> If the authentication servers go offline there's no reason > that Valve couldn't release a patch of some sort that didn't > require activiation.
Tell that to the guy who picks up a Half-Life 2 CD in the bargain bin or secondhand, pops it in, and wonders why he can't play his game. Or the guy who bought it new right now and goes to reinstall it a couple years later but has no idea how to go about manually finding patches, downloading them, and updating a PC game--or even that PC games can be updated. Just because you and I are savvy enough to know that most PC games have downloadable patches and add-ons doesn't mean most people do. They don't.
The very concept of buying physical software media that are completely useless crippleware coasters without online server authentication every time you install it is repugnant. You can still play movies recorded 25 years ago to obscure RCA Selectavision CED vinyl discs, yet millions of DiVX discs are useless because of needless server authentication.
Crippleware Half-Life 2 CDs are no different. The time will come in several years when the server isn't there and the average user--who's more used to the console heritage of games that just work and don't need to register with a server to download keys or patches just to play single-player--will have no clue how to use the software he bought anymore.
And neither was DiVX (not the codec, the early DVD competitor) when it sold its customers encrypted DVD discs that required the player to have online validation. DiVX Gold or Silver discs weren't conceptually rentals like most DiVX, but were meant to be purchased and unlocked for unlimited viewing.
Tried playing a Silvered disc lately? Every single DiVX disc became a coaster when the validation servers were shut down, even "unlocked" ones. Sure, refunds were given for "lifetime" purchased discs, but that's hardly the point--when I purchase a game or movie, I expect that a company won't be turning it on and off at the mercy of their whims. Sorry, but selling crippleware that requires online activation even for single-player is as shortsighted and wrong as--well, as DiVX and its crippling of everyone's movies.
Not in the developed world, it didn't. It only materialized in the underdeveloped world. Ever been to Africa, especially South Africa? We're talking about a populace which, while the educated are as intelligent and advanced as anyone, is mostly composed of the uneducated and under-educated who believe superstitions and don't know science. A nontrivial percentage of people there believe that sex with a virgin will cure HIV, which has contributed a bit to South Africa being the rape capital of the world. Early last year one of the big headlines was the gang-rape of *an infant* by adult males who thought it would cure their HIV.
It's a matter of education and availability of condoms at affordable prices, not racism. We are handed 12 years of solid (mostly) schooling, and have condoms available at the corner store for about the cost of lunch money. They are not given such a solid and extended (and largely required) schooling, and are more financially strapped. It isn't racism to point out that HIV is not an epidemic among heterosexuals in the U.S., or most of the rest of the West. You're the one who brought up Africa, not the parent poster, but since you did it must be pointed out that it's a very different world there--there are clear reasons culturally, economically, and otherwise why we have escaped a heterosexual AIDS crisis and they haven't.
I go into the woods so that I won't run into technology and trappings of the modern era. I don't want to see these things. I get distracted enough whenever I see annoyingly bright trail markers, signs, and other things that aren't native to the woods.
Clearly you'd need to keep several different types on hand--wheat, rye, white, pumpernickel, etc. You wouldn't want people to get confused and follow the wrong bread trails in an infinite loop, else they'd be easy pickings for any fairytale witches in the vicinity.
S3 suspend works fine for me under WinXP, but I can't say that I've ever used it except to see if it really worked. I don't really know anyone who's ever used it except on a laptop that suspends when the lid is closed, and they only use it them because that's default behaviour for their hardware.
I'm sure it's a valuable feature for those who really use it, and that there are many advantages that people will point out like saving application states etc. But for me and everyone I know, except the laptop users I mentioned whose hardware automatically suspends, we either have our PC's on 24/7 or turn them off when not in use. Mine is on 24/7 for broadband filesharing, while the average users I know just turn their computers on and off as needed.
Personally, I found myself wanting an application-specific suspend-to-disk option for saving Mozilla tabs whenever I have to reboot every few weeks for hardware/driver/general-wonkyness reasons, since I have the nasty habit of queueing up a bunch of pages for later reading. But I've never had a reason personally to want to suspend the whole system state.
I'd be very surprised if that set includes, completely uncut, all of the WWII era Looney Tunes, including "Nip the Nips," "Herr meets Hare," "A Coy Decoy," "Southern Firend Rabbit," and "Fresh Hare." If they're included, don't be surprised if they contain edits...
Maybe they'll be there complete and uncut, but it's highly questionable. Believe me I'd like it if they were all there.:-)
And of course there are other cartoons that are even less likely to ever be released again--like the Merrie Melodies "Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs", "Confederate Honey," etc.
Meanwhile, a Disney archivist has stated that there's been some discussion of releasing *Song of the South* with commentary and packaging reflecting its historical context, but that there are no solid plans to ever do so. *Fantasia* will almost surely never be released in its original format, with the black centaurs intact. *Saludos Amigos* is also unlikely to be released sans editing, and the re-editing of *Who Framed Roger Rabbit* to make the baby's hand not go as far up the woman's dress is one well-known cut among many.
The *Tom & Jerry* cartoons were recut for their only DVD releases so far to remove some of the violence--inexplicably, since the entire series is cartoon violence. The originals *are* available in an old (and expensive on eBay) laserdisc boxed set, which may end up being the closest some of the uncut versions will get to DVD.
I just wish companies would respect us enough to release original versions, at least as "seamless branching" options such that when the kids put in the DVD of a movie or cartoon and hit play they'd get the edited version, but adults can go into the extras menu and enable the full version. That seems very reasonable to me.
Lucas ought to do the same with the original Star Wars trilogy--make the original cuts available as an option. But it isn't going to happen because he's too damned stubborn.
There are many different pirated versions. The best one is available for free over USENET or P2P, and has very nice cover artwork as an optional download.
Piracy isn't nice--but for people who want the un-fucked-around-with versions of classics, it can be a necessity. The *original* SW trilogy will probably never make it to official DVD. Politically incorrect films and cartoons that we remember from our youth (*Song of the South*, some WW2 era cartoons including some classic Bugs Bunny, even some "too violent" now-edited Tom & Jerry and others) will likely never make it to DVD. Many TV shows are also never making it to DVD in their full and original versions due to music licensing issues and RIAA greed.
It seems like the content industry promotes piracy by not just offering to sell us what we want, at equitable market rates.
> No, it doesn't. Performance has nothing to do with > market share - performance is performance. > > I understand what you're saying, but I'm feeling pedantic.
