Only the first-gens really had this problem, and even then it was only particularly bad in the first couple/few years. Second-gen RX-7s and beyond have had very reliable Wankel powertrains (albeit with a need to do a fairly expensive overhaul at around 100k miles to renew the apex seals). Mazda's problems on the later ones had much more to do with electrical and accessories than with the Wankel.
Which obvious response do you want? The one about there still being an active group of IF fans who'll want this, or the one about an entire generation of people who were never exposed to it to begin with?
Really, it takes two generations: one to be broadly hypocritical about it, and the next to recognize the hypocrisy and be broadly rational. Luckily, some of those 60s kids are putting the measure up so us 80s kids can finally vote for it.
CA allows passing on the right. It also has a law that states (irrespective of speed) that slower traffic must keep right to allow faster traffic to proceed. That law still applies over the speed limit, though folks like the GP don't always seem to grok that.
It surely is relevant to the issue of shrinkwrap licensing. In the absence of a valid EULA to strip license, Vernor bought a non-infringing copy. I think it's plain software sold from publisher to end-user with no valid extra contract provisions attached is both implicitly licensed (warranty of merchantability, if nothing else) and that the media is resellable (first sale). ]
For this judgment to be valid, the EULA has to be upheld. AFAIK, that's a new horizon for the 9th District.
I would think you'd have cancelled the submission once you got the the "Canadian law class" portion and realized it was completely irrelevant to the US.
But the truth is that the specifics of the law differ from state to state. All states except NC allow citizen's arrests for witnessed felonies, from there it varies wildly.
EmagGeek's point is still a pretty good one, if only for cars in particular, because the price tends to rise to equal the most the buyer is willing to pay. The govt has advertised that your budget is now $5k larger, so you lost that part of the haggle before you walked into the dealership.
Re: college, I think it's a combination of all the mentioned factors. It's also a healthy dose of public ignorance, or at least blind acceptance that they're willing to start their professional life in huge debt. If more people said "screw that" and went to schools they could manage to afford (or at least sent their loans to the most reasonable schools) then the market would likely correct. But nobody takes the long view, and if you take the short view then any amount of money is worth having a successful career, so you're guaranteed to get screwed.
It's entirely possible the right answer is for the gov't to refuse loans for schools above a given "acceptable cost", a la insurance. That would create even more of a luxury college market than the Ivy League is now, but it would also guarantee a bunch of colleges with fees clustered just below a regulated price point.
I would love to see a major corporation create a truly decent set of "what do you need to know to work here?" tests and completely and publicly ditch any college degree requirement in favor of specific screening, experience and/or portfolio requirements. That's what needs to happen within our culture to break what otherwise will be an endlessly-escalating economic situation. There's simply no price we won't pay for an education we feel required to have to survive, and the more we pay the more we'll value that degree when we're hiring. The cycle won't break itself.
The community of developers or developers-to-be who would have been likely to contribute are still there, and still likely to pitch in. The geek-political zeitgeist around free software still exists. We educate others and advocate just like we always would. Mainstream knowledge and acceptance seems to grow daily. So where's the damage? The simple answers like Ubuntu may steal a handful of people who might have otherwise become core community, but let's face it--we're talking about losing a very small fraction at that point. We don't stumble across that many contributors by opportunity--they come to us.
The "gatekeepers" are largely responsible for distributing to users who would otherwise not benefit at all, and who would not otherwise even think of investigating the communities around their software. The key is that the distributors have a huge audience. So if even a small fraction of their audience becomes interested and migrates into contribution, works to understand the ideology, or is even the least bit grateful, I'm willing to bet it's a net win for the core OSS communities. But whatever the case, it's absolutely not a zero-sum game. I think this is a case where we can all have our cake and eat it too.
