If this story were about the U.S., the discussions would be rife with how right-wing and repressive Americans and American society is. (I couldn't help notice that posts are already turning toward the U.S.)
However, since it's not the U.S., I see subtle defenses of what amounts to censorship and attempted mind control. Hate speech is still speech and if you think censoring or punishing hate speech isn't repressive, you are dead wrong. This is a very right-wing move for Europeans who frequently love to argue that they are so much more liberal than the U.S. and are far more evolved in terms of human rights.
Apparently not.
This really isn't a troll or flamebait, but this kind of double-standard annoys the hell out of me. When we see repressive moves by the governing bodies in Europe, it's necessary "for a better society and world" whereas when it's the U.S., it's just "more typical American ignorance." Well, allow me to be the first to call bullshit on this and point out that a really liberal society would fight this kind of Big Brother-ism tooth-and-nail. Rationalize it however you want, but it's still censorship, repression and a strikingly right-wing move for a supposedly liberal part of the planet.
Look at the way everyone (for whatever reason) hates the mainstream news media. If you're liberal, it's because the slant is too conservative. If you're conservative, it's too liberal. Or maybe news is boring to you. Or maybe you believe in psychic powers and UFOs and supernatural phenomenon and the mainstream press doesn't give these things enough time. Or maybe you believe in conspiracies. Whatever. So what do you do with your dissatisfaction? Try to improve the mainstream news media? No. You create your own little splinter groups wherein you trade news and information amongst yourselves while keeping the mainstream press at a paranoid arm's length, all the time. After a while, you gather a lot of listeners/followers and eventually your little "news media" gathers the appearance of credibility solely due to the facts that it's been around for a while and that you have many followers. Then what happens? People have to spend time and energy debunking a bunch of moronic beliefs because it's actually having an impact on people who may not be equipped with the critical ability to sift through this stuff.
I've always felt that these "mini medias" like Art Bell, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, etc., are more harmful than people acknowledge. I like the idea that there can be alternative news sources, but so few seem to question the credibility of these sources. It's sad when I see my suspicions about this come to fruition. Love the mainstream media or not, they have one thing above all these "alternatives." They have credibility by virtue of their work and philosophy--not by numbers or the volume of their message.
Yeah, why should I buy the full version of Doom III now, when I have a bug-ridden alpha demo that runs at a crappy frame rate?
1. This isn't a complete software, it's a three level demo
Oh I see. So stealing someone's work and distributing on the Internet is okay as long as it's not completely functional. I know Slashdot is really heavily slanted toward the open source/free software crowd, but one shouldn't take lightly the fact that this is someone's property and work and that it was distributed without that person's permission. In this case, one of those people is John Carmack, someone whose work has given me countless hours of fun, so it seems slightly worse to me. I don't see any justification for stealing his work and distributing it before he says it's time. I find it even worse that Slashdot editors (who supposedly run a place filled with those who understand and respect this kind of work) don't see the problem with pointing its readership toward this stuff.
Justify your own lack of ethics however you see fit, but I think it's wrong to distribute it as well as point others in the direction of it. Slashdot is wrong to have done so and should be embarrassed.
Nope, this is free advertising, it will benefit Id.
The only way this would be a justification (and barely one at that) is if id actually needed the free advertising. Is there any gamer on the planet who doesn't already know about Doom 3 in one form or another? I doubt it.
Has anyone noticed that the links in this article are ILLEGAL?
I don't totally agree with your point, but I do agree that it is very poor judgment on the part of Slashdot's editors to post those links. Linking to leaked software is very close to linking to warez, IMO.
I wonder if the same thing would have been done with a leaked pre-release version of Photoshop or MS Office? Probably not.
I was installing Winamp on a Windows machine and decided to cancel it midway through, and got an error along the lines of "Are you sure you want to cancel installing this software? Doing so may require you to reinstall later."
