These outrageous claims remind me of the old AT&T commercials:
"Ever had a robot that did all your household chores, cooked your meals, ran your errands, and looked like it came from http://www.realdoll.com?...... No?... You will!... And the company that will bring it to you is AT&T."
Of course, nothing they promised ever got delivered, and certainly not by AT&T.
Unfortunately, ever since the Berne Convention intellectual property rights have become enmeshed across international borders.
The signatory nations have agreed to respect the intellectual property rights granted by the member nations. That effectively makes international copyright law the sum of the most restrictive versions.
Of course, if another country strongly disagrees with something, their enforcement could be minimal. That is really all we have to hope for.
> > I wrote (you quoted): > > > > This kind of crap is frivilous, back-patting BS being done > > by people who want to feel like they are "making the world > > a better place." In truth, they are accomplishing nothing.
> > and I also wrote (you quoted): > > > > If you want to help out people in the 3rd world, join the Peace Corps. > > You wrote: > > Statements-... in.. contradiction.. too.. close.. world.. collapsing..
They do not contradict at all if you read them as written and actually think about what I am saying.
Going to an extremely undeveloped and unadvanced country like Laos to put in wireless internet access is frivilous and of extremely low utility and priority. The only reason one would do such a ridiculous thing is so they can pat themselves on the back and tell people at high society cocktail parties and political fund raisers about how they help the underprivileged.
Joining the Peace Corps, where they will do things like put in irrigation, sanitation, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc. is actually USEFUL to countries like Laos. The kinds of things the Peace Corps does are often very hard, backbreaking work and consequently it brings REAL help to people. They work to solve the high priority problems that third world countries need.
Dropping in for a few weeks to plop down some wireless internet access towers is like putting a bandaid on a sucking gut wound. It looks silly in its futility.
I am getting really fed up with these appeals to make the general population of either our nation or the world PAY for internet access for others. Internet access is *NOT* equivalent to food or health care.
I realize we all feel the internet is a miraculous invention that is "setting people free." I generally hold this view as well. But it is not a necessity!
This reminds me of all of the extra fees on your telephone bill that were put there by Al Gore. Yes, the "creating of the internet" that Al Gore takes credit for is largely the sneaky tax increases he jammed through Congress by adding numerous fees to your phone bill. That money is then used as welfare to (supposedly) give free internet access to low income folks. That is *NOT* the proper role of government.
Similarly, bringing internet access to the jungles of Southeast asia is *NOT* the role of charitable organizations and it is certainly not the type of project that should be gobbling up the limited funds charitable people have to donate to causes in the world.
Internet access is a part of a nation's technological and industrial infrastructure that needs to evolve organically along with the rest of its culture. You cannot take a country that is 50+ years behind the western industrialized world and plop down mondern internet technology. It makes no sense and it is a huge waste. If you want to help these countries economically, you need to help them get a basic economic infrastructure in place so they can actually grow in a normal fashion.
This kind of crap is frivilous, back-patting BS being done by people who want to feel like they are "making the world a better place." In truth, they are accomplishing nothing.
If you want to help out people in the 3rd world, join the Peace Corps.
These types of stories need MORE publicity
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the most important benefits of the internet. The ability to ridicule a company or government for things it has done to cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most important types of freedom of expression.
It is absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home addresses, and other personal information against their will, then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting actual people and their families at risk. When you create a parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to utilize the personal information in order to cause real physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to "thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks, so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I even bring up this issue is because of this part of the article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real home > address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!" > the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is not funny. The only funny part about that was that James Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in question.;p
> "But on Dec. 4, James Parker himself, with the > help of a team of Dow lawyers, sent a Xerox of > his driver's license and a letter by FedEx to > Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This domain > belongs to me. See, that's my home address, > too. Give it to me!" > > According to rules established by the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers -- > an organization responsible for, among other > chores, Internet address disputes -- Parker was > correct and Gandi.net had no legal choice but > to hand over Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such sites be prevented from distributing personal information about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the latter put lives at risk.
Why is this being "dignified" by Slashdot?
on
Stealth Force Beta
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why in the world is this a news item on Slashdot.
