This brings to mind the (rather bad) movie called something like "The Thirteenth Floor", in which scientists who developed a portal to a 'virtual reality' eventually discovered that they were themselves 'virtual'. It's not exactly grand philosophy, but at the point at which these games become sufficiently immersive - and their NPCs sufficiently fleshed out (no pun intended), we may indeed start to question the nature of reality.
Of course, the sollipsists amongst us are already there...
Absolutely. We need more people who are less lukewarm, one way or the other. When Barr mentions that "You cannot force people to share your beliefs, especially a community that values freedom as much as the Linux crowd.", he is entirely missing the point -- the Linux crowd often does *not* value freedom in any meaningful sense; it professes the desire for freedom right up to the point at which 'freedom' means something other than 'freedom to use other people's work for free' or 'freedom at the expense of convenience'.
Just as, to use your example, there are 'vegetarians' who eat chicken and fish, or people who give money to save cute fluffy animals while wearing leather jackets, there are countless Linux users who will, time and again, sacrifice their freedom for the sake of a 'better' technical product, or who will steal free software for their closed-source products. We absolutely need people who are passionate about their beliefs -- if only so that those beliefs are clear and in the open so that they can be questioned. I don't believe RMS is afraid of debate; he's more than able to support his philosophical stance because, unlike most of us, he has one. And that's an important thing.
You can believe that RMS is pedantic about the entire GNU/Linux thing - even though the point he's arguing is a very fair one, since credit should go where it's due. You can question his politics, his sense of humour, or the wisdom of his tastes in facial hair. But it's ludicrous to equate Microsoft's "coersion" with the refusal to speak at an event that wilfully tweaks its nose at the FSF.
Now, RMS' views on the naming of GNU/Linux are well-known, and often derired. But it *is* an important point that too much emphasis is given to the kernel, and that too many people believe Linus Torvalds was somehow responsible for the entire system. Who can blame RMS for feeling a little bitter about it - if not for his sake, then for that of all the other GNU developers whose work and effort is often trivialised? How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration?
Far from being derided, RMS should be given respect and encouragement. It takes a certain stubbornness to stand up for what you believe in, yes, but it also takes courage and self-sacrifice. Too many people play lip-service to "free software", using it where it serves them and then forgetting about it it's convenient for them to do so. Too many people do, indeed, believe that short-term technical merit is more important than long-term freedom -- which is itself often a means towards long-term technical prowess. Give RMS his dues - he's trying to help all of us, and getting a lot of grief for it. How many of us have spent our time dealing with abuse for the sake a true moral goal, rather than personal satisfaction?
No surprises here.
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
FAST has long been at this kind of thing: some years back, they started pushing their "shop your boss" campaign, whereby they encouraged people to report their employers if they were using privated software.
Such tactics as these are really quite chilling, and can surely do FAST no favours whatsoever. It's ironic that, by pushing this kind of crap, the powers-that-be continue to harm their cause: these draconian tactics will only serve to encourage the view of the software pirate as a Robin Hood figure fighting an evil force. And, indeed, the organisations who're pushing this kind of stuff generally *are* the true thieves who are *truly* costing the software developers their money. After all, who can really trust people who try to convince you that, in a free market economy, the logical economic response to flagging sales (as a result of piracy) is the raising of prices...?
Most pirates know that what they're doing is questionable; compared with the likes of the RIAA and FAST, though, their sins are made to seem small and insignificant. I can only hope that continued moves like this will encourage society as a whole to address industry-serving laws that allow teenagers who copy games to be locked up, whilst (for example) keeping animal abuse acts a simple misdemeanour in several states.
Re:I would be excited...
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 1
The fact that something runs on Linux does *not* mean that its source is necessarily open or free. Unless the Tivo is using code in a way not allowed by the code's license, there's nothing to look into.
