You know, no matter what this guy says, I don't know ANYONE who bemoans the "loss" of vinyl, and I only know OF a couple people. The vast majority of vinyl freaks will, instead, go out of thier way to tell me how much vinyl is still in the game, like the guy who posted above. And CDs are a vastly superior technology, subjective issues about sound quality aside. I never had to re-buy all my vinyl, because I never had any - by the time I moved out of my parents house, CDs were cheap and CD players were affordable, even for a teenager newly entering the workforce. I wasn't forced to choose anything - I'd picked CDs over tapes and I'd pick tapes over vinyl. They're more convenient and more durable.
I know several blind people who use screen readers. How they manage is beyond me, but they do. In fact, as I recall, the guy who runs Wolf FM (one of the most popular shoutcast streams) is blind.
That's one of the reasons we'd need a professional guild - to do things like define standards about what should be reasonalby expected of software. The car analagy doesn't hold up this far, as software should be expected to work with any other type of software with which is shares a standard interface and, failing that, to fail gracefully.
Extortion is perfectly legal, you just have to pay bribes;)
In other words, while that may be what it boils down to, you can be sure that they payed plenty to lawerys to make sure that it got the point across without ever being something that you could bring them to court over. Take a look at threats of prosecution under the DMCA for an excellent example of this.
My girlfriend is a HUGE Tad Williams fan (I am also, to a lesser degree) and she hadn't heard of this at all until a couple months ago when I stumbled across it. She also spends even more time on the internet than I do. Better/more marketing would have helped alot (although I'm not really sure what they could have done, or what they did for that matter).
Of course, serialization is one reason Dickens sucks so much... he's so wordy and drawn out because he was paid by the word and under constant pressure. His books could use some trimming down...
Large fonts are not maliciously formatted content. It's not Mozilla's job to constrain data it's passing to a third party. It's not a mozilla bug, although they may choose to band-aid it.
Cheap, over-analytical attempt at an explanation: At the beginning, when he's holding up the ceiling, he's straining because Dooku is actively pushing down - the strain isn't from the weight, it's because he's fighting with Dooku. The big pillar that gets knocked over, he's straining because a) he's weary from the duel and b) because it takes focus to move things with the force, and he didn't have time to properly center himself. he's able to easily pick up his staff because.. umm... because... yeah.
The impression I got was that Dooku, due to the power of the dark side, was an even match for Yoda in a pure force battle. Also, Yoda, being a Jedi and not a Sith, doesn't use the force directly for attack - he only deflects and redirects his opponents attacks. Dooku attacks Yoda, sees that Yoda is strong enough to deflect anything he can throw at him, and decides to use the lightsaber. As for pandering... well, duh.
I'd have to contradict most of your post - first case, staff fighting techinques won't work at all with a lightsaber. You can't touch it anywhere except the hilt, so you can't do pretty much any of the moves that makes staves versatile. Darth Maul's lightsaber is cool and all, but it's really a defensive weapon - he's got no reach to speak of.
About being able to attack faster with a staff... just not true. Sure, you've got 2 ends, but the angles you can attack from are limited, and it's not neccesarily faster. Since you have to either a) face full body or b) bring your whole body forward to attack with the other end of a staff, a good fencer will have no trouble riposting before you can get the other end around.
I'm not sure where you get this nonsense about a sword fighter having to move his entire body to parry. If your technique is good, you won't need to move any part of your body except your wrist and lower arm, and even then just a few inches. 300 years of sword-fighting technique has come up with a few things, after all...
2 weapons - there's a reason it never became a popular technique. It's bloody damn hard to effectivly use 2 full length weapons, and parrying with one to attack with the other, while a good technique, is far from some sort of instant-win. IF you can bind your opponents blade, you can usually get a hit in, but since you can't bind with a lightsaber (stupid Ep 4-6 battles notwithstanding), a better technique is the circular one Anakin used. And even that would only work for someone with preternatural reflexes and instincts, because turning your back on someone with an instant-death weapon is a wise action.