And you know, I also think having a non-participatory audience is actually kind of key. For one thing, techie folks are absolute crap at determining how software should actually behave. We put up with all kinds of byzantine, inefficient interfaces because we're capable of figuring them out and glossing past them with minimal practice. The mainstream is much better at telling us whether something is of a decent level of quality or not. But more than that, having mainstream impact--with the comparatively huge number of users that involves--ends up defining success for the projects in a way that is integral in building communities around them. Open-source projects have become significantly more ambitious as support has collected behind the successful ones. They've also provided significantly more value to the world as a whole, and isn't that the point?
I don't think we would have come this far without the users, and we should respect and value them for that. We should work to reach them as widely as possible. The distributors reach them better than most of us could alone. Let's not dismiss them so quickly.
My problem isn't the complexity of a game--I can and do enjoy very complex games. But I simply won't realistically put more than 20 hours into a game, and more realistically, 10-15 max. My favorite--and finished--games have all been short and relatively intense, like Riddick or Portal, or Call of Duty MW2's campaign. I'll go longer if the game has fresh humor all the way through; I even finished the remake of Bard's Tale, which was otherwise a total grind. It was just so damned funny that it made it worth it. Ditto the Penny Arcade games.
The one exception, for me, is an exceptionally fun multiplayer game. That I'll play for 50+ hours, at least over time. But it's not quite the same experience, at least usually.
I still buy most A-list games, because I enjoy the time I do put in. But I wish I could get some of that thrill of resolution in more of them. As it is, it's like watching 1/3 of a movie--fine if it's a really good movie, but still kind of unsatisfying.
The quit rate for cigarettes suck. The quit rate for nicotine is pretty good (how many people have you heard of being hopelessly hooked on nicotine gum or the patch?). Some research shows that the combination of nicotine and a MAO inhibitor is what's so horribly addictive. Tobacco smoke has MAO inhibitors in it that occur naturally; e-cig liquid nicotine does not.
It was worse than that. It wasn't so much that it ran Xandros as that it ran a hacked-together Eee variant of Xandros. The Eee package repository was rarely updated, and you could never be sure that something you got from the Xandros or Debian repos wouldn't have some library conflict that'd totally hose your box. 80+% of stuff was safe, but things that touched X11 or KDE/Gnome libraries were fraught with danger.
if it'd been standard Xandros plus a couple of drivers or something, it would've been much better.
Ignoring the fact that the drive could be backed up first via a duplicator, your argument is seriously that it took them one year to figure out the "No" button?
What happened here was that the judge felt that $2,250 per work infringed was an appropriate amount. He could've set it lower if he had felt that was appropriate instead.
Sort of. $2,250 per work was the -maximum- amount in his opinion, calculated by the minimum x 3 (which, despite assertions above, was also an arbitrary "maximum reasonable," not anything specified in law).
Basically, he said that if he were calculating the damages, they'd be much lower (going to guess the minimum of $750 x 24). However, since he was actually reducing an existing verdict, his power was limited to finding the maximum reasonable for -any- case and reducing to that, even if he didn't feel that number was entirely appropriate in -this- case.
My point was that coincidental behavior is only coincidental until such point that it starts fulfilling basic life criteria, such as self-survival, and is passed between generations. Evolution is pretty much all about coincidental behavior becoming non-coincidental.
What is interesting here is that coincidental behavior has bridged self-survival and species-survival, and performs at a sophisticated enough level to be interesting but at a simple enough level to be comprehensible.
In other words, I support civil unions, but I will resist attempts to redefine the word "marriage".
...and that's the saddest thing about this. For those who aren't outright bigoted (and I'm sure many of the supporters of Prop 8 are fairly reasonable people) it comes down to semantics. It's about "marriage," the word as it applies to the sacrament, not "marriage," the civil concept.
I'm wholly in the camp that believes that gov't should only endorse civil unions (in exactly the same way they endorse marriages, but getting away from the name of the sacrament). Unfortunately, I also agree with one of the posters above that it'd be suicide to introduce.