That would be "thinking". On a more serious note - I found it interesting that the real core of the story - the purported rationale behind a customer not hacking the car, that they "just wouldn't" - doesn't really ring all that true. Certainly, these are mechanics arguably more accustomed with modifications of hardware than of software, but surely these people use software routinely at every level of the manufacture process? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't appreciate the appeal of hacking the software, and it struck me as I read the article that just maybe the author had grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick.
That "you wouldn't be able to hack the car" doesn't strike me as a statement that comes from someone who doesn't understand the notion, but rather that it is the reasoned comment of someone who probably doesn't want to a) risk liability should a user do something stupid with the software (IANAL so I couldn't say how likely this might be); b) have Joe Shmoe messing around with their work; or c) risk precisely the situation that J.D. King describes: 'hacking the car directly' instead of buying a new model.
Although the article makes the point that hardware mods are big business for auto manufacturers, I can't see them going for the idea of having the end user flash upgrading their rom and thus having at their hands new software and options that might otherwise have lured them to buying new models. No, I kinda suspect that the real reasons things are taking so long to move forward is that the car designers know only too well what they're up to and what the customer might have in mind, and aren't going to be rushing towards that future any time soon.
Am I alone in thinging that this might be a bad idea:
(In the context of recent Japanese motorcycles:)
The next step will be to port the PC software to handheld computers so as to make on-the-road modifications that much easier.
Of course, while you're doing that, you might as well use your PDA as an auxiliary instrument and control panel.
Without wishing to be too anal, there is a great deal of difference between "free" as in "closed source, ads everywhere" and "free" as in "open source, free license, no ads". Even notwithstanding the entire ethical argument for free software, if we begin to believe that being bombarded with adverts constitutes any kind of freedom - financial or spiritual - then we're being duped. The adverts are there because a) there's the hope that you'll get fed up with them and buy the full product, or b) the company wants to make money from them. In either case, you're paying for the software.
Social engineering is probably *the most* dangerous form of attack, as well as the most often overlooked from a defensive standpoint. Although the webmaster may not directly have details of russian agents, to use your example, he may have access to information that might compromise the security of the entire system. From my admittedly limited experience, the military and other "important" organisations are often little better prepared for attacks than the average web startup: even where great care and attention has been given to firewalls and the like, there will still exist employees who will disclose information, and there is still always the capacity for human error.
Besides, addressing this kind of issue "when someone breaks in" is too late. And it's important that the civilian be aware of and take an interest in problems in its government, police force, legal system, etc.
Most of the songs on the site appear to be covers or remixes. I guess it's another example of how pervasive gaming technology has become - and it's not surprising that music whose intention was often to attract passers-by to machines, and to get the machine itself firmly hooked inside the head, should find itself appropriated by more general modern pop music.
My favourite description, though, has to be for Little Nemo (arranged by Gux): "A string quartet rendition of the first level tune from Capcom's sleeper hit, Little Nemo. The original had much higher tempo (and it ran in 4/4). This version is slower with a waltz-ish feel to it." It's great to see that musicians can find inspiration in many places, and do interesting things with what they find. Let's just hope the lawyers don't get to them...
It's doubtless something that has been asked before, but - with all of the advances in this genre, and the habit-forming tendencies of games like EQ - how long can it be until we see a substantial shift in gamers towards the virtual reality offered by this kind of game?
Given that there is a proven market for transactions of weapons/characters/etc. on ebay (for example), there's scope for the seasoned/talented player to actually make a living living the game, so to speak. As games become more complex and immersive, who can doubt that we will soon see groups of people who enter the game - and never come out?
And, if this is the future, is it necessarily a bad thing? The issue of procreation aside, intellectual pursuits can arguably be carried out as well (or better) in an online virtual existance as in "real life". Those with social difficulties find an arena in which they can perform and blossom. Etc., etc..
And this differs from real life in what respect? It's not as though most of us have any hope of becoming Leader Of The Universe; we do what we can, we influence the world as we are able. And hopefully make some difference.
Who's defending spam? I was merely looking at what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a disparity between the stated opinions of internet users. And, while I don't think I put my case too well or gave it enough thought, I don't think I was trolling or flame-baiting. But hey, c'est la vie.
