But would the people who would have used GNU/Linux have all used Ubuntu?
Or would some of them have used Fedora, and some SuSE*, and some Slackware, and some...
Really, you don't need Solaris to fragment the base. It's also worth mentioning that back when I used BSD, I had no problems with the fact GNU/Linux had the marketshare and all the binaries because pretty much everything only available in binary form, from RealPlayer to Netscape, "just worked" with COMPAT_LINUX. Unlike, say, Windows via WINE, it's extremely easy to provide the same APIs across multiple Unix clones as long as they support the same underlying architecture. I have no idea of Solaris already has Linux ABI and GNU/Linux API support, but if fragmentation poses a real problem I don't doubt it'll be added.
Now hold on there. I don't believe either Apple or AT&T have (really) made any threats over this. The latter was claimed to have made a threat by one unlocking group that has yet to demonstrate a working product and isn't even located within the US, but it's notable that both the group that's the subject of this article, and the kid who used a hardware hack a week or so ago and thus gets credit for being "first" have not reported any threats of legal action. Given the sheer improbability of this (evil mobile operators would more likely sue real phone unlockers) and given the lack of compelling evidence a lawsuit even exists, most people believe that the "lawsuit" is fictional, made up to drum up publicity.
AT&T, so far, seems content to let Apple handle the issue (which is all they can do, because AT&T doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, not having any relationship to people who have yet to activate an iPhone, and not owning any of the IP associated with the iPhone), and Apple seems content, thus far, to either ignore the issue or use technical measures. Apple's room for legal maneuvering is open to question too, given the US Copyright Office has already given a public, explicit, exemption from the DMCA for phone unlocking.
Did you read the whole thing or just the first few paragraphs? Theo's comment starts well, but it descends into anti-GPL flamebait and unsupported attacks on Linux developers fairly quickly. So yes, I stand by the term "rant", and while I'm personally more of a GPL person than a BSD person, I have in the past supported the OpenBSD license, and until he went psycho with the last licensing fiasco ("Inhuman") I defended Theo and his position on the license more than once.
I am, you know, capable of forming an opinion based upon someone's behavior. When someone acts like an ass, it isn't being neutral to ignore that.
Yes, you seem to have written that, however your conclusion doesn't apply since the GPL has many other significant and restrictive conditions that nullify the simplistic comparison that you put forward. You have to look beyond the surface comparison to the deeper interactions that the two licenses have upon works they impact. You must agree that in totality these are radically different approaches: GPL and BSD licenses. Since that is obvious then it's easy to see how a simplistic comparison fails.
I see that you've now gone further than simply taking what I wrote and responding as if I was implying the GPL and BSD license were the "same", and gone completely overboard. Now, apparently, I was making some deep philosophical point and fighting the good fight for the GPL, rather than making an observation about what Theo was apparently claiming and pointing out that Theo's comments almost certainly not what he intended to mean, and were compromised by his anti-GPL stance.
It's really simple. If license A has conditions 1 and 2, and license B has conditions 1, 2, and 3, and for some reason you've bound by both, with no choice to abandon one in favour of the other, then you're effectively in the same situation as if you were only bound by license B.
And Theo is saying, somewhat strangely, that in this case you are bound by both the BSD and GPL license, that is, both license A and B, and we can conclude from that that, completely opposite to the intentions of those who dual licensed it in the first place, you're in the same situation as if the original code had been covered by the GPL (license B.) Which both goes against what he actually wants, and against common sense.
Now, as far as your polemic goes, I responded to your snide remarks about the GPL being "communistic" as "+5 Troll" because that's what they were. They have no relevance to the discussion beyond trying to inflame passions and associate one "side" with words that have negative connotations. This is not a discussion about whether the GPL or BSD license is better. It's a discussion about the consequences of dual licensing, and whether Theo and Eben really have found some ludicrous interpretation that means that dual licensing means the opposite of what the entire free software community has always been under the impression it meant.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about which license is better. I will call you on Gingrich style word game politics though. I don't believe you're trying to discuss anything in good faith here, the evidence that you're trying to ignite a flamewar is overwhelming.