As for the two-handed technique... well, if you're only gonna use one weapon, you may as well put both hands on it. You've got better control, and you can always take one hand off if you need to. Otherwise your off hand is just sitting there being useless, and there's no point in that.
It'd be foolish to move inside in a lightsaber duel. Closing is dangerous, because it's a commited action, and you have to remember that you can't afford to take ANY hits. Better is to maintain distance, and make stop cuts to the wrist. Keep moving, and try to circle your opponent when they attack. He attacks from the right, parry, capture, move right, and attack at his arm. Between 2 skilled opponents, you'd likely have a very rapid exchange of parries and ripostes, decided by one blow - exactly as in Ep 2.
Exactly - I'm also a fencer (better with saber than rapier, so I guess we're even:P) and this fight is EXACTLY what lightsaber duels should be like. I always hated the fights in the original movies - we're talking about infinitly sharp weapons, so just like it fencing, power isn't an issue. It's all about your speed and agility, and, like the fight between Dooku and Obi-wan/Anakin, it'd be a very fast sequence of blows decided by one strike. Non-serious lightsaber wounds would be practically non-existent.
Also, from a movie-makers perspective, fights like this are alot more exciting to watch (for the masses) than slow, deliberate Judo throws or whatever.
The impression that I always got was that you can't actually levitate yourself with the force - you can "push" with it, so you can jump high, and control a fall, and if you're seriously badass like Yoda you can maybe hover for a second, but actually flying, like Luke or the Emperor would have needed to do is beyond them.
Leia is a Princess of Alderaan, not of Naboo. She was adopted into whatever royal family thing they have there (there's an implication that Princess is an honorary title, with no real power attached)
It's true that target isn't responsible - software companies should require that retail stores accept returns to market thier product - MS is the most famous for it - they've consistently refused to honor windows refunds (because they never got any money for it), and the OEMs won't either (because they aren't party to the EULA) and there seems to be no recourse. As I said in a previous post, were I a judge, I'd consider this pretry conclusive evidence that the EULA was entered into in bad faith.
It's probably illegal for Best Buy to set computers up in this fashion - you, as an agent for Best Buy are agreeing with EULAs, at least some of which include clauses that you can't redistribute your rights. At the least, it's illegal for the consumer to use your product after they set it up (assuming EULA's have force)
It's not especially difficult to work around the installer and get working software without ever being presented with an EULA. I agree that the courts would probably take a dim view of this behavior, but it highlights some of the legal quandries about EULAs - when I do this, I'm obviously doing something shady. But how can I be held to an EULA that I'm never presented with? What if I edit it, and then agree to that? That's a commonly accepted process in contract law. most likely, there will be some sort of law passed that makes it illegal to edit installers, much like the ones that artificially make it illegal to decode cable.
Or they'll decide that fair use and first sale doctrine don't apply to software, and that companies actually do have the right to bind to you to an agreement that you've never seen (the agreement on thier website), without your explicit consent.
Now, that was probably sarcasm, but lets not get too uppity - there has to be a lower class, and it's not neccesarily anyones fault that they're part of it. So let's not go blaming the exploitation of people on them.
As I recall, the actual wording is "You may release this software under version X, or, at your option, any future version", meaning that it's the END USER who can either a) continue using/distributing it under the original license or b) distribute it under a future version of the GPL. The wording does not permit the author to retroactively change clauses the way the MS (and most other commercial) EULA claims to.
Intersesting. I just tested on your post. IE seems to think that the xt in the word next is one character and jumps over them both, although I can select either the n or the e fine...
yeah, but we all know that you can't return the software - in fact, were I a court, I'd rule that EULAs are entered into in bad faith by software companies - they have no intention of honoring returns, and thus retail stores won't do so either (as an expiriment, I should order direct from Eidos or something and see if they honor a return...). If they're going to bind you to an EULA, that includes clauses for returning (opened) software, then they have an obligation to accept those returns.
I think you're totally wrong. UT with good graphics is more fun than UT with bad graphics. TTY quake is a horrrid abomination, and while an amazingly cool exercise, it's no fun to actually play. Games certainly benefit from graphics. A game can be good without good graphics. But bad graphics (or sound, or whatever) can make a good game less fun, and good ones can make a good game excellent.