I have to confess I don't fully understand this perceived dichotomy between Carbon and Cocoa. I've been doing Macintosh programming since system 7.x and I've recently gotten into Cocoa. There were some fears initially that I wouldn't be able to use any of the code I'd written previously, but that fear was allayed with this:
#import <Carbon/Carbon.h>
I can bring the Carbon headers right into any Cocoa project or object and then drag over old code. No biggie. (Although for the record, it's not 100% backward-compatible. You do have to tweak things a bit.)
I'm not sure that Apple ever intended Cocoa and Carbon to be rival approaches, but rather complements--that's how I'm using them. Still, this perception exists.
1. Yeah, the mouse. One button. I like to surf using new windows for links and then close 'em down to go back for more links.
I surf the web in the same way. Try holding down the Apple key when clicking a link (assuming you're using IE). Your link will automatically open in a new window. It's actually quicker than what's involved with the two-button approach (right-click, move down menu, left-click.) If you're not using IE, Mozilla accomodates multi-window browsing beautifully with tabbed windows--highly recommended! And it even adopts the Apple key+click approach (although you have to turn it on in preferences first) for opening a new link in a new tab.
2. One desktop. Damn! How can I work with only one desktop?
Have a quick search around on Versiontracker or your favorite software site. I believe there is a freebie utility out there for adding multiple desktops to the Mac. I've used this feature before on Unix machines, but didn't find it compelling enough to bother with, frankly. Probably it's due to me being a long-time Mac user and knowing all the keyboard shortcuts for hiding and revealing entire applications (i.e., hold down option key while clicking out of an application will hide all of its windows--there are others) so the multiple desktop thing seems like an unnecessary layer of complication to me. Either find the utility I mentioned or check out some of the hide and reveal features for Mac OS. I think either of those will help.
If you don't think Apple will be up against the wall like everyone else, implementing some form of DRM, you're deluded. Once content begins to be released with DRM restrictions, Apple will have to make a competing implementation, or else you'll find your precious lickable G4 unable to run an increasing number of things.
Sure, but the point the original poster was probably making was that if people begin switching to other platforms (not even necessarily Macs) and begin moving away from companies implementing DRM, then that takes power away from those companies.
Vote with your consumer dollars. Don't buy DRM-tainted content. Don't buy DRM-crippled hardware. And fercrissake, if you don't like what MS or AMD are doing, take the money you would have spent on them and put it in the hands of another company whose philosophy more closely matches your own. No company will hold to this kind of thing if they see their bottom line eroding as a result and once they achieve their goals (and whether or not the goals of DRM can be achieved is a big debate), if 50% of their former users have moved on to other options, how much power will they have? They won't be the de facto standard if people begin examining the options that are available.
I know lots of people using Macs for desktop and nobody using Linux in that way. I know a few people using Linux for servers and various networking tasks, but beyond that, nothing. I know this is anecdotal, but you'd think such statistics would bear themselves out in one's daily life to some degree. These numbers do not so I remain skeptical.
I'm sure Fritz and Co. are busy right now working out the details of the meta-DMCA bill: that is, laws governing 'research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.'
That would, after all, make just about as much sense as the DMCA itself, so why not. Why not outlaw people from questioning the DMCA as well?
Apple announced that it is continuing its development of Sherlock 3 which is not at all similar in any way to any other program out there and steals no ideas or interface from anyone.
Apple also unveiled a new campaign with its catchy new slogan: "Do unto others..."
Yeahbut... __insert_company_name__ refused to release component X of software Y under the licensing terms Z which directly affects me so this is totally worthless and proves that __insert_company_name__ is a big, mindless corporation that wants to make money and implant chips in their user's heads for eventually global control of all human beings so we will have no more rights.
Now, if __insert_company_name__ had released it in such a way that it directly benefited me and my work... well, then they would have been champions of freedom and respectful of me as a human being.
Sort of off-topic, but this issue is almost as persistent as the multi-button mouse.
OS X on Intel will not happen. At least, it won't if interviews with Jobs are any indication. I keep seeing this sentiment expressed, but those comments must be coming from people who haven't been using and following news about Apple for the last decade.