Perhaps a compromise would be to change the laws such that they recognize a "civil marriage," a concept to be kept distinct from marriage-the-sacrament.
That is basically the status quo, but perhaps it's all in the wording.
I can sense Kohei's plain bafflement and disappointment, and I sympathize. However, assuming Sun's rebuttal is wholly truthful, I too must wonder why Kohei left the JCA requirement out of the story.
The thread of logic seems clear to me:
Only fully-licensed additions are distributed with OO.o (as opposed to being a third-party module downloaded separately).
Kohei announced and arranged for support from Sun for a JCA-licensed Solver module.
On the strength of the Solver's progress, Sun promoted their commercial product (the proprietary-licensed side of OO.o) as having a solver in the next version.
Kohei then opted not to dual-license, thereby preventing his solver from being distributed with OO.o.
Sun opted to roll their own to meet their commitment to the upcoming product.
I think there's valid debate about the intent and value of dual-licensing. However, it also sounds to me like there may have been a change of heart there that came late enough to cause some awkwardness. It happens, totally understandable, but it's still cogent.
A couple minutes from the end, he forgets the question briefly, stutters a little, and breaks his usual pace--and she answers the question anyway, even though he hasn't gotten it out yet.
I'm 99% sure this is scripted. There's not much evidence here that she's anything more than a RealDoll Ruxpin. There's probably -some- computer control there, assuming it's not a remote-control Mechanical Turk, given that it responded to the "stop!" commands. The rest? I'll believe it when it's not just him asking the questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Only the first-gens really had this problem, and even then it was only particularly bad in the first couple/few years. Second-gen RX-7s and beyond have had very reliable Wankel powertrains (albeit with a need to do a fairly expensive overhaul at around 100k miles to renew the apex seals). Mazda's problems on the later ones had much more to do with electrical and accessories than with the Wankel.
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Which obvious response do you want? The one about there still being an active group of IF fans who'll want this, or the one about an entire generation of people who were never exposed to it to begin with?
I must say that, thankfully, I have no idea how my mother would sound saying those words.
Really, it takes two generations: one to be broadly hypocritical about it, and the next to recognize the hypocrisy and be broadly rational. Luckily, some of those 60s kids are putting the measure up so us 80s kids can finally vote for it.
CA allows passing on the right. It also has a law that states (irrespective of speed) that slower traffic must keep right to allow faster traffic to proceed. That law still applies over the speed limit, though folks like the GP don't always seem to grok that.
It surely is relevant to the issue of shrinkwrap licensing. In the absence of a valid EULA to strip license, Vernor bought a non-infringing copy. I think it's plain software sold from publisher to end-user with no valid extra contract provisions attached is both implicitly licensed (warranty of merchantability, if nothing else) and that the media is resellable (first sale). ]
For this judgment to be valid, the EULA has to be upheld. AFAIK, that's a new horizon for the 9th District.
I would think you'd have cancelled the submission once you got the the "Canadian law class" portion and realized it was completely irrelevant to the US.
But the truth is that the specifics of the law differ from state to state. All states except NC allow citizen's arrests for witnessed felonies, from there it varies wildly.
EmagGeek's point is still a pretty good one, if only for cars in particular, because the price tends to rise to equal the most the buyer is willing to pay. The govt has advertised that your budget is now $5k larger, so you lost that part of the haggle before you walked into the dealership.
Re: college, I think it's a combination of all the mentioned factors. It's also a healthy dose of public ignorance, or at least blind acceptance that they're willing to start their professional life in huge debt. If more people said "screw that" and went to schools they could manage to afford (or at least sent their loans to the most reasonable schools) then the market would likely correct. But nobody takes the long view, and if you take the short view then any amount of money is worth having a successful career, so you're guaranteed to get screwed.
It's entirely possible the right answer is for the gov't to refuse loans for schools above a given "acceptable cost", a la insurance. That would create even more of a luxury college market than the Ivy League is now, but it would also guarantee a bunch of colleges with fees clustered just below a regulated price point.