And, as with all things open source, if someone WANTS to make it, they will - hence the existence of (several) open source 3d engines. Also an annoyingly huge amount of cookie-cutter crap angband mods. Open source is not immune to people making crappy fluff.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, no matter what this guy says, I don't know ANYONE who bemoans the "loss" of vinyl, and I only know OF a couple people. The vast majority of vinyl freaks will, instead, go out of thier way to tell me how much vinyl is still in the game, like the guy who posted above. And CDs are a vastly superior technology, subjective issues about sound quality aside. I never had to re-buy all my vinyl, because I never had any - by the time I moved out of my parents house, CDs were cheap and CD players were affordable, even for a teenager newly entering the workforce. I wasn't forced to choose anything - I'd picked CDs over tapes and I'd pick tapes over vinyl. They're more convenient and more durable.
This would be insightful, were it true. The pending case is the sentencing.
Shoulda added "and NOT movie" or other negative search terms.
It's not linked on the main page, but you can filter content from the advanced search page.
I know several blind people who use screen readers. How they manage is beyond me, but they do. In fact, as I recall, the guy who runs Wolf FM (one of the most popular shoutcast streams) is blind.
That's one of the reasons we'd need a professional guild - to do things like define standards about what should be reasonalby expected of software. The car analagy doesn't hold up this far, as software should be expected to work with any other type of software with which is shares a standard interface and, failing that, to fail gracefully.
In other words, while that may be what it boils down to, you can be sure that they payed plenty to lawerys to make sure that it got the point across without ever being something that you could bring them to court over. Take a look at threats of prosecution under the DMCA for an excellent example of this.
My girlfriend is a HUGE Tad Williams fan (I am also, to a lesser degree) and she hadn't heard of this at all until a couple months ago when I stumbled across it. She also spends even more time on the internet than I do. Better/more marketing would have helped alot (although I'm not really sure what they could have done, or what they did for that matter).
Of course, serialization is one reason Dickens sucks so much... he's so wordy and drawn out because he was paid by the word and under constant pressure. His books could use some trimming down...
Large fonts are not maliciously formatted content. It's not Mozilla's job to constrain data it's passing to a third party. It's not a mozilla bug, although they may choose to band-aid it.
Cheap, over-analytical attempt at an explanation: At the beginning, when he's holding up the ceiling, he's straining because Dooku is actively pushing down - the strain isn't from the weight, it's because he's fighting with Dooku. The big pillar that gets knocked over, he's straining because a) he's weary from the duel and b) because it takes focus to move things with the force, and he didn't have time to properly center himself. he's able to easily pick up his staff because.. umm... because... yeah.
The impression I got was that Dooku, due to the power of the dark side, was an even match for Yoda in a pure force battle. Also, Yoda, being a Jedi and not a Sith, doesn't use the force directly for attack - he only deflects and redirects his opponents attacks. Dooku attacks Yoda, sees that Yoda is strong enough to deflect anything he can throw at him, and decides to use the lightsaber. As for pandering... well, duh.
About being able to attack faster with a staff... just not true. Sure, you've got 2 ends, but the angles you can attack from are limited, and it's not neccesarily faster. Since you have to either a) face full body or b) bring your whole body forward to attack with the other end of a staff, a good fencer will have no trouble riposting before you can get the other end around.
I'm not sure where you get this nonsense about a sword fighter having to move his entire body to parry. If your technique is good, you won't need to move any part of your body except your wrist and lower arm, and even then just a few inches. 300 years of sword-fighting technique has come up with a few things, after all...
2 weapons - there's a reason it never became a popular technique. It's bloody damn hard to effectivly use 2 full length weapons, and parrying with one to attack with the other, while a good technique, is far from some sort of instant-win. IF you can bind your opponents blade, you can usually get a hit in, but since you can't bind with a lightsaber (stupid Ep 4-6 battles notwithstanding), a better technique is the circular one Anakin used. And even that would only work for someone with preternatural reflexes and instincts, because turning your back on someone with an instant-death weapon is a wise action.