There was an interview with Jobs in MacAddict around the time he returned to Apple, where he was challenged on his decision to kill off Mac clones. Just paraphrasing from memory, his response was along the lines that Apple's real strength lies in the ability to control the hardware and the OS, despite the fact that everyone in the industry thinks otherwise. His phrase was the Apple is the last company around who makes the whole widget.
So, I think it's important to recognize that Apple has followed this line of thinking since Jobs returned. You can see it. OS X on Intel just won't happen, and if it ever did, it would be done in such a way that it would make very few PC users happy anyway. Apple would have to make the whole widget. So why would they bother?
Actually, the source of incompatibility is not from whether the processor is 32-bit or 64-bit. The incompatibility comes from whether the processor's instruction set has been carried over or not.
Then my follow-up question would be, on a design level at least, is carrying over a 32-bit instruction set into the 64-bit processor feasible and/or trivial enough task?
If it is carried over, then there's no problem, as far as 32-bit programs are concerned they will think they are still working on a 32-bit processor.
That being the case, I hope like hell Apple has been doing some serious talk with IBM about doing exactly that. I love Macs, but fercrissake, they are fighting a losing battle with this MHz Myth stuff.
I recall that earlier this year Steve Jobs was asked in some magazine or interview what Apple is doing about closing the speed gap between Macs and Wintel machines and the article said Jobs was almost smug about his response, saying that Apple had some big surprises up its sleeve. I certainly hope that was in reference to this.
First off, I know almost nothing about the technical aspects of processors, so if this sounds like a clueless question, my apologies. However, I am aware that programs compiled for 32-bit processors won't work on a 64-bit processor. If that's the case, what happens if Apple should jump to this chip? Does that mean we Mac users have yet another OS 9-to-X-type wait while developers drag their feet updating their apps or is there some way that a 64-bit processor can also handle 32-bit apps? As far as I can see, that's the only problem with Apple going to this chip. I'm not sure how eager Apple will be to annoy users who are finally seeing the light at the end of the OS X tunnel.
I doubt it. I just watched the original 3. I had lots of fun watching those. I watched AOTC and about fell asleep.
Different tastes, I guess.
I won't argue that the new films are better than the originals, but rather that they aren't as bad as some fans make them out to be. I recently watched Star Wars (i.e. episode IV) with my 6-year-old daughter. She really enjoyed it, but I was constantly struck by how much of the film's weaknesses I was unable to judge (and thus ignore) back in my younger days -- acting, pacing, plot holes, bad special effects (oh, yes, IV has a ton of grimace-inducing effects.) This doesn't ruin the film for me, but it makes me wonder what percentage of the fans out there now just can't slip back into that frame of mind, and thus the criticisms about the new films (much of which apply to the original films.) You sort of have to let go. Remember that Lucas has stated that he set out only to make the ultimate matinee fodder, not to produce the Great Sci-Fi Epic. My daughter loved the film and can't wait to see the other two. I can't wait to watch them with her. It's fun, and I bet she'll love the new films just as much.
LOL! That was dumb. Okay, I think that link to the AD&D archive from this week has me stuck mentally in the Monster Manual. Sorry for the confusion.:^)
My point, then, seems to be that a good strategy for a writer is to claim he's merely interpreting ancient history, from dusty old notes, so no wonder if occasionally a few errors pop up in one's writing....
It's still the same thing. A revision is a revision is a revision. The thing is, I don't really have much problem with storytellers (in any medium) going back to revise stories a bit, particularly if they are telling an epic tale like SW or LOTR. It does puzzle me when fans can't seem to get over it.
It's not necessary to read the script to arrive at that conclusion.
I would disagree. At the very least, save any sweeping judgments about inconsistencies until the final movie is out. There are lots of interesting threads that look like they will be difficult to resolve, but give Lucas a chance to do so first.
If you think I'm being a shameless apologist, please don't. I have a strong interest in how Lucas is going to bring the new films together with the old. In fact, here's a list I found a week ago when looking up info on exactly that.
