We don't allow prisoners to walk around freely in public. Judges can. But to argue that prisoners should have that same freedom because they are human is rediculous.
Prisoner's choices lead to their restricted freedoms and lack of privacy. A direct connection can be made between their actions and their circumstance.
To imply that humans deserve privacy regardless of their background is rediculous. If your son or daughter was caught with drugs, then it would be justified to search their room. The part you are missing is that the initial actions by the prisoners are what left them without privacy.
Game UI include radial menus, configurable hot keys,.cfg files, contextual menus, contextual dialogue boxes, contextual icons, intuative interface design, "HUD" style layouts, and many more features.
3. It gives you pointers, nothing good for someone comming from a windows env. You want a step by step guide, sounding easy a-la-windows install, to make it look simple and straightfoward. That's the big problem with some linux article, the authors knows their systems so well, that they can't put themselves in the shoes of someone that install linux and doesn't know how to access his floppy from the shell because he's used to a:.
Looks like he's covering that in the next article in the series. Nuff said.
The article is talking about a level of computing that I would call "Disposible". If you are dealing with terminals in the 300 mhz range, you can buy them in bulk on E-Bay or save them from being destroyed. These computers are out there and they are cheap... dirt cheap.
So if something goes bad, you don't call the vendor. You stick another one in it's place because you could afford to buy ten times the amount of hardware you needed.
Comparing just the processor does a disservice to the engioneering that apple puts into it's products.
Oversimplified analogy:
Which would you rather have. Lego or the combination of building blocks, tinker toys, connectix, and structures.
Macs are like lego... they just fit together. PC's are like the combination of all the other toy building systems.
They are attractive for different reasons. I know lots of people who would rather try to put together a robot from 5 different toy sets, but I prefer the design work that Lego (and Mac) have to offer. I don't want to spend hours trying to get two different toys to work together.
On the outset, Lego costs more. That's because they stress quality and design. You can easily go out and buy building blocks from another company and they will cost much less, but they wont work as well. If money was all that mattered, I'd buy the cheapest toy and play.
#1 - It cost money. There is a huge difference in peoples minds between free and even the smallest amount of money. Free can be enjoyed without thought, but if it cost money, then immediately you must think about money. Do I have enough for this? Will this eventually cost too much and I'll have to stop? Every time I click, it's costing me money.
#2 - Ease of use. Almost every pay system takes time to use and they are not easy. If it were easy then I wouldn't have to think about the fact that it cost money. (see #1)
If I added an "s" to the end of KIllistrator, would you say then that it's a problem? Of course you would. Why do you think adding a K to the front of Illustrator is any different?
From the site: "Finally, any software released into the public domain can be re-licensed under any other license, so there's nothing that keeps public domain software in the public domain - any of the other licenses here can ``dominate'' a public domain license."
IANAL
As I understood it, once a piece of software entered the public domain, it didn't matter what else you tried to do to it, it was still in the public domain. Even if you applied a proprietary license to it, anyone could use the software outside of that license because it had been in the public domain.
So why is he saying that it could get licensed and therefor be removed from the public domain?
Coherent, Simple, Swift Justice - an on-line game should have a obviously-posted cheating policy, defining what is considered cheating (which should change over time as required), and a clearly-spelled out punishment system. There should be a easy way for players to report a cheater, and a defined methodology for "trial" (which could be as ruthless as "We (the company) have the sole discretion to determine your guilt/innocense"). Thus, everyone knows the law, it's easy to report violators, and justice is swift.
Won't work. You can't scale the system fast enough. With the possibility of hundreds of thousands of gamers playing, there's no way a company of 30 employees could deal with the flood of complaints. EQ is a great example of why this doesn't work. It's full of cheaters and there's simply to way to track them all.
The real answer is in allowing the community to deal out "justice" with it's own policing. Tribes does an excellant job of thing. You can vote to remove players. Put the power in the hands of the gamers to control their own communities.
I've seen a weird trend from/. moderators. Anytime someone makes a good point about or appears to support Microsoft, it gets labels as "Funny".