Ah, no, your assessment is incorrect. While the GPL license may seem to the same conditionals the GPL imposes many many other conditionals upon developers that make it significantly different than the BSD license. In this regard they are totally different.
You've misread what you've quoted. I did not write "All the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL, and vice-versa", I wrote just "All the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL".
The BSD license requires the license and copyright notices be included in all redistributed copies. The GPL also has those same conditionals. Therefore, if you're bound by both the BSD license and the GPL (as opposed to having a choice, which is what previously "dual licensed" has meant), you are effectively subject to exactly the same restrictions as if only the GPL applied.
BSD enables many other choices that the GPL specifically prevents. This is why the GPL is known as "restrictive", "viral", and "communistic" in it's nature.
I have to agree with you. I read Theo's rant a couple of times and couldn't see where he was coming from.
What he appeared to be saying is that he and Eben believe that, contrary to what the community thinks and what was the apparent intent of the original copyright owners, dual licensing isn't providing the end user with a choice of licenses (as far as redistribution goes), but forces them to use distribute under the terms of both. (Ironically, as all of the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL, this means there is no practical difference between distributing under the GPL and distributing under a "dual licensed" BSD and GPL. The irony comes in in that the trigger for this is a case of a programmer removing the apparently redundant BSD license, and also in that this effectively makes all such dual licensed code poison for pure-BSD projects like OpenBSD.)
If this is true, then it's seriously screwed up. I'm having great difficulty believing it, to be honest. I'm going to wait for Eben to weigh in publicly because (a) I think he can express the legal logic better, as I'm almost certain Theo isn't and this is why the ideas coming across are bizarre - they're probably not what Theo is trying to say at all, and (b) Eben's not going to get diverted by ranting about how horrible GPL people are and how the BSD people are superior because they like their code being incorporated into proprietary products, but are totally opposed to that evil Linux thing man.
I think they're going to think you're a pretty awful friend if the only time you hang out with them is coming over for an hour once a week to watch their TV...
And as the GP said, the FCC will step in should any home owners association attempt to enforce a rule like that against the installation of an antenna. In every way, what you just described contravenes the FCC rule.
Sure, some HOAs will try anyway, because of a combination of ignorance of the law and the fact that HOAs are generally run by power-crazed jerks. One complaint to the FCC will prevent the HOA from continuing.
(For some reason my original response has disappeared)
Still, I wanna shake this woman and her lawyers' hands for this.
Yeah, I'm sure pissing off the judge with bogus irrelevancies and, well, pseudo-legal arguments is really going to help the woman get a judgment in her favour.
This is the kind of thing judges do not take kindly to, and can make it harder to get a fair judgment on the issues that actually matter and pertain to the case.
Still, I wanna shake this woman and her lawyers' hands for this.
Yeah, I'm sure pissing off the judge with bogus irrelevancies and, well, pseudo-legal arguments is really going to help the woman get a judgment in her favour.
He's not the author, he's one of the contributors. Indeed, the license violation that occurred happened because he removed most of the copyright attributions, a situation that ironically would have also been an infringement even if the code was GPLv2.
There's a meme going on in this article that he's the sole copyright owner on the patch. He isn't, the meme is false.
Incidentally, the BSD licence infringement has already taken place. That happened as soon as the author distributed the code with the licence stripped from it. Doesn't matter whether or not it hit a main-stream kernel. As soon as he made it available to others, distribution kicked-in. That said, the author has a case to answer for but certainly not the entire Linux community the "OMG LINUX STOLE OUR CODE!" crowd would have us think.
Good catch. This is, I believe, correct, and if I could re-edit my post I'd reword it to reflect that. The infringement has occurred, but it was not done by anything resembling the Linux community, with no code actually being in the kernel, either in released or pre-released form.
A few months ago, a GPL'd Linux driver was incorporated into the mainline OpenBSD kernel tree (albeit some months before release, and largely non-working.) The Linux developers concerned contacted the OpenBSD team via the regular mailing list, Ccing some relevant Linux and legal people. The email was polite, more or less friendly, and constructive, offering help to the OpenBSD people to ensure the situation was resolved with both projects having a working driver at the end of the day.
