My point was merely: magnum as this opus was, history has shown it wasn't seminal. (I agree a 'direct' sequel wouldn't have worked - though something with similar values and set in a similar universe could have potential)
Torment was a great game (to repeat what most people are saying here), but was it seminal as the article suggests?
The great tragedy with this game is that it wasn't followed up with a sequel, nor did Black Isle go on to make anything like it again (Icewind Dale was basically a snowy version of Baldur's Gate), nor was there a sizeable shift in the output of "western RPGs" to be more role / story based. To misquote wikipedia: it isn't "a work from which other works grow".
IMO, since then we've had a gradual erosion of the place the story occupies in the makeup of an RPG (Dark Alliance, Oblivion, Dungeon Siege, Dark Messiah).
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Oblivion, but it was built on technological advances and genuinely fun gameplay, not on the foundation of the story, without which even Torment would have sucked.
I'd even go as far as to say Diablo was the seminal game which blended with traditional western RPGs to open the gates for our current run of best sellers...
Why should Mozilla disclose how its using its money? Because it's a California non-profit corporation. Here in the UK charities/ngo's/etc have to disclose their financials in order to continue receiving all the perks (tax exemption for donatees etc). Otherwise you end up with one big money laudering machine (in the government's eyes).
Anyway I as a potential donater want to know what I'm donating to? (I don't think this is the case but...) If Mozilla's turned into a profit-hungry corporation, but is still trying to imply it needs my £10 a month to feed its hungry developers, then that's deception on a large scale, and I'm not interested.
There's a conscious difference in most people's minds between donating to a company that's explicity not out to make a profit and buying product from one that is.
Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's/not/ controlled by one overriding personality.
The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.
Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.
Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a rosy future for Linux, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to close the source. There is no third way.
I got some new kit to play Doom 3 on last week, including a WD Raptor HD. It was only after I built the thing (sans floppy of course) and tried to install XP that I realised the original WinXP setup CD I had didn't know wtf a serial ATA hard drive was.
Try as I might, without actually burning the drivers onto a CD with Windows XP, there was no way I was going to get the setup program to see them and therefore use the HD.
I eventually ripped a FD out of another PC to use, but that didn't work (layers upon layers of dust), so resorted to a second FD drive before finally getting it to work. I'm much too lazy to open the PC up again to take it out, so looks like my state of the art new PC will always have an FD in it.
Point of this ramble... you can predict all you like, Bill, but if your OS is going to insist on going back to the dark ages in order to get it installed I don't know how you're going to be able to drive progress forward!
Sort of disagree with this... when the first "auto update" processes for Windows software were being developed, it made sense for that software to gather some information about the system they're running on (such as OS version), in order to provide the most relevant patch. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to come up with other legimate reasons system information should be sent along to a server somewhere.
Of course, since then, the user community as a whole has become a lot more savvy and has insisted that if indeed software must send private data to a server, it should be very up front about it. Software developed more than a few years ago however was not targeted at such a userbase - it had to avoid all the questions and constant prompts in order to assuage the user's fears that the software was doing something they couldn't understand.
Add to this the fact that not all software is aimed at the consumer, and considering the amount of legacy systems out there, it seems like you'd suddenly be criminalising a whole bunch of systems for what amounts to over-paranoia.
Now if you could amend the law to say a) spyware that's in development now and in the future must conform to "fair use" requirements X Y & Z (like being upfront about the privacy transgressions), and b) any legacy services that use their silent spyware nefariously are illegal, then I think we'd be on to a winner.
Of course I don't live in the US so your laws don't really affect me that much;).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that's how we'll get a space elevator?
If you feel strongly, write to your MP:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
60m silent seething people will achieve nothing. A good few letters written pointing out your issue with this bill may achieve something.
oh, if only the media coverage were that contained...
Subtle, or just aimed at a fairly niche audience?
