Seriously, I'm glad to hear that DRM is a bad thing, but I see no connection between what I said and your response. I know DRM prevents the freedoms espoused by the FSF. I said "I dislike DRM as much as the next man, and I'm all in favour of strong opposition to it". Perhaps you somehow misinterpreted this as "I believe that DRM is a shining beacon of excellence and promotes all the freedoms that the FSF would like us to have"?
"The whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from restricting the freedom of others."
No. Aside from the biting irony of that statement (how do you prevent someone from doing something without restricting their freedom?) you're missing the most basic concept. The whole point of the GPL is to provide people with freedom to use the software as they wish in such a way that those rights can not be curtailed. Hell, you quoted the basic freedoms the FSF is founded on - why then ignore them?
Again, freedom 0. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose". This is nothing to do with preventing people from doing anything. It is about enabling them.
As for the issue of DRM not providing any of these freedoms, last time I checked DRM wasn't endorsed or created by the FSF. The GPL, however, is, and I would expect it to live up to their principles.
Absolutely. Because I'm sure he won't misrepresent the facts or use emotionally loaded language.
The way I look at it, the moment you start putting restrictions like this on what people can do with GPLed code, then you're no longer the Free Software Foundation. Perhaps it's time for a rebranding - the FUYWTDSRMSDLSF (Free Unless You Want To Do Something RMS Doesn't Like Software Foundation).
Don't get me wrong - I dislike DRM as much as the next man, and I'm all in favour of strong opposition to it, but corrupting a free software license in this way doesn't strike me as a constructive way to do it, and I agree with the author of the original article that this goes against the stated goals of the FSF. In case you've forgotten what those goals are, allow me to quote from "The Free Software Definition" on the GNU website:
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I've highlighted a few relevant bits. Firstly let's look at those freedoms. Clearly restricting the purposes for which the program can be used violates freedom 0 outright. No ifs, no buts - this software is no longer free. Secondly, you can't adapt the software to your needs if those needs include supporting DRM formats. That's the top two freedoms violated - and indisputably in my opinion.
I highlighted the "free speech" reference to bring up the most famous line that Voltaire never wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Because that's what free speech is about, when it comes down to it, and that's what RMS is attempting to suppress by turning the GPL into a license that does not defend (or permit) people to use nominally free code if it's for a purpose he strongly disagrees with.
I paused before posting this, because I felt guilty at my original comeback to your list - perhaps I'm just ignorant, and RMS does argue against DRM clearly and without appeal to emotive language. So I checked the GNU site again, and glanced through the first article listed about DRM from their philosophy page. Looks like I was entirely justified. "a special mechanism designed to sabotage you", "Then came Treacherous Computing, promoted as 'Trusted Computing,'", "Its implementors will surely want to include GPL-covered software, trampling freedom No. 1.", "The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people's freedom is at stake". How you can reject the article's language as abusing emotive language and praise RMS for his objective and critical discussion of DRM is beyond me.
Um. No. Cell is far from being an existing standard or an off-the-shelf chip. RSX may not be far from it, but it's not exactly an off-the-shelf component either.
Really? Because that's not what was announced at the Sony press conference. It was made quite clear there that it has six degrees of freedom - which includes movement forward and back, up and down, left and right exactly as you describe.
What the accuracy's like is a different matter entirely, but it seems like you're selling the DS3's functionality somewhat short.
Absolutely. It was great to be involved in writing the book, even if it was only a chapter in my case. And it's a brilliant book to have around and delve into at random. With so many short and self-contained chapters there's always something to grab the interest.
Perhaps the pronunciation will be regionalised. In Japan it will be pronounced 'Wee'. In most of Europe it will be pronounced 'Why'. In the US it will be pronounced 'Why? Dear Lord, Nintendo, why?' Only in Newcastle will it be pronounced 'Why-eye'.
