you want, we both upload, and we both get what we want. So in that sense it's closer to barter. Capitalism is hostile to barter/non-liquid forms of trade because it holds the use of liquid (capital) to be the catalyst which starts/enables its reaction, if you like.
The trick is to be willing to accept both Capitalism and economic Communism on an emotional as well as an intellectual level, and to be able to determine which paradigm is likely to be more viable in each situation. They're both part of the ecosystem, and they can both work to solve different economic problems...the real problem is when people start insisting that only one of them should exist at the expense/exclusion of the other.
I've believed for a while that Microsoft need to get away from their current codebase/s, and it's gratifying to discover that apparently at least a few people within the company feel the same way. They need to get this out the door ASAP, but if they can pull it off, this could be the rebirth opportunity they have so desperately needed.
The problem though is that even if the core is good, as some have suggested here before, they may not be able to resist the temptation to slather security-reducing crap all over it in the name of user-friendliness. We shall see.
And I own such a "pad controller card". It's called a USB hub. So why aren't there more commercial PC games that take advantage of multiple PC joypads plugged into a USB hub?
Great question. I'm assuming they haven't thought of it. Maybe we could write to one of the baming press websites about it?
DS now) game of the year usually turns into game of the month for consoles. Theres so many great games to pick up on consoles, while your left with (insert random fps) or (insert random RTS) for PC's. Theres just far too many great games that come out on consoles, 20-40 a year, while less than 10 absolutely great games usually get released for PC a year.
Again, this is an industry issue, and I'm guessing it's due primarily to Nintendo and Sony promoting themselves, primarily. It isn't related to hardware at all. Developers could choose to release for the PC, and they'd still make enormous sales if they did, as existing PC games sell.
while console games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee can put four players on one console with one screen?
Mainly because consoles have individual controllers, whereas a PC will typically have a single keyboard, and sometimes a single joystick. This admittedly *is* a hardware issue, although I'm sure a pad controller card could be put together that allows for multiple control pads on a PC. It's probably already been done, although I guess it is also a mental thing on the part of consumers as well...in terms of associating a console with a living room, etc.
Maybe such a card is something PC hardware makers should think about bringing out, if it hasn't already been done.
>You can use your pc for gaming, if all your gaming >interests are MMORPG, FPS and RTSs. Any other genre >are better represented on consoles.
Platform games, you mean? Yeah...we're really missing out, not being exposed to those.;-) There are also the endless SF2/MK knockoffs, and crap like BloodRayne. Admittedly a lot of the stuff in the RPG space would be nice to have, but I don't lament the PC's absence of movie/TV tie-ins either, to be honest...although I'm reasonably sure the LOTR games came out on the PC anywayz.
Anywayz, this is purely a company decision...it doesn't have anything to do with the hardware.
People can call me anachronistic if they want, but the desktop is still king in my book.
Not only can people perform all of the other usual computer-related tasks with a desktop without having to switch machines, TV really sucks for gaming, resolution wise. Also, the average PC is still usually a lot more powerful than the average console, as well. Plus if you already have a PC and use it for gaming, you don't need to spend an extra $300-$700 on an Xbox...The first generation Xbox was a glorified doorstop even when it first came out, IMHO. if you still have that money spare, you can use it on a ram, processor, or video card upgrade, which will not only improve your gaming experience, but let you do other things more effectively as well. A new GeForce 6800 video card will render graphics better than any console, as well.
There was a point to consoles back when they were 8 bit, and earlier, (mainly because back then the average PC was only as powerful as the console itself, or less so) but these days they're nothing but a expensive gimmick. The only real reason why they're viable at all now IMHO is because of the overhead normally incurred by Windows on a PC. It's possible to strip XP though, (I stop all unnecessary services and actually kill/restart explorer before/after loading a game, and can get XP down to 60 or so MB RAM this way, which leaves over 400 for the game for me) or use Linux, and with X have the game set as the window manager itself. That works great for UT at least.
Although it's true I don't have sufficient money for a console as well as a PC, if I did have it, I still wouldn't buy one. They're completely redundant.