The OpenBSD team's response was to go nuclear. Theo called the Linux developers "inhuman". Many argued that the copyright violation was legitimate performing coding acrobatics to pretend that real, copyrighted, code was never being distributed under the BSD license; others argued this proved the superiority of the BSD license because if it had been the other way around, the OpenBSD team would never have objected, given the BSD license allows you to do (apparently) anything, whereas the GPL prevents use in closed systems.
Well, what a bunch of, frankly, hypocritical two-faced liars. The OpenBSD team's response to an apparent BSD license violation (which we were assured would never happen, because the BSD license is so liberal) is to directly accuse the Linux developers of copyright infringement. Rather than involve appropriate mailing lists and relevant people, the complaint is made on the public Undeadly.org website. Rather than offer help, the OpenBSD developers just spit blood. And none acknowledge that the copyright infringement hasn't even happened yet, that is to say, the proposed code is a patch that has yet to be accepted into the mainline kernels.
This is the second time the OpenBSD team have owed Linux developers an apology, and I bet it's the second time we're not going to hear one, instead hearing the same self-righteous fraudulent apologetics we hear one.
OpenBSD developers have time and time again claimed "moral superiority" over GNU and Linux due to their adoption of a license that allows code to be used in closed projects. It always was a specious argument, but it's looking all the more absurd today.
Kind of meaningless though, you'd expect the monthly sales for the PS3, less than a year in, to be more than slightly higher than the X-Box 360's given the latter has been out for some time and thus a significant proportion of its market has already been served.
The fact the PS3 isn't even catching up with the X-Box 360 in certain significant markets (such as the US) where there's no home-turf advantage (unlike, say, Japan) really speaks volumes. It's all the more interesting when you consider the PS3's apparent appeal to anyone building a home theater in the US at the moment, when HD has very suddenly started to seriously take off.
It's actually worse than just that some phones are locked. You can, at least, buy your own unlocked phones and use them with the GSM operators here, both networks and MVNOs. However, more carriers are IS-95/CDMA2000 than GSM, and have a whole bunch of somewhat bizarre policies along the lines of "You can't activate your Sprint PCS phone with Virgin Mobile due to mutual agreements not to do this" (despite both using the same physical network.) So if you're unlucky enough to only have IS-95/CDMA2000 in your area, you're essentially stuck with having to buy and use different phones whenever you switch network.
The Bluray is an absolute win. It's not about HD video-- it's about game content. As it is, media-heavy games eat up a lot of space, and game manufacturers are already compressing textures and dropping the size of their levels just to squeeze everything onto a DVD. Bluray allows for better textures and bigger worlds. Game designers no longer have to worry about the DVD limit.
I'm finding this so improbable I'm having difficulty believing anyone would raise this. HD games, written for the PC, have been out for over a decade, and now nearly 10Gb is being seen as something unbearably low capacity?
As far as the CPU comments go, I don't believe the facts actually match up. The Cell is an interesting design but "complexity", meaning ability for a real world algorithm to make use of it, is certainly a major issue. Developers do not seem, generally, to share the view that the PS3 is significantly more powerful (or practically more powerful) than the X-Box 360.
The two are more or less equals as far as processing power goes, and it seems improbable that the extra capacity of BR will be an issue for some time (by which time presumably X-Box's HD-DVD add-on can become a part of the X-Box system, and an easy upgrade for users of older X-Box 360s, without it adding to the costs today while blue laser technology remains absurdly expensive.)
I called it and pretty much anyone who wasn't a self-professed "hard core gamer" did too. The reality is that the X-Box 360 is comparable in almost every important way to the PS3 but considerably cheaper, and the Wii is genuinely more interesting and has more scope for games development than either. The latter has captured the imagination of those inside and outside the gaming communities. The X-Box 360 is out now, has a substantial games library, and is as powerful as its more expensive rival. The PS3? Well, it has Blu-ray. And that's about it.