It's as if such comments were incapable of being "interesting", "informative" or "insightful". TikkaMassala makes a good point, but instead of taking it seriously we label it as "Funny" to avoid the uncomfortable implication that Microsoft has integrity. In a corporation as large as Microsoft, I find it plausable that there are parts within it's walls that retain integrity, but we tend to mock rather than support those who point this out.
Shame on us moderators for this. We should hold outselves to a higher standard.
The full sized keyboard that I already have for my palm works great. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a half-sized keyboard would be better for PDA use. They mention that you can use the keyboard and the stylus at the same time, but that seems rediculous when you consider that the palm would be on a flat surface. It's pretty hard to control the palm moving around without holding it with the other hand.
While technically very interesting, I liked the other "mouse keyboard" innovation idea better.
CmdrTaco... you've got nothing on me.
on
Star Wars Galaxies
·
· Score: 1
"Meanwhile I'm beta testing the diablo 2 expansion, and for the first time in like 3 years, I have 'CmdrTaco' as my nick in a sizable online system. "
Quit whinning, how do you think I feel.
neo (since 1985)
The FAQ... (satire, honest)
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 5
Q: What is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy?
A. We have code. You don't. We make money by selling our code. You don't. We will let you look at the code, but don't touch it. We think this is balanced.
Q: Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
A. We got scared by Open Source.
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Yep.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A. We can't figure out a way to make money with code covered by the GPL.
Q: How is intellectual property (IP) protection related to innovation? Why should society today rely on IP protection to foster innovation?
A. IP protection works because we can make money off of it. If we couldn't make money, that would really piss us off. Society is a better place when we make money. Innovation is very important, as long as we make money. Basically the pattern is money==good.
I think he mispoke this point:
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
"We believe that one of these mechanisms is intellectual property rights. Without intellectual property protection, neither innovation nor a healthy commercial software industry is sustainable. "
I think he meant to substitute the word "profitable" for "sustainable" in the last sentence.
If religious freedom allows for special exceptions under the law, why don't those who are critical of Scientology simply start their own religion? They would get the same protections and would be able to express their Jihad like statements under protection of religious freedom.
Linus brings up an interesting problem with society, although he doesn't go into length about it. That problem is the reliance of capitalism in our society for intellectual advancement.
Attempting to equate success with having capital (and hence property) has created some obvious paradoxes. Take the example of designed obsolescence. Because corporations only live if they can sustain an income, products are created that will fail to function in a timely manner. This creates a revenue stream and keeps the corporation "alive". However, the products that are created are not the best possible products.
Competition is supposed to push better products to the fore. If that worked, we'd have light bulbs that laster for 30 years, cars you bought for a lifetime, and software for life. Ask yourself this question: How much better is Word 2000 from Word 5.1? We upgrade because it is forced upon us by file protocals, not because there's any innovation in word processing.
Until we can divorce the pursuit of capital from advances in science, we are doomed to have any advance kepted restained by the barriers of the a accumulation of that wealth. If at any point, an advancement is deemed to be a money killer, it will be abandoned. [Napster being a slightly trollish example]
I don't have the answers to these problems, but from what I've read on Slashdot, I'm not the only one thinking about them.
It would be ideal if we could get our portable computer to be more like our desktop machines... modular. I'd like it if I could purchase a screen with a standard input slot, a different unit for the CPU and perhaps a snap-on keyboard so I can choose between "deep click" or "touch typing", small or large keys, extended keyboard or not.
The advantage is that I don't have to throw the screen away to get a new CPU, and when the new optical glasses show up I don't need to get a new CPU to use them.
If you want a tape recorder, just snap it into the unit and away you go. Same with a digital camera or a phone or whatever.
The trick is getting these units to fit nicely together (so it doesn't become clunky) and a standard hardware protocal to make it work.
Slashdot Mirror
Prisoners should be divided from the populous.
We don't allow prisoners to walk around freely in public. Judges can. But to argue that prisoners should have that same freedom because they are human is rediculous.
Prisoner's choices lead to their restricted freedoms and lack of privacy. A direct connection can be made between their actions and their circumstance.
