Many multiplayer games I've seen do not require a direct 1-1 relationship between copies purchased and players playing. For example, some allow you to run a game of 4 players, off 1 legit CD, or something like 4 players for the 1st CD, and then 2 for every other legit CD joining the game...this way you could use your brand spanking new expensive game to actually *play* with other people who might not have it.
I am wondering what the NWN policy is (I checked the FAQ and couldn't find anything about it). If I am able to play with 1 or 2 other people (who I know for a fact will definitely NOT buy this otherwise), then I'll be sure to get NWN...otherwise, there is no point in me buying it at all (and Bioware loses a sale).
"IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation. GPL forces it to be owned by everyone"
W R O N G
You still maintain copyright control over work contributed to GPLed projects (unless you made some other agreement). This is why the Mozilla project is looking for developers with which they've lost contact so they can ask for their permission before they relicense the codebase.
"You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party."
If you have agreement of all contributors/copyright owners OF COURSE YOU CAN.
Just because many developers might not really enforce their rights over works they have contributed, doesn't mean they don't still have those rights. Weren't you paying attention when OpenBSD replaced IPF with PF and underwent a license audit? NVIDIA specifically removed some GPLed code they accidentally added to their binary driver. I seem to recall some other proprietary company got slapped when they tried to freeload off the GPL also. But this is no different than you or I including and distributing some piece of somebody else's proprietary software in our own software.
Hmm, I didn't know the Everything2 "engine" was open source. I've been hunting for a while now for something weblog-ish that I can use partly as a chronological diary, but also partly, as the poster says, as a "knowledge base". I come accross so much stuff on the net, it is way too inefficient to simply store links (which after all might go dead, and are non-searcheable). What would be ideal is a weblog in which there was a special "type" of post, which basically mirrored a page/site I visited that day...so if I *knew* I read something about a topic, I could search my weblog for some keywords, and find, sure enough, I ran into it a few months ago, and there is the copy of the page for me to read.
What use are country TLDs if the countries' governments are NOT in control? If countries have no control of what goes under their country's TLD, they become meaningless, at which point we shouldn't even have them.
Well, I am a fulltime middleware Java programmer, and have no particular love for MS, but your post is mostly FUD. Microsoft is not trying to ingratiate themselves to *US*, the Slashdot crowd (duh!) - they are trying to jump off their legacy languages (VB, C++) into a J2EE-like world (which Java has had for years now), and to this goal,.NET/CLR is a pretty damn good architecture. The things which it *does* have over Java which are actually nice, is, for example, optional "unsafe" keywords for native integration, and auto-boxing (which Sun has now planned to introduce to Java in 1.5)..NET is a great platform for current Microsoft developers to migrate to a web-services/J2EE-like world, and it does a damn good job at it. I know if I was an MS developer I sure would rather develop in.NET/CLR/C# than the crap that they currently have to deal with (VB/C++/MFC/ActiveX/COM+).
.NET is a good architecture for what it is designed for. That doesn't mean MS is not still going to try to do something evil with it, but it is plainly dishonest to spew FUD like that against it. Read the spec before bitching.
"However in cases like that one generally resorts to Occam's razor, which says that all things being equal we should work on the assumption that the simpler explanation is the correct one."
In this case, God would be a lot simpler than a lot of the physics we have pulled out of our ass to explain the world, just remember that;)
"Yeah!! There's so much oil in Afghanistan its not even funny!"
Uh, no, but there is TONS in Turkmenistan and we have been wanting a pipeline through Afghanistan for a long time now. Why do think we were so in favor of supporting a top advisor to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation as the interim prime minister? Haven't you been paying attention? Or do you just use what ABC McNews tells (or doesn't tell you) to form your perception of reality?
Christ, wake the fuck up. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are ignorant jingos.
Right...this social engineering is getting annoying. Now it's going to be "anything the government doesn't like is supporting terrorism". "I asked Congresspeople too many nosey questions - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "I hounded corrupt corporations about EPA/accounting abuses - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM" "I did something different than normal mainstream sheeple that believe whatever the government and centralized media shove down their gullets - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "Hey, it's my "
A high school friend of mine lived near school and found a way to enter the school after it had closed. So every once in a while, we'd just break into school, and have an all night DOOM lan party. Fun stuff.
