One could easily argue that any grasp religion may seem to have on even our own universe is coincidental at best, and a matter of hopeful interpretation at worst.
As pointed out elsewhere, network transparency is virtually free, especially when the clients and server run on the same machine.
Simply put, clients must talk to the X server in order to make requests, read keyboard/mouse input, etc.
How would you suggest the clients and server communicate with each other?
I'd probably look for a mature communications mechanism which has been pounded to hell and back by as many users as possible in as many environments as possible. You're writing a cross-platform windowing environment, so portability is a concern.
Can anyone suggest a cross-platform, mature communications mechanism that doesn't impose any more overhead than necessary?
Let's see -- X could either use a highly-refined, well-defined communications mechanism which damned near (if not EVERY) OS vendor supplies (in the form of IP and UNIX domain sockets where available), or it could define its own communications mechanism which would probably not work nearly as well on nearly as many platforms.
And the parent is modded 3? Is there a "+1, unjustified crap" rating I somehow haven't noticed?
My hammer and chisel haven't failed me yet. Unfortunately, finding production-quality stone tablets has been getting harder and harder over the last, um, 2000 years or so.
Acknowledgement of what?
All I said (or implied) was that writing BASIC in 4k was impressive.
You can go off (or cut and paste) all you want about how much you don't like BASIC, but you miss the point entirely, because I never endorsed the BASIC language, I only said that a 4k BASIC interpreter impressed me.
Sheesh... maybe I should search for myself on Google and cut and paste something I've said before... then at least it would be relevent in the context of _one_ of the stories on the homepage...
Please ignore the junk at the beginning of this post. Shitdot won't just let me post because the characters/line ratio is "too low". If we need stupid filters like this, does that mean that moderation can't handle filtering out garbage?
Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED!
Every time I decide that a particular problem I'm facing might be solved by a spiffy C++ feature, I'm disappointed by something not working as I'd expect.
For example, in C:
file.h:
#ifndef __FILE_H #define __FILE_H
void func();
#endif/* FILE_H */
file.c:
#include <stdio.h> #include "file.h"
void func() { printf("I love C!\n"); }
main.c:
#include "file.h"
int main() { func();
return 0; }
This presents no problems, and compiles as expected (assuming no typos, of course).
crap: main.o templ_fuck.o g++ -o crap main.o templ_fuck.o chet@bunny:~/src/template_fuck$ make g++ -c -o main.o main.cc g++ -c -o templ_fuck.o templ_fuck.cc g++ -o crap main.o templ_fuck.o main.o(.text+0xc): In function `main': : undefined reference to `int func<int>(int)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [crap] Error 1 chet@bunny:~/src/template_fuck$
Why doesn't this work? Because your "perfected" optimizing compiler can't handle link template code. Instead of putting the declaration in a header file, and the definition in a source file, many C++ compilers (VC++ included, as I understand it) force you to put the code itself in your header file.
I know admittedly little about the subject, but it is my understanding that this is NOT required according to the language definition, but is simply a language feature not properly implemented by compilers.
I keep trying to like C++, I really do, but sadly things like this keep cropping up. Now, instead of just learning to use a language feature and gaining productivity in the deal, I'm forced to determine whether the bug is my fault, or a language problem.
Sure, now that I know that templates are crippled, I can use them. However, it makes me wonder what the point of separate compilation units is. Why don't we just put all of the code in headers, and include them all from one main source file?
I learned Java. Then Sun immediately deprecated AWT and pushed Swing upon everyone. I gave up, because within weeks of learning Java, what I'd learned was already outdated. (A case of bad timing, sure, but discouraging nonetheless.)
I try using a commonly cited feature of C++, and find that the compiler can't properly handle it, even a few years later (where "properly" is definited by both working as one would expect, and working as the language definition describes).
C may be dirty, and C may be stupid, but C has been constant.
In true Katz style, this story addresses a pressing concern among Americans of all ages.
JonKatz wastes no time driving right past the heart of the problem, going down the ramp, and out the door.
The problem is not with gamers, the problem is not with the public conception of gamers, the problem is that, assuming that this load of overreaction and poor writing is true, the general public is too damned stupid to differentiate between facts and propaganda. Let's examine, for instance, Mr. Katz's own offering. A factual report regarding this topic (as introduced by the article, the article discusses the postulate, "Gaming has dramatically widened the growing cultural schism between the young and old") would perhaps include poll results from a sufficiently randomly selected sample of the discussed groups. Not this article. In fact, Katz offers nothing factual which supports any of his claims. Let's examine:
"Historians and sociologists call the adult world's response to gaming a 'moral panic.'" With this statement, Katz introduces the theme of the first section of the article to the reader. However, his claim, that historians and sociologists have stated that the adult world's response to "moral panic" is supported in the article by not one single quotation or reference. Which historians and sociologists? This is the Internet; can you, Mr. Katz, provide us with a link? If a whole block of this article is based upon the situation having been termed a "moral panic" by a given authority, even one such example of this would help.
"In much the way the late anthropologist Margaret Mead predicted, the older generation and many of its leading institutions -- education, politics, media, education -- has unleashed a furious attack against gaming and its culture." This statement would be a powerful example of the public reaction to gaming. However, Mr. Katz refuses to give his audience a single example of a "furious attack against gaming" or its culture. Have schools taken a strong stance against gaming, either by banning gaming-related clothing, or by teaching against the evils of games? What has been said by politicians against gaming? And by the media? And by the schools? (Um, what? I said schools already! That's okay, Mr. Katz didn't proofread either - education was mentioned twice. Perhaps longer lists seem more convincing?) Again, Mr. Katz offers no proof that this statement is not entirely unfounded. What has Ms. Mead said on the subject, and how do her statements support the argument?
"[G]aming is associated almost entirely with negative imagery in the non-virtual world . . . Gaming and its allegedly evil affects were central issues in the presidential election, and the notion of an amoral generation of thieves and narcissists crops up again and again in the public perception of computing and the Net, from hacking to free music." Wonderful! With such an influence upon public perception, there must be plenty of examples of such negative imagery. Unfortunately, none of them were referenced by Mr. Katz.
"[M]edia cover technology poorly as a rule, but their shallow portrayal of gaming culture as destructive and profane is a particular scandal, [causing a] 'moral panic,' a severe societal response to some dramatic development that institutions don't understand and can't control, so therefore fear." From this statement, we can assume that the media's coverage of gaming, though sparse, is suggestive enough to cause strong public reaction. However, if public perception is as biased as Mr. Katz would have us believe, surely even a single example of even the results of such influence should be easy to locate.
Moral panic "is defined by at least five crucial elements: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality and volatility." Mr. Katz then gives what we can only assume are his own definitions (q.v.) for each of the five elements; he at least does not credit an external source. This clarifies the intended meaning of these terms to the reader, who may have otherwise associated a meaning other than that intended with the terms involved. This in itself would not be noteworthy, except in that Mr. Katz does not clearly note the source of these definitions.
"On all five criteria, gaming qualifies as causing a moral panic . . . . We see plenty of hostility towards gamers. The fear of gaming has always been wildly disproportionate to any real threat, and the panic over it is episodic, frequently triggered by incidents like school shootings or other media-transmitted scares" Where are the references? An explanation of why and how gaming meets the criteria? Examples of hostility towards gamers, and of "school shootings [and] other media-transmitted scares"?