Then I'll be pedantic enough to point out that it has everything to do with the *relevence* of the performance numbers. If machine A outperformas machine B only on in circumstances which will *not* apply to 99% of actual real-world use, and in all other circumstances has only roughly equal performance, then it has no added real-world performance whatsover for 99% of users. The fact that for 1% of users it's a great improvement is then irrelevent to the 99% who see no performance gain.
That *is* an important issue when discussing performance and benchmarks. 10,000,000 FooMarks means absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't run Foo or very Foo-like apps, so if only a tiny percentage of the market ever runs Foo and Foo-like apps, then FooMarks are not relevent at all except to that tiny percentage--they're entirely irrelevent to the vast, vast majority. So when the G5 performs nearly identically to the G4 in all respects except in situations most users will never face, there's simply no real-world performance advantage at all other than to a relative handful of individuals.
So, such performance numbers on niche uses of niche apps can rightfully be said to be largely irrelevent. We need benchmarks that accurately reflect real-world usage patterns.
It's relevent because those particular apps where the G5 Macs may show their strength are irrelevent to a vast majority of potential users. That makes it relevent to any discussion of the hardware's performance.;-)
> Anyone who does serious work in Photoshop, After Effects, Final Cut Pro/Avid, etc.
Yes, but that's an extraordinarily tiny percentage of computer users. Most own a Lite version of a photo editing app that came with their scanner or digital camera, if that. And therein lies the problem. I love the MacOS, but there are good reasons the Mac as a whole has become largely a niche product. When you aim for the graphics artists, you miss the chance to gain a larger userbase. When you aim for the educational market but are being undercut by commodity PC hardware, every inroad will be met by two bridge collapses.
Don't get me wrong and assume I'm playing with flamebait here, I've been a big fan of the MacOS ever since I started using System 7 back in college. I just wish Apple would *really* target a line of machines to more mainstream users, but they continue to remain in their niches. Comfy, I'm sure, but standing still in the face of others who are expanding quite surely is a recipe for eventual extinction. Just MHO though...
> Read the similarities that are listed. They are numerous and > not common to vampire/werewolf mythology.
It's irrelevent whether they're "common" to vampire/werewolf mythology or not; all that matters is whether they've been done before and thus can be considered prior art. They have. Vampires vs. werewolves has literally been done dozens of times before, dating back as far as I personally know to at least the horror/sci-fi comics of the 1950s. There have been comics, stories, and even episodes of the "Ghostbusters" cartoon and HBO's "Tales from the Crypt" dealing with the notion of vampires and werewolves as deadly rivals. There have also been just as many adaptations of the "Romeo and Juliet" concept to various fantasy and supernatural worlds--and let's not forget that *Romeo and Juliet* and many other plays by Shakespeare are themselves adaptations and retellings of earlier plays.
The plaintiffs here are just woefully illiterate and ignorant of the numerous prior art. I'm 100% certain that the defendants will produce so many examples of prior works with extreme similarities to each and every one of the plaintiffs' counts that the plaintiffs will fail completely. They invented none of the ideas and storylines and therefore have no case.
It isn't surprising that the plaintiffs really believe they've been "copied", since even the sci-fi mavens here on/. seem to be largely ignorant of how deep these mythologies run. People have had concepts of the werewolf almost identical to modern ones at least as far back as 15th-century Europe, where it was believed humans used ointments and potions to become horrible wolf-man-beasts during full moons; ancient Roman beliefs regarding lycanthropes were a bit different, but still showed similarities. While the modern Dracula story was mostly an invention of Bram Stoker, all of the elements he attributed to vampires generally were essentially cobbled together from the differing vampire myths of several different cultures and regions, going back centuries before him.
Since the concept of vampires and werewolves coming together as enemies and battling dates at least to the comics of the 1950s, I just don't see how the plaintiffs have a case. Their works weren't blatantly ripped off, since all the concepts within are at least 50 years old. It also wouldn't surprise me if the defendants were able to dig up several examples of earlier stories regarding the same vampire vs. werewolf themes published prior to the 1950s.
The World of Darkness games and writings may be very familiar to the geeks of/., but rest assured they aren't familiar to most people. They haven't acheived a position where their works are considered pre-eminently above those of others that are similar when it comes to IP, as some corporations like Disney have. The plaintiffs may get a relatively small nuisance settlement from the defendants, or they will lose outright. They will not win. The case is probably just a publicity and marketing stunt anyway.
> Are you really suggesting that the piracy took place because > of some subconsious resentment over conflicts that old rather > than just plain self-interest?
I think each of us was fundamentally mistaking what the other was saying. My argument wasn't about any resentment over conflicts of the past, but rather about general socioeconomic factors. People who are not as economically and technologically well-off thanks to lingering socioeconomic discrepancies would be less likely to purchase what is essentially a luxury entertainment service than their neighbours would.
In other words, I agree with you that it's a money thing. It's just that people with slightly less disposably income and slightly less urban development (again, there are huge cities in Scotland, but they aren't the whole of it) will be less likely to purchase and more likely to pirate.
I doubt we really disagree very much, we just came to a misunderstanding of each others' positions I believe.
> I've yet to meet a Scotsman who feels so aggrieved by events that > took place anywhere from 257 to 700 years ago that he feels that > it effects him today, or one who feels that Scotland is > oppressed by England.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an average white Southerner in the U.S. as well who feels aggrieved by the events of the late 19th century, but it doesn't negate the measurable socio-economic impact. Are you honestly saying to me that the events surrounding the English ascendancy over the Scots, Welsh, and Irish don't have any lingering socio-economic effects?
My professors at university would disagree greatly, particularly the one from Scotland and two from England. Just because I live in the U.S. doesn't mean I'm insulated or ignorant of the world or haven't traveled to the places I discuss, despite the ignorant views of so many Europeans. The advantages Scotland may have in governmental simplicity compared to England, BTW, have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion of the socioeconomic ramifications of relatively recent (in historical terms) English oppression. Median incomes outside of large city centers, however, do. Lessening influences of local dialects and cultures, however, do. Lessening knowledge of and practise of *local* history, lore, and customs, do.
> Scotland isn't some backward nation like you would like to portray it.
I haven't portrayed it that way at all. I merely mentioned that it's an area which still hasn't reached socioeconomic parity with some of its neighbours due to historical oppression. Your defensiveness in assuming I was saying something I wasn't, is very telling.
> Where are you getting your in-depth knowledge of the relationship between > Scotland and England from?
Fourth-level British history at university and a graduate-level military history of Britain class and related thesis. Ever hear of such wonderful events as the Battle of Culloden and the wars and oppression leading up to it? How about the actual *outlawing* of the kilt and related clan accessories until the Victorian era?