I suppose I was forgetting that people do pay for access to their email; however, it seems to me that the burden with email has *always* fallen upon the recipient in all areas: I'm on a load of mailing lists, and if I don't want to receive email from certain people, it's my job to block them out, and not their job to stop sending to me.
And I'm not certain that this can be seem as an issue of property rights as opposed to speech rights. If someone speaks to me, then the act of listening and processing what they say requires energy, which ultimately costs me money; it's not for the sender to know whether I'm interested in what they have to say or not, and they can't be held directly accountable if I'm irritated or bored by what they have to say. Spam mail is like lots of people all talking nonsense at the same time - tiresome, a pain in the neck, but nonetheless a speech issue.
Of course, in real life if somebody keeps following me around and talking to me against my wishes, I'd have a restraining order issued; I don't think that's really practical, though, when it comes to email - and my original argument was principally about what constitutes a pragmatic solution to the problem.
I find it quite interesting that while many users of the Internet are quick to claim that 'information wants to be free' and to fight against censorship and restriction of their liberties, spam remains an area where the same people rush to seek legislation.
Surely these things must work both ways? If we have the right to send email to whomever we please, and to do so without the content of our email being checked by a third party, shouldn't that privilege extend to companies wishing to promote a product - however irritating it might be?
Before anyone flames me: I did read the article, and I realise that the case cited was based upon the forging of the 'from' address, which rendered the spam illegal. But is even this a 'fair' thing? If I were to send someone an email address with faked details, wouldn't that be my prerogative?
Perhaps where things need to be tightened up in order to address the problem of spam in a consistent manner is in the area of unapproved use of resources like SMTP servers. Instead of the recipients of spam being able to sue, it should be possible (and easy, and effective) for those whose resources are used by spammers without concent to take action - and the crime should be treated in the same way as would theft in the material domain. If spammers were forced to use their own servers, the act of blocking them out would be rendered easier; and if they were to face criminal charges when using other servers, then I'd wager we'd soon see matters improve.
Incidentally, I'm not a sysadmin and if I'm talking crap, please forgive me. But it seems to me that piecemeal court cases filed in small claims courts are going to do very little, very slowly.
Ah, once again everyone's content with hitting the suppliers without addressing the issue of demand; once again, there's a failure to realise that busts of this nature will do nothing but screw with the lives of a few kids who were just having a bit of fun.
The piracy 'scene' doesn't actually have all that much to do with the software; it's about friendship, competition, coding, learning to write perl or set up a firewall, and it's about a sense of community. And it's a community that isn't going to go away, irrespective of the number of busts or the citing of (oftentimes ludicrous) figures as to its costs.
I've found that many people who rail against software piracy will quite happily copy music from their friends, or tape videos from the tv and lend them out. I've also found that virtually everyone I've ever met is happy to ask for a copy of a piece of software when it suits their purposes. I've *also* found that most people involved in software piracy tend to buy a great number of computer games, and do genuinely subscribe to the scene's central tenet that if one enjoys the software, one should buy it.
What do busts like this achieve? They're a publicity stunt to demonstrate that *something*, anything, is being done. They're an example of pandering to big business, of ignoring what the public actually wants and believes. They're a triumph of bad accounting and spin over real-life facts as to software sales. And, ultimately, they don't change anything: the pirates will continue to pirate, and the end users will continue to download the stuff. And a few kids will find their lives becoming very difficult.
What we need is a little less hypocrisy. We need more people to admit that they copy games, that they lend cds to friends - and, hell, we need to question whether it's *really* the piracy that leads to the high prices, or whether in fact that's just traditional market forces at work. And pay attention: programmers are themselves very often pirates, at least in my experience. Perhaps I'm an evil man and live in an evil world. Or perhaps everybody's doing it, and a war on the supply is as fruitless as all of our other wars that fail to address the root of the problem.