"The moral panic over gaming has also managed to obscure its growing social, cultural, even political signifance." Gaming has political signifance? Do tell! For lack of elaboration, can we (please!) assume, then, that the Presidential election will be solved, once and for all, with Rocket Arena 3? No? Then, Mr. Katz, could you explain what this actually means?
"'Our toys, writ large, echo profound revolutions in simulation, the science of materials, and digital communication,' author Mark Pesce writes in The Playful World, recently published by Ballantine Books. 'The technique of the Furby has been a hot topic of computer science for a dozen years; artificial life -- simulation of activity of living systems -- has taught us a lot about how we learn and grow into intelligence. Computers, which just a decade ago seemed useful only for word processors and spreadsheets, are now employed as digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms.' Unfortunately, the reader learns nothing of who the author is, what he knows, or the overall subject matter of the book. Possibly knowing nothing of Mr. Pesce or Bellantine Books, the reader can only hope that Mr. Pesce is qualified and Bellantine Books is reputable. Furthermore, Mr. Katz fails to explain what is meant - what is to be conveyed by "digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms"? What is a "seed of mind", and into what "utterly unpredictable form" does it grow? In other words, "Huh?"
"Gaming has evolved far beyond play. Arguably the most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now, it's transforming the imaginations, attentions spans, reflexes and strategic thinking of an entire generation, perhaps even our neural systems themselves." Mr. Katz seems not to understand that placing the word "arguably" before something totally absurd does not excuse lack of research. Much appreciated would be Katz' knowledge the effect of Quake 3 and Tribes 2 upon Ethopia, how those living in Cuba feel about fill rate verses rendering quality, or which is the Bosnians' preferred console.
"With the release of Sony's PlayStation 2, writes Pesce, the founding chair of the Interactive Media Program at the University of California's School of Cinema-Television." Finally, we learn who Mr. Pesce is.
"'[T]he machinery of infinite realities will be within the grasp of millions of children around the world. Unlike any videogame console released before it, the PS 2 will have the power to create realistic imaginings of breathtaking clarity. Million-dollar computers -- in l999! -- have only fractionally more power than the Play Station 2, which will challenge our ideas about simulation by making it look at least as real as anything else seen on a television screen.'" Unfortunately, Katz goes on to remove any credibility from Mr. Pesce's earlier statement, however vague it may have been, by expressing Mr. Pesce's claim that the PS2 has almost as much computing horsepower as any million-dollar machine available. Mr. Katz failes to realize that for a million dollars, any qualified individual could have build one hell of a Beowulf cluster, even in 1999. Where are the benchmarks? Any reader should hopefully recognize the folly in Mr. Pesce's statement; assuming this is true, Mr. Pesce cannot be relied upon to provide accurate statements. Resultantly, the second half of the article, based upon the work of Mr. Pesce, loses all credibility.
"'[F]uture ideas about creativity, imagination, work -- and individual relationships to institutions -- will be shaped by such tools [as the PS2], just as they were by the PS2's more primitive predecessors, from the early Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) to game-playing computers'" Pesce claims that children's "ideas about creativity, imagination, work" have been shaped by systems such as the NES and possibly the Apple II. Missing, however, is any reference to psychological study or any conclusive work. Is the reader to assume that Pesce, like Katz, fails to justify his bold statements? If so, then Pesce is right up Katz' alley.
"'As pundits sound alarms about how videogames are ruining children's moral lives, as both major presidential candidates did repeateadly, during the campaign -- who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?'" Thank you, Pesce and Katz, for showing us the way.
"Pesce is right, of course. The PS2, designed to connect to the Net, is a window into a larger universe. It could easily simulate a Furby or Mindstorms, and it creates as well a million other interesting forms, if only for the eyes and ears. In fact, says Pesce, the PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas." First of all, from where is the "of course" derived? Pesce has failed to make a justified point at all, in what is he then so obviously correct? Yes, the PS2 can [reportedly; I have no personal experience] connect to the Internet. Even if PS2 could potentially simulate the actions of a Furby or Mindstorms (which I have no reason to doubt, though I've used neither Furbies nor Mindstorms), the PlayStation 2, as far as I've seen, does not create new devices or concepts, it simply displays existing ones. For what, then, could the PS2 be used to explain how the "PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas", and furthermore, what the hell does this phrase mean? Also, have we given up even trying to relate this to public reactions to gaming?
"The cultural gap between the young and the old first widened noticeably in the l960s, when younger people turned their generational backs against their elders. The explosion of the Net and the Web, which have triggered a revolution in the way information and ideas move, has exacerbated that division. The Boomers talked a lot about revolution but didn't quite make one; younger Americans are making one but don't always seem to realize it." Generational backs? Revolution? What does this have to do with public reaction to gaming?
"Our civilization hasn't begun to come to terms with this split" Here Katz continues in his tradition of making a meaningless statement and carring on as though it proves something conclusively.
"Panicked moralists, pundits and authority figures point to all sorts of reasons, from the decline in the authority of parental figures to the influence of new media to the lack of discipline in schools" Reasons for what? The "generational split" in the 1960s? The PlayStation 2?
"[T]he truth is there is no real understanding either of this widening chasm in our politics, or in our social and cultural consciousness." Wait, first the chasm is between generations, now it's political?
Making paper-mache mountains from conjured molehills, Katz once again shows his inability to form a point or maintain a theme.
Well, if you've read this far, hopefully you've been convinced that the likes of Katz should not be allowed to post on the front page. I say, let's take up a collection. I would gladly pay $10 a month to know that Slashdot finally rid itself of a troll. Perhaps if enough Slashdot readers feel the same, we could offer Katz more not to post than Slashdot offers him to post. Any takers?
First of all, thank you for a clear response to my post.
I do disagree with a few things you've said, as well as understand that my post wasn't exactly clear, and I'd like to say a few things; perhaps, if you respond in turn, I may learn something.
By your own statement:
>The convention I use of capitalizing "Free" when I want to draw attention to the word and its meaning is by no means universal, the fact that ZioPino didn't capitalize it is an indication of nothing.
Since you chose to capitalize "Free" to "draw attention to the word" instead of italicizing it, you'll have to forgive me for not being familiar with your personal conventions. From what I've seen of common usage on Slashdot, free is free-of-cost, while Free is free in the "Free software" sense.
>I'm at a loss as to what the "nonpolitically stunted meaning" would be.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. That was a combination of missing my morning coffee and irritability. What I meant was the "whatever definition of free you may have that does not mean free in the monitary sense", or something like that.
>>All I'm saying is, there's no point in trying to start a flame war, >Than why do you appear to be trying to?
To be an ass about it (meaning, don't take this seriously), I probably "appear to be trying to" because you're naturally defensive.
To answer honestly, that was not at all my intent. My point was (and is) that I have seen people on Slashdot chided for using free in the financial sense to feel that perhaps those who assume that the word free taken alone means anything other than financially free are perhaps missing something.
In short, it seems to me that Slashdot assumes that free means financially free, and that some of the most vocal Slashdot posters assume one of the other definitions.
It's Rob's baby, and if he prefers free to mean free in the financial sense, it's his right.
>>As such, what did you hope to contribute to the discussion with your post?
I'm glad that you did not take this as flamebait, as it was not meant as such.
Again, I'd like to thank you for responding in such a manner to my post, and I'd like to also say that if anything here sounds sarcastic/rude, that is not my intent.