Oops..that got mangled, try again: Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized by John Litzenberg This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience
the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins
because your television will not be revolutionized.
You will not have the option to view programming that reflects actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work
because your television will not be revolutionized.
You will not have more information at your disposal, but a great deal more disposable information; you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life; nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment that will best equip you to face other human beings who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D. by absorbing the litany of T & A, S & M, B & D and R & R on CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, people who have important things to say regarding the fragility of relying on modern convenience will not be able to set up independent broadcast towers because the FCC, FBI and CIA will make sure that you do not find these programs included as part of "Must See TV," and they will certainly not be sponsored by Mobil Oil Corporation and the Fortune 500.
You will not be able to immediately gain access to the viewing public without waiting nine months on a list for new programs, waiting only to be passed over by a Committee for Fairness in Television because your views are not deemed interesting enough to command a favorable Nielson share. Nor will you be able to select features for your viewing pleasure that have not been hand-picked by the owners of the airwaves and their supporting advertisers.
Your television will not be revolutionized. Your television will not be revolutionized.
Your television will not be revolutionized.
You will continue to experience a decrease in rapid eye movement, increasing cases of attention deficit disorder among your babies and children, and on-going, invasive modifications to your DNA caused by the barrage of an electron machine gun you have invited into your home to expose "viewers like you" to a thousand points of artificial light.
You will continue to form images subconsciously inside your physical brain without the benefit of seeing them outside your head, and without the ability to blink and shut them out or slow them down so as to maintain the facility to selectively choose the sound bytes and sound tracks and sound effects and hypnotic waves of electricity that will influence your spending patterns, your methods of recreation, your opinions on procreation, your impression of reality and your overall sense of physical health and well-being.
Your television will not be revolutionized.
Your retention of information will continue to decrease, while the available percentage of brain cells at your disposal will continued to be used up by phrases from sitcom theme songs, by deductive meanderings on who shot J.R., and by images of politicians wrapped in flags and kissing babies, eating chitterlings, slicing pizza and spreading lox on bagels.
You will not be able to take your message to the streets or distribute pamphlets questioning the party line at union meetings or city council sessions, because your fellow citizens will be safe at home, unified only in the respect that they are all watching re-runs of the same shows so it can be assured there will be a topic of conversation when we are all turned loose to exercise our First Amendment rights assisted by a new and improved level of communication brought to you by the Association for the Preservation of Technological Megalomaniacs.
You will not be able to tell the difference between an embrace offered by a virtual reality image of your dead father and the gentle purring of a live kitten grasping your shoulder; but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports, or candid interviews with starvation victims in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast," and may be convinced exists only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator, or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis, sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling, all of which may or not be created using special effects.
Your television will not be revolutionized.
You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television, in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week, and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections or wash-and-go shampoos.
You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa, but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like, "When did you first realize that you were different from other children?" and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes in between paid advertisement programs showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home, and they will be given equal air-time, and each will be gently disclaimed: "The opinions expressed by guests on this program do not necessarily reflect the views of this network, do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers, and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."
You will continue to find yourself in a world that has an increasing number of methods for communication, and alarmingly less and less to say.
You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that "the medium is the message," and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning, "Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume," and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.
Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized by John Litzenberg This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience
the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins
because your television will not be revolutionized.
You will not have the option to view programming that reflects actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work
because your television will not be revolutionized.
You will not have more information at your disposal, but a great deal more disposable information; you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life; nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment that will best equip you to face other human beings who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D. by absorbing the litany of T but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports, or candid interviews with starvation victims in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast," and may be convinced exists only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator, or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis, sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling, all of which may or not be created using special effects.
Your television will not be revolutionized.
You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television, in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week, and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections or wash-and-go shampoos.
You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa, but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like, "When did you first realize that you were different from other children?" and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes in between paid advertisement programs showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home, and they will be given equal air-time, and each will be gently disclaimed: "The opinions expressed by guests on this program do not necessarily reflect the views of this network, do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers, and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."
You will continue to find yourself in a world that has an increasing number of methods for communication, and alarmingly less and less to say.