As for the two-handed technique... well, if you're only gonna use one weapon, you may as well put both hands on it. You've got better control, and you can always take one hand off if you need to. Otherwise your off hand is just sitting there being useless, and there's no point in that.
It'd be foolish to move inside in a lightsaber duel. Closing is dangerous, because it's a commited action, and you have to remember that you can't afford to take ANY hits. Better is to maintain distance, and make stop cuts to the wrist. Keep moving, and try to circle your opponent when they attack. He attacks from the right, parry, capture, move right, and attack at his arm. Between 2 skilled opponents, you'd likely have a very rapid exchange of parries and ripostes, decided by one blow - exactly as in Ep 2.
Also, from a movie-makers perspective, fights like this are alot more exciting to watch (for the masses) than slow, deliberate Judo throws or whatever.
The impression that I always got was that you can't actually levitate yourself with the force - you can "push" with it, so you can jump high, and control a fall, and if you're seriously badass like Yoda you can maybe hover for a second, but actually flying, like Luke or the Emperor would have needed to do is beyond them.
Leia is a Princess of Alderaan, not of Naboo. She was adopted into whatever royal family thing they have there (there's an implication that Princess is an honorary title, with no real power attached)
It's true that target isn't responsible - software companies should require that retail stores accept returns to market thier product - MS is the most famous for it - they've consistently refused to honor windows refunds (because they never got any money for it), and the OEMs won't either (because they aren't party to the EULA) and there seems to be no recourse. As I said in a previous post, were I a judge, I'd consider this pretry conclusive evidence that the EULA was entered into in bad faith.
It's probably illegal for Best Buy to set computers up in this fashion - you, as an agent for Best Buy are agreeing with EULAs, at least some of which include clauses that you can't redistribute your rights. At the least, it's illegal for the consumer to use your product after they set it up (assuming EULA's have force)
It's not especially difficult to work around the installer and get working software without ever being presented with an EULA. I agree that the courts would probably take a dim view of this behavior, but it highlights some of the legal quandries about EULAs - when I do this, I'm obviously doing something shady. But how can I be held to an EULA that I'm never presented with? What if I edit it, and then agree to that? That's a commonly accepted process in contract law. most likely, there will be some sort of law passed that makes it illegal to edit installers, much like the ones that artificially make it illegal to decode cable.
Or they'll decide that fair use and first sale doctrine don't apply to software, and that companies actually do have the right to bind to you to an agreement that you've never seen (the agreement on thier website), without your explicit consent.
Now, that was probably sarcasm, but lets not get too uppity - there has to be a lower class, and it's not neccesarily anyones fault that they're part of it. So let's not go blaming the exploitation of people on them.
As I recall, the actual wording is "You may release this software under version X, or, at your option, any future version", meaning that it's the END USER who can either a) continue using/distributing it under the original license or b) distribute it under a future version of the GPL. The wording does not permit the author to retroactively change clauses the way the MS (and most other commercial) EULA claims to.
Intersesting. I just tested on your post. IE seems to think that the xt in the word next is one character and jumps over them both, although I can select either the n or the e fine...
yeah, but we all know that you can't return the software - in fact, were I a court, I'd rule that EULAs are entered into in bad faith by software companies - they have no intention of honoring returns, and thus retail stores won't do so either (as an expiriment, I should order direct from Eidos or something and see if they honor a return...). If they're going to bind you to an EULA, that includes clauses for returning (opened) software, then they have an obligation to accept those returns.
God, that's amazingly disturbing. And yet, my poor caffeine addled brain is already thinking up various perverse uses for such a thing...
I think you're totally wrong. UT with good graphics is more fun than UT with bad graphics. TTY quake is a horrrid abomination, and while an amazingly cool exercise, it's no fun to actually play. Games certainly benefit from graphics. A game can be good without good graphics. But bad graphics (or sound, or whatever) can make a good game less fun, and good ones can make a good game excellent.
And, as with all things open source, if someone WANTS to make it, they will - hence the existence of (several) open source 3d engines. Also an annoyingly huge amount of cookie-cutter crap angband mods. Open source is not immune to people making crappy fluff.