Peter Jackson has been seen to be an individual of tremendous intelligence, creativity, and (unusual) humility. It is completely understandable that a person posessing such characteristics would have problems dealing with the brainless, soulless, mindlessly commercialistic ghouls that we have come to know and loath as Electronic Arts. Witness how they treated Richard Garriot. I truly find it difficult to adequately verbalise the intense hatred and contempt which I feel for this particular corporation. When contemporary Communists (such as the GPL advocates here on Slashdot) wish to make their case as to why capitalism in general is supposedly evil, companies like EA unfortunately provide a rich source of valid support for their arguments.
As far as EA are concerned however, creative individuals (and human beings in general, for that matter) are to be chewed up and unceremoniously spat out once they are percieved to have outlived their usefulness. The company gives capitalism an exceptionally bad name, and makes it difficult for those of us who, while not wishing to be part of the eight hour a day grind, simply wish to make an honest living nonetheless, in a manner which does not involve raping either the environment or our fellow man.
Capitalism in and of itself does not have to be a bad thing...I have long believed that, and will continue to. The problem is when you have corporations like EA which, in their belief that money is more important than life itself, engage in scorched earth tactics accordingly.
>While DrDOS does look to be breaking the GPL (they need to >provide the relevant sourcecode WITHOUT charging for it)
As far as the GPL's requirements are concerned, they only need to provide source with binaries. As long as the source comes with it, they can charge as much as they want. If they're selling binaries but attempting to charge specifically for provision of the source, it's one of those edge cases not specifically covered in the GPL's terms.
>this is the type of situation that scares companies away from >working with GPL software.
Yep. The GPL, the GNU project, and the FSF itself all desperately need to become irrelevant, and it's going to happen...it's in the process of happening as I write. Why, you ask? Because Stallman and his legion of Marxist jannisaries are a group of basement-dwelling neurological aberrations who routinely foam at the mouth over issues that the rest of human society scarcely even know about, much less care about.
I've started hearing reports of distributions avoiding software from the GNU project, though...and the BSDs are in the process and have been for some time now of steadily replacing several of the GNU utilities. Stallman is eventually going to be banished back to the non-mainstream obscurity that he so richly deserves, and which, had it not been for Linus Torvalds, he never would have left in the first place. I rarely drink these days, but I'm going to open a bottle of champagne when it happens.
These have been two particularly nasty and vexatious challenges which America has inflicted not only upon itself, but upon the rest of the planet in recent years; The removal of George W Bush from political office, and the cramming of Richard Stallman back into the primordial, female-devoid basement from whence he came. The accomplishment of both of these tasks has proven itself essential to the recommencement of human progress, despite their level of difficulty, but I am confident that in time they will be achieved.
To the aforementioned GNU trolls among the moderators:- Your character (or lack thereof) is really showing here, guys. I might have expected to get modded Flamebait or Troll, but Offtopic? The parent was in no way Offtopic, and you moderating it such is a blatant display of your percieved need to squelch dissent where GNU or the GPL is concerned, at any cost.
What do you find so threatening? The fact that, deep down, somewhere within your mostly vacant little minds, maybe, just maybe, you realise that I actually am right?;-)
The problem is that the GNU trolls are likely to be just as opposed to co-existence on Linux's side of the fence as Microsoft are.
People continue making out that Microsoft is always the sole bad guy in any such argument...but the truth is that there are a lot of people associated with Linux who don't appreciate diversity of opinion, either. The GNU crowd want just as much a monoculture of their own as Microsoft does. Try advocating the use of *any* other license to a GNU zealot sometime and watch what happens, if you don't believe me.
I would agree, and I also noticed that Sid's answers were, for the most part, framed very carefully in such a way as to ensure that his corporate paymasters would be happy with them. To me there was a very fake feel to his responses...about the only time he comes out of that is when he talks about how he preferred it in the time before monolithic bloodsuckers like EA came to dominate the landscape. For the rest of it, his answers came off as spin to my mind, for the most part.
I guess (especially since Microprose went broke) he feels that he has to be a good boy these days and make all the appropriate corporate noises ("I love Big Brother! Sodomise me again, please.") if he wants to be allowed to create at all.
With the possibly exceptions of the Palm and the old Game and Watch, virtually every other handheld device I've seen so far as been a useless gimmick, IMHO. Other people will likely respond to this by accusing me of being a Luddite...my response would be to in turn accuse them of being brainless lemmings.