Just as an example, let us examine "Operation Up Your Shaft" (http://www.spril.com/StealthForceBeta/UpYourShaft.asp)
In this "prank", not only did they climb around in an ACTIVE elevator shaft, they filled the elevator with objects that would deliberately pour out upon an unsuspecting user of the elevator in order to scare them. Climbing around in an elevator shaft that is OPERATIONAL is exceptionally stupid. They are very fortunate nobody was injured or KILLED. Most of the story reads like the beginning of a Darwin Award entry.
First, who cares about a couple of dorks who engaged in a bunch of silly pranks and "Mission Impossible wanna-be" activities.
Second, why condone this sort of DANGEROUS and often illegal behavior. Giving praise and recognition to people who engage in this kind of crap is unwise, misguided, and exceptionally dangerous.
Third, there are FAR more interesting stories in the world of technology and geekdom that could occupy the scant few front page slots on the/. home page./. is an excellent web site whose biggest limitation is not even its own fault: lack of space! There are too many good stories and not enough space to share them all. Why waste the VALUABLE resource that is/. on this kind of childish garbage?
I was hesitant to post this because I frequently see (and despise) the ridiculous flamers who seem to only post here so they can be critical of/.. On the contrary, I am PRAISING the value of/. and trying to argue that a spot on the front page is worth too much to be squandered on junk like this.
Of course! The problem isn't a noisy PVR, but the lack of a white noise generator.
If you read my entire post, you would clearly see that was not the point. Take the small percentage of people who use their PVR in the bedroom (instead of the living room or medium), and divide that into an even smaller percentage of people who can actually hear the noise, then divide that into an even SMALLER percentage of people who are bothered by that, and for this tiny portion of the PVR using population there are alternate solutions.
The overarching point I was making in my post is that there are FAR more significant issues that PVRs need to resolve before they start worrying about trivialities like hard drive noise.
The HD noise issue is completely and totally irrelevant. First of all, most people use PVRs in their living room or (if they have one) media room. You put your PVR where you watch TV the most, and that isn't the bedroom.
Furthermore, there are a million ways to deal with the noise issue if you really needed to. Put the PVR in a cabinet, turn on the ceiling fan, get a cheap "white noise" generator, etc, etc.
The article touches on one of the two *REAL* problems with PVR adoption. I say this as as huge TIVO fanatic (I own three DirecTV TiVOs currently and I've converted 7 friends so far into fellow TiVO-haulics).
NUMBER 1) The difficulty in quickly explaining "the magic" of PVRs to the consumer. This is the big problem that the article mentioned more as an aside than as a major problem. Sales people talk about things like "pause live tv!" and other gimmicks that don't suck people in. The real joys of PVRs are:
1. The fact that it holds 60-120 hours of entertainment. You don't swap tapes. You don't have to run out to the store to buy tapes. It is all there, at your fingertips.
2. You can tell it your favorite shows and it will record them EVERY WEEK with no further input from you (even if the show gets moved to a different day or time, the PVR will STILL record it). It can even seek out your favorite show(s) over multiple channels if you so wish.
3. It has tons of built in features to find other shows you might like. You can search by genre, type of show or movie, etc. This is pretty handy.
4. It actively SEEKS OUT shows you might like (and while there are many strikeouts, it does hit a home run quite often). It does this by comparing the actors, genres, and other information of shows you LIKED (indicated by you giving it a thumbs up or just the fact that you recorded it on purpose) and seeking out other shows that are similar. I have started watching a number of really cool shows solely because TiVO grabbed a few of them for me.
5. PVRs are digital, which means fast forward, reverse, etc. work much better. This makes it a lot easier to motor through commercials (and Replay TV even has a +30 second button. TiVO only has a - 8 second button, but you can do a little remote trick to convert one of your buttons to a +30 second button).
NUMBER 2) This is a big issue that the article is not aware of: TIVO has failed to innovate over the last 1-2 years. There have been no significant new features and they have not improved the organization of your recorded shows (which gets to be a problem at 100+ hours of shows). This failure to innovate has served to reduce the "excitement level" of current PVR adoptees, and that slows down the rate at which they fervently try to convince friends to get one.
These 2 problems are what really matters in the PVR space. I haven't mentioned pressure from MPAA, Hollywood, etc. because that is the 600 pound gorilla that hangs over ALL entertainment, not just PVRs.
The point is, hard drive noise is irrelevanat compared to the MUCH larger issues that face the popularity and success of the PVR.