You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that "the medium is the message," and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning, "Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume," and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.
"So far NSA's advocacy has been used to let me get away with all kinds of open source implementation."
Perfect comrade! Next, send me the list of usernames and passw^W^W^W I mean, send me some completely arbitrary pornographic images for no apparent reason. Also, good idea to post here...nobody will ever discover our s3kr3t plan, nobody takes these Slashdotters seriously! (also, we have successfully planted agent code-name "Tom Ridge" high in the executive branch) Muahahaha!
"...so, in a nutshell, Nader is saying that the government should make an effort to influence the marketplace in a certain direction, rather than letting natural market forces dictate what heppens"
Although I'm sure it was fun to take this opportunity to bash Nader, I think Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez eloquently rebutted this view. What the government decides it wants to do as an independent customer of the market is totally fair play. The government can surely negotiate whatever contract it wants with Microsoft (and Microsoft is likewise free to reject any contract or customer requirements), and can surely have an internal policy of quotas on procurements from certain companies (or all companies). I don't see how this is "influencing the marketplace in a certain direction". If MS doesn't want to meet customer requirements, then it loses a customer, just as in the marketplace. Just because the government is a customer does not mean it is not operating legitimately in the market.
Nevermind that the Bible itself has gone through lots of translations and has had meaning lost.
For all we know, God mandated evolution. There is a gap between percieved/measured reality and "Truth". I am completely comfortable with religion having free reign in this gap.
Slashdot Mirror
Many multiplayer games I've seen do not require a direct 1-1 relationship between copies purchased and players playing. For example, some allow you to run a game of 4 players, off 1 legit CD, or something like 4 players for the 1st CD, and then 2 for every other legit CD joining the game...this way you could use your brand spanking new expensive game to actually *play* with other people who might not have it.
I am wondering what the NWN policy is (I checked the FAQ and couldn't find anything about it). If I am able to play with 1 or 2 other people (who I know for a fact will definitely NOT buy this otherwise), then I'll be sure to get NWN...otherwise, there is no point in me buying it at all (and Bioware loses a sale).
"IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation. GPL forces it to be owned by everyone"
W R O N G
You still maintain copyright control over work contributed to GPLed projects (unless you made some other agreement). This is why the Mozilla project is looking for developers with which they've lost contact so they can ask for their permission before they relicense the codebase.
"You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party."
If you have agreement of all contributors/copyright owners OF COURSE YOU CAN.
Just because many developers might not really enforce their rights over works they have contributed, doesn't mean they don't still have those rights. Weren't you paying attention when OpenBSD replaced IPF with PF and underwent a license audit ? NVIDIA specifically removed some GPLed code they accidentally added to their binary driver. I seem to recall some other proprietary company got slapped when they tried to freeload off the GPL also. But this is no different than you or I including and distributing some piece of somebody else's proprietary software in our own software.
That's nothing, I made a fuel-cell powered paper football...
Hmm, I didn't know the Everything2 "engine" was open source. I've been hunting for a while now for something weblog-ish that I can use partly as a chronological diary, but also partly, as the poster says, as a "knowledge base". I come accross so much stuff on the net, it is way too inefficient to simply store links (which after all might go dead, and are non-searcheable). What would be ideal is a weblog in which there was a special "type" of post, which basically mirrored a page/site I visited that day...so if I *knew* I read something about a topic, I could search my weblog for some keywords, and find, sure enough, I ran into it a few months ago, and there is the copy of the page for me to read.
"Uses the same technology that UFOs used to build the Pyramids, as a matter of fact."
I'll give you the technology right now: hype + vapor. It was also used to fuel many dot-coms.
It is funny you stiff...
"I hope this doesn't compete with my badly designed, rigid and difficult to use 3D engine I have been working on."
No, those already have tons of inertia behind them... *bash bash bash*
"You forgot Java 3D. (R.i.P)"
Watchoo talkin' 'bout Wills?
http://www.javagaming.org
"You need a low-level graphics API to abstract different types of hardware. That's the real job of OpenGL and Direct-X."
Direct-3D I think you mean.
Direct-3D immediate mode at that....
