How possible is it that the campus routers/firewalls/multiplexers/whatever are set to limit the amount of bandwidth any one port can use at a time? If that's the case, then by using two ports, he would be doubling his bandwidth. Now this has me thinking about doing something similar to the machines in my dorm room.....
You need 1.3 tons of speakers. They're only $130,000 and your specialized listening room can be as small as 15'x20'! Check 'em out here. Everyone can afford a pair of these. I'm surprised I haven't seen them in the ghetto yet!;)
Well, the problem, mainly, is that there are no sales. Who's to blame for this? Loki? ID? No. Linux users. If we don't start paying for games, even the bad ones, we won't see any more come out, much less the good ones. Blizzard has said that they won't release anything for Linux until they can reasonably expect to see $1 million in sales. So the only way to fix this problem is to go out and actually buy the games. Go to Loki's homepage and order some games. Even the bad ones. Unless they start seeing some dollars here, they're going to abandon the platform entirely.
>What has Gore said that puts him in that category >in your mind?
When he said that he wants ISP's to put up "parent pages" before serving up 95% of web content and wants website viewing to be better tracked. Personally, I have no problem with public computers having censorware on them. The government, whether state, federal, or local, owns those machines and they have the right to do whatever they want with them. Sure, it may seem fascist, but who are you to say what they can or cannot do with what the majority of people actually want?
Thank you for making my point. Gore throwing money at the military is NOT going to solve their problems. They need reform and leadership, not someone who thinks that the problems can be bought away.
Bush is against frivolous spending on the military. Check out his plan if you don't believe me.
Frankly, I think "weak military" is just a code phrase for "get US troops out of places like Kosovo, where the natives ain't Christian and they don't even have any goddam oil". But that's strictly suspicion. Perhaps someone who understands the Republican value system better can clarify it.
As a Republican, let me try to clarify some things...
First off, the Republican party has historically been in favor of a strong military, and less government spending.
Here's the current problem Republicans see. 1) Abuse of our armed forces by the current administration. Morale and readiness are extremely low. Remember when the military issued the order that effectively says that criticizing the President and his administration is illegal for the Armed Services? They did that because the abuses of the military were so severe that no soldier in his right mind had any respect for Clinton. As a result, people weren't reapplying for service when their 3 year or whatever tenures were up. One reason for this is our overextension of forces around the world. Did we really need to be in Somalia? And what about our country's "do nothing" attitude when our marines were killed and dragged through the streets while they were on a humanitarian mission? Ask anyone in the military, and they'll tell you it's a total fsck-up. Both parties acknowledged problems with the military in this area. Both parties offer solutions. Al Gore wants to throw money at the military in hopes that the problems will go away. GWB wants to have widespread reforms in policies regarding the military, plus additional government spending.
And let me respond to your other accusation about the "peace dividend" as well. Remember, that the first totally post cold war president was Bill Clinton. He cut military funding substantially while substantially increasing deployments. In effect, he said, "Go do this job for me, but I'm not going to give you any tools you need to do it". Our entire armed forces were down to less than 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles during the Kosovo campaign (which, if you ask someone in the military, was another colossal fsck-up) because Clinton's spending cuts were so drastic that they couldn't afford them anymore! That's not enough missiles to give one to each piece of army, navy, and air force equipment that can actually use them, and who we rely on being able to use them in a conflict. Remember the importance they played in the conflicts of the past 10 years or so?
Another thing about the "peace dividend" is the fact that our military deployments have been more since the cold war than during it. Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, the Persian Gulf, all kinds of unrest brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians can no longer afford to control their spheres of influence, so we're left trying to make up for them. This is quite unfortunate and unforseen. Noone knew that the SU was going to collapse, noone knew that the Russian economy was as bad off as it was.
This is why GWB's spending proposals for the military are lower than Big Al's. By pulling our troops back home and concentrating more on defending our country than imposing our will on countries who don't want our "help", we can improve the morale and readiness of our forces, and spend less on the military to boot. Sounds like a better solution to me than trying to throw money at our problems and hope they go away.
>Why not allow greater deductions for charitable contributions now?