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about. The Scots were conquered and treated horribly, and pointing to the few big cities with high median incomes *does not* negate the fact that too many Scots don't live and work such a lifestyle. To this day, the Scots people in general are still suffering from an economic and cultural history of oppression, much like the American South up through recent history. Yes, you could point to cities in Dixie with high median incomes even in the 1960s, but the South as a whole was still suffering lingering socioeconomic issues from the devastation of the 1860's and the lack of rebuilding capital that followed.
Now, go read up. When you take a graduate class in the subject, then you can question my credentials in discussing Scotland's plight over the last several centuries and its lingering effects.
You obviously don't know much about the reason people are so annoyed by DirecTV's insipid legal wrangling about smartcard-related equipment. There have been several *documented* cases of programmers and engineers or just plain computer geeks who like to experiment buying these devices for 100% legitimate smartcard programming uses, some of whom have never even owned satellite equipment. Nevertheless, they have been contacted by lawyers for DirecTV and bullyed into forfeiting the equipment and paying a settlement fee, or facing lengthy and expensive legal battles to prove their innocence. That's legalistic extortion, not a valid way to protect your service.
These cases have been documented and there have been articles about them on/. before, so do a little reading. It is *clearly* a substantial non-infringing use when you don't even own satellite equipment and buy smartcard-related/"unlooper" equipment for completely unrelated purposes. It isn't like there aren't many, many uses for smartcard systems that don't involve DirecTV.
> half the population of Scotland
A nation the English have treated very well in the last few centuries. No wonder they weren't paying for overpriced satellite services. People with a lower median income than their neighbours will naturally not be as willing to pay as often for disposable entertainment. Blame that for the collapse of ITV rather than the piracy itself. It's not like most of those people would have actually paid for the service even if the piracy weren't relatively easy.
That's the mistake of the content industry--they blame every problem on piracy. Instead of blaming $18 CD prices in a downturned economy for the decline in CD sales, they blame digital piracy. Instead of blaming $8.50 movie tickets and $5.00 drinks in a down economy for less-than-expected box office results, they blame piracy. Why not, it's easy, and it helps them eliminate a foe. But it's far from accurate.
Yet when a company starts extorting "settlement" money and equipment from people under the threat of expensive lawsuits, for buying equipment which has any number of geeky-goodness uses unrelated to DirecTV, that's unacceptable. I'm perfectly happy with my digital cable TV service, and yet I'm tempted to buy an "unlooper" and some legitimate smartcard equipment to play with just so I can get that letter from DirecTV. I have a feeling that this will end with DirecTV losing a class-action lawsuit brought by those wrongfully accused and extorted.
It is just unacceptably for a company to do what DirecTV is doing, or to do what the RIAA is doing by sending out DMCA letters based on strings within filenames, etc. Any time you condemn the innocent with the guilty, it is not justice, and it *cannot* be tolerated in our society.
It's certainly not about the "fundamentals" of math and science, but I have to say that the book that did the best at explaining physics and cosmology to a humanities geek like me was *A Brief History of Time*. Hawking filled it with simple explanations and allegory, and in the tradition of *Flatland* managed to explain hard-to-grasp concepts to everyone.
It won't help you learn "the basics" in terms of math and science, but if you want to understand the theory behind complicated cosmological principles, I highly recommend *A Brief History of Time*. It would even be a good introductory read before you delve into the math-filled complexities of textbooks and such, because it might open your mind a bit toward understanding the math better if you understand the principles behind the math first.
Part of the problem is also that people don't usually know that there are some organs and tissues which you can safely donate while still living. Bone marrow, for one thing, is a very safe tissue to give up--of course, it's so safe to give up a small amount of it that there's usually no trouble finding a familial match when the time comes. But living kidney donation is a viable option, and kidneys are needed by non-familial recipients all the time. Kidneys from living donors also "take" much better statistically than cadaveric kidneys.
Of course, living kidney donation does involve some relatively small risks and slightly increased possibility that you'd need a kidney transplant of your own eventually, but the statistical increses are minimal. Personally, I've considered becoming a living kidney donor--gotta be great for the karma.:-) But the fact that I drink a vast quantity of fluid each and every day has me scared that my remaining kidney wouldn't like it very much...
That's an example of why I advocate a much more old-fashioned education program than most here would like. Believe me, I love computers and find them to be an important part of my life, a hobby and passion as well as a tool. However, I believe they deserve a limited place in our schools because the money could better be used on more teachers for smaller class sizes, and higher teacher pay for attracting and retaining better teachers.
Basically, elementary school kids IMHO don't need to be using computers in school at all. They aren't doing the kinds of essays and reports that require extensive amounts of detailed information, so the time and expense should be spent on more traditional teaching--reading, using basic indexes and encyclopoedias, etc.
The argument is made that this gets "rich kids" who can afford computers at home an advantage by being introduced to computers at a younger age. Poppycock--I went to school during the period when most of the people I know never used a computer beyond using an Apple ][ as a glorified typewriter until they reached college, and yet they all picked up on good computer use within a month of being at college since by then it was necessity. So, don't tell me people who start on computers in elementary school will have an inherent advantage over those introduced in middle school. Besides, this is the era of the $200 Wal-Mart PC, so even most low-income families can afford a computer at home.
It's in middle school that computers should be introduced into the curriculum in order to prepare students for the need to do more detailed and thorough research on essays, etc., that they need to start doing in middle and high school. Shifting the focus off technology and back onto the basics in elementary schools would, in and of itself, save a fortune in elementary IT spending that could be used on better teachers and on making sure all middle and high schools have adequate computing equipment and excellent instructors to teach their use.
Just my opinion anyway. Too many of the kids I know know more about computers than they do about basic vocabulary, indicating a very misplaced priority in our schools. What good is the ability to look up information on the Web with great efficiency if you can't understand it in detail, much less analyze it thoroughly? Kids are graduating high school today knowing more than they need to about PCs and less than they need to about language, reading, math, and analytical thought. The latter things clearly need better emphasis, and the time to spend teaching them needs to come from somewhere. A good solid liberal arts education is still the best way to prepare students for anything, and they're not getting one.
The evidence of that is everywhere, from the need for the College Board to "dumb down" the "new" SATs to the rising numbers of college freshmen in remedial English and math classes. I went to a college where there was a proficiency exam requirement before first-year placement and for second-year advancement--and the professors administering it complained that every year fewer students placed well or passed the advancement exam the first time around, despite the fact that the college's population numbers and general makeup were static. The only conclusion for such a situation is that high schools were preparing the students less and less in terms of fundamental language and math skills.