A friend of mine works on game development for the GameBoy Advance. Although this device is due to be end-of-lifed soon, from what I've seen it never sold particularly well. The reason why, I suspect, is because such portable consoles are too complex for their target application. A mobile game needs to be both always on, like a mobile phone or the old Game and Watch, and extremely simple. With both the Game and Watch and mobile phone games, you typically press a single button, and literally the next second, you're playing the game. A person on a train does not want to wait a full minute for a handheld to boot up so that they can play a game. Hell, these days we complain if our desktops take that long!
If Nintendo and the other companies want to make money from handheld devices, they should remember the KISS principle, and why the Game and Watch sold well for them back in the day. It's because it was simple...which people need even more now than they did back then.
Slashdot Mirror
invitations to "unspeakable" sexual acts (exactly what is "unspeakable", anyway?
;)
Broadly speaking, sexual acts that involve:-
a) Animals
b) Minors (especially if they're genetically related to you)
c) Urine and/or fecal matter
Specific enough for you?
...or better yet, it never should have been implemented at all.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Usenet exists solely as an online (toxic, dysfunctional) replacement for the conventional mental health system. It is a haven for Scientologists past and present, sexual deviants, and the barking, gibbering nutcases that inhabit the talk.* and alt.* heirarchies. It does not serve any other purpose whatsoever than as a virtual padded cell...a holding pen for the chronically mentally ill, or the type of people who in ages past would have lived under bridges, and who in a physical sense quite possibly do.
IMHO, a special commission of psychiatrists from the WHO should be deployed to determine the specific nature of the various mental diseases of its inhabitants and to learn their real world locations so that they can then be placed in a legitimate offline mental health facilit(y,ies), and the protocol itself should then be retired from use, as even from a technical standpoint it is now genuinely vestigial and redundant.
The whole avian influenza thing is a complete scam, at least in the US. It is designed purely to make money for the pharmaceutical companies and some individuals within the US government.
Read about how much difficulty the virus has spreading from birds to humans, before freaking out about it. It does not spread easily at all, which is also demonstrated by there having been less than 200 human cases of it worldwide.
SARS was a non-event...this will be too. Wait and see.
The lawyers have learnt their lesson now...When the next disruptive communications technology - the next worldwide web - is thought up, the lawyers and the logic of control will be much more evident. That is not a happy thought.'"
James Boyle might write in a formalised and superficially eloquent style, but this last sentence proves that he is still what is referred to on Usenet (and here) as a troll.
A question for Boyle and all the other such fearmongers:- If Disney and the other robber baron conglomerates have such omniscient power, how come eDonkey and all the other p2p networks are still in operation? How come things like this are able to be circulated online without their authors being murdered by Big Oil?
In case you can't figure it out, I'll give you a hint. It's because the rest of us outnumber the management of such corporations by a factor of at least a few hundred million to one. Thus, although in some ways they are able to make our lives difficult and win some minor battles, ultimately they are entirely assured of losing the war.
Get it through your heads, everyone; The Evil People (the heads of most multinational corporations and the senior staff of the current US government are the primary groups I'm talking about here) are NOT going to accomplish their goal of enslaving the lot of us. By believing for even a moment that they are going to, you actually give them what they need to continue to cause problems...in the sense that they can only be a threat to anyone if we allow them to be. Continue to actively oppose them, yes, but don't give ANY mental, verbal, or literary airtime whatsoever to the idea that they have even a chance of succeeding...because a) that isn't what any of us want, and b) because of a, it ain't going to happen anywayz.
We need to spend more time creating the kind of world that we *do* want to live in, and give a lot less focus to the tiny minority of individuals who don't want to allow anyone to move forward. Not only will they fail, as I have said, but we need to start consistently knowing and realising, as an entire race, that they will. Once they have failed once and for all, we will be able to use p2p and other such technologies as much as we want or need, without interference. We will also be able to continue to research and implement things in various areas which can be of enormous benefit to all of us, but which have currently been forced underground by the aforementioned corporations.
The thing to realise though, is that this new society...without the corporate greed addicts and corrupt politicians...is coming, and there's nothing that they or anyone else can do about it. They know that, and they're terrified and desperate...because they know their time is almost permanently up.
Am I a crazed Utopian here, talking about a scenario where nobody will have any problems? No...I'm not implying that we will be free of problems at all. What I am implying however is that we are about to enter a scenario where we will be able to find solutions to said problems much more easily and freely, and where Disney and all of their kind will have evaporated into the past like fog at midday.