> I think that perhaps the/. crowd is a bit closed-minded about other licenses.
While at times it seems that way, I'd rather hope that reality is somewhat different. People will sling mud at anyone and anything without really doing the research first, and some uninformed moderators seem to think that opinionated == informed.
I agree that various licenses have different merits and uses. I just won't get thrown up into the spotlight (or the "10 Hot Comments Slashbox:) for saying so.
What does open source mean to me? It means that when I started using the libsensors modules, I was able to add a temperature sensors to wmmon. When I'm unhappy with the smoothness of my mouse acceleration, I can modify gpm's two lines of acceleration code and do whatever I want with it, including examing SVGAlib to see how they chose to do it "properly". It's the little things like that.
Most of the "GPL"-shouting zealots I've seen never even take advantage of the modifiability (hope that's a word:) of open source (not Open Source - I'm not getting political here) software. It seems that most of the GPL zealots have little to contribute to the community in terms of brain, so they throw as much heart into matters as possible.
No, Roblimo-quoting-ZioPino said it was free software, not Free software.
>rant> If you insist upon being a license zealot, at least try to be a literate one. There are few things that bother me more than people who cry wolf in terms of "invasion of privacy" or "misuse of term Free" before really even reading what they're berating. </rant>
One of the highest-ranked posts on this thread so far mentioned being a developer who already uses a native version of this product and got some benefit from the Java version, which this story addresses.
At least one guy benefitted from this.
Several people moderated him up, apparently because they thought the information he had share regarding this program was worth the time of others. Apparently, more than one guy benefitted from this.
All I'm saying is, there's no point in trying to start a flame war, when [hopefully] most Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to realize that free in this context did not imply open source (in the general, nonpolitically stunted meaning of the term). As such, what did you hope to contribute to the discussion with your post?
To solve the problem of setting up my mouse in several places (console/SVGAlib/X), I've just set up gpm as a repeater (-R option, I believe), and symlinked/dev/mouse to/dev/gpmdata.
gpm allows modification of acceleration threshold and multiplier, and the source is clean enough that further manipulation is not at all difficult (current project next time I get a free 45 minutes: finish tweaking SVGA's "power" acceleration code to fit into gpm). If anyone's interested in such a patch to gpm, once I clean it up, email me and I'll be glad to share.
BTW, yes, I am an idiot, and obviously can't tell the difference between "Submit" and "Preview":P
To solve the problem of setting up my mouse in several places (console/SVGAlib/X), I've just set up gpm as a repeater (-R option, I believe), and symlinked/dev/mouse to/dev/gpmdata.
I've not missed your point, I just disagree with the extent of it. The point of a test program in this context is to get a feel for exactly how well the program responds to various hardware situations; after thinking this through, I'd actually think less of id if they didn't try to find this information out.
While you personally may not care what id knows about your video card, most "average" users I've seen will simply respond with "invasion of privacy! None of their business!" rather than think through the advantages of letting id know this stuff.
This is a problem anybody taking random surveys will come across; many people will refuse to take the survey, skewing the results towards those who will take the time. Similarly, placing a dialog at program startup will, in addition to detracting from the immersive experience of playing the game (once I run startx bin/sq3 -- -bpp 16 I don't want to have to deal with dialog boxes - I want my Quake dammit!), give overly paranoid users the impression that such data collection is bad ("Participate in a survey by sending secret hardware info to id (Y/N)?").
I realize that clicking "yes" (or typing 'Y') is just as easy as clicking "no" (or typing 'N'); however, the user's perception is that selecting 'Y' is more laborous, simply because of the associations made with the term survey ("Survey? No way, those are a waste of time!").
You want a.conf file option? I could hardly disagree there; it would cost little in terms of coding time to add one.
You want a dialog box upon startup? I disagree. Again, installing a game like Q3 and playing it immediately after the install without any required configuration is a beautiful thing. IMO this is one of the benefits of console systems - just pop in the CD-ROM/cartridge/whatever and things just work.
You want a choice in disabling this? cd/usr/src/linux. Run make menuconfig. Enter networking options. Turn on Packet socket, Kernel/User netlink socket, Network firewalls, TCP/IP networking, IP: firewalling, and IP: firewall packet netlink device. Read Configure.help. Read./net/ipv4/ip_fw.c - something in there should be informative. Write a userspace packet monitoring utility to filter out those evil packets. You complain about not having a choice? You have a choice. You have many. You just want id to package it up in a nice little dialog box so you don't have to think about anything. If you cared about shutting this off, you could.
You want to bitch? Log packets and filter out the ones you don't want. Log system calls - insert printk's liberally and find out what's going on. Being a full-fledged security freak can be time-consuming - just ask l0pht.
Does the software still function if you filter out these packets so id never finds out which video card you have? What's that? You haven't checked?!? Then shut the hell up. You haven't taken the steps necessary to shut off this feature.
Do you honestly look at every line of source that's gone into each and every program you run? Hmmm? Have you gone through every line of that nifty new Slackware source CD? That's unreasonable, you say?
It's just as reasonable to expect a user to examine the contents of packets going through their interfaces as it is to ask them to examine every line of source.
My point is that you can decide what information goes through the pipes from your system. You just have to be attentive, stop whining, write firewall rules, stop whining, write code, stop whining, be willing to dig into and understand how things work, and stop whining.
Anyway, my point is that you don't "accidentally" code a section that gathers data and sends it somewhere. This should not be tolerated, no matter what. Don't boycott ID, I love them, but do send a strong (non-swearing etc) letter to ID protesting it. I agree. Those bastards as id have no right to care what kind of hardware their users have, or which video cards should be well-supported. They should develop using whatever cards they like best; it's absolutely none of their business what kind of hardware most people have.
It's an invasion of my privacy! I think software should be written for an ideal, theoretical machine, regardless of what I have.
Better yet, Q3 should be written in Java for a 320x200 256-color display. id has no right to know that my video card can support much, much more than that, because that would require them knowing something about their target audience.
Dammit, who does Carmack think he is, trying to support as many common OS/hardware combinations as possible? I'd much rather be forced to use GLIDE under Win98 than allow Carmack to know that there are people who'd like to use Mesa under X. Let's string him up by his gonads! Lead the way!
The point is that any form of demographics research is an invasion of the privacy of the user, and any company which would do something so blatantly evil should be burned to the ground. You know what else pisses me off? Ergonomics testing. Those snooping manufacturers are trying to find out how my hand is shaped by actually testing other people's hands! Bah! My hand's shape is none of their business! Invasion of privacy! Bwaaaah!
How could it possibly effect you negatively to have Carmack know how many people use your vidcard/cpu/os/driver? If anything, I'd rather stuff the ballot box! I'd like as much support as possible for my card (although Carmack has done a hell of a lot for the G200 already:). I'd expect any reasonable person to see the value in that.
How does this affect you negatively? What do you want id to stop doing? Caring what their users run their games on? Trying to deliver a product which works well in as many cases as possible, especially those cases which they may not have expected?
I just can't help but be disappointed when a company catches flak for caring about the needs of their customers.
After reading 80% of the posts here (threshold -1), I've noticed that the majority of the posts I've read involve some sort of "what if it crashes?" or "what if it gets hacked?" argument against testing these and similar devices. I'd like to point out that the implant which would control motor movement would NOT likely run an operating system, is not related to Microsoft, and does not in ANY WAY involve high-level thinking capabilities.