Assuming something good comes out of this research into "a better back button", how long will it be before someone (Amazon perhaps?) claims they already invented the concept and patented it 10 years prior?
It is good to see this issue getting more attention. As Microsoft tries to take more intimate control of how we use our computers, the more people they will send into the waiting arms of alternatives like Linux. And as the market for Linux grows, there will be more motivation (and gain) to produce quality alternative applications (office suites, ports of games, etc).
This situation reminds me of Princess Leia's warning to Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: "The tighter you squeeze, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."
I have a customer who is a VP with Microsoft (he makes hardware, not software... For example, he is on the patent for the Strategic Commander). I was recently discussing with him the whole license structure of Office as well as the way MSFT is trying to limit you to 1 or 2 installs per copy of Windows.
He finds the practice to be idiotic and damaging in the long term to the company. He feels that such actions do nothing but jeopardize their position in the market since such moves anger customers enormously, limit their flexibility, and increase their willingness to try alternatives. Sadly, he's just an engineer and not a policy maker.
I admit that I am still plodding along working most of the time in Windows and using Office for word processing and spreadsheets. But all my servers run Linux and I look forward to the day when I can comfortably use Linux as my main OS for ALL work and hopefully MOST of my gaming.
It is OUR responsibility to fight these laws
on
Biggest IP cases of 2002
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Perhaps I am asking the impossible here, but I believe it is up to folks like those who read/. to work towards the repeal of absurd laws like the DMCA, and others that result in these absurd law suits.
Believe it or not, your congressmen, senators, and governors WILL LISTEN if they get enough feedback. What does that entail? It entails writing a coherent, calm (avoid flames), SNAIL MAIL letter and sending it to every government representative in your area. Here are some URLs that might help:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Explain your opposition to laws like the DMCA, UCITA (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html), and similarly outrageous and disgusting laws.
They settled out of court with the authors of DIKU.
This yielded the very obvious and transpareny "no, they aren't using our code" web page found here:
http://www.dikumud.com/diku/everquest.asp
Destroy all nations that assist and harbor them
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 0
This has nothing to do with globalization, corporate greed, or any other supposed causes.
Terrorism is an act of evil. it is not a rational act. It is not a strategy. Terrorists are people who get off on murder. Period. They dream up causes so they can convince weak willed morons that their cause is just. They do it to distract their victims from being able to reap revenge.
We must utterly destroy every nation that harbors and assists terrorists. Then it will stop.
When terrorists fear our reprisal, they will cease their actions. Nothing else will stop them.
I wish turn based would have a resurgence. In my opinion, turn based games rely a lot more on strategy and tactics, rather than just flailing around and having overwhelming firepower.
Don't get me wrong. I love Age of Empires, Planescape: Torment, and other real time games. But turn based games introduce a whole additional layer of strategy that simply is not present in real time games.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
1) Get a broadband connection. Very few people do not have at least one broadband method as an option (cable, dsl, or satellite).
2) Play single player games: Personally, most games you buy at the store are better single player. Multiplayer just ends up being a nice add on. Sadly, gaming companies do not administrate their multiplayer environments, and you spend have the time dealing with assholes.
Note: This is not always the case. Some games ROCK multiplayer.
3) Play multiplayer games at boxerjam.com
If the game designers are going to do anything differently, they should just make sure the single player experience is a good one. In the end, this makes for a better multiplayer game anyway, so the time isn't wasted.
I agree that the more games are designed for broadband, the more people will get broadband and the more telecommunications companies will get off their ass and improve their infrastructure.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
Re:aren't there more important things in life...
on
The Modem Lives On
·
· Score: 1
Your post is totally off topic. You knew it, which is why you tried to argue in advance against anyone explaining to you that your post was off topic.
Please go find some inbred, retarded mommy organization that whines about violent games. Leave thinking, rational human beings alone.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
This is an easy question to answer: role playing games.
AD&D (now D&D), GURPs, etc. are all zero sum games. They are fun, exciting, etc. but the people play together, rather than against each other.
Such games can also build imagination, creativity, vocabulary, and social skills.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
>power mongers like sony do like to do this sort of stuff without consideration of public opinion.
First, let me state that I think Everquest is a horrible, boring game for little children.
That being said, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the Everquest gaming community supports this ban (check out the gaming sites).