Don't count on it -- the great consolidation of media has made it possible to control most mainstream literature and recordings. Do you expect somebody on Viacom/CBS/Simon&Schuster's CBS to speak out about copyright injustices?
No, but they don't need to. The internet allows people to entirely create their own artistic/journalistic infrastructure/ecosystem. There are tons of alternative news sources online now, and they're not all run/participated in by the left, either.
Broadband Internet access, peer to peer distribution, and widely available 3D/video editing software mean that individuals don't need to rely on conventional media for their news any more, and if people were more proactive, it'd mean we wouldn't have to rely on conventional media for entertainment, either. If not enough people know how to use 3D editing software, they should learn. It's not difficult, and there are several packages available now, the combination of which mean that laypeople can now do anything TV stations can. The tools are available for people to bypass the media conglomerates completely...they know this, and they're extremely worried about it. People just need to start using said tools.
One feature of communism that I don't think features much with progressives etc, is the idea of revolution and the (armed) overthrow of the capitalist state.
This depends on your definition of the term revolution. They generally don't advocate doing it by force of arms, no...but even the mildest definition of a progressive would usually in my observation imply someone who sees society as a dynamic, changing entity, and they very often have a vision of what they want to see society move towards, as well. So it could to a degree be defined as revolutionary, if the person in question seeks replacement of the paradigms/institutions that exist at the current time. Wikipedia talks about there being some socialists/Communists who have the idea that a capitalist state's own institutions should be used to assist in the process of destroying it.
It's also worth remembering that pacifism is a concept primarily associated with the left, so while they don't advocate armed revolution, in many cases with different things they will advocate what they see as passive forms of civil disobedience. (At least a thirst for) martyrdom and attempting to at least appear to take the moral high ground are two signature tactics of Richard Stallman in particular, and the left in general. The left know from long experience that the appearance at least of having the moral high ground is of extreme importance in asymmetrical (geurilla) warfare. (Stallman vs corporations like Microsoft, as one example)
Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.
This would be true if it wasn't for Stallman's army of European socialist attack bots, many of whom are to be found on this site. Said attack bots begin foaming at the mouth and experiencing violent seizures when they hear about even the remote suggestion that someone might be doing something commercial with Linux. They begin screeching like banshees about the all-pervading importance of "giving back to the community", (which is itself basically a euphemism for saying, "if we're not earning money for this, you'd better make damn sure that you're not." Never mind that the coding work itself is a contribution to their precious "community." If anyone starts up with the above phrase, you can rest assured that what they're really saying is that they resent the idea of somebody *else* making money from Linux) when most of them aren't even part of said "community" (a term which Stallman and his followers have managed to render a hated swearword in my vocabulary) in a development sense...They're basically just armchair FSF groupies.
Those who fail to understand philosophical distinctions and the fallacy of cold war ideological dichotomies are doomed to repeat them.
;-)
I understand that that is the convenient response, yes...the one that doesn't require thinking. I already responded to the "Communism is dead" canard though, so I don't really feel a need to again here. As I said though...I've noticed that the main people who object to my insistence that Communism is in fact not dead are among the aforementioned closet Commies themselves, who primarily resent the fact that I've blown their cover.
Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist.
Actually, it does, for the reasons I've already outlined. The other thing you're missing is that the definition of freedom in Stallman's vocabulary is the freedom to do exactly what he decrees, and only what he decrees. He tries to marginalise licenses (the BSD and MIT licenses are both good examples) which don't conform with his ideas.
Just as the feudal lords demanded tribute from travellers moving across their lands, Disney, Time Warner, RIAA-labels, represent the other extreme that wants to control what you see, hear and read. Want to watch Disney's Song of the South? Too bad. Lose the DRM key that controls access to your media? Tough.
They're not going to succeed at doing that, though...and there are also enough other people opposed to that when they do fail, St Ignucius won't be able to claim complete credit for it, either...Not that that will prevent him from trying, mind you.
I've often wondered why Stallman is so desperate to be percieved as a Messiah. Methinks that he perhaps does not realise the scale of the burden that would be involved in actually being such a figure. Simply trying to *look* like one while taking credit for other people's work is easy. I realise however that that is the other (and probably the main) reason why he bothers me as much as he does; not only is he a narcissistic, demagogic Marxist fanatic, he's also a complete fraud, for the most part.
in my observation, at least, someone who thinks socialists or progressives are the same as communist is usually a closet facist, who would protest violently if called so.