Unless you have limbs which do not function due to localized nerve damage, you are not the intended user.
I'm sorry if you saw The Matrix or Terminator and thought that you'd be able to sound intelligent by mentioning how l33t it'd be to be able to do things you saw on the silver screen in real live. Think before you post. This story has nothing to do with "burning" new skills into your brain. A simple nerve signal rebroadcaster/receptor will not allow you to read minds, or to broadcast your thoughts.
For you "Big Brother" posters out there, please first note that the transmissions involved are short-range broadcasts, not suitable for nationwide surveillance. Now, consider the idea that the government does not want to go to the expense of spacing receivers a meter and a half apart across the entire nation just in case they might want to know where you are.
Unless you've been tried in a court of law and found guilty of some severe activities, or have given the FBI or NSA significant reason to watch you, no one cares where you are. Do you want to know where I am? I'm sitting on my ass staring at Slashdot. So are you.
If you honestly believe that the government will use a new technology for purposes limiting your freedom, please first consider:
Can this realistically be used to do what I claim it can do?
Will it be cost-effective enough that one would not turn to alternative simpler, cheaper technologies?
Will it be easy to implement on a national level without causing a public uproar?
Does anybody care where I am/what I'm doing?
I think that in most cases, and definitely in this one, the answer to all four questions is no.
This is a democratic nation. If the government were to try to implant "tracking chips" in everyone, people would protest on a large enough scale that it would simply not happen.
Again, in bold this time for those who don't want to read the post in its entirety: This technology applies not to enemies of the state, or to people trying to learn spiffy new martial arts, but to those who are limited in their movements due to certain neural problems, and, possibly, eventually to those with emotional problems. The information contained in the article is subject to the biases, intentional or otherwise, of the professor and the reporter of the story. It is arrogant to think that we are all out to get you. In reality, you're simply not that significant.
Damn it people, can't we see past conspiracy, BSODs, beowulf, and The Matrix at least far enough to see that not everything is related to our pet theories and obsessions?
With but a few exceptions, most of the posts I've seen have been depressingly stupid or cliched. Go ahead. Flame me. If you have anything coherent to say, not just, "Beowulf is cool, eat me." or "The government really is tracking me, Elvis told me so!", then please flame away, if only to prove that someone who disagrees with me can respond in an intelligent manner.
I'm off to moderate a discussion with something intelligent to say.
Obviously very few people would actually need that many functions, however its nice to have the option to put whatever you want on that toolbar . . . Maybe you don't have a use for that many, but I'm sure there are are other people out there who do.
I have some problems with this attitude, however; a few months ago, I would have agreed totally, but after talking with some UI fanatic friends of mine, I've changed my views of late.
A good user interface does _not_ throw every option available at the first-time user. Some of the best user interface I've seen have a simple and an advanced mode. If you can't figure out how to turn off advanced mode, you aren't advanced enough to use it. Starting in a more cluttered environment does little to direct the first-time user toward the more common functions.
A good user interface offers visual clues about use; 80 toolbar buttons of equal size and visual weight do nothing to indicate which functions are more appropriate or commonly used. Every default (read: pre-installed) installation of Word I've seen has included enough toolbar buttons to consume a full half of a 640x480 window. What is there to direct the user to the more 'elementary' functions? How does (s)he know which toolbars to eliminate?
Apologies for the off-topic nature of this post, but I have to say I'd rather that UIs be better designed initially than have hardware designed with the express purpose of making up for UI faults.
Depending on your campus's size and configuration, you may be able to use multicasting to seriously reduce load. I don't know specific configuration details, but since you didn't mention it, I'd assume you'd not looked into it.
An extension of this would be to have more than one category for moderation. Instead of a single, nonspecific number acting of a measure of how relevant, witty, well-researced, poignant, froody, and insightful a post is, why not have a few ways to rate a post? For instance, some of the most interesting threads I've seen on Slashdot have wandered somewhat from the story's topic. Unfortunately, some interesting statements have been moderated down because they were not directly relevant. Say such a statement receives a +2. How, then, could we distinguish between an off-topic but interesting post and one which is only slightly insightful, interesting, etc.? Having multiple ratings would allow one to filter based on certain criteria (I, for instance, might only allow posts with a +3 for content, but -1 for relevance.) Certain people have voiced complaints about humorous posts or off-topic posts receiving too many points. MM is not the answer here, since each moderator and M2 has his/her own idea of what makes a post "good." You can't please everyone with a universal definition of good. Allow./ers to define it for themselves. If I wasn't already late for class, I'd clean this post up a bit. Apologies for the sloppiness/length.
How are these good things? [a] fragmented BSD Why has BSD been declared the enemy? What happened to the ability to freely choose your OWN operating system, regardless of popularity?
[b] pissed off the BSD crowd So your goal is to get flamed and appear irrational? How can you justify using the term "BSD snobs" when you act as though anyone who would use the BSD license is simply below you?
[c] released a GPL variant of BSD which cant be subverted for commercial use. Do you currently work anywhere as a programmer? I doubt it. Do you ever plan to, and if so, do you plan to get paid for your work?
Your misunderstanding of the issues, combined with your unrealistic views and bigotry, simply makes you look foolish.
It's the thought that counts
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
They got back at the people that had hurt them in a way that will forever be remembered.
Agreed. However, I'd like to point out that these were intelligent individuals, and in my experience, intelligence is more likely to perceive (and, resultantly, conceive) broader purpose behind actions than is your average Joe. I'd like to believe that these teens not only wanted to teach those directly involved a lesson, but jocks (in the context of this post, take jocks to mean "others like those who ridiculed them") nationwide who might be placing geeks in similarly suicidal situations.
If you want to get the attention of a community, you pick off a few people silenty.
If you want to get the attention of a nation, you pick off a few more.
Do the actions of these individuals not seem calculated to draw national media attention? I mean this not in the sensationalized let's-hijack-a-radio-station-and-deliver-our-messa ge-to-the-masses manner, but delivered in a sadly thoughtful way?
Consider this.
These two teens were driven to suicidal measures by those around them. Being dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that they themselves were worth next to nothing, they, by some form of logical extension, devalued the lives of those ridiculing them.
Not willing to continue such a pained existance, these two individuals became set upon suicide.
However, these kids were intelligent enough to realize that others may also be driven to suicide through similar situations.
Let's examine a few conclusions possibly reached by these individuals:
Our lives are not worth continued pain.
The lives of our tormentors are not worth much, either.
This situation was preventable.
Others may be in our situation.
Their situations may be rectifiable, or at least able to be reduced in severity.
Taken these views, does it not seem possible that perhaps, just maybe, the extra bombs and killings were calculated to draw media coverage? Coverage that would send a "don't-f*ck with us geeks" to jocks across the nation?
I believe that this event was as much, or more, a warning to the nation as it was a base attempt for revenge.
miswired frame of mind
I disagree with such suggestions that the logic of those who commit such acts is disjointed.
Consider the Unabomber. There was a certain profound logic to such acts. That is to say not that the acts were to be condoned, but that Mr. Kaczynski simply placed a higher value upon non-industrialism, and less value upon human lives, than is considered within the social norm. Likewise, these teens placed more importance upon the comfort of those who might be aided by their actions, and less value upon mere existance itself.