I would love to see a major corporation create a truly decent set of "what do you need to know to work here?" tests and completely and publicly ditch any college degree requirement in favor of specific screening, experience and/or portfolio requirements. That's what needs to happen within our culture to break what otherwise will be an endlessly-escalating economic situation. There's simply no price we won't pay for an education we feel required to have to survive, and the more we pay the more we'll value that degree when we're hiring. The cycle won't break itself.
I'm not sure I truly understand the concern here.
The community of developers or developers-to-be who would have been likely to contribute are still there, and still likely to pitch in. The geek-political zeitgeist around free software still exists. We educate others and advocate just like we always would. Mainstream knowledge and acceptance seems to grow daily. So where's the damage? The simple answers like Ubuntu may steal a handful of people who might have otherwise become core community, but let's face it--we're talking about losing a very small fraction at that point. We don't stumble across that many contributors by opportunity--they come to us.
The "gatekeepers" are largely responsible for distributing to users who would otherwise not benefit at all, and who would not otherwise even think of investigating the communities around their software. The key is that the distributors have a huge audience. So if even a small fraction of their audience becomes interested and migrates into contribution, works to understand the ideology, or is even the least bit grateful, I'm willing to bet it's a net win for the core OSS communities. But whatever the case, it's absolutely not a zero-sum game. I think this is a case where we can all have our cake and eat it too.
And you know, I also think having a non-participatory audience is actually kind of key. For one thing, techie folks are absolute crap at determining how software should actually behave. We put up with all kinds of byzantine, inefficient interfaces because we're capable of figuring them out and glossing past them with minimal practice. The mainstream is much better at telling us whether something is of a decent level of quality or not. But more than that, having mainstream impact--with the comparatively huge number of users that involves--ends up defining success for the projects in a way that is integral in building communities around them. Open-source projects have become significantly more ambitious as support has collected behind the successful ones. They've also provided significantly more value to the world as a whole, and isn't that the point?
I don't think we would have come this far without the users, and we should respect and value them for that. We should work to reach them as widely as possible. The distributors reach them better than most of us could alone. Let's not dismiss them so quickly.
My problem isn't the complexity of a game--I can and do enjoy very complex games. But I simply won't realistically put more than 20 hours into a game, and more realistically, 10-15 max. My favorite--and finished--games have all been short and relatively intense, like Riddick or Portal, or Call of Duty MW2's campaign. I'll go longer if the game has fresh humor all the way through; I even finished the remake of Bard's Tale, which was otherwise a total grind. It was just so damned funny that it made it worth it. Ditto the Penny Arcade games.
The one exception, for me, is an exceptionally fun multiplayer game. That I'll play for 50+ hours, at least over time. But it's not quite the same experience, at least usually.
I still buy most A-list games, because I enjoy the time I do put in. But I wish I could get some of that thrill of resolution in more of them. As it is, it's like watching 1/3 of a movie--fine if it's a really good movie, but still kind of unsatisfying.
The quit rate for cigarettes suck. The quit rate for nicotine is pretty good (how many people have you heard of being hopelessly hooked on nicotine gum or the patch?). Some research shows that the combination of nicotine and a MAO inhibitor is what's so horribly addictive. Tobacco smoke has MAO inhibitors in it that occur naturally; e-cig liquid nicotine does not.
It was worse than that. It wasn't so much that it ran Xandros as that it ran a hacked-together Eee variant of Xandros. The Eee package repository was rarely updated, and you could never be sure that something you got from the Xandros or Debian repos wouldn't have some library conflict that'd totally hose your box. 80+% of stuff was safe, but things that touched X11 or KDE/Gnome libraries were fraught with danger.
if it'd been standard Xandros plus a couple of drivers or something, it would've been much better.
Ignoring the fact that the drive could be backed up first via a duplicator, your argument is seriously that it took them one year to figure out the "No" button?