If Linux is ever going compete with Windows on the desktop (don't laugh), then attention to eye-candy is essential. While it's doubtless true that great gameplay doesn't necessarily demand great graphics, it's also true that many games benefit a great deal from them. The whole "gameplay vs. bells-and-whistles" debate has raged ever since computer games first started to appear; in the meantime, computer games have continued to advance in terms of visuals and sound. And the situation right now is that there are a number of very good games for Windows that _do_ have fantastic graphics; given that, why would anybody choose to play more rudimentary Linux-based games?
The great thing about Linux is that the options are always going to exist: a parallel with this issue is the desktop, which continues to become more sophisticated (via KDE/Gnome/etc.) - but where it's still entirely possible to run older setups, modify/roll your own desktop, or do away with an X environment entirely. Equally, the appearance of graphically impressive games isn't going to take anything away from the games that already exist; it's only going to provide the user with more oprions.
It seems strange that an organisation that claims to have invented a part of the Internet seems so inept at implementing it. As a bt interent "anytime" customer, I can theoretically dial up at any time, for as long as I want to. In practice, I can spend five minutes at a time attempting to connect; when I eventually do get online, I'm cut off after two hours online.
BT's rollout of DSL has been nothing short of abysmal - as was its marketing deployment of ISDN before. Indeed, I would argue that BT itself has done a great deal to hold back Britain from becoming a truly "connected" country: the very concept of broadband is alien to many people here, and who can blame them: 40 quid a month for a connection that's a) not really _all_ that fast, and b) will likely be unavailable on a regular basis, if BT's dialup service offers any indications.
That BT is pursuing this patent is not only laughable: it's also offensive to those of us who have had to put up with their poor service, arrogant behaviour, and general crapness.
I'd guess, though, that most, if not all software is "broken" in some way. And, as such, it pretty much follows that without a decent sysadmin to keep things ticking over, to keep reading logs and applying updates, all servers are "bound to fail sooner or later". It's "not a question of 'whether' - it's a question of 'when'".
In that respect, then, your argument winds up supporting a "mean time between rootshell" calculation; for reasons discussed elsewhere, though, such an idea is pretty daft..
Slashdot Mirror
This brings to mind the (rather bad) movie called something like "The Thirteenth Floor", in which scientists who developed a portal to a 'virtual reality' eventually discovered that they were themselves 'virtual'. It's not exactly grand philosophy, but at the point at which these games become sufficiently immersive - and their NPCs sufficiently fleshed out (no pun intended), we may indeed start to question the nature of reality.
Of course, the sollipsists amongst us are already there...
.. new sign-ups get to play as "batteries"..
Absolutely. We need more people who are less lukewarm, one way or the other. When Barr mentions that "You cannot force people to share your beliefs, especially a community that values freedom as much as the Linux crowd.", he is entirely missing the point -- the Linux crowd often does *not* value freedom in any meaningful sense; it professes the desire for freedom right up to the point at which 'freedom' means something other than 'freedom to use other people's work for free' or 'freedom at the expense of convenience'.
Just as, to use your example, there are 'vegetarians' who eat chicken and fish, or people who give money to save cute fluffy animals while wearing leather jackets, there are countless Linux users who will, time and again, sacrifice their freedom for the sake of a 'better' technical product, or who will steal free software for their closed-source products. We absolutely need people who are passionate about their beliefs -- if only so that those beliefs are clear and in the open so that they can be questioned. I don't believe RMS is afraid of debate; he's more than able to support his philosophical stance because, unlike most of us, he has one. And that's an important thing.
You can believe that RMS is pedantic about the entire GNU/Linux thing - even though the point he's arguing is a very fair one, since credit should go where it's due. You can question his politics, his sense of humour, or the wisdom of his tastes in facial hair. But it's ludicrous to equate Microsoft's "coersion" with the refusal to speak at an event that wilfully tweaks its nose at the FSF.
Now, RMS' views on the naming of GNU/Linux are well-known, and often derired. But it *is* an important point that too much emphasis is given to the kernel, and that too many people believe Linus Torvalds was somehow responsible for the entire system. Who can blame RMS for feeling a little bitter about it - if not for his sake, then for that of all the other GNU developers whose work and effort is often trivialised? How many of us would enjoy seeing our efforts appropriated by others without due credit being given, and particularly without our beliefs - central to our reasons for developing the software in the first place - being given proper consideration?