Computers are wonderful and teaching their use is a necessity at least in high schools. But they are being over-emphasized at the expense of the fundamentals.
Maybe you didn't understand my point, and still don't.
> Nvidia bought information, and made no sort of claims that they > would help in any way thier competitors products.
They weren't asked to help in any way, and 3dfx was no longer a competitor. They were asked by Microsoft if Microsoft could have permission to write more XP-friendly drivers, and nVidia said no.
Now, contrary to everything you just said, there was *no* good reason for nVidia to say no. The 3dfx cards were essentially EOL anyway, since none supported hardware T&L, which became a requirement in almost all new games, and the cards themselves were never speed demons compared to GeForce/GeForce2 boards.
Allowing Microsoft to make 3dfx drivers more XP compatible would have been a great public relations move. They could have even gotten tech enthusiast websites to spread the word about their friendly and magnanimous attitude. It would have given former 3dfx customers warm fuzzies about nVidia, making their next purchases guaranteed to be nVidia cards.
Instead, they said, "No, no driver update for you! Not even if Microsoft wants to do all the work!"--and they made those same former 3dfx customers turn to ATI hardware instead. It was a stupid, immature, short-sighted, move. It was just plain bad PR and hence bad business.
Now, I personally never owned a 3dfx card until I bought a Voodoo2 long after the 3dfx debacle, in order to play old Glide games better. So, I never had a personal stake in the matter, and am not speaking from sour grapes. Personally though, I prefer ATI's better image quality.
If you doubt that it was a bad business decision on nVidia's part to alienate potential future customers, just visit a site like the x-3dfx forums to see former Voodoo users who still often buy ATI for no other reason than the fact they felt screwed by nVidia.
When you've already defeated your competitor it's all about the PR, winning the hearts and minds of your competitor's former loyalists. nVidia has always been shortsighted in that department, from the way it treated hardware review sites to the way it treated 3dfx customers. Bad business, plain and simple, and it's catching up to them.
They *continue* making shortsighted, foolish decisions even today--like the 3dmark2k3 cheating, and the Dustbuster before that, and the huge product delay before that which allowed the 9700Pro to go unchallenged for the better part of a year. It's clearly a problem of corporate attitude on their part. They're still clearly the marketshare leader--but they are also clearly endangering their position. Marketshare figures are a *trailing* indicator, and the true impact of nVidia's missed product cycle, Dustbuster foolishness, lackluster low-end part performance, cheating scandal, etc., won't be seen in the marketshare figures for several more months.
Most of the geeks on Slashdot may still be saying "I'll keep buying ATI because of their great Linux drivers," but on more general hardware enthusiast sites nVidia is getting trashed so severely it's hard to believe. This cheating thing, following on the heels of the Dustbuster fiasco, is really hurting them--and it's the same sort of corporate arrogance that they displayed with the 3dfx/Microsoft driver issue, when they alienated a lot of potential customers at that point.
*MICROSOFT* wanted to improve the drivers for inclusion in XP, and asked nVidia, which now owned the IP contained in the existing drivers, if *MICROSOFT* could make the driver improvements it wanted to. nVidia told *MICROSOFT* that *MICROSOFT* could not make the new drivers.
Do you understand now, or should I use smaller words with fewer syllables? I weep for our education system.
> They bought technology, not a promise to support cards that they didn't make.
Actually, no, it isn't that simple. According to many hardware sites at the time, Microsoft actually contacted nVidia and basically said, "Current 3dfx drivers, designed for Win9x, don't work nearly as well as they could on Windows XP. So, since the installed base is so large, we'd like your permission to update the 3dfx drivers for better Windows XP compatability so that users don't have so many issues." nVidia said "No," and refused to give Microsoft permission to update the driver code.
So, yes, many former 3dfx users have good reason to dislike nVidia and refuse to use their products. nVidia did alienate 3dfx customers by refusing to let Microsoft update the 3dfx drivers to work better in XP. If they had said, "Sure, Microsoft! We don't have the time, but feel free to fix those Voodoo 4/5 drivers yourself!"--then, the 3dfx userbase would have felt much better about nVidia. It's called "good customer relations," and nVidia doesn't have it.
As for the ratings, I have to say that I'm in the happy minority who *LOVED* Season 6. I think it was great for Joss and co. to put Buffy through that very dark and disillusioning period that many early twentysomethings fall into for a while after school is over and real life sets in. I think so many long-time fans were just too dedicated to the more lighthearted highschoolish years to really approve of the direction of Season 6, so the show's ratings dipped too far for comfort.
However, Season 6 contains some of the best writing and dialogue, and while not everyone likes the plot arcs used (too dark for so many tastes) they actually touched on some really interesting stuff that's true to life. You could really see Joss and Marti's early-20's angst just pouring onto the screen, darker and more disturbing than *Buffy* had been before. The lighthearted edge that fans loved through the highschool and early college show really *couldn't* be there as much when Buffy herself was to disillusioned and depressed. The writing and dialogue was as good as ever, but with the harder edge and lack of as much softening lighthearted stuff too many longtime fans were put off.
But think of all the great things that happened in Season 6. The finale episodes, with the death of Tara and Willow's evilification, were some of the most riveting of the series--even if Tara's death *was* hard for a lot of fans, particularly in the lesbian community. The musical episode, obviously, stands on its own and is so highly acclaimed by critics and most fans that it's high on the list of Best Episodes Ever. Even if the Doublemeat Palace episode was mindnumbing on many levels, it accurately captured the awful experience of being an underling at the menial jobs so many people work. Buffy and Spike had one of the most intense and incredible love scenes in the whole series, and we got to watch their relationship decline into the degradation that really does happen in abusive or unhealthy relationships. There was so much great stuff there--great, but often too dark for most *Buffy* fans.
As for "Dawn the Vampire Slayer"--God, I was so hoping that the big "show you the world" speech Buffy gave Dawn at the end of Season 6's finale would turn into more screentime with the maturing Dawn, but it really didn't go very far. The Potentials ended up with the instruction that Dawn was seemingly going to get, based on Buffy's remarks at the end of the past season. Mmmm, little Dawnie really butters my toast! Hey, Michelle Trachtenberg *does* turn 18 and legal this year.;-) Yummy. I was tempted to go to BuffyAuction.com and bid on the outfit she wore when she was seducing that jock in Season 7, but that would just be too creepy--plus my girlfriend wouldn't quite fit into it anyway.:-o
Slashdot Mirror
> If the authentication servers go offline there's no reason
> that Valve couldn't release a patch of some sort that didn't
> require activiation.