To imply that humans deserve privacy regardless of their background is rediculous. If your son or daughter was caught with drugs, then it would be justified to search their room. The part you are missing is that the initial actions by the prisoners are what left them without privacy.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=81707& lastnode_id=81706
You're confusing game UI with game graphics.
.cfg files, contextual menus, contextual dialogue boxes, contextual icons, intuative interface design, "HUD" style layouts, and many more features.
Game UI include radial menus, configurable hot keys,
These have nothing to do with fog distance.
3. It gives you pointers, nothing good for someone comming from a windows env. You want a step by step guide, sounding easy a-la-windows install, to make it look simple and straightfoward. That's the big problem with some linux article, the authors knows their systems so well, that they can't put themselves in the shoes of someone that install linux and doesn't know how to access his floppy from the shell because he's used to a:.
Looks like he's covering that in the next article in the series. Nuff said.
The article is talking about a level of computing that I would call "Disposible". If you are dealing with terminals in the 300 mhz range, you can buy them in bulk on E-Bay or save them from being destroyed. These computers are out there and they are cheap... dirt cheap.
So if something goes bad, you don't call the vendor. You stick another one in it's place because you could afford to buy ten times the amount of hardware you needed.
Sigh... another nice site down the tubes.
I have a bondi blue Mac monitor connected to my PC. Whenever I'm at a lan party people always ask "When did Tribes 2 come out for Mac?"
I just laugh.
Comparing just the processor does a disservice to the engioneering that apple puts into it's products.
Oversimplified analogy:
Which would you rather have. Lego or the combination of building blocks, tinker toys, connectix, and structures.
Macs are like lego... they just fit together. PC's are like the combination of all the other toy building systems.
They are attractive for different reasons. I know lots of people who would rather try to put together a robot from 5 different toy sets, but I prefer the design work that Lego (and Mac) have to offer. I don't want to spend hours trying to get two different toys to work together.
On the outset, Lego costs more. That's because they stress quality and design. You can easily go out and buy building blocks from another company and they will cost much less, but they wont work as well. If money was all that mattered, I'd buy the cheapest toy and play.
But I want to play and have fun... so I buy Lego.
neo
Have you ever played Core Wars?
Which weapon on Counter Strike do you prefer?
What is your home machine?
#1 - It cost money. There is a huge difference in peoples minds between free and even the smallest amount of money. Free can be enjoyed without thought, but if it cost money, then immediately you must think about money. Do I have enough for this? Will this eventually cost too much and I'll have to stop? Every time I click, it's costing me money.
#2 - Ease of use. Almost every pay system takes time to use and they are not easy. If it were easy then I wouldn't have to think about the fact that it cost money. (see #1)
Neo
If I added an "s" to the end of KIllistrator, would you say then that it's a problem? Of course you would. Why do you think adding a K to the front of Illustrator is any different?
"Is that a Linux Box in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"
...
"Oh. It's a Linux Box."
So are the seismic activity an explaination of the Lock Ness Monster or is the Lock Ness Monster an explaination for the seismic activity.
From the site:
"Finally, any software released into the public domain can be re-licensed under any other license, so there's nothing that keeps public domain software in the public domain - any of the other licenses here can ``dominate'' a public domain license."
IANAL
As I understood it, once a piece of software entered the public domain, it didn't matter what else you tried to do to it, it was still in the public domain. Even if you applied a proprietary license to it, anyone could use the software outside of that license because it had been in the public domain.
So why is he saying that it could get licensed and therefor be removed from the public domain?
neo
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19804.html
Kinda puts some egg on many faces.
Coherent, Simple, Swift Justice - an on-line game should have a obviously-posted cheating policy, defining what is considered cheating (which should change over time as required), and a clearly-spelled out punishment system. There should be a easy way for players to report a cheater, and a defined methodology for "trial" (which could be as ruthless as "We (the company) have the sole discretion to determine your guilt/innocense"). Thus, everyone knows the law, it's easy to report violators, and justice is swift.
Won't work. You can't scale the system fast enough. With the possibility of hundreds of thousands of gamers playing, there's no way a company of 30 employees could deal with the flood of complaints. EQ is a great example of why this doesn't work. It's full of cheaters and there's simply to way to track them all.