I was so hoping to hear some candidates talk about this during this election year. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to people that private charity should be supporting. I think most/.'ers will agree that the best government is a minimalist government. The smaller the government, the less it can interfere with private lives of its citizens. As a result of this, I think that people themselves should be deciding where their tax money goes. Give tax credits for charitable contributions, not deductions! Lower the tax rate and figure out other ways to reward charity in this country! I fully agree with the democrats that we have class differences in this country that need to be fixed, but I don't think growing the government will help anyone.
My bad. I thought you were merely referring to the income tax. But Bush seems to be doing better at exactly these things, and others the President can do very little if anything about:
>40-50% Tax Rate:
>estimate a 22-25% tax bracket
Which Bush has said he'd lower.
>15.3% "social security"
Which the Bush plan allows a certain percentage for private investment. Sure, it's only 15% or so, but at least it's something, and it's better than people in their 20's or 30's like myself will get under the Gore plan.
>7% sales tax
State, City, or County mandated. There is no national sales tax.
>?? % gasoline tax
Gore wants to raise it! Read his book if you don't believe me. His environmental extremism is legendary. He's basically said that he wants to put heavy fuel taxes on in order to try to reduce gasoline consumption. Bush actually got a good jab off on him about this in last week's debate. I'm sure a lot of slashdotters side with Gore about the environment, and I agree that it's good to be environmentally conscious, but to forgo all consideration of the economy, local jobs, or whatever is a little over the deep end for me.
>?? % property taxes
Again, county mandated. Not much can happen here. Though, the primary things that Property taxes go to, at least around my area, is for schools, which Bush does seem more committed to than Gore, at least in the area of reform.
I don't know. I'm being biased, but I honestly think that Gore likes to throw money at problems and hope they go away where Bush likes to actually try to fix them permanently.
As for the "Read My Lips" thing, that was his Father who said that, not George W. And yes, there's no way the whole plan, 100% will pass congress. But the same is true with the Gore plan or any other plan. Congress has to pick it apart first. But from these plans, you see the kind of things that the candidate will do if elected president, the kinds of bills he'll sign, etc.
But either way, if you agree with me or not, VOTE! It's the only layer protecting you from the government. Your voice does count. And I'd rather see you vote for Gore than not vote at all.
40-50% tax rate?!?! Where are you pulling those numbers from?? Bush's platform is pulling for an across the board tax cut, scaled by income (highest percentage goes to lowest income). And with a republican congress, he'll get it.
But what I'm really P.O.'ed about is the fscking partisanship in Congress. Where is FDR when you need him? The man who didn't care what party his own advisers came from. The man who appointed a socialist woman (scandalous in those days) to Secretary of the Interior simply because he liked her idea of a "social security" system! Now, when Billy Boy took office, he took longer than anyone else in history to make his appointments, because the criteria was that you had to be a FOB (Friend Of Bill)...I.E. bought the position with campaign funds. The only candidate even close to this, even close to being able to work through the partisanship, is Bush. I already voted for him (absentee). And I'd do so again. If anyone can get anything done in Washington, it's not going to be the Big Government Liberal Washington Politician, it's going to be the outsider to the washington scene.
I voted for Bush because I'm sick of Big Government beaurocracy telling me how I need to run my life. I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted on studies on the effectiveness of watermelon on Dung Beetles. I'm sick of the waste, the scandal, the disgrace of our marines being killed and dragged through the streets of some African country without any action, the partisanship, and the stalemate in Washington. I think that Big Government == Big Brother. And I think it's time we did something about it.
1) Carnivore (probably) contains top secret NSA software technologies. Encryption, filtering, you name it.
2) The government NEVER lets ordinary people without security clearances view anything classified. And for good reason. They want to make sure their secret information stays secret.
Do you honestly think that the government would do otherwise? I highly doubt they'd let anyone, intelligent or no, work on this thing without a security clearance. It's top secret technology! And I know a lot of/.-ers think that all information is sacred and should be in the public domain, but magicians should never reveal their secrets, poker players should never tip their hands, and governments should never tell the rest of the world what they know. I support the government in this case. They came up with a viable compromise. Is the technology being reviewed? Yes. I may be optomistic on this one, but I don't think that this committee will be biased in its evaluation. I think they'll probably condemn it, finding that it violates illegal search and seizure, or the implied right to privacy. But not for a second do I think that the government is doing something wrong here in having those with proper security credentials work on this project. To do otherwise would be lunacy.