Tell that to the guy who picks up a Half-Life 2 CD in the bargain bin or secondhand, pops it in, and wonders why he can't play his game. Or the guy who bought it new right now and goes to reinstall it a couple years later but has no idea how to go about manually finding patches, downloading them, and updating a PC game--or even that PC games can be updated. Just because you and I are savvy enough to know that most PC games have downloadable patches and add-ons doesn't mean most people do. They don't.
The very concept of buying physical software media that are completely useless crippleware coasters without online server authentication every time you install it is repugnant. You can still play movies recorded 25 years ago to obscure RCA Selectavision CED vinyl discs, yet millions of DiVX discs are useless because of needless server authentication.
Crippleware Half-Life 2 CDs are no different. The time will come in several years when the server isn't there and the average user--who's more used to the console heritage of games that just work and don't need to register with a server to download keys or patches just to play single-player--will have no clue how to use the software he bought anymore.
> They aren't doing anything wrong.
And neither was DiVX (not the codec, the early DVD competitor) when it sold its customers encrypted DVD discs that required the player to have online validation. DiVX Gold or Silver discs weren't conceptually rentals like most DiVX, but were meant to be purchased and unlocked for unlimited viewing.
Tried playing a Silvered disc lately? Every single DiVX disc became a coaster when the validation servers were shut down, even "unlocked" ones. Sure, refunds were given for "lifetime" purchased discs, but that's hardly the point--when I purchase a game or movie, I expect that a company won't be turning it on and off at the mercy of their whims. Sorry, but selling crippleware that requires online activation even for single-player is as shortsighted and wrong as--well, as DiVX and its crippling of everyone's movies.
> The heterosexual epidemic never materialized?
Not in the developed world, it didn't. It only materialized in the underdeveloped world. Ever been to Africa, especially South Africa? We're talking about a populace which, while the educated are as intelligent and advanced as anyone, is mostly composed of the uneducated and under-educated who believe superstitions and don't know science. A nontrivial percentage of people there believe that sex with a virgin will cure HIV, which has contributed a bit to South Africa being the rape capital of the world. Early last year one of the big headlines was the gang-rape of *an infant* by adult males who thought it would cure their HIV.
It's a matter of education and availability of condoms at affordable prices, not racism. We are handed 12 years of solid (mostly) schooling, and have condoms available at the corner store for about the cost of lunch money. They are not given such a solid and extended (and largely required) schooling, and are more financially strapped. It isn't racism to point out that HIV is not an epidemic among heterosexuals in the U.S., or most of the rest of the West. You're the one who brought up Africa, not the parent poster, but since you did it must be pointed out that it's a very different world there--there are clear reasons culturally, economically, and otherwise why we have escaped a heterosexual AIDS crisis and they haven't.
> Dude, what about chafing? You must have one hell of a hand-cream budget...
I think he makes his own hand-cream...
I go into the woods so that I won't run into technology and trappings of the modern era. I don't want to see these things. I get distracted enough whenever I see annoyingly bright trail markers, signs, and other things that aren't native to the woods.
Clearly you'd need to keep several different types on hand--wheat, rye, white, pumpernickel, etc. You wouldn't want people to get confused and follow the wrong bread trails in an infinite loop, else they'd be easy pickings for any fairytale witches in the vicinity.
S3 suspend works fine for me under WinXP, but I can't say that I've ever used it except to see if it really worked. I don't really know anyone who's ever used it except on a laptop that suspends when the lid is closed, and they only use it them because that's default behaviour for their hardware.
I'm sure it's a valuable feature for those who really use it, and that there are many advantages that people will point out like saving application states etc. But for me and everyone I know, except the laptop users I mentioned whose hardware automatically suspends, we either have our PC's on 24/7 or turn them off when not in use. Mine is on 24/7 for broadband filesharing, while the average users I know just turn their computers on and off as needed.
Personally, I found myself wanting an application-specific suspend-to-disk option for saving Mozilla tabs whenever I have to reboot every few weeks for hardware/driver/general-wonkyness reasons, since I have the nasty habit of queueing up a bunch of pages for later reading. But I've never had a reason personally to want to suspend the whole system state.
I'd be very surprised if that set includes, completely uncut, all of the WWII era Looney Tunes, including "Nip the Nips," "Herr meets Hare," "A Coy Decoy," "Southern Firend Rabbit," and "Fresh Hare." If they're included, don't be surprised if they contain edits...
:-)
Maybe they'll be there complete and uncut, but it's highly questionable. Believe me I'd like it if they were all there.
And of course there are other cartoons that are even less likely to ever be released again--like the Merrie Melodies "Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs", "Confederate Honey," etc.
Meanwhile, a Disney archivist has stated that there's been some discussion of releasing *Song of the South* with commentary and packaging reflecting its historical context, but that there are no solid plans to ever do so. *Fantasia* will almost surely never be released in its original format, with the black centaurs intact. *Saludos Amigos* is also unlikely to be released sans editing, and the re-editing of *Who Framed Roger Rabbit* to make the baby's hand not go as far up the woman's dress is one well-known cut among many.
The *Tom & Jerry* cartoons were recut for their only DVD releases so far to remove some of the violence--inexplicably, since the entire series is cartoon violence. The originals *are* available in an old (and expensive on eBay) laserdisc boxed set, which may end up being the closest some of the uncut versions will get to DVD.
I just wish companies would respect us enough to release original versions, at least as "seamless branching" options such that when the kids put in the DVD of a movie or cartoon and hit play they'd get the edited version, but adults can go into the extras menu and enable the full version. That seems very reasonable to me.
Lucas ought to do the same with the original Star Wars trilogy--make the original cuts available as an option. But it isn't going to happen because he's too damned stubborn.
There are many different pirated versions. The best one is available for free over USENET or P2P, and has very nice cover artwork as an optional download.
Piracy isn't nice--but for people who want the un-fucked-around-with versions of classics, it can be a necessity. The *original* SW trilogy will probably never make it to official DVD. Politically incorrect films and cartoons that we remember from our youth (*Song of the South*, some WW2 era cartoons including some classic Bugs Bunny, even some "too violent" now-edited Tom & Jerry and others) will likely never make it to DVD. Many TV shows are also never making it to DVD in their full and original versions due to music licensing issues and RIAA greed.
It seems like the content industry promotes piracy by not just offering to sell us what we want, at equitable market rates.
> No, it doesn't. Performance has nothing to do with
> market share - performance is performance.
>
> I understand what you're saying, but I'm feeling pedantic.