;)
Do you feel like protesting?
Not particularly. I'm not authoritarian, but I suppose I do have some views which would probably be characterised as right wing...at least from the point of view that most of the people on Slashdot from what I've seen have tended to consider Capitalism the spawn of Hell. One thing which I *have* been known to react strongly to in the past is attempts to dominate me, and I'm far too lazy to want to rule the planet myself.
I must ask though...have I struck a nerve?
Now define antiwar.com. A rightwing site with many the same analyses and conclusions. You know what, even Pat Buchanan actually has some interesting things to say now and then.
Antiwar.com is most definitely NOT right wing. Justin Raimondo, the site's owner and lead columnist, is fairly openly homosexual. Buchanan might be right wing himself, (albeit in the original sense of the term, mind you...not a closet Trotskyite like most in the current US government) but Raimondo adheres to the old left activist's saying that if none of your allies make you uncomfortable, you haven't cast your net widely enough. What that means in the case of people like Buchanan is that, although it so happens that despite him being right and Raimondo being closer to left, Buchanan wants the Iraq war over for his own reasons, and thus he and Raimondo have at least some degree of common focus.
Being inclusive and accepting of diversity is, in my observation, a major characteristic of the left. I've tended to suspect that as an autistic individual myself, if I was ever going to become politically active, it would have to be with a left party, simply because right wing groups would not accept me.
Socialism is a hard to define bastard term- it originally was an offshoot of communism, but now tends to be used to describe economic systems where the government (not the people!) control the means of production.
No...A socialist more honestly (in my observation, at least) is usually a closet Communist who doesn't want to admit such to himself or other people. (usually because he's scared that nobody will listen to his opinions if he does) The term "progressive" is another such euphemism for closet Communism. Most of the authors on commondreams.org (as but one example of "progressive" closet Communist websites) would protest violently if accused of being Communist, but yet the site hosts blatant Marxist advocacy such as this.
Ditto for the Nazis. (Although they were fascists, not Commies) They used the term "national socialist" because it combined connotations of nationalism/patriotism, and socialism...both terms which they thought would appeal to the population and sound like what they wanted to hear.
There's never been a bigger lie told than the one about Communism dying with the collapse of the Soviet Union. What that lie has done has been to make Communism far more palatable...because it enables Communists to maintain and propogate their existing belief systems under such euphemisms as the above.
Microsoft were correct to call Stallman a Communist. By definition, he is...because he insists that the means of production (source code/tools for creating programs in this case) be owned/freely usable by the workers. (programmers) You might say that there is a distinction between end users and programmers (the "workers" in this context) but the UNIX paradigm in particular makes no such distinction. Whether or not it is a good or bad thing is a subject for another debate, but it is true that the paradigms Stallman advocates put capitalism (at least where software is concerned) on the endangered species list. The reason why is because Stallman has the attitude that his way is the *only* correct or acceptable way...he is completely intolerant of views differing from his own.
In some situations, I do actually think that a Communist-like economic approach can be a good thing...for intangibles like power generation, net access, software, and so on. But for physical objects it doesn't work.
Capitalism works on the presumption of the creation of a monopoly, or the *scarcity* of a given commodity...so for physical non-renewables like oil, precious metals, and even agriculture, it works well. Economic Communism on the other hand does have some viable applications, but is much more favourable to dealing with intangible commodities that are abundant/inexhaustible. (Which is why software piracy/trading is as prevalent as it is, and why open source itself can work) This is repugnant to the exclusively capitalistic mind because it does not involve hard fiat currency changing hands, but what such capitalist fanatics are missing is that trade still takes place, just not in monetary form...if you have a file that I want, and I have a file that you want, we both upload, and we both get what we want. So in that sense it's closer to barter. Capitalism is hostile to barter/non-liquid forms of trade because it holds the use of liquid (capital) to be the catalyst which starts/enables its reaction, if you like.
The trick is to be willing to accept both Capitalism and economic Communism on an emotional as well as an intellectual level, and to be able to determine which paradigm is likely to be more viable in each situation. They're both part of the ecosystem, and they can both work to solve different economic problems...the real problem is when people start insisting that only one of them should exist at the expense/exclusion of the other.