What happened here was that the judge felt that $2,250 per work infringed was an appropriate amount. He could've set it lower if he had felt that was appropriate instead.
Sort of. $2,250 per work was the -maximum- amount in his opinion, calculated by the minimum x 3 (which, despite assertions above, was also an arbitrary "maximum reasonable," not anything specified in law).
Basically, he said that if he were calculating the damages, they'd be much lower (going to guess the minimum of $750 x 24). However, since he was actually reducing an existing verdict, his power was limited to finding the maximum reasonable for -any- case and reducing to that, even if he didn't feel that number was entirely appropriate in -this- case.
It was an unfortunate typo--I fail preview. :)
My point was that coincidental behavior is only coincidental until such point that it starts fulfilling basic life criteria, such as self-survival, and is passed between generations. Evolution is pretty much all about coincidental behavior becoming non-coincidental.
What is interesting here is that coincidental behavior has bridged self-survival and species-survival, and performs at a sophisticated enough level to be interesting but at a simple enough level to be comprehensible.
I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.
One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.
Only at the point that the water is has done so for the greater good of the lake.
Oops... s/Candeljack/Candlejack
No clue. I'm already sick of seeing the name "Candeljack".
In other words, I support civil unions, but I will resist attempts to redefine the word "marriage".
...and that's the saddest thing about this. For those who aren't outright bigoted (and I'm sure many of the supporters of Prop 8 are fairly reasonable people) it comes down to semantics. It's about "marriage," the word as it applies to the sacrament, not "marriage," the civil concept.
I'm wholly in the camp that believes that gov't should only endorse civil unions (in exactly the same way they endorse marriages, but getting away from the name of the sacrament). Unfortunately, I also agree with one of the posters above that it'd be suicide to introduce.
Perhaps a compromise would be to change the laws such that they recognize a "civil marriage," a concept to be kept distinct from marriage-the-sacrament.
That is basically the status quo, but perhaps it's all in the wording.
They made one, Space HoRSE. They even delayed the release to add internet multi.
It was pretty faithful, and got tepid reviews for--mostly--not really enhancing the gameplay much. It didn't sell well.
I'm glad you posted both sides.
I can sense Kohei's plain bafflement and disappointment, and I sympathize. However, assuming Sun's rebuttal is wholly truthful, I too must wonder why Kohei left the JCA requirement out of the story.
The thread of logic seems clear to me:
Only fully-licensed additions are distributed with OO.o (as opposed to being a third-party module downloaded separately).
Kohei announced and arranged for support from Sun for a JCA-licensed Solver module.
On the strength of the Solver's progress, Sun promoted their commercial product (the proprietary-licensed side of OO.o) as having a solver in the next version.
Kohei then opted not to dual-license, thereby preventing his solver from being distributed with OO.o.
Sun opted to roll their own to meet their commitment to the upcoming product.
I think there's valid debate about the intent and value of dual-licensing. However, it also sounds to me like there may have been a change of heart there that came late enough to cause some awkwardness. It happens, totally understandable, but it's still cogent.
A couple minutes from the end, he forgets the question briefly, stutters a little, and breaks his usual pace--and she answers the question anyway, even though he hasn't gotten it out yet.
I'm 99% sure this is scripted. There's not much evidence here that she's anything more than a RealDoll Ruxpin. There's probably -some- computer control there, assuming it's not a remote-control Mechanical Turk, given that it responded to the "stop!" commands. The rest? I'll believe it when it's not just him asking the questions.
He was the designer of 2, and gave many interviews at the time supporting all design decisions.
From your posted Wiki link:
Deus Ex: Invisible War (2003), Ion Storm Austin
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Invisible_War :
Designer(s) Warren Spector, Harvey Smith
Different guy.
Fallout guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Taylor_(game_designer)
GPG/Total Annihilation guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Taylor_(game_designer)