The real answer is in allowing the community to deal out "justice" with it's own policing. Tribes does an excellant job of thing. You can vote to remove players. Put the power in the hands of the gamers to control their own communities.
Guess I was wrong... they don't have the integrity, their just a little slower than I thought.
I've seen a weird trend from /. moderators. Anytime someone makes a good point about or appears to support Microsoft, it gets labels as "Funny".
It's as if such comments were incapable of being "interesting", "informative" or "insightful". TikkaMassala makes a good point, but instead of taking it seriously we label it as "Funny" to avoid the uncomfortable implication that Microsoft has integrity. In a corporation as large as Microsoft, I find it plausable that there are parts within it's walls that retain integrity, but we tend to mock rather than support those who point this out.
Shame on us moderators for this. We should hold outselves to a higher standard.
neo
The full sized keyboard that I already have for my palm works great. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a half-sized keyboard would be better for PDA use. They mention that you can use the keyboard and the stylus at the same time, but that seems rediculous when you consider that the palm would be on a flat surface. It's pretty hard to control the palm moving around without holding it with the other hand.
While technically very interesting, I liked the other "mouse keyboard" innovation idea better.
"Meanwhile I'm beta testing the diablo 2 expansion, and for the first time in like 3 years, I have 'CmdrTaco' as my nick in a sizable online system. "
Quit whinning, how do you think I feel.
neo (since 1985)
Q: What is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy?
A. We have code. You don't. We make money by selling our code. You don't. We will let you look at the code, but don't touch it. We think this is balanced.
Q: Why did Microsoft decide to highlight the Shared Source Philosophy at this time?
A. We got scared by Open Source.
Q: Is Microsoft's Shared Source Philosophy a Response to Linux?
A. Yep.
Q: What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
A. We can't figure out a way to make money with code covered by the GPL.
Q: How is intellectual property (IP) protection related to innovation? Why should society today rely on IP protection to foster innovation?
A. IP protection works because we can make money off of it. If we couldn't make money, that would really piss us off. Society is a better place when we make money. Innovation is very important, as long as we make money. Basically the pattern is money==good.
"We believe that one of these mechanisms is intellectual property rights. Without intellectual property protection, neither innovation nor a healthy commercial software industry is sustainable. "
I think he meant to substitute the word "profitable" for "sustainable" in the last sentence.
If religious freedom allows for special exceptions under the law, why don't those who are critical of Scientology simply start their own religion? They would get the same protections and would be able to express their Jihad like statements under protection of religious freedom.
Linus brings up an interesting problem with society, although he doesn't go into length about it. That problem is the reliance of capitalism in our society for intellectual advancement.
Attempting to equate success with having capital (and hence property) has created some obvious paradoxes. Take the example of designed obsolescence. Because corporations only live if they can sustain an income, products are created that will fail to function in a timely manner. This creates a revenue stream and keeps the corporation "alive". However, the products that are created are not the best possible products.
Competition is supposed to push better products to the fore. If that worked, we'd have light bulbs that laster for 30 years, cars you bought for a lifetime, and software for life. Ask yourself this question: How much better is Word 2000 from Word 5.1? We upgrade because it is forced upon us by file protocals, not because there's any innovation in word processing.
Until we can divorce the pursuit of capital from advances in science, we are doomed to have any advance kepted restained by the barriers of the a accumulation of that wealth. If at any point, an advancement is deemed to be a money killer, it will be abandoned. [Napster being a slightly trollish example]
I don't have the answers to these problems, but from what I've read on Slashdot, I'm not the only one thinking about them.
It would be ideal if we could get our portable computer to be more like our desktop machines... modular. I'd like it if I could purchase a screen with a standard input slot, a different unit for the CPU and perhaps a snap-on keyboard so I can choose between "deep click" or "touch typing", small or large keys, extended keyboard or not.
The advantage is that I don't have to throw the screen away to get a new CPU, and when the new optical glasses show up I don't need to get a new CPU to use them.
If you want a tape recorder, just snap it into the unit and away you go. Same with a digital camera or a phone or whatever.
The trick is getting these units to fit nicely together (so it doesn't become clunky) and a standard hardware protocal to make it work.
neo