Surely with a sufficiently realistic space simulation it wouldn't much matter how many people turned up? Space is big enough that most of the time you wouldn't see anyone else anyway.:)
It's by no means unique to Linux. Programming skills and social skills do not always go together (in fact many of the best coders I know might be considered quite socially disfunctional by some...)
The difference is that closed source companies keep these people locked away in cubicles and doesn't let them within ranting distance of customers.
Sounds like half-assed paranoid speculation to me. Ridiculously vulnerable if anyone comes up with a way of faking authorisation (Whoops! We just broke our entire distribution network!) and incredibly unlikely to fly with the consumer (I lose all my games if my PS3 breaks down? Forget that...)
So, nice theory, but you might want to ditch that PS3 purchase fund and spend the money on tin foil for headgear instead.
No, technically my list shows a final Cell in the April release of the loan devkits. I don't know what's in the current devkits, but that could conceivably be final as well.
Do I believe that it's the AACS issues holding up the launch in Japan until November? Not entirely, but I'm not going to assume there isn't any truth in it either. I'd be more tempted to suggest the launch timeframe is set by game software availability, network infrastructure and hardware costs rather than vague claims that Cell isn't ready yet.
Price will not be less than 50.000YEN (~$425USD)
This doesn't appear on any of the presentation material from Sony's meeting and according to people who were there, it wasn't said at all.
Full backwards compatibility, hi-res and texture filtering for all titles
Take 'all titles' with a pinch of salt - any titles that didn't follow certain guidelines to the letter may not work perfectly. It'll certainly be better than Xbox 360's backwards compatibility, but I wouldn't expect it to be as good as PS2's.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor do I like anchovies.
Seriously, I'm glad to hear that DRM is a bad thing, but I see no connection between what I said and your response. I know DRM prevents the freedoms espoused by the FSF. I said "I dislike DRM as much as the next man, and I'm all in favour of strong opposition to it". Perhaps you somehow misinterpreted this as "I believe that DRM is a shining beacon of excellence and promotes all the freedoms that the FSF would like us to have"?
"The whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from restricting the freedom of others."
No. Aside from the biting irony of that statement (how do you prevent someone from doing something without restricting their freedom?) you're missing the most basic concept. The whole point of the GPL is to provide people with freedom to use the software as they wish in such a way that those rights can not be curtailed. Hell, you quoted the basic freedoms the FSF is founded on - why then ignore them?
Again, freedom 0. "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose". This is nothing to do with preventing people from doing anything. It is about enabling them.
As for the issue of DRM not providing any of these freedoms, last time I checked DRM wasn't endorsed or created by the FSF. The GPL, however, is, and I would expect it to live up to their principles.
Absolutely. Because I'm sure he won't misrepresent the facts or use emotionally loaded language.
The way I look at it, the moment you start putting restrictions like this on what people can do with GPLed code, then you're no longer the Free Software Foundation. Perhaps it's time for a rebranding - the FUYWTDSRMSDLSF (Free Unless You Want To Do Something RMS Doesn't Like Software Foundation).
Don't get me wrong - I dislike DRM as much as the next man, and I'm all in favour of strong opposition to it, but corrupting a free software license in this way doesn't strike me as a constructive way to do it, and I agree with the author of the original article that this goes against the stated goals of the FSF. In case you've forgotten what those goals are, allow me to quote from "The Free Software Definition" on the GNU website:
I've highlighted a few relevant bits. Firstly let's look at those freedoms. Clearly restricting the purposes for which the program can be used violates freedom 0 outright. No ifs, no buts - this software is no longer free. Secondly, you can't adapt the software to your needs if those needs include supporting DRM formats. That's the top two freedoms violated - and indisputably in my opinion.
I highlighted the "free speech" reference to bring up the most famous line that Voltaire never wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Because that's what free speech is about, when it comes down to it, and that's what RMS is attempting to suppress by turning the GPL into a license that does not defend (or permit) people to use nominally free code if it's for a purpose he strongly disagrees with.