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
Slashdot Mirror
These outrageous claims remind me of the old AT&T commercials:
... ... ...
"Ever had a robot that did all your household chores, cooked your meals, ran your errands, and looked like it came from http://www.realdoll.com?...
No?
You will!
And the company that will bring it to you is AT&T."
Of course, nothing they promised ever got delivered, and certainly not by AT&T.
I wish that were true.
Unfortunately, ever since the Berne Convention intellectual property rights have become enmeshed across international borders.
The signatory nations have agreed to respect the intellectual property rights granted by the member nations. That effectively makes international copyright law the sum of the most restrictive versions.
Of course, if another country strongly disagrees with something, their enforcement could be minimal. That is really all we have to hope for.
> > I wrote (you quoted):
... in .. contradiction .. too .. close.. world.. collapsing ..
> >
> > This kind of crap is frivilous, back-patting BS being done
> > by people who want to feel like they are "making the world
> > a better place." In truth, they are accomplishing nothing.
> > and I also wrote (you quoted):
> >
> > If you want to help out people in the 3rd world, join the Peace Corps.
>
> You wrote:
>
> Statements-
They do not contradict at all if you read them as written and actually think about what I am saying.
Going to an extremely undeveloped and unadvanced country like Laos to put in wireless internet access is frivilous and of extremely low utility and priority. The only reason one would do such a ridiculous thing is so they can pat themselves on the back and tell people at high society cocktail parties and political fund raisers about how they help the underprivileged.
Joining the Peace Corps, where they will do things like put in irrigation, sanitation, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc. is actually USEFUL to countries like Laos. The kinds of things the Peace Corps does are often very hard, backbreaking work and consequently it brings REAL help to people. They work to solve the high priority problems that third world countries need.
Dropping in for a few weeks to plop down some wireless internet access towers is like putting a bandaid on a sucking gut wound. It looks silly in its futility.
I am getting really fed up with these appeals to make the general population of either our nation or the world PAY for internet access for others. Internet access is *NOT* equivalent to food or health care.
I realize we all feel the internet is a miraculous invention that is "setting people free." I generally hold this view as well. But it is not a necessity!
This reminds me of all of the extra fees on your telephone bill that were put there by Al Gore. Yes, the "creating of the internet" that Al Gore takes credit for is largely the sneaky tax increases he jammed through Congress by adding numerous fees to your phone bill. That money is then used as welfare to (supposedly) give free internet access to low income folks. That is *NOT* the proper role of government.
Similarly, bringing internet access to the jungles of Southeast asia is *NOT* the role of charitable organizations and it is certainly not the type of project that should be gobbling up the limited funds charitable people have to donate to causes in the world.
Internet access is a part of a nation's technological and industrial infrastructure that needs to evolve organically along with the rest of its culture. You cannot take a country that is 50+ years behind the western industrialized world and plop down mondern internet technology. It makes no sense and it is a huge waste. If you want to help these countries economically, you need to help them get a basic economic infrastructure in place so they can actually grow in a normal fashion.
This kind of crap is frivilous, back-patting BS being done by people who want to feel like they are "making the world a better place." In truth, they are accomplishing nothing.
If you want to help out people in the 3rd world, join the Peace Corps.
This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the most important benefits of the internet. The ability to ridicule a company or government for things it has done to cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most important types of freedom of expression.
;p
It is absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home addresses, and other personal information against their will, then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting actual people and their families at risk. When you create a parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to utilize the personal information in order to cause real physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to "thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks, so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I even bring up this issue is because of this part of the article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real home
> address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!"
> the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is not funny. The only funny part about that was that James Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in question.
> "But on Dec. 4, James Parker himself, with the
> help of a team of Dow lawyers, sent a Xerox of
> his driver's license and a letter by FedEx to
> Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This domain
> belongs to me. See, that's my home address,
> too. Give it to me!"
>
> According to rules established by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers --
> an organization responsible for, among other
> chores, Internet address disputes -- Parker was
> correct and Gandi.net had no legal choice but
> to hand over Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such sites be prevented from distributing personal information about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the latter put lives at risk.
Why in the world is this a news item on Slashdot.
t .asp)
/. home page. /. is an excellent web site whose biggest limitation is not even its own fault: lack of space! There are too many good stories and not enough space to share them all. Why waste the VALUABLE resource that is /. on this kind of childish garbage?