If he did, we'd have fun movies
I had an absolute blast watching both episodes I and II. What's funny to me is that a lot of the criticisms being levelled at the new films also frequently apply to the old. I think the audience has changed more than the George Lucas' approach the films.
There are times when I think I'm one of the only Star Wars fans out there who isn't stuck in permanent bitch mode.
He's probably waiting until Episode 3 is done so that digitally correct the inconsistencies he's creating in 4-6.
Hmm... you must have the finished script for episode III, so you're absolutely certain that what we view as "inconsistencies" are in fact that. I've seen lists of so-called inconsistencies on the web and very few seem like things that can't be plausibly explained in the length of one more film and certainly nothing that will destroy the whole series.
And anyway, if we're going to lynch George Lucas for it, let's make sure we save enough rope for Tolkien. We'll have to dig him up to do it of course, but remember, he backtracked and fixed problems with his stories too (stories that are being cited as examples of perfection in this very discussion), including a well known revision to The Hobbit to make the Golem scenes work with his later plans.
Artists do these kinds of things. At the very least, reserve your judgment until you've seen all three of the new films.
Slashdot Mirror
However, since it's not the U.S., I see subtle defenses of what amounts to censorship and attempted mind control. Hate speech is still speech and if you think censoring or punishing hate speech isn't repressive, you are dead wrong. This is a very right-wing move for Europeans who frequently love to argue that they are so much more liberal than the U.S. and are far more evolved in terms of human rights.
Apparently not.
This really isn't a troll or flamebait, but this kind of double-standard annoys the hell out of me. When we see repressive moves by the governing bodies in Europe, it's necessary "for a better society and world" whereas when it's the U.S., it's just "more typical American ignorance." Well, allow me to be the first to call bullshit on this and point out that a really liberal society would fight this kind of Big Brother-ism tooth-and-nail. Rationalize it however you want, but it's still censorship, repression and a strikingly right-wing move for a supposedly liberal part of the planet.
I've always felt that these "mini medias" like Art Bell, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, etc., are more harmful than people acknowledge. I like the idea that there can be alternative news sources, but so few seem to question the credibility of these sources. It's sad when I see my suspicions about this come to fruition. Love the mainstream media or not, they have one thing above all these "alternatives." They have credibility by virtue of their work and philosophy--not by numbers or the volume of their message.
Yeah, why should I buy the full version of Doom III now, when I have a bug-ridden alpha demo that runs at a crappy frame rate?
1. This isn't a complete software, it's a three level demo
Oh I see. So stealing someone's work and distributing on the Internet is okay as long as it's not completely functional. I know Slashdot is really heavily slanted toward the open source/free software crowd, but one shouldn't take lightly the fact that this is someone's property and work and that it was distributed without that person's permission. In this case, one of those people is John Carmack, someone whose work has given me countless hours of fun, so it seems slightly worse to me. I don't see any justification for stealing his work and distributing it before he says it's time. I find it even worse that Slashdot editors (who supposedly run a place filled with those who understand and respect this kind of work) don't see the problem with pointing its readership toward this stuff.
Justify your own lack of ethics however you see fit, but I think it's wrong to distribute it as well as point others in the direction of it. Slashdot is wrong to have done so and should be embarrassed.
The only way this would be a justification (and barely one at that) is if id actually needed the free advertising. Is there any gamer on the planet who doesn't already know about Doom 3 in one form or another? I doubt it.
I don't totally agree with your point, but I do agree that it is very poor judgment on the part of Slashdot's editors to post those links. Linking to leaked software is very close to linking to warez, IMO.
I wonder if the same thing would have been done with a leaked pre-release version of Photoshop or MS Office? Probably not.
Uh-huh.
Does anyone at Microsoft possibly think it might be a good idea to just walk away from this and stop drawing attention to this embarrassment?
I have to confess I don't fully understand this perceived dichotomy between Carbon and Cocoa. I've been doing Macintosh programming since system 7.x and I've recently gotten into Cocoa. There were some fears initially that I wouldn't be able to use any of the code I'd written previously, but that fear was allayed with this:
#import <Carbon/Carbon.h>
I can bring the Carbon headers right into any Cocoa project or object and then drag over old code. No biggie. (Although for the record, it's not 100% backward-compatible. You do have to tweak things a bit.)