To paraphrase, a life is only worth living if it is worth living - that those who prevent those around them from living life to their potential are not worth the time and effort involved in dealing with such individuals.
The connection may not be extremely obvious, but this almost suggests that those who can contribute the most to society are those most worth keeping around.
Sound close to Nazism? Think about it.
Sorry about the unclear parts, I regrettably don't have enough time right now to organize this post as well as I'd like. At any rate, some of you will call me a psycho, and others may agree with me somewhat. It all depends on how far you've been pushed by life, and how you viewed yourself at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
One could easily argue that any grasp religion may seem to have on even our own universe is coincidental at best, and a matter of hopeful interpretation at worst.
As pointed out elsewhere, network transparency is virtually free, especially when the clients and server run on the same machine.
Simply put, clients must talk to the X server in order to make requests, read keyboard/mouse input, etc.
How would you suggest the clients and server communicate with each other?
I'd probably look for a mature communications mechanism which has been pounded to hell and back by as many users as possible in as many environments as possible. You're writing a cross-platform windowing environment, so portability is a concern.
Can anyone suggest a cross-platform, mature communications mechanism that doesn't impose any more overhead than necessary?
Let's see -- X could either use a highly-refined, well-defined communications mechanism which damned near (if not EVERY) OS vendor supplies (in the form of IP and UNIX domain sockets where available), or it could define its own communications mechanism which would probably not work nearly as well on nearly as many platforms.
And the parent is modded 3? Is there a "+1, unjustified crap" rating I somehow haven't noticed?
Home Depot.
My hammer and chisel haven't failed me yet. Unfortunately, finding production-quality stone tablets has been getting harder and harder over the last, um, 2000 years or so.
Acknowledgement of what? All I said (or implied) was that writing BASIC in 4k was impressive. You can go off (or cut and paste) all you want about how much you don't like BASIC, but you miss the point entirely, because I never endorsed the BASIC language, I only said that a 4k BASIC interpreter impressed me.
What's this? Cut and paste random crap day?
Sheesh... maybe I should search for myself on Google and cut and paste something I've said before... then at least it would be relevent in the context of _one_ of the stories on the homepage...
Go write a BASIC interpreter that executes in 4k of memory.
Then you have the right to argue.
Get in on the latest ./ fad, started by none other than michael -- posting articles with no obvious relationship to their subject line!
I see new banner ad campaigns starting as we speak...
*flashing obnoxiously*
Warning:
Your CD player might be broadcasting your IP address! Click here to protect yourself!
(The parent got a +5? Since when is drivel modded _up_?)
Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED! Slashdot tells me this post has too few characters per line. It also complains a lot about a lameness filter. Isn't this all what moderation was supposed to be for? Talk about a productivity hit. Because of stupid useless restrictions which SHOULD be unnecessary because of the "wonderful" moderation system, I'm forced to add this crap so I can fucking post. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHH! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RETARDED!
Every time I decide that a particular problem I'm facing might be solved by a spiffy C++ feature, I'm disappointed by something not working as I'd expect.
For example, in C:
file.h:file.c:main.c:This presents no problems, and compiles as expected (assuming no typos, of course).
With templates, in C++:
Why doesn't this work? Because your "perfected" optimizing compiler can't handle link template code. Instead of putting the declaration in a header file, and the definition in a source file, many C++ compilers (VC++ included, as I understand it) force you to put the code itself in your header file.
I know admittedly little about the subject, but it is my understanding that this is NOT required according to the language definition, but is simply a language feature not properly implemented by compilers.
I keep trying to like C++, I really do, but sadly things like this keep cropping up. Now, instead of just learning to use a language feature and gaining productivity in the deal, I'm forced to determine whether the bug is my fault, or a language problem.
Sure, now that I know that templates are crippled, I can use them. However, it makes me wonder what the point of separate compilation units is. Why don't we just put all of the code in headers, and include them all from one main source file?
I learned Java. Then Sun immediately deprecated AWT and pushed Swing upon everyone. I gave up, because within weeks of learning Java, what I'd learned was already outdated. (A case of bad timing, sure, but discouraging nonetheless.)
I try using a commonly cited feature of C++, and find that the compiler can't properly handle it, even a few years later (where "properly" is definited by both working as one would expect, and working as the language definition describes).
C may be dirty, and C may be stupid, but C has been constant.
Yeah, because Slashdot _always_ waits to get the facts straight before posting.
Whoo-hoo! Does this mean that the management can install their own XML RPC client-server .NET XML cross-platform multi-tiered Java paradigm?
JonKatz wastes no time driving right past the heart of the problem, going down the ramp, and out the door.
The problem is not with gamers, the problem is not with the public conception of gamers, the problem is that, assuming that this load of overreaction and poor writing is true, the general public is too damned stupid to differentiate between facts and propaganda. Let's examine, for instance, Mr. Katz's own offering. A factual report regarding this topic (as introduced by the article, the article discusses the postulate, "Gaming has dramatically widened the growing cultural schism between the young and old") would perhaps include poll results from a sufficiently randomly selected sample of the discussed groups. Not this article. In fact, Katz offers nothing factual which supports any of his claims. Let's examine:
"Historians and sociologists call the adult world's response to gaming a 'moral panic.'" With this statement, Katz introduces the theme of the first section of the article to the reader. However, his claim, that historians and sociologists have stated that the adult world's response to "moral panic" is supported in the article by not one single quotation or reference. Which historians and sociologists? This is the Internet; can you, Mr. Katz, provide us with a link? If a whole block of this article is based upon the situation having been termed a "moral panic" by a given authority, even one such example of this would help.
"In much the way the late anthropologist Margaret Mead predicted, the older generation and many of its leading institutions -- education, politics, media, education -- has unleashed a furious attack against gaming and its culture." This statement would be a powerful example of the public reaction to gaming. However, Mr. Katz refuses to give his audience a single example of a "furious attack against gaming" or its culture. Have schools taken a strong stance against gaming, either by banning gaming-related clothing, or by teaching against the evils of games? What has been said by politicians against gaming? And by the media? And by the schools? (Um, what? I said schools already! That's okay, Mr. Katz didn't proofread either - education was mentioned twice. Perhaps longer lists seem more convincing?) Again, Mr. Katz offers no proof that this statement is not entirely unfounded. What has Ms. Mead said on the subject, and how do her statements support the argument?
"[G]aming is associated almost entirely with negative imagery in the non-virtual world . . . Gaming and its allegedly evil affects were central issues in the presidential election, and the notion of an amoral generation of thieves and narcissists crops up again and again in the public perception of computing and the Net, from hacking to free music." Wonderful! With such an influence upon public perception, there must be plenty of examples of such negative imagery. Unfortunately, none of them were referenced by Mr. Katz.
"[M]edia cover technology poorly as a rule, but their shallow portrayal of gaming culture as destructive and profane is a particular scandal, [causing a] 'moral panic,' a severe societal response to some dramatic development that institutions don't understand and can't control, so therefore fear." From this statement, we can assume that the media's coverage of gaming, though sparse, is suggestive enough to cause strong public reaction. However, if public perception is as biased as Mr. Katz would have us believe, surely even a single example of even the results of such influence should be easy to locate.
Moral panic "is defined by at least five crucial elements: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality and volatility." Mr. Katz then gives what we can only assume are his own definitions (q.v.) for each of the five elements; he at least does not credit an external source. This clarifies the intended meaning of these terms to the reader, who may have otherwise associated a meaning other than that intended with the terms involved. This in itself would not be noteworthy, except in that Mr. Katz does not clearly note the source of these definitions.