Far from being derided, RMS should be given respect and encouragement. It takes a certain stubbornness to stand up for what you believe in, yes, but it also takes courage and self-sacrifice. Too many people play lip-service to "free software", using it where it serves them and then forgetting about it it's convenient for them to do so. Too many people do, indeed, believe that short-term technical merit is more important than long-term freedom -- which is itself often a means towards long-term technical prowess. Give RMS his dues - he's trying to help all of us, and getting a lot of grief for it. How many of us have spent our time dealing with abuse for the sake a true moral goal, rather than personal satisfaction?
FAST has long been at this kind of thing: some years back, they started pushing their "shop your boss" campaign, whereby they encouraged people to report their employers if they were using privated software.
Such tactics as these are really quite chilling, and can surely do FAST no favours whatsoever. It's ironic that, by pushing this kind of crap, the powers-that-be continue to harm their cause: these draconian tactics will only serve to encourage the view of the software pirate as a Robin Hood figure fighting an evil force. And, indeed, the organisations who're pushing this kind of stuff generally *are* the true thieves who are *truly* costing the software developers their money. After all, who can really trust people who try to convince you that, in a free market economy, the logical economic response to flagging sales (as a result of piracy) is the raising of prices...?
Most pirates know that what they're doing is questionable; compared with the likes of the RIAA and FAST, though, their sins are made to seem small and insignificant. I can only hope that continued moves like this will encourage society as a whole to address industry-serving laws that allow teenagers who copy games to be locked up, whilst (for example) keeping animal abuse acts a simple misdemeanour in several states.
The fact that something runs on Linux does *not* mean that its source is necessarily open or free. Unless the Tivo is using code in a way not allowed by the code's license, there's nothing to look into.
It's just a shame that this has, er, very little to do with the actual article.
Oh well.
That would be "thinking". On a more serious note - I found it interesting that the real core of the story - the purported rationale behind a customer not hacking the car, that they "just wouldn't" - doesn't really ring all that true. Certainly, these are mechanics arguably more accustomed with modifications of hardware than of software, but surely these people use software routinely at every level of the manufacture process? I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't appreciate the appeal of hacking the software, and it struck me as I read the article that just maybe the author had grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick.
That "you wouldn't be able to hack the car" doesn't strike me as a statement that comes from someone who doesn't understand the notion, but rather that it is the reasoned comment of someone who probably doesn't want to a) risk liability should a user do something stupid with the software (IANAL so I couldn't say how likely this might be); b) have Joe Shmoe messing around with their work; or c) risk precisely the situation that J.D. King describes: 'hacking the car directly' instead of buying a new model.
Although the article makes the point that hardware mods are big business for auto manufacturers, I can't see them going for the idea of having the end user flash upgrading their rom and thus having at their hands new software and options that might otherwise have lured them to buying new models. No, I kinda suspect that the real reasons things are taking so long to move forward is that the car designers know only too well what they're up to and what the customer might have in mind, and aren't going to be rushing towards that future any time soon.
(In the context of recent Japanese motorcycles:)
...It'll still sound better than the Backstreet Boys..
Without wishing to be too anal, there is a great deal of difference between "free" as in "closed source, ads everywhere" and "free" as in "open source, free license, no ads". Even notwithstanding the entire ethical argument for free software, if we begin to believe that being bombarded with adverts constitutes any kind of freedom - financial or spiritual - then we're being duped. The adverts are there because a) there's the hope that you'll get fed up with them and buy the full product, or b) the company wants to make money from them. In either case, you're paying for the software.
..I'm going to buy two of them, and build a machine of pure eeeeeevil..