Then I'll be pedantic enough to point out that it has everything to do with the *relevence* of the performance numbers. If machine A outperformas machine B only on in circumstances which will *not* apply to 99% of actual real-world use, and in all other circumstances has only roughly equal performance, then it has no added real-world performance whatsover for 99% of users. The fact that for 1% of users it's a great improvement is then irrelevent to the 99% who see no performance gain.
That *is* an important issue when discussing performance and benchmarks. 10,000,000 FooMarks means absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't run Foo or very Foo-like apps, so if only a tiny percentage of the market ever runs Foo and Foo-like apps, then FooMarks are not relevent at all except to that tiny percentage--they're entirely irrelevent to the vast, vast majority. So when the G5 performs nearly identically to the G4 in all respects except in situations most users will never face, there's simply no real-world performance advantage at all other than to a relative handful of individuals.
So, such performance numbers on niche uses of niche apps can rightfully be said to be largely irrelevent. We need benchmarks that accurately reflect real-world usage patterns.
It's relevent because those particular apps where the G5 Macs may show their strength are irrelevent to a vast majority of potential users. That makes it relevent to any discussion of the hardware's performance. ;-)
> Anyone who does serious work in Photoshop, After Effects, Final Cut Pro/Avid, etc.
Yes, but that's an extraordinarily tiny percentage of computer users. Most own a Lite version of a photo editing app that came with their scanner or digital camera, if that. And therein lies the problem. I love the MacOS, but there are good reasons the Mac as a whole has become largely a niche product. When you aim for the graphics artists, you miss the chance to gain a larger userbase. When you aim for the educational market but are being undercut by commodity PC hardware, every inroad will be met by two bridge collapses.
Don't get me wrong and assume I'm playing with flamebait here, I've been a big fan of the MacOS ever since I started using System 7 back in college. I just wish Apple would *really* target a line of machines to more mainstream users, but they continue to remain in their niches. Comfy, I'm sure, but standing still in the face of others who are expanding quite surely is a recipe for eventual extinction. Just MHO though...
> Read the similarities that are listed. They are numerous and
/. seem to be largely ignorant of how deep these mythologies run. People have had concepts of the werewolf almost identical to modern ones at least as far back as 15th-century Europe, where it was believed humans used ointments and potions to become horrible wolf-man-beasts during full moons; ancient Roman beliefs regarding lycanthropes were a bit different, but still showed similarities. While the modern Dracula story was mostly an invention of Bram Stoker, all of the elements he attributed to vampires generally were essentially cobbled together from the differing vampire myths of several different cultures and regions, going back centuries before him.
/., but rest assured they aren't familiar to most people. They haven't acheived a position where their works are considered pre-eminently above those of others that are similar when it comes to IP, as some corporations like Disney have. The plaintiffs may get a relatively small nuisance settlement from the defendants, or they will lose outright. They will not win. The case is probably just a publicity and marketing stunt anyway.
> not common to vampire/werewolf mythology.
It's irrelevent whether they're "common" to vampire/werewolf mythology or not; all that matters is whether they've been done before and thus can be considered prior art. They have. Vampires vs. werewolves has literally been done dozens of times before, dating back as far as I personally know to at least the horror/sci-fi comics of the 1950s. There have been comics, stories, and even episodes of the "Ghostbusters" cartoon and HBO's "Tales from the Crypt" dealing with the notion of vampires and werewolves as deadly rivals. There have also been just as many adaptations of the "Romeo and Juliet" concept to various fantasy and supernatural worlds--and let's not forget that *Romeo and Juliet* and many other plays by Shakespeare are themselves adaptations and retellings of earlier plays.
The plaintiffs here are just woefully illiterate and ignorant of the numerous prior art. I'm 100% certain that the defendants will produce so many examples of prior works with extreme similarities to each and every one of the plaintiffs' counts that the plaintiffs will fail completely. They invented none of the ideas and storylines and therefore have no case.
It isn't surprising that the plaintiffs really believe they've been "copied", since even the sci-fi mavens here on
Since the concept of vampires and werewolves coming together as enemies and battling dates at least to the comics of the 1950s, I just don't see how the plaintiffs have a case. Their works weren't blatantly ripped off, since all the concepts within are at least 50 years old. It also wouldn't surprise me if the defendants were able to dig up several examples of earlier stories regarding the same vampire vs. werewolf themes published prior to the 1950s.
The World of Darkness games and writings may be very familiar to the geeks of
Why not just download the original arcade ROM and MAME? :-) It's the most faithful to the arcade original, for obvious reasons...
> Are you really suggesting that the piracy took place because
> of some subconsious resentment over conflicts that old rather
> than just plain self-interest?
I think each of us was fundamentally mistaking what the other was saying. My argument wasn't about any resentment over conflicts of the past, but rather about general socioeconomic factors. People who are not as economically and technologically well-off thanks to lingering socioeconomic discrepancies would be less likely to purchase what is essentially a luxury entertainment service than their neighbours would.
In other words, I agree with you that it's a money thing. It's just that people with slightly less disposably income and slightly less urban development (again, there are huge cities in Scotland, but they aren't the whole of it) will be less likely to purchase and more likely to pirate.
I doubt we really disagree very much, we just came to a misunderstanding of each others' positions I believe.
> I've yet to meet a Scotsman who feels so aggrieved by events that
> took place anywhere from 257 to 700 years ago that he feels that
> it effects him today, or one who feels that Scotland is
> oppressed by England.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an average white Southerner in the U.S. as well who feels aggrieved by the events of the late 19th century, but it doesn't negate the measurable socio-economic impact. Are you honestly saying to me that the events surrounding the English ascendancy over the Scots, Welsh, and Irish don't have any lingering socio-economic effects?
My professors at university would disagree greatly, particularly the one from Scotland and two from England. Just because I live in the U.S. doesn't mean I'm insulated or ignorant of the world or haven't traveled to the places I discuss, despite the ignorant views of so many Europeans. The advantages Scotland may have in governmental simplicity compared to England, BTW, have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion of the socioeconomic ramifications of relatively recent (in historical terms) English oppression. Median incomes outside of large city centers, however, do. Lessening influences of local dialects and cultures, however, do. Lessening knowledge of and practise of *local* history, lore, and customs, do.
> Scotland isn't some backward nation like you would like to portray it.
I haven't portrayed it that way at all. I merely mentioned that it's an area which still hasn't reached socioeconomic parity with some of its neighbours due to historical oppression. Your defensiveness in assuming I was saying something I wasn't, is very telling.
> Where are you getting your in-depth knowledge of the relationship between
> Scotland and England from?
Fourth-level British history at university and a graduate-level military history of Britain class and related thesis. Ever hear of such wonderful events as the Battle of Culloden and the wars and oppression leading up to it? How about the actual *outlawing* of the kilt and related clan accessories until the Victorian era?