I'm not sure that Apple ever intended Cocoa and Carbon to be rival approaches, but rather complements--that's how I'm using them. Still, this perception exists.
How will they find actors with big enough eyes?
Have you ever heard Bill Hicks' bit about UFOs and rednecks?
I surf the web in the same way. Try holding down the Apple key when clicking a link (assuming you're using IE). Your link will automatically open in a new window. It's actually quicker than what's involved with the two-button approach (right-click, move down menu, left-click.) If you're not using IE, Mozilla accomodates multi-window browsing beautifully with tabbed windows--highly recommended! And it even adopts the Apple key+click approach (although you have to turn it on in preferences first) for opening a new link in a new tab.
2. One desktop. Damn! How can I work with only one desktop?
Have a quick search around on Versiontracker or your favorite software site. I believe there is a freebie utility out there for adding multiple desktops to the Mac. I've used this feature before on Unix machines, but didn't find it compelling enough to bother with, frankly. Probably it's due to me being a long-time Mac user and knowing all the keyboard shortcuts for hiding and revealing entire applications (i.e., hold down option key while clicking out of an application will hide all of its windows--there are others) so the multiple desktop thing seems like an unnecessary layer of complication to me. Either find the utility I mentioned or check out some of the hide and reveal features for Mac OS. I think either of those will help.
Sure, but the point the original poster was probably making was that if people begin switching to other platforms (not even necessarily Macs) and begin moving away from companies implementing DRM, then that takes power away from those companies.
Vote with your consumer dollars. Don't buy DRM-tainted content. Don't buy DRM-crippled hardware. And fercrissake, if you don't like what MS or AMD are doing, take the money you would have spent on them and put it in the hands of another company whose philosophy more closely matches your own. No company will hold to this kind of thing if they see their bottom line eroding as a result and once they achieve their goals (and whether or not the goals of DRM can be achieved is a big debate), if 50% of their former users have moved on to other options, how much power will they have? They won't be the de facto standard if people begin examining the options that are available.
I know lots of people using Macs for desktop and nobody using Linux in that way. I know a few people using Linux for servers and various networking tasks, but beyond that, nothing. I know this is anecdotal, but you'd think such statistics would bear themselves out in one's daily life to some degree. These numbers do not so I remain skeptical.
I'm sure Fritz and Co. are busy right now working out the details of the meta-DMCA bill: that is, laws governing 'research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.'
That would, after all, make just about as much sense as the DMCA itself, so why not. Why not outlaw people from questioning the DMCA as well?
Apple also unveiled a new campaign with its catchy new slogan: "Do unto others..."
Now, if __insert_company_name__ had released it in such a way that it directly benefited me and my work... well, then they would have been champions of freedom and respectful of me as a human being.
OS X on Intel will not happen. At least, it won't if interviews with Jobs are any indication. I keep seeing this sentiment expressed, but those comments must be coming from people who haven't been using and following news about Apple for the last decade.
There was an interview with Jobs in MacAddict around the time he returned to Apple, where he was challenged on his decision to kill off Mac clones. Just paraphrasing from memory, his response was along the lines that Apple's real strength lies in the ability to control the hardware and the OS, despite the fact that everyone in the industry thinks otherwise. His phrase was the Apple is the last company around who makes the whole widget.
So, I think it's important to recognize that Apple has followed this line of thinking since Jobs returned. You can see it. OS X on Intel just won't happen, and if it ever did, it would be done in such a way that it would make very few PC users happy anyway. Apple would have to make the whole widget. So why would they bother?
"MySQL: The Communist Threat."
Thanks for explaining this. I appreciate it.
Actually, the source of incompatibility is not from whether the processor is 32-bit or 64-bit. The incompatibility comes from whether the processor's instruction set has been carried over or not.
Then my follow-up question would be, on a design level at least, is carrying over a 32-bit instruction set into the 64-bit processor feasible and/or trivial enough task?