/.. On the contrary, I am PRAISING the value of /. and trying to argue that a spot on the front page is worth too much to be squandered on junk like this.
Just as an example, let us examine "Operation Up Your Shaft" (http://www.spril.com/StealthForceBeta/UpYourShaf
In this "prank", not only did they climb around in an ACTIVE elevator shaft, they filled the elevator with objects that would deliberately pour out upon an unsuspecting user of the elevator in order to scare them. Climbing around in an elevator shaft that is OPERATIONAL is exceptionally stupid. They are very fortunate nobody was injured or KILLED. Most of the story reads like the beginning of a Darwin Award entry.
First, who cares about a couple of dorks who engaged in a bunch of silly pranks and "Mission Impossible wanna-be" activities.
Second, why condone this sort of DANGEROUS and often illegal behavior. Giving praise and recognition to people who engage in this kind of crap is unwise, misguided, and exceptionally dangerous.
Third, there are FAR more interesting stories in the world of technology and geekdom that could occupy the scant few front page slots on the
I was hesitant to post this because I frequently see (and despise) the ridiculous flamers who seem to only post here so they can be critical of
... until you're old enough to drink, Internet!
Until then, I guess you have to stick to what you're best at: porn and gambling.
Happy Birthday Internet!
Of course! The problem isn't a noisy PVR, but the lack of a white noise generator.
If you read my entire post, you would clearly see that was not the point. Take the small percentage of people who use their PVR in the bedroom (instead of the living room or medium), and divide that into an even smaller percentage of people who can actually hear the noise, then divide that into an even SMALLER percentage of people who are bothered by that, and for this tiny portion of the PVR using population there are alternate solutions.
The overarching point I was making in my post is that there are FAR more significant issues that PVRs need to resolve before they start worrying about trivialities like hard drive noise.
The HD noise issue is completely and totally irrelevant. First of all, most people use PVRs in their living room or (if they have one) media room. You put your PVR where you watch TV the most, and that isn't the bedroom.
Furthermore, there are a million ways to deal with the noise issue if you really needed to. Put the PVR in a cabinet, turn on the ceiling fan, get a cheap "white noise" generator, etc, etc.
The article touches on one of the two *REAL* problems with PVR adoption. I say this as as huge TIVO fanatic (I own three DirecTV TiVOs currently and I've converted 7 friends so far into fellow TiVO-haulics).
NUMBER 1) The difficulty in quickly explaining "the magic" of PVRs to the consumer. This is the big problem that the article mentioned more as an aside than as a major problem. Sales people talk about things like "pause live tv!" and other gimmicks that don't suck people in. The real joys of PVRs are:
1. The fact that it holds 60-120 hours of entertainment. You don't swap tapes. You don't have to run out to the store to buy tapes. It is all there, at your fingertips.
2. You can tell it your favorite shows and it will record them EVERY WEEK with no further input from you (even if the show gets moved to a different day or time, the PVR will STILL record it). It can even seek out your favorite show(s) over multiple channels if you so wish.
3. It has tons of built in features to find other shows you might like. You can search by genre, type of show or movie, etc. This is pretty handy.
4. It actively SEEKS OUT shows you might like (and while there are many strikeouts, it does hit a home run quite often). It does this by comparing the actors, genres, and other information of shows you LIKED (indicated by you giving it a thumbs up or just the fact that you recorded it on purpose) and seeking out other shows that are similar. I have started watching a number of really cool shows solely because TiVO grabbed a few of them for me.
5. PVRs are digital, which means fast forward, reverse, etc. work much better. This makes it a lot easier to motor through commercials (and Replay TV even has a +30 second button. TiVO only has a - 8 second button, but you can do a little remote trick to convert one of your buttons to a +30 second button).
NUMBER 2) This is a big issue that the article is not aware of: TIVO has failed to innovate over the last 1-2 years. There have been no significant new features and they have not improved the organization of your recorded shows (which gets to be a problem at 100+ hours of shows). This failure to innovate has served to reduce the "excitement level" of current PVR adoptees, and that slows down the rate at which they fervently try to convince friends to get one.
These 2 problems are what really matters in the PVR space. I haven't mentioned pressure from MPAA, Hollywood, etc. because that is the 600 pound gorilla that hangs over ALL entertainment, not just PVRs.