Social engineering is probably *the most* dangerous form of attack, as well as the most often overlooked from a defensive standpoint. Although the webmaster may not directly have details of russian agents, to use your example, he may have access to information that might compromise the security of the entire system. From my admittedly limited experience, the military and other "important" organisations are often little better prepared for attacks than the average web startup: even where great care and attention has been given to firewalls and the like, there will still exist employees who will disclose information, and there is still always the capacity for human error.
Besides, addressing this kind of issue "when someone breaks in" is too late. And it's important that the civilian be aware of and take an interest in problems in its government, police force, legal system, etc.
Most of the songs on the site appear to be covers or remixes. I guess it's another example of how pervasive gaming technology has become - and it's not surprising that music whose intention was often to attract passers-by to machines, and to get the machine itself firmly hooked inside the head, should find itself appropriated by more general modern pop music.
My favourite description, though, has to be for Little Nemo (arranged by Gux): "A string quartet rendition of the first level tune from Capcom's sleeper hit, Little Nemo. The original had much higher tempo (and it ran in 4/4). This version is slower with a waltz-ish feel to it." It's great to see that musicians can find inspiration in many places, and do interesting things with what they find. Let's just hope the lawyers don't get to them...
It's doubtless something that has been asked before, but - with all of the advances in this genre, and the habit-forming tendencies of games like EQ - how long can it be until we see a substantial shift in gamers towards the virtual reality offered by this kind of game?
Given that there is a proven market for transactions of weapons/characters/etc. on ebay (for example), there's scope for the seasoned/talented player to actually make a living living the game, so to speak. As games become more complex and immersive, who can doubt that we will soon see groups of people who enter the game - and never come out?
And, if this is the future, is it necessarily a bad thing? The issue of procreation aside, intellectual pursuits can arguably be carried out as well (or better) in an online virtual existance as in "real life". Those with social difficulties find an arena in which they can perform and blossom. Etc., etc..
Interesting times are ahead..
And this differs from real life in what respect? It's not as though most of us have any hope of becoming Leader Of The Universe; we do what we can, we influence the world as we are able. And hopefully make some difference.
Who's defending spam? I was merely looking at what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a disparity between the stated opinions of internet users. And, while I don't think I put my case too well or gave it enough thought, I don't think I was trolling or flame-baiting. But hey, c'est la vie.
I suppose I was forgetting that people do pay for access to their email; however, it seems to me that the burden with email has *always* fallen upon the recipient in all areas: I'm on a load of mailing lists, and if I don't want to receive email from certain people, it's my job to block them out, and not their job to stop sending to me.
And I'm not certain that this can be seem as an issue of property rights as opposed to speech rights. If someone speaks to me, then the act of listening and processing what they say requires energy, which ultimately costs me money; it's not for the sender to know whether I'm interested in what they have to say or not, and they can't be held directly accountable if I'm irritated or bored by what they have to say. Spam mail is like lots of people all talking nonsense at the same time - tiresome, a pain in the neck, but nonetheless a speech issue.
Of course, in real life if somebody keeps following me around and talking to me against my wishes, I'd have a restraining order issued; I don't think that's really practical, though, when it comes to email - and my original argument was principally about what constitutes a pragmatic solution to the problem.
I find it quite interesting that while many users of the Internet are quick to claim that 'information wants to be free' and to fight against censorship and restriction of their liberties, spam remains an area where the same people rush to seek legislation.
Surely these things must work both ways? If we have the right to send email to whomever we please, and to do so without the content of our email being checked by a third party, shouldn't that privilege extend to companies wishing to promote a product - however irritating it might be?
Before anyone flames me: I did read the article, and I realise that the case cited was based upon the forging of the 'from' address, which rendered the spam illegal. But is even this a 'fair' thing? If I were to send someone an email address with faked details, wouldn't that be my prerogative?
Perhaps where things need to be tightened up in order to address the problem of spam in a consistent manner is in the area of unapproved use of resources like SMTP servers. Instead of the recipients of spam being able to sue, it should be possible (and easy, and effective) for those whose resources are used by spammers without concent to take action - and the crime should be treated in the same way as would theft in the material domain. If spammers were forced to use their own servers, the act of blocking them out would be rendered easier; and if they were to face criminal charges when using other servers, then I'd wager we'd soon see matters improve.