I've believed for a while that Microsoft need to get away from their current codebase/s, and it's gratifying to discover that apparently at least a few people within the company feel the same way. They need to get this out the door ASAP, but if they can pull it off, this could be the rebirth opportunity they have so desperately needed.
The problem though is that even if the core is good, as some have suggested here before, they may not be able to resist the temptation to slather security-reducing crap all over it in the name of user-friendliness. We shall see.
And I own such a "pad controller card". It's called a USB hub. So why aren't there more commercial PC games that take advantage of multiple PC joypads plugged into a USB hub?
Great question. I'm assuming they haven't thought of it. Maybe we could write to one of the baming press websites about it?
DS now) game of the year usually turns into game of the month for consoles. Theres so many great games to pick up on consoles, while your left with (insert random fps) or (insert random RTS) for PC's. Theres just far too many great games that come out on consoles, 20-40 a year, while less than 10 absolutely great games usually get released for PC a year.
Again, this is an industry issue, and I'm guessing it's due primarily to Nintendo and Sony promoting themselves, primarily. It isn't related to hardware at all. Developers could choose to release for the PC, and they'd still make enormous sales if they did, as existing PC games sell.
while console games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee can put four players on one console with one screen?
Mainly because consoles have individual controllers, whereas a PC will typically have a single keyboard, and sometimes a single joystick. This admittedly *is* a hardware issue, although I'm sure a pad controller card could be put together that allows for multiple control pads on a PC. It's probably already been done, although I guess it is also a mental thing on the part of consumers as well...in terms of associating a console with a living room, etc.
Maybe such a card is something PC hardware makers should think about bringing out, if it hasn't already been done.
>You can use your pc for gaming, if all your gaming
;-) There are also the endless SF2/MK knockoffs, and crap like BloodRayne. Admittedly a lot of the stuff in the RPG space would be nice to have, but I don't lament the PC's absence of movie/TV tie-ins either, to be honest...although I'm reasonably sure the LOTR games came out on the PC anywayz.
>interests are MMORPG, FPS and RTSs. Any other genre
>are better represented on consoles.
Platform games, you mean? Yeah...we're really missing out, not being exposed to those.
Anywayz, this is purely a company decision...it doesn't have anything to do with the hardware.
People can call me anachronistic if they want, but the desktop is still king in my book.
Not only can people perform all of the other usual computer-related tasks with a desktop without having to switch machines, TV really sucks for gaming, resolution wise. Also, the average PC is still usually a lot more powerful than the average console, as well. Plus if you already have a PC and use it for gaming, you don't need to spend an extra $300-$700 on an Xbox...The first generation Xbox was a glorified doorstop even when it first came out, IMHO. if you still have that money spare, you can use it on a ram, processor, or video card upgrade, which will not only improve your gaming experience, but let you do other things more effectively as well. A new GeForce 6800 video card will render graphics better than any console, as well.
There was a point to consoles back when they were 8 bit, and earlier, (mainly because back then the average PC was only as powerful as the console itself, or less so) but these days they're nothing but a expensive gimmick. The only real reason why they're viable at all now IMHO is because of the overhead normally incurred by Windows on a PC. It's possible to strip XP though, (I stop all unnecessary services and actually kill/restart explorer before/after loading a game, and can get XP down to 60 or so MB RAM this way, which leaves over 400 for the game for me) or use Linux, and with X have the game set as the window manager itself. That works great for UT at least.
Although it's true I don't have sufficient money for a console as well as a PC, if I did have it, I still wouldn't buy one. They're completely redundant.
Peter Jackson has been seen to be an individual of tremendous intelligence, creativity, and (unusual) humility. It is completely understandable that a person posessing such characteristics would have problems dealing with the brainless, soulless, mindlessly commercialistic ghouls that we have come to know and loath as Electronic Arts. Witness how they treated Richard Garriot. I truly find it difficult to adequately verbalise the intense hatred and contempt which I feel for this particular corporation. When contemporary Communists (such as the GPL advocates here on Slashdot) wish to make their case as to why capitalism in general is supposedly evil, companies like EA unfortunately provide a rich source of valid support for their arguments.
As far as EA are concerned however, creative individuals (and human beings in general, for that matter) are to be chewed up and unceremoniously spat out once they are percieved to have outlived their usefulness. The company gives capitalism an exceptionally bad name, and makes it difficult for those of us who, while not wishing to be part of the eight hour a day grind, simply wish to make an honest living nonetheless, in a manner which does not involve raping either the environment or our fellow man.