Well, Americans think this movie is awful. But then again, we didn't like 5th Element, either (IN GENERAL). From what I understand, the 5th element went over *much* better in Europe than it did here. This might be the same way, but I've never seen BE, and I don't think I ever will.
Here's another article (rejected by the nazi moderators:) on Newsweek about the whole deal with Napster & the RIAA. Notice the picture of the kid, presumably downloading mp3's from the internet. Notice the massive rack of CD's he has behind them. Think he pays for his music?
And I couldn't disagree with _you_ more. I can't stand a game without a decent plot. With some exceptions (tetris, simcity), the plot of a game is absolutely vital to keep my interest, personally. The story in Starcraft was wonderful. Kept me up for hours. Quake, on the other hand, I played for a week. Q3 is even more pathetic. I bought the Linux version merely out of principle, played it for 10 minutes, and deleted it. My absolute favourite games have to be the Final Fantasy series by Squaresoft. Ever since the original on the NES, I've been absolutely addicted to the story lines and plot twists of this wonderful series.
But I do see your point about gameplay. If the gameplay is lousy, it doesn't matter how great the story line is, because it'll be more frustrating than entertaining.
The conclusion I think we need to draw is this. There is a tradeoff problem here. If the story line lacks too much, the player will get disinterested in the game too quickly, and the game won't be as popular, because the users won't be addicted for long. But if the playablity lacks too much, the user will simply get frustrated with the game and tell his friends. I think there really needs to be a balance in computer game design.
If you look at the news thread here, it suggests that Blizzard wants Millions of copies, not hundreds, not thousands -- one thing that the post on Linuxgames neglected to point out.
I believe GPL has an OpenGL renderer. Also, I do know that Loki is working on some sort of racing game. Check their website at http://www.lokigames.com
This is hysterical. Why did they sell Tandy computers out of Radio Shack? Because they were junk, with possible exception being the TRS-80. Why does Radio Shack sell Optimus equipment? Because they're junk. Why is Radio Shack selling Microshit equipment? You fill in the blank. Rat Shack may have all the components a hardware hacker needs, but noone reasonably informed (read: in their right minds) would buy any kind of consumer electronics from them. I find it hilarious that Radio Shack is carrying some more junk equipment. Or maybe Microsoft realized that in order for people to buy their stuff, they have to sell it at a place that only stupid people buy from (once again, with exception to hardware hackers in need of hard to find components).
No, not at all. This is honestly what I think, and frankly, I'm shocked I didn't get a "flamebait" tag for it. I really don't care about solving the world's problems through technology. I think that technology is very cool, fun, and extremely useful, but I also think it adds just as many problems as it solves in many cases. The more information we have access to, the more our personal privacy degrades. Privacy used to be a nonissue until technology stepped in and allowed the wrong people to access any information they wish. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes I wish for simpler times.
I don't know about everyone else, but I thought this was pretty lame. I thought the questions totally uninteresting and not thought provoking in the slightest. IMHO, this didn't need to be posted. But that's just me. Feel free to moderate me down now!
Now, the mob doesn't have to go door-to-door to get absentee ballots here in Chicago to "do the handicapped a favor" and drop the ballots in the mail (after making sure they voted for the proper candidate, of course), all they have to do is find a halfway decent cracker. Remember the Chicago politicians' motto: "Vote Early, and Vote Often!"
As a Linux enthusiast and a gamer, I can honestly say that playing my favourite video games on Linux is a LOT better than trying to screw around with DirectSex in Windoze. My question is this:
1) When are we going to see widespread adoption of Linux as a gaming platform?
2) What should the community focus on in order to bring about this change more rapidly? Should we write gaming engines, API's, contribute to MESA, or just lake history take its course?
3) What is the best way to encourage game companies that Linux development is a sound financial decision? Or isn't it right now?
4) Public adoption of Linux has been increasing rapidly over the past year, but I don't see a lot of games coming out of large development houses, except of course for ID and Loki, and right now I don't consider Loki a large development house. Why is this?
Thanks for your time, John, and keep cranking out the killer games!
Slashdot Mirror
How possible is it that the campus routers/firewalls/multiplexers/whatever are set to limit the amount of bandwidth any one port can use at a time? If that's the case, then by using two ports, he would be doubling his bandwidth. Now this has me thinking about doing something similar to the machines in my dorm room.....