And Blu-ray is as much a millstone as a feature. It may tempt some HDTV buyers who are willing to throw money at unestablished standards to get the functionality they need today, but it also adds several hundred dollars to the production costs of the console. Microsoft has scope for price cuts that are suicidal for Sony to do.
I don't think this Wii, X-Box 360, PS3 ranking is seriously likely to change, at least not before PS4 and X-Box 720 (or whatever the next generation of consoles are called) come out.
But you chose to read the comment that ultimately gave you the headache, a simple matter of cause, and effect. You choose to read a long treatise on choice, you get a headache. So in a sense, you already made your choice to have a headache, now you have to choose to decide whether to find out why you made that choice, or to make another choice altogether. But I don't need to explain that to you, you've already made that decision too...
Exciting martial-arts inspired fight scene starts now, we'll continue after that.
He's saying they're both the same thing because they both involve multiple still cameras. This, of course, means that the field of special effects has had no innovations whatsoever since the end of the 19th century, when motion pictures were invented. Anyone who thought Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane,
2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Matrix, et al, were in any way different to anything produced before them clearly was just imagining it because some of the technology they used had something in common with technology that had previously been invented.
At the same time any average schmuck like me could give them 10 better ways they could've handled the Matrix sequels & V-for-Vendetta than they did.
But perhaps they couldn't. Perhaps what you perceive as a choice between 10 better ways on their part is a choice, but at the same time the choice they made is the only choice they could have made. You choose to think otherwise, but do you really have a choice in thinking you have a choice, did you choose to have a choice, or did you decide anyway?
The Wachowski brothers made the choices they made because they were the only choices they could have made. (Continued ad-nausium until the exciting car chase in the middle of the film. To be continued after car chase.)
Neither of these links produces a list of newspapers that have banned the comic. The nearest thing there is is one article claiming it's an islamic conspiracy with nothing to back that up.
That's one of the things that's frustrating about this, so far as I can see there's very little real information on who and why.
Ignoring the fact that most of the papers that publish this strip also publish the mindbogglingly brain-dead "Mallard Fillmore", if your complaint is that the papers that usually publish this strip but aren't are too liberal, then note the one outlet that is, and compare its liberalism to the Washington Post et al.
In all seriousness, having read the strip, I don't think this has to do with offending (in a serious religious way, as Christians were The Last Temptation of Christ, the latter of which offended some groups enough for us to see Catholic terrorism blamed upon it) radical islamists (or straightforward, peaceful, muslims) because neither have any reason to be particularly offended by the strip. The strip is not blasphemous in any serious way. At worst it might be comparable, in Christian terms, to the birth-control sketches on The Meaning of Life than Piss Christ or The Last Temptation. The notion that Al Qaeda is going to launch an attack on Salon's offices over this is beyond absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a moment, I thought we were the People's Front for Judea?
But would the people who would have used GNU/Linux have all used Ubuntu?
Or would some of them have used Fedora, and some SuSE*, and some Slackware, and some...
Really, you don't need Solaris to fragment the base. It's also worth mentioning that back when I used BSD, I had no problems with the fact GNU/Linux had the marketshare and all the binaries because pretty much everything only available in binary form, from RealPlayer to Netscape, "just worked" with COMPAT_LINUX. Unlike, say, Windows via WINE, it's extremely easy to provide the same APIs across multiple Unix clones as long as they support the same underlying architecture. I have no idea of Solaris already has Linux ABI and GNU/Linux API support, but if fragmentation poses a real problem I don't doubt it'll be added.
The Judean People's Front?
Now hold on there. I don't believe either Apple or AT&T have (really) made any threats over this. The latter was claimed to have made a threat by one unlocking group that has yet to demonstrate a working product and isn't even located within the US, but it's notable that both the group that's the subject of this article, and the kid who used a hardware hack a week or so ago and thus gets credit for being "first" have not reported any threats of legal action. Given the sheer improbability of this (evil mobile operators would more likely sue real phone unlockers) and given the lack of compelling evidence a lawsuit even exists, most people believe that the "lawsuit" is fictional, made up to drum up publicity.