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about. The Scots were conquered and treated horribly, and pointing to the few big cities with high median incomes *does not* negate the fact that too many Scots don't live and work such a lifestyle. To this day, the Scots people in general are still suffering from an economic and cultural history of oppression, much like the American South up through recent history. Yes, you could point to cities in Dixie with high median incomes even in the 1960s, but the South as a whole was still suffering lingering socioeconomic issues from the devastation of the 1860's and the lack of rebuilding capital that followed.
Now, go read up. When you take a graduate class in the subject, then you can question my credentials in discussing Scotland's plight over the last several centuries and its lingering effects.
You obviously don't know much about the reason people are so annoyed by DirecTV's insipid legal wrangling about smartcard-related equipment. There have been several *documented* cases of programmers and engineers or just plain computer geeks who like to experiment buying these devices for 100% legitimate smartcard programming uses, some of whom have never even owned satellite equipment. Nevertheless, they have been contacted by lawyers for DirecTV and bullyed into forfeiting the equipment and paying a settlement fee, or facing lengthy and expensive legal battles to prove their innocence. That's legalistic extortion, not a valid way to protect your service.
/. before, so do a little reading. It is *clearly* a substantial non-infringing use when you don't even own satellite equipment and buy smartcard-related/"unlooper" equipment for completely unrelated purposes. It isn't like there aren't many, many uses for smartcard systems that don't involve DirecTV.
These cases have been documented and there have been articles about them on
> half the population of Scotland
A nation the English have treated very well in the last few centuries. No wonder they weren't paying for overpriced satellite services. People with a lower median income than their neighbours will naturally not be as willing to pay as often for disposable entertainment. Blame that for the collapse of ITV rather than the piracy itself. It's not like most of those people would have actually paid for the service even if the piracy weren't relatively easy.
That's the mistake of the content industry--they blame every problem on piracy. Instead of blaming $18 CD prices in a downturned economy for the decline in CD sales, they blame digital piracy. Instead of blaming $8.50 movie tickets and $5.00 drinks in a down economy for less-than-expected box office results, they blame piracy. Why not, it's easy, and it helps them eliminate a foe. But it's far from accurate.
Yet when a company starts extorting "settlement" money and equipment from people under the threat of expensive lawsuits, for buying equipment which has any number of geeky-goodness uses unrelated to DirecTV, that's unacceptable. I'm perfectly happy with my digital cable TV service, and yet I'm tempted to buy an "unlooper" and some legitimate smartcard equipment to play with just so I can get that letter from DirecTV. I have a feeling that this will end with DirecTV losing a class-action lawsuit brought by those wrongfully accused and extorted.
It is just unacceptably for a company to do what DirecTV is doing, or to do what the RIAA is doing by sending out DMCA letters based on strings within filenames, etc. Any time you condemn the innocent with the guilty, it is not justice, and it *cannot* be tolerated in our society.
It's certainly not about the "fundamentals" of math and science, but I have to say that the book that did the best at explaining physics and cosmology to a humanities geek like me was *A Brief History of Time*. Hawking filled it with simple explanations and allegory, and in the tradition of *Flatland* managed to explain hard-to-grasp concepts to everyone.
It won't help you learn "the basics" in terms of math and science, but if you want to understand the theory behind complicated cosmological principles, I highly recommend *A Brief History of Time*. It would even be a good introductory read before you delve into the math-filled complexities of textbooks and such, because it might open your mind a bit toward understanding the math better if you understand the principles behind the math first.
Part of the problem is also that people don't usually know that there are some organs and tissues which you can safely donate while still living. Bone marrow, for one thing, is a very safe tissue to give up--of course, it's so safe to give up a small amount of it that there's usually no trouble finding a familial match when the time comes. But living kidney donation is a viable option, and kidneys are needed by non-familial recipients all the time. Kidneys from living donors also "take" much better statistically than cadaveric kidneys.
:-) But the fact that I drink a vast quantity of fluid each and every day has me scared that my remaining kidney wouldn't like it very much...
Of course, living kidney donation does involve some relatively small risks and slightly increased possibility that you'd need a kidney transplant of your own eventually, but the statistical increses are minimal. Personally, I've considered becoming a living kidney donor--gotta be great for the karma.
That's an example of why I advocate a much more old-fashioned education program than most here would like. Believe me, I love computers and find them to be an important part of my life, a hobby and passion as well as a tool. However, I believe they deserve a limited place in our schools because the money could better be used on more teachers for smaller class sizes, and higher teacher pay for attracting and retaining better teachers.
Basically, elementary school kids IMHO don't need to be using computers in school at all. They aren't doing the kinds of essays and reports that require extensive amounts of detailed information, so the time and expense should be spent on more traditional teaching--reading, using basic indexes and encyclopoedias, etc.
The argument is made that this gets "rich kids" who can afford computers at home an advantage by being introduced to computers at a younger age. Poppycock--I went to school during the period when most of the people I know never used a computer beyond using an Apple ][ as a glorified typewriter until they reached college, and yet they all picked up on good computer use within a month of being at college since by then it was necessity. So, don't tell me people who start on computers in elementary school will have an inherent advantage over those introduced in middle school. Besides, this is the era of the $200 Wal-Mart PC, so even most low-income families can afford a computer at home.
It's in middle school that computers should be introduced into the curriculum in order to prepare students for the need to do more detailed and thorough research on essays, etc., that they need to start doing in middle and high school. Shifting the focus off technology and back onto the basics in elementary schools would, in and of itself, save a fortune in elementary IT spending that could be used on better teachers and on making sure all middle and high schools have adequate computing equipment and excellent instructors to teach their use.
Just my opinion anyway. Too many of the kids I know know more about computers than they do about basic vocabulary, indicating a very misplaced priority in our schools. What good is the ability to look up information on the Web with great efficiency if you can't understand it in detail, much less analyze it thoroughly? Kids are graduating high school today knowing more than they need to about PCs and less than they need to about language, reading, math, and analytical thought. The latter things clearly need better emphasis, and the time to spend teaching them needs to come from somewhere. A good solid liberal arts education is still the best way to prepare students for anything, and they're not getting one.
The evidence of that is everywhere, from the need for the College Board to "dumb down" the "new" SATs to the rising numbers of college freshmen in remedial English and math classes. I went to a college where there was a proficiency exam requirement before first-year placement and for second-year advancement--and the professors administering it complained that every year fewer students placed well or passed the advancement exam the first time around, despite the fact that the college's population numbers and general makeup were static. The only conclusion for such a situation is that high schools were preparing the students less and less in terms of fundamental language and math skills.