My point was merely: magnum as this opus was, history has shown it wasn't seminal. (I agree a 'direct' sequel wouldn't have worked - though something with similar values and set in a similar universe could have potential)
Torment was a great game (to repeat what most people are saying here), but was it seminal as the article suggests?
The great tragedy with this game is that it wasn't followed up with a sequel, nor did Black Isle go on to make anything like it again (Icewind Dale was basically a snowy version of Baldur's Gate), nor was there a sizeable shift in the output of "western RPGs" to be more role / story based. To misquote wikipedia: it isn't "a work from which other works grow".
IMO, since then we've had a gradual erosion of the place the story occupies in the makeup of an RPG (Dark Alliance, Oblivion, Dungeon Siege, Dark Messiah).
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Oblivion, but it was built on technological advances and genuinely fun gameplay, not on the foundation of the story, without which even Torment would have sucked.
I'd even go as far as to say Diablo was the seminal game which blended with traditional western RPGs to open the gates for our current run of best sellers...
Why should Mozilla disclose how its using its money? Because it's a California non-profit corporation. Here in the UK charities/ngo's/etc have to disclose their financials in order to continue receiving all the perks (tax exemption for donatees etc). Otherwise you end up with one big money laudering machine (in the government's eyes).
Anyway I as a potential donater want to know what I'm donating to? (I don't think this is the case but...) If Mozilla's turned into a profit-hungry corporation, but is still trying to imply it needs my £10 a month to feed its hungry developers, then that's deception on a large scale, and I'm not interested.
There's a conscious difference in most people's minds between donating to a company that's explicity not out to make a profit and buying product from one that is.
Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.
The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.
Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.
Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a rosy future for Linux, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to close the source. There is no third way.
I got some new kit to play Doom 3 on last week, including a WD Raptor HD. It was only after I built the thing (sans floppy of course) and tried to install XP that I realised the original WinXP setup CD I had didn't know wtf a serial ATA hard drive was.
Try as I might, without actually burning the drivers onto a CD with Windows XP, there was no way I was going to get the setup program to see them and therefore use the HD.
I eventually ripped a FD out of another PC to use, but that didn't work (layers upon layers of dust), so resorted to a second FD drive before finally getting it to work. I'm much too lazy to open the PC up again to take it out, so looks like my state of the art new PC will always have an FD in it.
Point of this ramble... you can predict all you like, Bill, but if your OS is going to insist on going back to the dark ages in order to get it installed I don't know how you're going to be able to drive progress forward!
Isn't that a roundabout way of saying: ...
Imagine a beowulf cluster of
There's either a very subtle wit at work here, or just an uncaught tautology.
Odd thing to write a rant about, but I guess everyone's got their pet peeve.
On a more constructive note... padding with a 0 helps maintain fixed widths for columns of data of course.
Sort of disagree with this... when the first "auto update" processes for Windows software were being developed, it made sense for that software to gather some information about the system they're running on (such as OS version), in order to provide the most relevant patch. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to come up with other legimate reasons system information should be sent along to a server somewhere.
;).
Of course, since then, the user community as a whole has become a lot more savvy and has insisted that if indeed software must send private data to a server, it should be very up front about it. Software developed more than a few years ago however was not targeted at such a userbase - it had to avoid all the questions and constant prompts in order to assuage the user's fears that the software was doing something they couldn't understand.
Add to this the fact that not all software is aimed at the consumer, and considering the amount of legacy systems out there, it seems like you'd suddenly be criminalising a whole bunch of systems for what amounts to over-paranoia.
Now if you could amend the law to say
a) spyware that's in development now and in the future must conform to "fair use" requirements X Y & Z (like being upfront about the privacy transgressions), and
b) any legacy services that use their silent spyware nefariously are illegal,
then I think we'd be on to a winner.
Of course I don't live in the US so your laws don't really affect me that much
Yep you're right Futurama series 1 has been out in R2 for some time.
FYI: simpsons series 1 and 2 are out in R2 as are Futurama series 1 and 2
Family Guy series 2 is just about to come out in the new year.