The point is, hard drive noise is irrelevanat compared to the MUCH larger issues that face the popularity and success of the PVR.
Assuming something good comes out of this research into "a better back button", how long will it be before someone (Amazon perhaps?) claims they already invented the concept and patented it 10 years prior?
It is good to see this issue getting more attention. As Microsoft tries to take more intimate control of how we use our computers, the more people they will send into the waiting arms of alternatives like Linux. And as the market for Linux grows, there will be more motivation (and gain) to produce quality alternative applications (office suites, ports of games, etc).
This situation reminds me of Princess Leia's warning to Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: "The tighter you squeeze, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."
I have a customer who is a VP with Microsoft (he makes hardware, not software... For example, he is on the patent for the Strategic Commander). I was recently discussing with him the whole license structure of Office as well as the way MSFT is trying to limit you to 1 or 2 installs per copy of Windows.
He finds the practice to be idiotic and damaging in the long term to the company. He feels that such actions do nothing but jeopardize their position in the market since such moves anger customers enormously, limit their flexibility, and increase their willingness to try alternatives. Sadly, he's just an engineer and not a policy maker.
I admit that I am still plodding along working most of the time in Windows and using Office for word processing and spreadsheets. But all my servers run Linux and I look forward to the day when I can comfortably use Linux as my main OS for ALL work and hopefully MOST of my gaming.
Perhaps I am asking the impossible here, but I believe it is up to folks like those who read /. to work towards the repeal of absurd laws like the DMCA, and others that result in these absurd law suits.
Believe it or not, your congressmen, senators, and governors WILL LISTEN if they get enough feedback. What does that entail? It entails writing a coherent, calm (avoid flames), SNAIL MAIL letter and sending it to every government representative in your area. Here are some URLs that might help:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Explain your opposition to laws like the DMCA, UCITA (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html), and similarly outrageous and disgusting laws.
Actually, Everquest was based off DIKU.
They settled out of court with the authors of DIKU.
This yielded the very obvious and transpareny "no, they aren't using our code" web page found here:
http://www.dikumud.com/diku/everquest.asp
This has nothing to do with globalization, corporate greed, or any other supposed causes.
Terrorism is an act of evil. it is not a rational act. It is not a strategy. Terrorists are people who get off on murder. Period. They dream up causes so they can convince weak willed morons that their cause is just. They do it to distract their victims from being able to reap revenge.
We must utterly destroy every nation that harbors and assists terrorists. Then it will stop.
When terrorists fear our reprisal, they will cease their actions. Nothing else will stop them.
I wish turn based would have a resurgence. In my opinion, turn based games rely a lot more on strategy and tactics, rather than just flailing around and having overwhelming firepower.
Don't get me wrong. I love Age of Empires, Planescape: Torment, and other real time games. But turn based games introduce a whole additional layer of strategy that simply is not present in real time games.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
1) Get a broadband connection. Very few people do not have at least one broadband method as an option (cable, dsl, or satellite). 2) Play single player games: Personally, most games you buy at the store are better single player. Multiplayer just ends up being a nice add on. Sadly, gaming companies do not administrate their multiplayer environments, and you spend have the time dealing with assholes. Note: This is not always the case. Some games ROCK multiplayer. 3) Play multiplayer games at boxerjam.com If the game designers are going to do anything differently, they should just make sure the single player experience is a good one. In the end, this makes for a better multiplayer game anyway, so the time isn't wasted. I agree that the more games are designed for broadband, the more people will get broadband and the more telecommunications companies will get off their ass and improve their infrastructure.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
Your post is totally off topic. You knew it, which is why you tried to argue in advance against anyone explaining to you that your post was off topic. Please go find some inbred, retarded mommy organization that whines about violent games. Leave thinking, rational human beings alone.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
This is an easy question to answer: role playing games. AD&D (now D&D), GURPs, etc. are all zero sum games. They are fun, exciting, etc. but the people play together, rather than against each other. Such games can also build imagination, creativity, vocabulary, and social skills.
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest
>power mongers like sony do like to do this sort of stuff without consideration of public opinion. First, let me state that I think Everquest is a horrible, boring game for little children. That being said, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the Everquest gaming community supports this ban (check out the gaming sites).
-Michael (Aristotle@Threshold RPG)
Online Roleplaying at its Finest