I paused before posting this, because I felt guilty at my original comeback to your list - perhaps I'm just ignorant, and RMS does argue against DRM clearly and without appeal to emotive language. So I checked the GNU site again, and glanced through the first article listed about DRM from their philosophy page. Looks like I was entirely justified. "a special mechanism designed to sabotage you", "Then came Treacherous Computing, promoted as 'Trusted Computing,'", "Its implementors will surely want to include GPL-covered software, trampling freedom No. 1.", "The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people's freedom is at stake". How you can reject the article's language as abusing emotive language and praise RMS for his objective and critical discussion of DRM is beyond me.
I think the answer to your first question is concealed in the Google adwords box on the right hand side of the page...
Um. No. Cell is far from being an existing standard or an off-the-shelf chip. RSX may not be far from it, but it's not exactly an off-the-shelf component either.
Really? Because that's not what was announced at the Sony press conference. It was made quite clear there that it has six degrees of freedom - which includes movement forward and back, up and down, left and right exactly as you describe.
What the accuracy's like is a different matter entirely, but it seems like you're selling the DS3's functionality somewhat short.
What's going to stop you? Import tax.
Absolutely. It was great to be involved in writing the book, even if it was only a chapter in my case. And it's a brilliant book to have around and delve into at random. With so many short and self-contained chapters there's always something to grab the interest.
Which is fair enough. Although I warn you now, if they call the wireless networking adapter the Fii, then Miyamoto will die at my hands.
Yes. Now everyone can mock Nintendo.
I'm not sure that was necessarily the wall they were aiming for, though.
So what you're saying is that Nintendo should cater to the 'intensely shallow' market?
It's an interesting thought, but it's never really been their core demographic...
I dispute this claim.
Perhaps the pronunciation will be regionalised. In Japan it will be pronounced 'Wee'. In most of Europe it will be pronounced 'Why'. In the US it will be pronounced 'Why? Dear Lord, Nintendo, why?' Only in Newcastle will it be pronounced 'Why-eye'.
Shutupshutupshutupshutupshutup.
-- Darl
They're not all that distinguished, of course. Some of them are complete nobodies who are likely to be eaten by a grue...
So you haven't seen my patent for a couch that locks you in place until you've watched enough commercials yet, then?
Surely with a sufficiently realistic space simulation it wouldn't much matter how many people turned up? Space is big enough that most of the time you wouldn't see anyone else anyway. :)
Too easy to confuse with "psi-curious", and there's very little overlap between the two groups.
It's by no means unique to Linux. Programming skills and social skills do not always go together (in fact many of the best coders I know might be considered quite socially disfunctional by some...)
The difference is that closed source companies keep these people locked away in cubicles and doesn't let them within ranting distance of customers.
I'm 31 and I occasionally play my DS down at my bridge club.
Oh, so conflicted...
Which is nice, but frequently a moot point, because you can have more impressive graphics without going for realism.
Indeed. Basmati rice always adds that personal (if slightly bizarre) touch to an e-mail.
:P
The tilde was quite creative too.
Strange how I can't find any reference to this elsewhere, except as a debunked rumour.
Sounds like half-assed paranoid speculation to me. Ridiculously vulnerable if anyone comes up with a way of faking authorisation (Whoops! We just broke our entire distribution network!) and incredibly unlikely to fly with the consumer (I lose all my games if my PS3 breaks down? Forget that...)
So, nice theory, but you might want to ditch that PS3 purchase fund and spend the money on tin foil for headgear instead.
Do I believe that it's the AACS issues holding up the launch in Japan until November? Not entirely, but I'm not going to assume there isn't any truth in it either. I'd be more tempted to suggest the launch timeframe is set by game software availability, network infrastructure and hardware costs rather than vague claims that Cell isn't ready yet.
This doesn't appear on any of the presentation material from Sony's meeting and according to people who were there, it wasn't said at all.
Take 'all titles' with a pinch of salt - any titles that didn't follow certain guidelines to the letter may not work perfectly. It'll certainly be better than Xbox 360's backwards compatibility, but I wouldn't expect it to be as good as PS2's.