You need 1.3 tons of speakers. They're only $130,000 and your specialized listening room can be as small as 15'x20'! Check 'em out here. Everyone can afford a pair of these. I'm surprised I haven't seen them in the ghetto yet! ;)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
Well, the problem, mainly, is that there are no sales. Who's to blame for this? Loki? ID? No. Linux users. If we don't start paying for games, even the bad ones, we won't see any more come out, much less the good ones. Blizzard has said that they won't release anything for Linux until they can reasonably expect to see $1 million in sales. So the only way to fix this problem is to go out and actually buy the games. Go to Loki's homepage and order some games. Even the bad ones. Unless they start seeing some dollars here, they're going to abandon the platform entirely.
Don't forget, when figuring in costs, to include costs of downtime due to viruses in lost revenue. It'll make their eyes pop out of their sockets.
>What has Gore said that puts him in that category >in your mind?
When he said that he wants ISP's to put up "parent pages" before serving up 95% of web content and wants website viewing to be better tracked. Personally, I have no problem with public computers having censorware on them. The government, whether state, federal, or local, owns those machines and they have the right to do whatever they want with them. Sure, it may seem fascist, but who are you to say what they can or cannot do with what the majority of people actually want?
Thank you for making my point. Gore throwing money at the military is NOT going to solve their problems. They need reform and leadership, not someone who thinks that the problems can be bought away.
Bush is against frivolous spending on the military. Check out his plan if you don't believe me.
Frankly, I think "weak military" is just a code phrase for "get US troops out of places like Kosovo, where the natives ain't Christian and they don't even have any goddam oil". But that's strictly suspicion. Perhaps someone who understands the Republican value system better can clarify it.
As a Republican, let me try to clarify some things...
First off, the Republican party has historically been in favor of a strong military, and less government spending.
Here's the current problem Republicans see. 1) Abuse of our armed forces by the current administration. Morale and readiness are extremely low. Remember when the military issued the order that effectively says that criticizing the President and his administration is illegal for the Armed Services? They did that because the abuses of the military were so severe that no soldier in his right mind had any respect for Clinton. As a result, people weren't reapplying for service when their 3 year or whatever tenures were up. One reason for this is our overextension of forces around the world. Did we really need to be in Somalia? And what about our country's "do nothing" attitude when our marines were killed and dragged through the streets while they were on a humanitarian mission? Ask anyone in the military, and they'll tell you it's a total fsck-up. Both parties acknowledged problems with the military in this area. Both parties offer solutions. Al Gore wants to throw money at the military in hopes that the problems will go away. GWB wants to have widespread reforms in policies regarding the military, plus additional government spending.
And let me respond to your other accusation about the "peace dividend" as well. Remember, that the first totally post cold war president was Bill Clinton. He cut military funding substantially while substantially increasing deployments. In effect, he said, "Go do this job for me, but I'm not going to give you any tools you need to do it". Our entire armed forces were down to less than 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles during the Kosovo campaign (which, if you ask someone in the military, was another colossal fsck-up) because Clinton's spending cuts were so drastic that they couldn't afford them anymore! That's not enough missiles to give one to each piece of army, navy, and air force equipment that can actually use them, and who we rely on being able to use them in a conflict. Remember the importance they played in the conflicts of the past 10 years or so?
Another thing about the "peace dividend" is the fact that our military deployments have been more since the cold war than during it. Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, the Persian Gulf, all kinds of unrest brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russians can no longer afford to control their spheres of influence, so we're left trying to make up for them. This is quite unfortunate and unforseen. Noone knew that the SU was going to collapse, noone knew that the Russian economy was as bad off as it was.
This is why GWB's spending proposals for the military are lower than Big Al's. By pulling our troops back home and concentrating more on defending our country than imposing our will on countries who don't want our "help", we can improve the morale and readiness of our forces, and spend less on the military to boot. Sounds like a better solution to me than trying to throw money at our problems and hope they go away.
>Why not allow greater deductions for charitable contributions now?
/.'ers will agree that the best government is a minimalist government. The smaller the government, the less it can interfere with private lives of its citizens. As a result of this, I think that people themselves should be deciding where their tax money goes. Give tax credits for charitable contributions, not deductions! Lower the tax rate and figure out other ways to reward charity in this country! I fully agree with the democrats that we have class differences in this country that need to be fixed, but I don't think growing the government will help anyone.