What use are country TLDs if the countries' governments are NOT in control? If countries have no control of what goes under their country's TLD, they become meaningless, at which point we shouldn't even have them.
Well, I am a fulltime middleware Java programmer, and have no particular love for MS, but your post is mostly FUD. Microsoft is not trying to ingratiate themselves to *US*, the Slashdot crowd (duh!) - they are trying to jump off their legacy languages (VB, C++) into a J2EE-like world (which Java has had for years now), and to this goal, .NET/CLR is a pretty damn good architecture. The things which it *does* have over Java which are actually nice, is, for example, optional "unsafe" keywords for native integration, and auto-boxing (which Sun has now planned to introduce to Java in 1.5). .NET is a great platform for current Microsoft developers to migrate to a web-services/J2EE-like world, and it does a damn good job at it. I know if I was an MS developer I sure would rather develop in .NET/CLR/C# than the crap that they currently have to deal with (VB/C++/MFC/ActiveX/COM+).
.NET is a good architecture for what it is designed for. That doesn't mean MS is not still going to try to do something evil with it, but it is plainly dishonest to spew FUD like that against it. Read the spec before bitching.
"However in cases like that one generally resorts to Occam's razor, which says that all things being equal we should work on the assumption that the simpler explanation is the correct one."
;)
In this case, God would be a lot simpler than a lot of the physics we have pulled out of our ass to explain the world, just remember that
"Yeah!! There's so much oil in Afghanistan its not even funny!"
Uh, no, but there is TONS in Turkmenistan and we have been wanting a pipeline through Afghanistan for a long time now. Why do think we were so in favor of supporting a top advisor to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation as the interim prime minister? Haven't you been paying attention? Or do you just use what ABC McNews tells (or doesn't tell you) to form your perception of reality?
Christ, wake the fuck up. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are ignorant jingos.
Right...this social engineering is getting annoying. Now it's going to be "anything the government doesn't like is supporting terrorism". "I asked Congresspeople too many nosey questions - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "I hounded corrupt corporations about EPA/accounting abuses - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM" "I did something different than normal mainstream sheeple that believe whatever the government and centralized media shove down their gullets - I SUPPORTED TERRORISM!" "Hey, it's my "
A high school friend of mine lived near school and found a way to enter the school after it had closed. So every once in a while, we'd just break into school, and have an all night DOOM lan party. Fun stuff.
Does this imply QNX now has a Java VM? (or did it all along?)
Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
by John Litzenberg
This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
by John Litzenberg
This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
"So far NSA's advocacy has been used to let me get away with all kinds of open source implementation."
Perfect comrade! Next, send me the list of usernames and passw^W^W^W I mean, send me some completely arbitrary pornographic images for no apparent reason. Also, good idea to post here...nobody will ever discover our s3kr3t plan, nobody takes these Slashdotters seriously! (also, we have successfully planted agent code-name "Tom Ridge" high in the executive branch) Muahahaha!
Rabbits can't talk! That's CRAZY!
- Brian Fellows
"But what I'm much more interested in is why you, and lots of other people and trolls, seem to think that such a thing might happen?"
Maybe because it already happened before but was killed because Apple did not want to sell Mac OS for x86?
"...so, in a nutshell, Nader is saying that the government should make an effort to influence the marketplace in a certain direction, rather than letting natural market forces dictate what heppens"
Although I'm sure it was fun to take this opportunity to bash Nader, I think Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez eloquently rebutted this view. What the government decides it wants to do as an independent customer of the market is totally fair play. The government can surely negotiate whatever contract it wants with Microsoft (and Microsoft is likewise free to reject any contract or customer requirements), and can surely have an internal policy of quotas on procurements from certain companies (or all companies). I don't see how this is "influencing the marketplace in a certain direction". If MS doesn't want to meet customer requirements, then it loses a customer, just as in the marketplace. Just because the government is a customer does not mean it is not operating legitimately in the market.
"Milky Way found to be bully on galactic playground"
Nevermind that the Bible itself has gone through lots of translations and has had meaning lost.
For all we know, God mandated evolution. There is a gap between percieved/measured reality and "Truth". I am completely comfortable with religion having free reign in this gap.
"I store its SHA1 hash signature."
So how do you regenerate the card number from the hash for billing?