Incidentally, I'm not a sysadmin and if I'm talking crap, please forgive me. But it seems to me that piecemeal court cases filed in small claims courts are going to do very little, very slowly.
.. until I start receiving a load of "received spam-mail? Make money NOW!" messages in my inbox?
Ah, once again everyone's content with hitting the suppliers without addressing the issue of demand; once again, there's a failure to realise that busts of this nature will do nothing but screw with the lives of a few kids who were just having a bit of fun.
The piracy 'scene' doesn't actually have all that much to do with the software; it's about friendship, competition, coding, learning to write perl or set up a firewall, and it's about a sense of community. And it's a community that isn't going to go away, irrespective of the number of busts or the citing of (oftentimes ludicrous) figures as to its costs.
I've found that many people who rail against software piracy will quite happily copy music from their friends, or tape videos from the tv and lend them out. I've also found that virtually everyone I've ever met is happy to ask for a copy of a piece of software when it suits their purposes. I've *also* found that most people involved in software piracy tend to buy a great number of computer games, and do genuinely subscribe to the scene's central tenet that if one enjoys the software, one should buy it.
What do busts like this achieve? They're a publicity stunt to demonstrate that *something*, anything, is being done. They're an example of pandering to big business, of ignoring what the public actually wants and believes. They're a triumph of bad accounting and spin over real-life facts as to software sales. And, ultimately, they don't change anything: the pirates will continue to pirate, and the end users will continue to download the stuff. And a few kids will find their lives becoming very difficult.
What we need is a little less hypocrisy. We need more people to admit that they copy games, that they lend cds to friends - and, hell, we need to question whether it's *really* the piracy that leads to the high prices, or whether in fact that's just traditional market forces at work. And pay attention: programmers are themselves very often pirates, at least in my experience. Perhaps I'm an evil man and live in an evil world. Or perhaps everybody's doing it, and a war on the supply is as fruitless as all of our other wars that fail to address the root of the problem.
If Linux is ever going compete with Windows on the desktop (don't laugh), then attention to eye-candy is essential. While it's doubtless true that great gameplay doesn't necessarily demand great graphics, it's also true that many games benefit a great deal from them. The whole "gameplay vs. bells-and-whistles" debate has raged ever since computer games first started to appear; in the meantime, computer games have continued to advance in terms of visuals and sound. And the situation right now is that there are a number of very good games for Windows that _do_ have fantastic graphics; given that, why would anybody choose to play more rudimentary Linux-based games?
The great thing about Linux is that the options are always going to exist: a parallel with this issue is the desktop, which continues to become more sophisticated (via KDE/Gnome/etc.) - but where it's still entirely possible to run older setups, modify/roll your own desktop, or do away with an X environment entirely. Equally, the appearance of graphically impressive games isn't going to take anything away from the games that already exist; it's only going to provide the user with more oprions.
It seems strange that an organisation that claims to have invented a part of the Internet seems so inept at implementing it. As a bt interent "anytime" customer, I can theoretically dial up at any time, for as long as I want to. In practice, I can spend five minutes at a time attempting to connect; when I eventually do get online, I'm cut off after two hours online.
BT's rollout of DSL has been nothing short of abysmal - as was its marketing deployment of ISDN before. Indeed, I would argue that BT itself has done a great deal to hold back Britain from becoming a truly "connected" country: the very concept of broadband is alien to many people here, and who can blame them: 40 quid a month for a connection that's a) not really _all_ that fast, and b) will likely be unavailable on a regular basis, if BT's dialup service offers any indications.
That BT is pursuing this patent is not only laughable: it's also offensive to those of us who have had to put up with their poor service, arrogant behaviour, and general crapness.
... would that be sole-ar powered?
Doh!
In that respect, then, your argument winds up supporting a "mean time between rootshell" calculation; for reasons discussed elsewhere, though, such an idea is pretty daft..