I was so hoping to hear some candidates talk about this during this election year. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to people that private charity should be supporting. I think most
--Well put! Wealth, as we all know, is a heinous crime and should be punished by death!
My bad. I thought you were merely referring to the income tax. But Bush seems to be doing better at exactly these things, and others the President can do very little if anything about: >40-50% Tax Rate: >estimate a 22-25% tax bracket Which Bush has said he'd lower. >15.3% "social security" Which the Bush plan allows a certain percentage for private investment. Sure, it's only 15% or so, but at least it's something, and it's better than people in their 20's or 30's like myself will get under the Gore plan. >7% sales tax State, City, or County mandated. There is no national sales tax. >?? % gasoline tax Gore wants to raise it! Read his book if you don't believe me. His environmental extremism is legendary. He's basically said that he wants to put heavy fuel taxes on in order to try to reduce gasoline consumption. Bush actually got a good jab off on him about this in last week's debate. I'm sure a lot of slashdotters side with Gore about the environment, and I agree that it's good to be environmentally conscious, but to forgo all consideration of the economy, local jobs, or whatever is a little over the deep end for me. >?? % property taxes Again, county mandated. Not much can happen here. Though, the primary things that Property taxes go to, at least around my area, is for schools, which Bush does seem more committed to than Gore, at least in the area of reform. I don't know. I'm being biased, but I honestly think that Gore likes to throw money at problems and hope they go away where Bush likes to actually try to fix them permanently. As for the "Read My Lips" thing, that was his Father who said that, not George W. And yes, there's no way the whole plan, 100% will pass congress. But the same is true with the Gore plan or any other plan. Congress has to pick it apart first. But from these plans, you see the kind of things that the candidate will do if elected president, the kinds of bills he'll sign, etc. But either way, if you agree with me or not, VOTE! It's the only layer protecting you from the government. Your voice does count. And I'd rather see you vote for Gore than not vote at all.
40-50% tax rate?!?! Where are you pulling those numbers from?? Bush's platform is pulling for an across the board tax cut, scaled by income (highest percentage goes to lowest income). And with a republican congress, he'll get it.
But what I'm really P.O.'ed about is the fscking partisanship in Congress. Where is FDR when you need him? The man who didn't care what party his own advisers came from. The man who appointed a socialist woman (scandalous in those days) to Secretary of the Interior simply because he liked her idea of a "social security" system! Now, when Billy Boy took office, he took longer than anyone else in history to make his appointments, because the criteria was that you had to be a FOB (Friend Of Bill)...I.E. bought the position with campaign funds. The only candidate even close to this, even close to being able to work through the partisanship, is Bush. I already voted for him (absentee). And I'd do so again. If anyone can get anything done in Washington, it's not going to be the Big Government Liberal Washington Politician, it's going to be the outsider to the washington scene.
I voted for Bush because I'm sick of Big Government beaurocracy telling me how I need to run my life. I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted on studies on the effectiveness of watermelon on Dung Beetles. I'm sick of the waste, the scandal, the disgrace of our marines being killed and dragged through the streets of some African country without any action, the partisanship, and the stalemate in Washington. I think that Big Government == Big Brother. And I think it's time we did something about it.
Okay. We know 2 things:
/.-ers think that all information is sacred and should be in the public domain, but magicians should never reveal their secrets, poker players should never tip their hands, and governments should never tell the rest of the world what they know. I support the government in this case. They came up with a viable compromise. Is the technology being reviewed? Yes. I may be optomistic on this one, but I don't think that this committee will be biased in its evaluation. I think they'll probably condemn it, finding that it violates illegal search and seizure, or the implied right to privacy. But not for a second do I think that the government is doing something wrong here in having those with proper security credentials work on this project. To do otherwise would be lunacy.
1) Carnivore (probably) contains top secret NSA software technologies. Encryption, filtering, you name it.
2) The government NEVER lets ordinary people without security clearances view anything classified. And for good reason. They want to make sure their secret information stays secret.
Do you honestly think that the government would do otherwise? I highly doubt they'd let anyone, intelligent or no, work on this thing without a security clearance. It's top secret technology! And I know a lot of
You can find the article here.