"On all five criteria, gaming qualifies as causing a moral panic . . . . We see plenty of hostility towards gamers. The fear of gaming has always been wildly disproportionate to any real threat, and the panic over it is episodic, frequently triggered by incidents like school shootings or other media-transmitted scares" Where are the references? An explanation of why and how gaming meets the criteria? Examples of hostility towards gamers, and of "school shootings [and] other media-transmitted scares"?
"The moral panic over gaming has also managed to obscure its growing social, cultural, even political signifance." Gaming has political signifance? Do tell! For lack of elaboration, can we (please!) assume, then, that the Presidential election will be solved, once and for all, with Rocket Arena 3? No? Then, Mr. Katz, could you explain what this actually means?
"'Our toys, writ large, echo profound revolutions in simulation, the science of materials, and digital communication,' author Mark Pesce writes in The Playful World, recently published by Ballantine Books. 'The technique of the Furby has been a hot topic of computer science for a dozen years; artificial life -- simulation of activity of living systems -- has taught us a lot about how we learn and grow into intelligence. Computers, which just a decade ago seemed useful only for word processors and spreadsheets, are now employed as digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms.' Unfortunately, the reader learns nothing of who the author is, what he knows, or the overall subject matter of the book. Possibly knowing nothing of Mr. Pesce or Bellantine Books, the reader can only hope that Mr. Pesce is qualified and Bellantine Books is reputable. Furthermore, Mr. Katz fails to explain what is meant - what is to be conveyed by "digital gardens, where the seeds of mind grow into utterly upredictable forms"? What is a "seed of mind", and into what "utterly unpredictable form" does it grow? In other words, "Huh?"
"Gaming has evolved far beyond play. Arguably the most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now, it's transforming the imaginations, attentions spans, reflexes and strategic thinking of an entire generation, perhaps even our neural systems themselves." Mr. Katz seems not to understand that placing the word "arguably" before something totally absurd does not excuse lack of research. Much appreciated would be Katz' knowledge the effect of Quake 3 and Tribes 2 upon Ethopia, how those living in Cuba feel about fill rate verses rendering quality, or which is the Bosnians' preferred console.
"With the release of Sony's PlayStation 2, writes Pesce, the founding chair of the Interactive Media Program at the University of California's School of Cinema-Television." Finally, we learn who Mr. Pesce is.
"'[T]he machinery of infinite realities will be within the grasp of millions of children around the world. Unlike any videogame console released before it, the PS 2 will have the power to create realistic imaginings of breathtaking clarity. Million-dollar computers -- in l999! -- have only fractionally more power than the Play Station 2, which will challenge our ideas about simulation by making it look at least as real as anything else seen on a television screen.'" Unfortunately, Katz goes on to remove any credibility from Mr. Pesce's earlier statement, however vague it may have been, by expressing Mr. Pesce's claim that the PS2 has almost as much computing horsepower as any million-dollar machine available. Mr. Katz failes to realize that for a million dollars, any qualified individual could have build one hell of a Beowulf cluster, even in 1999. Where are the benchmarks? Any reader should hopefully recognize the folly in Mr. Pesce's statement; assuming this is true, Mr. Pesce cannot be relied upon to provide accurate statements. Resultantly, the second half of the article, based upon the work of Mr. Pesce, loses all credibility.
"'[F]uture ideas about creativity, imagination, work -- and individual relationships to institutions -- will be shaped by such tools [as the PS2], just as they were by the PS2's more primitive predecessors, from the early Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) to game-playing computers'" Pesce claims that children's "ideas about creativity, imagination, work" have been shaped by systems such as the NES and possibly the Apple II. Missing, however, is any reference to psychological study or any conclusive work. Is the reader to assume that Pesce, like Katz, fails to justify his bold statements? If so, then Pesce is right up Katz' alley.
"'As pundits sound alarms about how videogames are ruining children's moral lives, as both major presidential candidates did repeateadly, during the campaign -- who in our culture is preparing for the radical changes in imagination about to be unleashed?'" Thank you, Pesce and Katz, for showing us the way.
"Pesce is right, of course. The PS2, designed to connect to the Net, is a window into a larger universe. It could easily simulate a Furby or Mindstorms, and it creates as well a million other interesting forms, if only for the eyes and ears. In fact, says Pesce, the PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas." First of all, from where is the "of course" derived? Pesce has failed to make a justified point at all, in what is he then so obviously correct? Yes, the PS2 can [reportedly; I have no personal experience] connect to the Internet. Even if PS2 could potentially simulate the actions of a Furby or Mindstorms (which I have no reason to doubt, though I've used neither Furbies nor Mindstorms), the PlayStation 2, as far as I've seen, does not create new devices or concepts, it simply displays existing ones. For what, then, could the PS2 be used to explain how the "PS2 could well be seen as a spaceship for scouring the universe of ideas", and furthermore, what the hell does this phrase mean? Also, have we given up even trying to relate this to public reactions to gaming?
"The cultural gap between the young and the old first widened noticeably in the l960s, when younger people turned their generational backs against their elders. The explosion of the Net and the Web, which have triggered a revolution in the way information and ideas move, has exacerbated that division. The Boomers talked a lot about revolution but didn't quite make one; younger Americans are making one but don't always seem to realize it." Generational backs? Revolution? What does this have to do with public reaction to gaming?
"Our civilization hasn't begun to come to terms with this split" Here Katz continues in his tradition of making a meaningless statement and carring on as though it proves something conclusively.
"Panicked moralists, pundits and authority figures point to all sorts of reasons, from the decline in the authority of parental figures to the influence of new media to the lack of discipline in schools" Reasons for what? The "generational split" in the 1960s? The PlayStation 2?
"[T]he truth is there is no real understanding either of this widening chasm in our politics, or in our social and cultural consciousness." Wait, first the chasm is between generations, now it's political?
Making paper-mache mountains from conjured molehills, Katz once again shows his inability to form a point or maintain a theme.
Well, if you've read this far, hopefully you've been convinced that the likes of Katz should not be allowed to post on the front page. I say, let's take up a collection. I would gladly pay $10 a month to know that Slashdot finally rid itself of a troll. Perhaps if enough Slashdot readers feel the same, we could offer Katz more not to post than Slashdot offers him to post. Any takers?
I do disagree with a few things you've said, as well as understand that my post wasn't exactly clear, and I'd like to say a few things; perhaps, if you respond in turn, I may learn something.
By your own statement:
>The convention I use of capitalizing "Free" when I want to draw attention to the word and its meaning is by no means universal, the fact that ZioPino didn't capitalize it is an indication of nothing.
Since you chose to capitalize "Free" to "draw attention to the word" instead of italicizing it, you'll have to forgive me for not being familiar with your personal conventions. From what I've seen of common usage on Slashdot, free is free-of-cost, while Free is free in the "Free software" sense.
>I'm at a loss as to what the "nonpolitically stunted meaning" would be.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. That was a combination of missing my morning coffee and irritability. What I meant was the "whatever definition of free you may have that does not mean free in the monitary sense", or something like that.
>>All I'm saying is, there's no point in trying to start a flame war,
>Than why do you appear to be trying to?
To be an ass about it (meaning, don't take this seriously), I probably "appear to be trying to" because you're naturally defensive.
