Alot of the issues in this case take large amount of non-standard-legal background knowledge.
Do they really? Perhaps we make too much of the uniqueness of computer technology. The railroads and oil companies were world-transforming technologies at one point (think hard first before you deny it), and the courts dealt pretty well with them. Perhaps a non-techie judge could even adjudicate the case more fairly, because less committed to either side, than a techie judge.
"Socrates, he replied, many a battle of words have I fought, and if I had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name of Protagoras would have been nowhere."
you're like that man with a hammer looking around and seeing nails everywhere. your hammer is the piece by Borges and the nails are issues around you. folow?
No - you're like a man with a hammer, and you post that stupid man-with-a-hammer witticism any chance you get.
listen, if Borges said this in 1967, then odds are he is speaking about a movement that is much larger then the video game phenomenon which has been around for maybe 15 years.
Borges identified a trend that was going on in 1967 and is still going on now - the breakdown of the complex, plot-driven novel in favor of simpler, hero-driven epic (like Hollywood Westerns). The complex plot-driven adventure game is breaking down in favor of the simpler, hero-driven first person shooter. It's the same thing!
This month's Atlantic Monthly has a piece written by Jose Luis Borges in 1967. He puts forward the argument that the novel - which is centered around the intricacies of original plots - is dying. Instead people are "hungering and thirsting for epic" - and the plots of epic are few and simple, but far more powerful.
I think we are seeing something similar in gaming. Adventure games based upon dizzyingly intricate and confusing puzzle-games are dying, replaced by simple, but far more powerful game-plots based - like epics - upon the travails and victories of heroes.
Borges writes in the piece: "I think that the novel is breaking down. I think that all those very daring and interesting experiments with the novel - for example, the idea of shifting time, the idea of the story's being told by different characters - all those are leading to the moment when we will feel that the novel is no longer with us." It isn't hard to substitute "adventure game" for "novel" in this sentence.
So the KDE party line seems to be: "Let GNOME do what it wants with those nasty corporations. We're going to continue coding for the pure love of coding, and make the best darn desktop we can."
In layman's terms, this means approximately:
"Oh, yeah - give it to me! It makes me feel bad and dirty, but I like it! Harder! Harder!"
KDE seems determined to sit back and watch as they are pushed out of the market, going the way of the Amiga and the dodo bird. Too bad; they have a good desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead. Move to fucking Canada, you fucking hippy. I hope a moose eats you.
Alot of the issues in this case take large amount of non-standard-legal background knowledge.
Do they really? Perhaps we make too much of the uniqueness of computer technology. The railroads and oil companies were world-transforming technologies at one point (think hard first before you deny it), and the courts dealt pretty well with them. Perhaps a non-techie judge could even adjudicate the case more fairly, because less committed to either side, than a techie judge.
As Plato has Protagoras say in the "Protagoras":
"Socrates, he replied, many a battle of words have I fought, and if I had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name of Protagoras would have been nowhere."
The correct name is Jorge Luis Borges, not Jose Luis Borges.
Indeed!
you're like that man with a hammer looking around and seeing nails everywhere. your hammer is the piece by Borges and the nails are issues around you. folow?
No - you're like a man with a hammer, and you post that stupid man-with-a-hammer witticism any chance you get.
listen, if Borges said this in 1967, then odds are he is speaking about a movement that is much larger then the video game phenomenon which has been around for maybe 15 years.
Borges identified a trend that was going on in 1967 and is still going on now - the breakdown of the complex, plot-driven novel in favor of simpler, hero-driven epic (like Hollywood Westerns). The complex plot-driven adventure game is breaking down in favor of the simpler, hero-driven first person shooter. It's the same thing!
This month's Atlantic Monthly has a piece written by Jose Luis Borges in 1967. He puts forward the argument that the novel - which is centered around the intricacies of original plots - is dying. Instead people are "hungering and thirsting for epic" - and the plots of epic are few and simple, but far more powerful.
I think we are seeing something similar in gaming. Adventure games based upon dizzyingly intricate and confusing puzzle-games are dying, replaced by simple, but far more powerful game-plots based - like epics - upon the travails and victories of heroes.
Borges writes in the piece: "I think that the novel is breaking down. I think that all those very daring and interesting experiments with the novel - for example, the idea of shifting time, the idea of the story's being told by different characters - all those are leading to the moment when we will feel that the novel is no longer with us." It isn't hard to substitute "adventure game" for "novel" in this sentence.
So the KDE party line seems to be: "Let GNOME do what it wants with those nasty corporations. We're going to continue coding for the pure love of coding, and make the best darn desktop we can."
In layman's terms, this means approximately:
"Oh, yeah - give it to me! It makes me feel bad and dirty, but I like it! Harder! Harder!"
KDE seems determined to sit back and watch as they are pushed out of the market, going the way of the Amiga and the dodo bird. Too bad; they have a good desktop.