Capitalism in and of itself does not have to be a bad thing...I have long believed that, and will continue to. The problem is when you have corporations like EA which, in their belief that money is more important than life itself, engage in scorched earth tactics accordingly.
>While DrDOS does look to be breaking the GPL (they need to >provide the relevant sourcecode WITHOUT charging for it)
As far as the GPL's requirements are concerned, they only need to provide source with binaries. As long as the source comes with it, they can charge as much as they want. If they're selling binaries but attempting to charge specifically for provision of the source, it's one of those edge cases not specifically covered in the GPL's terms.
>this is the type of situation that scares companies away from >working with GPL software.
Yep. The GPL, the GNU project, and the FSF itself all desperately need to become irrelevant, and it's going to happen...it's in the process of happening as I write. Why, you ask? Because Stallman and his legion of Marxist jannisaries are a group of basement-dwelling neurological aberrations who routinely foam at the mouth over issues that the rest of human society scarcely even know about, much less care about.
I've started hearing reports of distributions avoiding software from the GNU project, though...and the BSDs are in the process and have been for some time now of steadily replacing several of the GNU utilities. Stallman is eventually going to be banished back to the non-mainstream obscurity that he so richly deserves, and which, had it not been for Linus Torvalds, he never would have left in the first place. I rarely drink these days, but I'm going to open a bottle of champagne when it happens.
These have been two particularly nasty and vexatious challenges which America has inflicted not only upon itself, but upon the rest of the planet in recent years; The removal of George W Bush from political office, and the cramming of Richard Stallman back into the primordial, female-devoid basement from whence he came. The accomplishment of both of these tasks has proven itself essential to the recommencement of human progress, despite their level of difficulty, but I am confident that in time they will be achieved.
To the aforementioned GNU trolls among the moderators:- Your character (or lack thereof) is really showing here, guys. I might have expected to get modded Flamebait or Troll, but Offtopic? The parent was in no way Offtopic, and you moderating it such is a blatant display of your percieved need to squelch dissent where GNU or the GPL is concerned, at any cost.
;-)
What do you find so threatening? The fact that, deep down, somewhere within your mostly vacant little minds, maybe, just maybe, you realise that I actually am right?
The problem is that the GNU trolls are likely to be just as opposed to co-existence on Linux's side of the fence as Microsoft are.
People continue making out that Microsoft is always the sole bad guy in any such argument...but the truth is that there are a lot of people associated with Linux who don't appreciate diversity of opinion, either. The GNU crowd want just as much a monoculture of their own as Microsoft does. Try advocating the use of *any* other license to a GNU zealot sometime and watch what happens, if you don't believe me.
I would agree, and I also noticed that Sid's answers were, for the most part, framed very carefully in such a way as to ensure that his corporate paymasters would be happy with them. To me there was a very fake feel to his responses...about the only time he comes out of that is when he talks about how he preferred it in the time before monolithic bloodsuckers like EA came to dominate the landscape. For the rest of it, his answers came off as spin to my mind, for the most part.
I guess (especially since Microprose went broke) he feels that he has to be a good boy these days and make all the appropriate corporate noises ("I love Big Brother! Sodomise me again, please.") if he wants to be allowed to create at all.
Sad.
With the possibly exceptions of the Palm and the old Game and Watch, virtually every other handheld device I've seen so far as been a useless gimmick, IMHO. Other people will likely respond to this by accusing me of being a Luddite...my response would be to in turn accuse them of being brainless lemmings.
A friend of mine works on game development for the GameBoy Advance. Although this device is due to be end-of-lifed soon, from what I've seen it never sold particularly well. The reason why, I suspect, is because such portable consoles are too complex for their target application. A mobile game needs to be both always on, like a mobile phone or the old Game and Watch, and extremely simple. With both the Game and Watch and mobile phone games, you typically press a single button, and literally the next second, you're playing the game. A person on a train does not want to wait a full minute for a handheld to boot up so that they can play a game. Hell, these days we complain if our desktops take that long!
If Nintendo and the other companies want to make money from handheld devices, they should remember the KISS principle, and why the Game and Watch sold well for them back in the day. It's because it was simple...which people need even more now than they did back then.