To answer honestly, that was not at all my intent. My point was (and is) that I have seen people on Slashdot chided for using free in the financial sense to feel that perhaps those who assume that the word free taken alone means anything other than financially free are perhaps missing something.
In short, it seems to me that Slashdot assumes that free means financially free, and that some of the most vocal Slashdot posters assume one of the other definitions.
It's Rob's baby, and if he prefers free to mean free in the financial sense, it's his right.
>>As such, what did you hope to contribute to the discussion with your post?
I'm glad that you did not take this as flamebait, as it was not meant as such.
Again, I'd like to thank you for responding in such a manner to my post, and I'd like to also say that if anything here sounds sarcastic/rude, that is not my intent.
-chet
While at times it seems that way, I'd rather hope that reality is somewhat different. People will sling mud at anyone and anything without really doing the research first, and some uninformed moderators seem to think that opinionated == informed.
I agree that various licenses have different merits and uses. I just won't get thrown up into the spotlight (or the "10 Hot Comments Slashbox :) for saying so.
What does open source mean to me? It means that when I started using the libsensors modules, I was able to add a temperature sensors to wmmon. When I'm unhappy with the smoothness of my mouse acceleration, I can modify gpm's two lines of acceleration code and do whatever I want with it, including examing SVGAlib to see how they chose to do it "properly". It's the little things like that.
Most of the "GPL"-shouting zealots I've seen never even take advantage of the modifiability (hope that's a word :) of open source (not Open Source - I'm not getting political here) software. It seems that most of the GPL zealots have little to contribute to the community in terms of brain, so they throw as much heart into matters as possible.
Just a thought.
-chet
No, Roblimo-quoting-ZioPino said it was free software, not Free software.
>rant>
If you insist upon being a license zealot, at least try to be a literate one. There are few things that bother me more than people who cry wolf in terms of "invasion of privacy" or "misuse of term Free" before really even reading what they're berating.
</rant>
One of the highest-ranked posts on this thread so far mentioned being a developer who already uses a native version of this product and got some benefit from the Java version, which this story addresses.
At least one guy benefitted from this.
Several people moderated him up, apparently because they thought the information he had share regarding this program was worth the time of others. Apparently, more than one guy benefitted from this.
All I'm saying is, there's no point in trying to start a flame war, when [hopefully] most Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to realize that free in this context did not imply open source (in the general, nonpolitically stunted meaning of the term). As such, what did you hope to contribute to the discussion with your post?
Just a thought.
-chet
gpm allows modification of acceleration threshold and multiplier, and the source is clean enough that further manipulation is not at all difficult (current project next time I get a free 45 minutes: finish tweaking SVGA's "power" acceleration code to fit into gpm). If anyone's interested in such a patch to gpm, once I clean it up, email me and I'll be glad to share.
BTW, yes, I am an idiot, and obviously can't tell the difference between "Submit" and "Preview" :P
To solve the problem of setting up my mouse in several places (console/SVGAlib/X), I've just set up gpm as a repeater (-R option, I believe), and symlinked /dev/mouse to /dev/gpmdata.
I've not missed your point, I just disagree with the extent of it. The point of a test program in this context is to get a feel for exactly how well the program responds to various hardware situations; after thinking this through, I'd actually think less of id if they didn't try to find this information out.
.conf file option? I could hardly disagree there; it would cost little in terms of coding time to add one.
/usr/src/linux. Run make menuconfig. Enter networking options. Turn on Packet socket, Kernel/User netlink socket, Network firewalls, TCP/IP networking, IP: firewalling, and IP: firewall packet netlink device. Read Configure.help. Read ./net/ipv4/ip_fw.c - something in there should be informative. Write a userspace packet monitoring utility to filter out those evil packets. You complain about not having a choice? You have a choice. You have many. You just want id to package it up in a nice little dialog box so you don't have to think about anything. If you cared about shutting this off, you could.
While you personally may not care what id knows about your video card, most "average" users I've seen will simply respond with "invasion of privacy! None of their business!" rather than think through the advantages of letting id know this stuff.
This is a problem anybody taking random surveys will come across; many people will refuse to take the survey, skewing the results towards those who will take the time. Similarly, placing a dialog at program startup will, in addition to detracting from the immersive experience of playing the game (once I run startx bin/sq3 -- -bpp 16 I don't want to have to deal with dialog boxes - I want my Quake dammit!), give overly paranoid users the impression that such data collection is bad ("Participate in a survey by sending secret hardware info to id (Y/N)?").
I realize that clicking "yes" (or typing 'Y') is just as easy as clicking "no" (or typing 'N'); however, the user's perception is that selecting 'Y' is more laborous, simply because of the associations made with the term survey ("Survey? No way, those are a waste of time!").
You want a
You want a dialog box upon startup? I disagree. Again, installing a game like Q3 and playing it immediately after the install without any required configuration is a beautiful thing. IMO this is one of the benefits of console systems - just pop in the CD-ROM/cartridge/whatever and things just work.
You want a choice in disabling this? cd
You want to bitch? Log packets and filter out the ones you don't want. Log system calls - insert printk's liberally and find out what's going on. Being a full-fledged security freak can be time-consuming - just ask l0pht.
Does the software still function if you filter out these packets so id never finds out which video card you have? What's that? You haven't checked?!? Then shut the hell up. You haven't taken the steps necessary to shut off this feature.
Do you honestly look at every line of source that's gone into each and every program you run? Hmmm? Have you gone through every line of that nifty new Slackware source CD? That's unreasonable, you say?
It's just as reasonable to expect a user to examine the contents of packets going through their interfaces as it is to ask them to examine every line of source.
My point is that you can decide what information goes through the pipes from your system. You just have to be attentive, stop whining, write firewall rules, stop whining, write code, stop whining, be willing to dig into and understand how things work, and stop whining.
In bold, for those who are skimming.
Stop whining!
-chet
Anyway, my point is that you don't "accidentally" code a section that gathers data and sends it somewhere. This should not be tolerated, no matter what. Don't boycott ID, I love them, but do send a strong (non-swearing etc) letter to ID protesting it.
:). I'd expect any reasonable person to see the value in that.
I agree. Those bastards as id have no right to care what kind of hardware their users have, or which video cards should be well-supported. They should develop using whatever cards they like best; it's absolutely none of their business what kind of hardware most people have.
It's an invasion of my privacy! I think software should be written for an ideal, theoretical machine, regardless of what I have.
Better yet, Q3 should be written in Java for a 320x200 256-color display. id has no right to know that my video card can support much, much more than that, because that would require them knowing something about their target audience.
Dammit, who does Carmack think he is, trying to support as many common OS/hardware combinations as possible? I'd much rather be forced to use GLIDE under Win98 than allow Carmack to know that there are people who'd like to use Mesa under X. Let's string him up by his gonads! Lead the way!
The point is that any form of demographics research is an invasion of the privacy of the user, and any company which would do something so blatantly evil should be burned to the ground. You know what else pisses me off? Ergonomics testing. Those snooping manufacturers are trying to find out how my hand is shaped by actually testing other people's hands! Bah! My hand's shape is none of their business! Invasion of privacy! Bwaaaah!