If it is carried over, then there's no problem, as far as 32-bit programs are concerned they will think they are still working on a 32-bit processor.
That being the case, I hope like hell Apple has been doing some serious talk with IBM about doing exactly that. I love Macs, but fercrissake, they are fighting a losing battle with this MHz Myth stuff.
I recall that earlier this year Steve Jobs was asked in some magazine or interview what Apple is doing about closing the speed gap between Macs and Wintel machines and the article said Jobs was almost smug about his response, saying that Apple had some big surprises up its sleeve. I certainly hope that was in reference to this.
First off, I know almost nothing about the technical aspects of processors, so if this sounds like a clueless question, my apologies. However, I am aware that programs compiled for 32-bit processors won't work on a 64-bit processor. If that's the case, what happens if Apple should jump to this chip? Does that mean we Mac users have yet another OS 9-to-X-type wait while developers drag their feet updating their apps or is there some way that a 64-bit processor can also handle 32-bit apps? As far as I can see, that's the only problem with Apple going to this chip. I'm not sure how eager Apple will be to annoy users who are finally seeing the light at the end of the OS X tunnel.
Different tastes, I guess.
I won't argue that the new films are better than the originals, but rather that they aren't as bad as some fans make them out to be. I recently watched Star Wars (i.e. episode IV) with my 6-year-old daughter. She really enjoyed it, but I was constantly struck by how much of the film's weaknesses I was unable to judge (and thus ignore) back in my younger days -- acting, pacing, plot holes, bad special effects (oh, yes, IV has a ton of grimace-inducing effects.) This doesn't ruin the film for me, but it makes me wonder what percentage of the fans out there now just can't slip back into that frame of mind, and thus the criticisms about the new films (much of which apply to the original films.) You sort of have to let go. Remember that Lucas has stated that he set out only to make the ultimate matinee fodder, not to produce the Great Sci-Fi Epic. My daughter loved the film and can't wait to see the other two. I can't wait to watch them with her. It's fun, and I bet she'll love the new films just as much.
--Rick
LOL! That was dumb. Okay, I think that link to the AD&D archive from this week has me stuck mentally in the Monster Manual. Sorry for the confusion. :^)
My point, then, seems to be that a good strategy for a writer is to claim he's merely interpreting ancient history, from dusty old notes, so no wonder if occasionally a few errors pop up in one's writing....
It's still the same thing. A revision is a revision is a revision. The thing is, I don't really have much problem with storytellers (in any medium) going back to revise stories a bit, particularly if they are telling an epic tale like SW or LOTR. It does puzzle me when fans can't seem to get over it.
I would disagree. At the very least, save any sweeping judgments about inconsistencies until the final movie is out. There are lots of interesting threads that look like they will be difficult to resolve, but give Lucas a chance to do so first.
If you think I'm being a shameless apologist, please don't. I have a strong interest in how Lucas is going to bring the new films together with the old. In fact, here's a list I found a week ago when looking up info on exactly that.
If he did, we'd have fun movies
I had an absolute blast watching both episodes I and II. What's funny to me is that a lot of the criticisms being levelled at the new films also frequently apply to the old. I think the audience has changed more than the George Lucas' approach the films.
He's probably waiting until Episode 3 is done so that digitally correct the inconsistencies he's creating in 4-6.
Hmm... you must have the finished script for episode III, so you're absolutely certain that what we view as "inconsistencies" are in fact that. I've seen lists of so-called inconsistencies on the web and very few seem like things that can't be plausibly explained in the length of one more film and certainly nothing that will destroy the whole series.
And anyway, if we're going to lynch George Lucas for it, let's make sure we save enough rope for Tolkien. We'll have to dig him up to do it of course, but remember, he backtracked and fixed problems with his stories too (stories that are being cited as examples of perfection in this very discussion), including a well known revision to The Hobbit to make the Golem scenes work with his later plans.
Artists do these kinds of things. At the very least, reserve your judgment until you've seen all three of the new films.