AT&T, so far, seems content to let Apple handle the issue (which is all they can do, because AT&T doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, not having any relationship to people who have yet to activate an iPhone, and not owning any of the IP associated with the iPhone), and Apple seems content, thus far, to either ignore the issue or use technical measures. Apple's room for legal maneuvering is open to question too, given the US Copyright Office has already given a public, explicit, exemption from the DMCA for phone unlocking.
I suspect, from the description, it was this.
Bob the Angry Flower rules!
Did you read the whole thing or just the first few paragraphs? Theo's comment starts well, but it descends into anti-GPL flamebait and unsupported attacks on Linux developers fairly quickly. So yes, I stand by the term "rant", and while I'm personally more of a GPL person than a BSD person, I have in the past supported the OpenBSD license, and until he went psycho with the last licensing fiasco ("Inhuman") I defended Theo and his position on the license more than once.
I am, you know, capable of forming an opinion based upon someone's behavior. When someone acts like an ass, it isn't being neutral to ignore that.
I see that you've now gone further than simply taking what I wrote and responding as if I was implying the GPL and BSD license were the "same", and gone completely overboard. Now, apparently, I was making some deep philosophical point and fighting the good fight for the GPL, rather than making an observation about what Theo was apparently claiming and pointing out that Theo's comments almost certainly not what he intended to mean, and were compromised by his anti-GPL stance.
It's really simple. If license A has conditions 1 and 2, and license B has conditions 1, 2, and 3, and for some reason you've bound by both, with no choice to abandon one in favour of the other, then you're effectively in the same situation as if you were only bound by license B.
And Theo is saying, somewhat strangely, that in this case you are bound by both the BSD and GPL license, that is, both license A and B, and we can conclude from that that, completely opposite to the intentions of those who dual licensed it in the first place, you're in the same situation as if the original code had been covered by the GPL (license B.) Which both goes against what he actually wants, and against common sense.
Now, as far as your polemic goes, I responded to your snide remarks about the GPL being "communistic" as "+5 Troll" because that's what they were. They have no relevance to the discussion beyond trying to inflame passions and associate one "side" with words that have negative connotations. This is not a discussion about whether the GPL or BSD license is better. It's a discussion about the consequences of dual licensing, and whether Theo and Eben really have found some ludicrous interpretation that means that dual licensing means the opposite of what the entire free software community has always been under the impression it meant.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about which license is better. I will call you on Gingrich style word game politics though. I don't believe you're trying to discuss anything in good faith here, the evidence that you're trying to ignite a flamewar is overwhelming.
You've misread what you've quoted. I did not write "All the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL, and vice-versa", I wrote just "All the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL".
The BSD license requires the license and copyright notices be included in all redistributed copies. The GPL also has those same conditionals. Therefore, if you're bound by both the BSD license and the GPL (as opposed to having a choice, which is what previously "dual licensed" has meant), you are effectively subject to exactly the same restrictions as if only the GPL applied.
+5 Troll.
I have to agree with you. I read Theo's rant a couple of times and couldn't see where he was coming from.
What he appeared to be saying is that he and Eben believe that, contrary to what the community thinks and what was the apparent intent of the original copyright owners, dual licensing isn't providing the end user with a choice of licenses (as far as redistribution goes), but forces them to use distribute under the terms of both. (Ironically, as all of the conditionals imposed by the BSD license are also imposed by the GPL, this means there is no practical difference between distributing under the GPL and distributing under a "dual licensed" BSD and GPL. The irony comes in in that the trigger for this is a case of a programmer removing the apparently redundant BSD license, and also in that this effectively makes all such dual licensed code poison for pure-BSD projects like OpenBSD.)
If this is true, then it's seriously screwed up. I'm having great difficulty believing it, to be honest. I'm going to wait for Eben to weigh in publicly because (a) I think he can express the legal logic better, as I'm almost certain Theo isn't and this is why the ideas coming across are bizarre - they're probably not what Theo is trying to say at all, and (b) Eben's not going to get diverted by ranting about how horrible GPL people are and how the BSD people are superior because they like their code being incorporated into proprietary products, but are totally opposed to that evil Linux thing man.
Theo: drink some chamomile tea, please.