How could it possibly effect you negatively to have Carmack know how many people use your vidcard/cpu/os/driver? If anything, I'd rather stuff the ballot box! I'd like as much support as possible for my card (although Carmack has done a hell of a lot for the G200 already
How does this affect you negatively? What do you want id to stop doing? Caring what their users run their games on? Trying to deliver a product which works well in as many cases as possible, especially those cases which they may not have expected?
I just can't help but be disappointed when a company catches flak for caring about the needs of their customers.
-chet
Unless you have limbs which do not function due to localized nerve damage, you are not the intended user.
I'm sorry if you saw The Matrix or Terminator and thought that you'd be able to sound intelligent by mentioning how l33t it'd be to be able to do things you saw on the silver screen in real live. Think before you post. This story has nothing to do with "burning" new skills into your brain. A simple nerve signal rebroadcaster/receptor will not allow you to read minds, or to broadcast your thoughts.
For you "Big Brother" posters out there, please first note that the transmissions involved are short-range broadcasts, not suitable for nationwide surveillance. Now, consider the idea that the government does not want to go to the expense of spacing receivers a meter and a half apart across the entire nation just in case they might want to know where you are.
Unless you've been tried in a court of law and found guilty of some severe activities, or have given the FBI or NSA significant reason to watch you, no one cares where you are. Do you want to know where I am? I'm sitting on my ass staring at Slashdot. So are you.
If you honestly believe that the government will use a new technology for purposes limiting your freedom, please first consider:
Can this realistically be used to do what I claim it can do?
Will it be cost-effective enough that one would not turn to alternative simpler, cheaper technologies?
Will it be easy to implement on a national level without causing a public uproar?
Does anybody care where I am/what I'm doing?
I think that in most cases, and definitely in this one, the answer to all four questions is no.
This is a democratic nation. If the government were to try to implant "tracking chips" in everyone, people would protest on a large enough scale that it would simply not happen.
Again, in bold this time for those who don't want to read the post in its entirety: This technology applies not to enemies of the state, or to people trying to learn spiffy new martial arts, but to those who are limited in their movements due to certain neural problems, and, possibly, eventually to those with emotional problems. The information contained in the article is subject to the biases, intentional or otherwise, of the professor and the reporter of the story. It is arrogant to think that we are all out to get you. In reality, you're simply not that significant.
Damn it people, can't we see past conspiracy, BSODs, beowulf, and The Matrix at least far enough to see that not everything is related to our pet theories and obsessions?
With but a few exceptions, most of the posts I've seen have been depressingly stupid or cliched. Go ahead. Flame me. If you have anything coherent to say, not just, "Beowulf is cool, eat me." or "The government really is tracking me, Elvis told me so!", then please flame away, if only to prove that someone who disagrees with me can respond in an intelligent manner.
I'm off to moderate a discussion with something intelligent to say.
-chet
I have some problems with this attitude, however; a few months ago, I would have agreed totally, but after talking with some UI fanatic friends of mine, I've changed my views of late.
A good user interface does _not_ throw every option available at the first-time user. Some of the best user interface I've seen have a simple and an advanced mode. If you can't figure out how to turn off advanced mode, you aren't advanced enough to use it. Starting in a more cluttered environment does little to direct the first-time user toward the more common functions.
A good user interface offers visual clues about use; 80 toolbar buttons of equal size and visual weight do nothing to indicate which functions are more appropriate or commonly used. Every default (read: pre-installed) installation of Word I've seen has included enough toolbar buttons to consume a full half of a 640x480 window. What is there to direct the user to the more 'elementary' functions? How does (s)he know which toolbars to eliminate?
Apologies for the off-topic nature of this post, but I have to say I'd rather that UIs be better designed initially than have hardware designed with the express purpose of making up for UI faults.
-chet
Depending on your campus's size and configuration, you may be able to use multicasting to seriously reduce load. I don't know specific configuration details, but since you didn't mention it, I'd assume you'd not looked into it.
An extension of this would be to have more than one category for moderation. Instead of a single, nonspecific number acting of a measure of how relevant, witty, well-researced, poignant, froody, and insightful a post is, why not have a few ways to rate a post? For instance, some of the most interesting threads I've seen on Slashdot have wandered somewhat from the story's topic. Unfortunately, some interesting statements have been moderated down because they were not directly relevant. Say such a statement receives a +2. How, then, could we distinguish between an off-topic but interesting post and one which is only slightly insightful, interesting, etc.? Having multiple ratings would allow one to filter based on certain criteria (I, for instance, might only allow posts with a +3 for content, but -1 for relevance.) Certain people have voiced complaints about humorous posts or off-topic posts receiving too many points. MM is not the answer here, since each moderator and M2 has his/her own idea of what makes a post "good." You can't please everyone with a universal definition of good. Allow ./ers to define it for themselves. If I wasn't already late for class, I'd clean this post up a bit. Apologies for the sloppiness/length.
How are these good things?
[a] fragmented BSD
Why has BSD been declared the enemy? What happened to the ability to freely choose your OWN operating system, regardless of popularity?
[b] pissed off the BSD crowd
So your goal is to get flamed and appear irrational? How can you justify using the term "BSD snobs" when you act as though anyone who would use the BSD license is simply below you?
[c] released a GPL variant of BSD which cant be subverted for commercial use.
Do you currently work anywhere as a programmer? I doubt it. Do you ever plan to, and if so, do you plan to get paid for your work?
Your misunderstanding of the issues, combined with your unrealistic views and bigotry, simply makes you look foolish.
If you want to get the attention of a community, you pick off a few people silenty.
If you want to get the attention of a nation, you pick off a few more.
Do the actions of these individuals not seem calculated to draw national media attention? I mean this not in the sensationalized let's-hijack-a-radio-station-and-deliver-our-mess
Consider this.
These two teens were driven to suicidal measures by those around them. Being dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that they themselves were worth next to nothing, they, by some form of logical extension, devalued the lives of those ridiculing them.
Not willing to continue such a pained existance, these two individuals became set upon suicide.
However, these kids were intelligent enough to realize that others may also be driven to suicide through similar situations.
Let's examine a few conclusions possibly reached by these individuals:
Our lives are not worth continued pain.
The lives of our tormentors are not worth much, either.
This situation was preventable.
Others may be in our situation.
Their situations may be rectifiable, or at least able to be reduced in severity.
I disagree with such suggestions that the logic of those who commit such acts is disjointed.Taken these views, does it not seem possible that perhaps, just maybe, the extra bombs and killings were calculated to draw media coverage? Coverage that would send a "don't-f*ck with us geeks" to jocks across the nation?
I believe that this event was as much, or more, a warning to the nation as it was a base attempt for revenge.
Consider the Unabomber. There was a certain profound logic to such acts. That is to say not that the acts were to be condoned, but that Mr. Kaczynski simply placed a higher value upon non-industrialism, and less value upon human lives, than is considered within the social norm. Likewise, these teens placed more importance upon the comfort of those who might be aided by their actions, and less value upon mere existance itself.
To paraphrase, a life is only worth living if it is worth living - that those who prevent those around them from living life to their potential are not worth the time and effort involved in dealing with such individuals.
The connection may not be extremely obvious, but this almost suggests that those who can contribute the most to society are those most worth keeping around.
Sound close to Nazism? Think about it.
Sorry about the unclear parts, I regrettably don't have enough time right now to organize this post as well as I'd like. At any rate, some of you will call me a psycho, and others may agree with me somewhat. It all depends on how far you've been pushed by life, and how you viewed yourself at the time.