Computers are wonderful and teaching their use is a necessity at least in high schools. But they are being over-emphasized at the expense of the fundamentals.
> Maybe you didn't understand me.
Maybe you didn't understand my point, and still don't.
> Nvidia bought information, and made no sort of claims that they
> would help in any way thier competitors products.
They weren't asked to help in any way, and 3dfx was no longer a competitor. They were asked by Microsoft if Microsoft could have permission to write more XP-friendly drivers, and nVidia said no.
Now, contrary to everything you just said, there was *no* good reason for nVidia to say no. The 3dfx cards were essentially EOL anyway, since none supported hardware T&L, which became a requirement in almost all new games, and the cards themselves were never speed demons compared to GeForce/GeForce2 boards.
Allowing Microsoft to make 3dfx drivers more XP compatible would have been a great public relations move. They could have even gotten tech enthusiast websites to spread the word about their friendly and magnanimous attitude. It would have given former 3dfx customers warm fuzzies about nVidia, making their next purchases guaranteed to be nVidia cards.
Instead, they said, "No, no driver update for you! Not even if Microsoft wants to do all the work!"--and they made those same former 3dfx customers turn to ATI hardware instead. It was a stupid, immature, short-sighted, move. It was just plain bad PR and hence bad business.
Now, I personally never owned a 3dfx card until I bought a Voodoo2 long after the 3dfx debacle, in order to play old Glide games better. So, I never had a personal stake in the matter, and am not speaking from sour grapes. Personally though, I prefer ATI's better image quality.
If you doubt that it was a bad business decision on nVidia's part to alienate potential future customers, just visit a site like the x-3dfx forums to see former Voodoo users who still often buy ATI for no other reason than the fact they felt screwed by nVidia.
When you've already defeated your competitor it's all about the PR, winning the hearts and minds of your competitor's former loyalists. nVidia has always been shortsighted in that department, from the way it treated hardware review sites to the way it treated 3dfx customers. Bad business, plain and simple, and it's catching up to them.
They *continue* making shortsighted, foolish decisions even today--like the 3dmark2k3 cheating, and the Dustbuster before that, and the huge product delay before that which allowed the 9700Pro to go unchallenged for the better part of a year. It's clearly a problem of corporate attitude on their part. They're still clearly the marketshare leader--but they are also clearly endangering their position. Marketshare figures are a *trailing* indicator, and the true impact of nVidia's missed product cycle, Dustbuster foolishness, lackluster low-end part performance, cheating scandal, etc., won't be seen in the marketshare figures for several more months.
Most of the geeks on Slashdot may still be saying "I'll keep buying ATI because of their great Linux drivers," but on more general hardware enthusiast sites nVidia is getting trashed so severely it's hard to believe. This cheating thing, following on the heels of the Dustbuster fiasco, is really hurting them--and it's the same sort of corporate arrogance that they displayed with the 3dfx/Microsoft driver issue, when they alienated a lot of potential customers at that point.
Think about it.
Let me repeat, you ILLITERATE:
*MICROSOFT* wanted to improve the drivers for inclusion in XP, and asked nVidia, which now owned the IP contained in the existing drivers, if *MICROSOFT* could make the driver improvements it wanted to. nVidia told *MICROSOFT* that *MICROSOFT* could not make the new drivers.
Do you understand now, or should I use smaller words with fewer syllables? I weep for our education system.
> They bought technology, not a promise to support cards that they didn't make.
Actually, no, it isn't that simple. According to many hardware sites at the time, Microsoft actually contacted nVidia and basically said, "Current 3dfx drivers, designed for Win9x, don't work nearly as well as they could on Windows XP. So, since the installed base is so large, we'd like your permission to update the 3dfx drivers for better Windows XP compatability so that users don't have so many issues." nVidia said "No," and refused to give Microsoft permission to update the driver code.
So, yes, many former 3dfx users have good reason to dislike nVidia and refuse to use their products. nVidia did alienate 3dfx customers by refusing to let Microsoft update the 3dfx drivers to work better in XP. If they had said, "Sure, Microsoft! We don't have the time, but feel free to fix those Voodoo 4/5 drivers yourself!"--then, the 3dfx userbase would have felt much better about nVidia. It's called "good customer relations," and nVidia doesn't have it.
As for the ratings, I have to say that I'm in the happy minority who *LOVED* Season 6. I think it was great for Joss and co. to put Buffy through that very dark and disillusioning period that many early twentysomethings fall into for a while after school is over and real life sets in. I think so many long-time fans were just too dedicated to the more lighthearted highschoolish years to really approve of the direction of Season 6, so the show's ratings dipped too far for comfort.
;-) Yummy. I was tempted to go to BuffyAuction.com and bid on the outfit she wore when she was seducing that jock in Season 7, but that would just be too creepy--plus my girlfriend wouldn't quite fit into it anyway. :-o
However, Season 6 contains some of the best writing and dialogue, and while not everyone likes the plot arcs used (too dark for so many tastes) they actually touched on some really interesting stuff that's true to life. You could really see Joss and Marti's early-20's angst just pouring onto the screen, darker and more disturbing than *Buffy* had been before. The lighthearted edge that fans loved through the highschool and early college show really *couldn't* be there as much when Buffy herself was to disillusioned and depressed. The writing and dialogue was as good as ever, but with the harder edge and lack of as much softening lighthearted stuff too many longtime fans were put off.
But think of all the great things that happened in Season 6. The finale episodes, with the death of Tara and Willow's evilification, were some of the most riveting of the series--even if Tara's death *was* hard for a lot of fans, particularly in the lesbian community. The musical episode, obviously, stands on its own and is so highly acclaimed by critics and most fans that it's high on the list of Best Episodes Ever. Even if the Doublemeat Palace episode was mindnumbing on many levels, it accurately captured the awful experience of being an underling at the menial jobs so many people work. Buffy and Spike had one of the most intense and incredible love scenes in the whole series, and we got to watch their relationship decline into the degradation that really does happen in abusive or unhealthy relationships. There was so much great stuff there--great, but often too dark for most *Buffy* fans.
As for "Dawn the Vampire Slayer"--God, I was so hoping that the big "show you the world" speech Buffy gave Dawn at the end of Season 6's finale would turn into more screentime with the maturing Dawn, but it really didn't go very far. The Potentials ended up with the instruction that Dawn was seemingly going to get, based on Buffy's remarks at the end of the past season. Mmmm, little Dawnie really butters my toast! Hey, Michelle Trachtenberg *does* turn 18 and legal this year.