Well, Americans think this movie is awful. But then again, we didn't like 5th Element, either (IN GENERAL). From what I understand, the 5th element went over *much* better in Europe than it did here. This might be the same way, but I've never seen BE, and I don't think I ever will.
Here's another article (rejected by the nazi moderators :) on Newsweek about the whole deal with Napster & the RIAA. Notice the picture of the kid, presumably downloading mp3's from the internet. Notice the massive rack of CD's he has behind them. Think he pays for his music?
And I couldn't disagree with _you_ more. I can't stand a game without a decent plot. With some exceptions (tetris, simcity), the plot of a game is absolutely vital to keep my interest, personally. The story in Starcraft was wonderful. Kept me up for hours. Quake, on the other hand, I played for a week. Q3 is even more pathetic. I bought the Linux version merely out of principle, played it for 10 minutes, and deleted it. My absolute favourite games have to be the Final Fantasy series by Squaresoft. Ever since the original on the NES, I've been absolutely addicted to the story lines and plot twists of this wonderful series.
But I do see your point about gameplay. If the gameplay is lousy, it doesn't matter how great the story line is, because it'll be more frustrating than entertaining.
The conclusion I think we need to draw is this. There is a tradeoff problem here. If the story line lacks too much, the player will get disinterested in the game too quickly, and the game won't be as popular, because the users won't be addicted for long. But if the playablity lacks too much, the user will simply get frustrated with the game and tell his friends. I think there really needs to be a balance in computer game design.
nt
If you look at the news thread here, it suggests that Blizzard wants Millions of copies, not hundreds, not thousands -- one thing that the post on Linuxgames neglected to point out.
I believe GPL has an OpenGL renderer. Also, I do know that Loki is working on some sort of racing game. Check their website at http://www.lokigames.com
This is hysterical. Why did they sell Tandy computers out of Radio Shack? Because they were junk, with possible exception being the TRS-80. Why does Radio Shack sell Optimus equipment? Because they're junk. Why is Radio Shack selling Microshit equipment? You fill in the blank. Rat Shack may have all the components a hardware hacker needs, but noone reasonably informed (read: in their right minds) would buy any kind of consumer electronics from them. I find it hilarious that Radio Shack is carrying some more junk equipment. Or maybe Microsoft realized that in order for people to buy their stuff, they have to sell it at a place that only stupid people buy from (once again, with exception to hardware hackers in need of hard to find components).
No, not at all. This is honestly what I think, and frankly, I'm shocked I didn't get a "flamebait" tag for it. I really don't care about solving the world's problems through technology. I think that technology is very cool, fun, and extremely useful, but I also think it adds just as many problems as it solves in many cases. The more information we have access to, the more our personal privacy degrades. Privacy used to be a nonissue until technology stepped in and allowed the wrong people to access any information they wish. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes I wish for simpler times.
Oh well. Flame away.
I don't know about everyone else, but I thought this was pretty lame. I thought the questions totally uninteresting and not thought provoking in the slightest. IMHO, this didn't need to be posted. But that's just me. Feel free to moderate me down now!
Now, the mob doesn't have to go door-to-door to get absentee ballots here in Chicago to "do the handicapped a favor" and drop the ballots in the mail (after making sure they voted for the proper candidate, of course), all they have to do is find a halfway decent cracker. Remember the Chicago politicians' motto: "Vote Early, and Vote Often!"
As a Linux enthusiast and a gamer, I can honestly say that playing my favourite video games on Linux is a LOT better than trying to screw around with DirectSex in Windoze. My question is this:
1) When are we going to see widespread adoption of Linux as a gaming platform?
2) What should the community focus on in order to bring about this change more rapidly? Should we write gaming engines, API's, contribute to MESA, or just lake history take its course?
3) What is the best way to encourage game companies that Linux development is a sound financial decision? Or isn't it right now?
4) Public adoption of Linux has been increasing rapidly over the past year, but I don't see a lot of games coming out of large development houses, except of course for ID and Loki, and right now I don't consider Loki a large development house. Why is this?
Thanks for your time, John, and keep cranking out the killer games!
>Ever since IBM came aboard the Linux bandwagon, of course!
I thought Chevy did the blue bowties...
Yeah, I know it's off topic, but...