I think they're going to think you're a pretty awful friend if the only time you hang out with them is coming over for an hour once a week to watch their TV...
And as the GP said, the FCC will step in should any home owners association attempt to enforce a rule like that against the installation of an antenna. In every way, what you just described contravenes the FCC rule.
Sure, some HOAs will try anyway, because of a combination of ignorance of the law and the fact that HOAs are generally run by power-crazed jerks. One complaint to the FCC will prevent the HOA from continuing.
Yeah, I'm sure pissing off the judge with bogus irrelevancies and, well, pseudo-legal arguments is really going to help the woman get a judgment in her favour.
This is the kind of thing judges do not take kindly to, and can make it harder to get a fair judgment on the issues that actually matter and pertain to the case.
Yeah, I'm sure pissing off the judge with bogus irrelevancies and, well, pseudo-legal arguments is really going to help the woman get a judgment in her favour.
He's not the author, he's one of the contributors. Indeed, the license violation that occurred happened because he removed most of the copyright attributions, a situation that ironically would have also been an infringement even if the code was GPLv2.
There's a meme going on in this article that he's the sole copyright owner on the patch. He isn't, the meme is false.
Good catch. This is, I believe, correct, and if I could re-edit my post I'd reword it to reflect that. The infringement has occurred, but it was not done by anything resembling the Linux community, with no code actually being in the kernel, either in released or pre-released form.
Absolutely. This situation is unbelievable.
A few months ago, a GPL'd Linux driver was incorporated into the mainline OpenBSD kernel tree (albeit some months before release, and largely non-working.) The Linux developers concerned contacted the OpenBSD team via the regular mailing list, Ccing some relevant Linux and legal people. The email was polite, more or less friendly, and constructive, offering help to the OpenBSD people to ensure the situation was resolved with both projects having a working driver at the end of the day.
The OpenBSD team's response was to go nuclear. Theo called the Linux developers "inhuman". Many argued that the copyright violation was legitimate performing coding acrobatics to pretend that real, copyrighted, code was never being distributed under the BSD license; others argued this proved the superiority of the BSD license because if it had been the other way around, the OpenBSD team would never have objected, given the BSD license allows you to do (apparently) anything, whereas the GPL prevents use in closed systems.
Well, what a bunch of, frankly, hypocritical two-faced liars. The OpenBSD team's response to an apparent BSD license violation (which we were assured would never happen, because the BSD license is so liberal) is to directly accuse the Linux developers of copyright infringement. Rather than involve appropriate mailing lists and relevant people, the complaint is made on the public Undeadly.org website. Rather than offer help, the OpenBSD developers just spit blood. And none acknowledge that the copyright infringement hasn't even happened yet, that is to say, the proposed code is a patch that has yet to be accepted into the mainline kernels.
This is the second time the OpenBSD team have owed Linux developers an apology, and I bet it's the second time we're not going to hear one, instead hearing the same self-righteous fraudulent apologetics we hear one.
OpenBSD developers have time and time again claimed "moral superiority" over GNU and Linux due to their adoption of a license that allows code to be used in closed projects. It always was a specious argument, but it's looking all the more absurd today.
Kind of meaningless though, you'd expect the monthly sales for the PS3, less than a year in, to be more than slightly higher than the X-Box 360's given the latter has been out for some time and thus a significant proportion of its market has already been served.
The fact the PS3 isn't even catching up with the X-Box 360 in certain significant markets (such as the US) where there's no home-turf advantage (unlike, say, Japan) really speaks volumes. It's all the more interesting when you consider the PS3's apparent appeal to anyone building a home theater in the US at the moment, when HD has very suddenly started to seriously take off.
Or perhaps that says something about Blu-ray.
History and a lack of regulatory oversight.
It's actually worse than just that some phones are locked. You can, at least, buy your own unlocked phones and use them with the GSM operators here, both networks and MVNOs. However, more carriers are IS-95/CDMA2000 than GSM, and have a whole bunch of somewhat bizarre policies along the lines of "You can't activate your Sprint PCS phone with Virgin Mobile due to mutual agreements not to do this" (despite both using the same physical network.) So if you're unlucky enough to only have IS-95/CDMA2000 in your area, you're essentially stuck with having to buy and use different phones whenever you switch network.
I'm finding this so improbable I'm having difficulty believing anyone would raise this. HD games, written for the PC, have been out for over a decade, and now nearly 10Gb is being seen as something unbearably low capacity?
As far as the CPU comments go, I don't believe the facts actually match up. The Cell is an interesting design but "complexity", meaning ability for a real world algorithm to make use of it, is certainly a major issue. Developers do not seem, generally, to share the view that the PS3 is significantly more powerful (or practically more powerful) than the X-Box 360.
The two are more or less equals as far as processing power goes, and it seems improbable that the extra capacity of BR will be an issue for some time (by which time presumably X-Box's HD-DVD add-on can become a part of the X-Box system, and an easy upgrade for users of older X-Box 360s, without it adding to the costs today while blue laser technology remains absurdly expensive.)
I called it and pretty much anyone who wasn't a self-professed "hard core gamer" did too. The reality is that the X-Box 360 is comparable in almost every important way to the PS3 but considerably cheaper, and the Wii is genuinely more interesting and has more scope for games development than either. The latter has captured the imagination of those inside and outside the gaming communities. The X-Box 360 is out now, has a substantial games library, and is as powerful as its more expensive rival. The PS3? Well, it has Blu-ray. And that's about it.
And Blu-ray is as much a millstone as a feature. It may tempt some HDTV buyers who are willing to throw money at unestablished standards to get the functionality they need today, but it also adds several hundred dollars to the production costs of the console. Microsoft has scope for price cuts that are suicidal for Sony to do.
I don't think this Wii, X-Box 360, PS3 ranking is seriously likely to change, at least not before PS4 and X-Box 720 (or whatever the next generation of consoles are called) come out.
But you chose to read the comment that ultimately gave you the headache, a simple matter of cause, and effect. You choose to read a long treatise on choice, you get a headache. So in a sense, you already made your choice to have a headache, now you have to choose to decide whether to find out why you made that choice, or to make another choice altogether. But I don't need to explain that to you, you've already made that decision too...
Exciting martial-arts inspired fight scene starts now, we'll continue after that.
He's saying they're both the same thing because they both involve multiple still cameras. This, of course, means that the field of special effects has had no innovations whatsoever since the end of the 19th century, when motion pictures were invented. Anyone who thought Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane, 2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Matrix, et al, were in any way different to anything produced before them clearly was just imagining it because some of the technology they used had something in common with technology that had previously been invented.
But perhaps they couldn't. Perhaps what you perceive as a choice between 10 better ways on their part is a choice, but at the same time the choice they made is the only choice they could have made. You choose to think otherwise, but do you really have a choice in thinking you have a choice, did you choose to have a choice, or did you decide anyway?
The Wachowski brothers made the choices they made because they were the only choices they could have made. (Continued ad-nausium until the exciting car chase in the middle of the film. To be continued after car chase.)
Neither of these links produces a list of newspapers that have banned the comic. The nearest thing there is is one article claiming it's an islamic conspiracy with nothing to back that up.
That's one of the things that's frustrating about this, so far as I can see there's very little real information on who and why.
Ignoring the fact that most of the papers that publish this strip also publish the mindbogglingly brain-dead "Mallard Fillmore", if your complaint is that the papers that usually publish this strip but aren't are too liberal, then note the one outlet that is, and compare its liberalism to the Washington Post et al.
In all seriousness, having read the strip, I don't think this has to do with offending (in a serious religious way, as Christians were The Last Temptation of Christ, the latter of which offended some groups enough for us to see Catholic terrorism blamed upon it) radical islamists (or straightforward, peaceful, muslims) because neither have any reason to be particularly offended by the strip. The strip is not blasphemous in any serious way. At worst it might be comparable, in Christian terms, to the birth-control sketches on The Meaning of Life than Piss Christ or The Last Temptation. The notion that Al Qaeda is going to launch an attack on Salon's offices over this is beyond absurd.