Christian parents got tired of sending their kids to public schools and then having them come home and explain how they learned that the Bible is wrong.
And they can't defend their religion to their children? Certainly not the fault of the school or science. Definitely not a justifiable reason to attack science and, by proxy, rationality and reason.
just get rid of evolution. There's no reason to teach it in schools. You can teach science, genetics even, without using evolution at all.
The study of evolution is -basic- to the study of biology, genetics, inheritance, and the scientific method. Hiding it to satisfy anti-intellectuals who can't handle it when someone presents a topic that they feels contradicts their superstitious beliefs is completely unproductive and only serves to strengthen their destructive cause.
No, they should keep their faith to themselves and not try and push science around. And no one should let them.
Let me see if I get this straight, you're too lazy to figure out how to do things the non-Windows way, so you want Linux distros and developers to do things the (sloppy) Windows way. Because you don't want to learn. Right.
it should be no more complicated than downloading a file, and running it
Yeah, and all the libraries should have the exact same name, and be stored in the exact same place, just like windows. I mean, if we don't have DLL Hell, what fun would it be?
much better automated hardware detection and support.
It has great hardware detection and support, provided the hardware developers (or someone else) has written a driver for it.
build in an invisible WINE-like function
Why? It's just guaranteed to cause more frustration when it doesn't work as implied and people will blame "Linux" despite the kernel having nothing to do with it.
at least tell me where I need to go to get them. I was sick of DIP switch settings and dicking around with config files in DOS...I don't want to go back to that.
I find it hard to believe you've plugged any hardware in for a long time. There are no dip switches on (production) hardware these days, and config files are a whole lot better than the registry. Also, yell at the hardware manufacturers who guard drivers as if they were hiding something that would otherwise make a device unsaleable in them.
Basically for you to use Chrome OS, it'd need to be Windows, or otherwise seamlessly incompatible. You don't want Linux. Please stop trying.
I suggested he take a page from 7 and use a multi-touch gesture such as 7's for a right-click. In 7, you hold one finger down and then tap with a second finger for a right-click.
To be fair, OS X has supported doing that since 10.4, possibly earlier. I was doing that for a right click on my Macbook in 2006, and I'd be suprised if it wasn't being done before.
Binaries don't do the majority of people (not even software developers) any good. Sure you could reverse engineer and decompile the binary, but that's a significant hassle. Not only that but no copyright guarantees anyone could take my code, pack it into a binary, and never release any changes (running counter to the -intent- of the GPL,) making it really hard to get them.
Goodness, a short sale period and high secondhand prices on extremely niche games? Say it ain't so!
Or would you prefer they overproduce and lose money on the whole deal, crippling their ability to do future releases.
Niche games are like that precisely because the potential audience is so small. If you are really interested, you need to be ready to go from the start, or you're probably SOL.
what i am arguing about has nothing to do with socialism. i am in fact quite the card carrying enthusiastic capitalist. but that didn't stop you from throwing around propagandistic terms to try to smear me, right?
I pointed out a hole in your anti-copyright, anti-producer rant, namely that the internet is not revolutionary and that there are still BASE COSTS to production you feel it good to not merely gloss over but pave over. The world is very much -capitalist- and if artists (other than musicians) have no means of generating income, or taking the initiative without getting screwed, then you essentially require a socialist utopia where their needs are cared for. Since you obviously don't want that, then chances are they won't bother, or if they do it'll be at a significantly lower rate or lower quality. Take your pick, you will likely get both.
that the internet has changed the rules of the game is not an opportunity to press your fears of what the new game might be to the forefront.
Man, you should go into marketing, you spew it with the best of them. It hasn't changed the game, it's only made it easy to reproduce things. Creating -orignial- things still takes time, effort, and *gasp* money. Those without money will simply take more time. With too little money the time required becomes untenable and people will just stop.
in fact, what the internet does might in fact make for an even more capitalist-friendly world, by doing away with monopolistic and regulatory barriers to trade.
Indeed, we should abolish copyright and let WAL-MART buy up CD and DVD replicators and let them stuff the shelves of their stores, and extract ALL the value from creative works (oh and never mind the actual creators.) Because that's exactly what would happen.
if you only opened your mind and stopped quivering in your idiotic fears
Couldn't resist the ad-hominem, eh? My point is that in a capitalistic world you need CAPITAL to do something, or have collateral to exchange for it. Implying that non-physical works have zero value or opportunity cost to produce is ignorant in the extreme.
you might see a world of ultracapitalism in what the web is making. that it is a NEW system of capitalism is the real motivator for your FUD: fear of the new, fear of the unknown, fear of change.
Fear of a world where the people who take initiative to create things that can't be played in a bar for $300 a show, that cost more than a $400 laptop and flaky $300 guitar, and are stuck holding the bag as everyone basically says "fuck you." Or yeah, a world of ultracapitalism where only the richest can compete and everyone else gets the short end of the stick.
You can't honestly think a true capitalist will invest money into something that won't give them a return on investment do you? What does that leave us with?
Let me point to a post a ways up that basically points out that without copyright we return to the days where we had "patrons of the arts," and I don't know about you but I don't necessarily like the same things as the super rich and vice versa. I like it when people can take the initiative, bet on their skills, and don't have to wait for someone with big pockets to come along.
You would just have them never do so, since their work would simply be jacked by whoever owned a dvd replicator and p2p networks, and hope that some rich fool with too much money takes pity on them.
not an intelligent reckoning of the ramifications of new technology, which is what your mind should be probing
The revolutionary aspect should be people using social networks to produce new, fantastic works. If you're so right then they should be able to undermine the existing industries with a grassroots initiative. Not this "oh hey guys we like your work, but we won't pay you for it at all" attitude of entitlement that seems to be the definition of the internet and p2p these days.
No recoup of expenses, either. This is a money driven world, not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.
it never was intended, and never had anything to do with, the idea of someone reproducing material and giving it away FOR FREE
Sure it did. It grants control over redistribution to the creator. It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not, or who distributed it.
simply because such a person would be insane: all that expense for nothing. to not be motivated by profit is simply nonsensical on the old media world, which was the whole point in copyright: keep the profit with the creators
No. No, no, no. The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral. Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them, they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord, and (if they didn't suck) not starve in the process. They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.
Unless you'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software, make music, or create films. Sure you could, but it probably wouldn't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.
i would like to see a legal argument that says copyright law is only valid for the pursuit of those PROFITING from illicit copies
Except it's not limited like that at all. If it were, it'd be pointless, which it definitely is not.
the internet is new technology and makes possible what was not possible before, so to apply laws from an old era onto it without thought is to fail to understand the issues in play
No it's not. It's simply a super efficient distribution channel. The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright weren't in effect at all. What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with, instead of jacking the works of others.
I'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money. But they aren't. All they're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA. Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA's point.
I'm not sure I grasp the concept of X Hosting, and how this non-SUID server would help that.
X is not required to be running on the remote system for X11 forwarding over SSH. Even running an Xvnc server doesn't require it to be SUID. This seems to be entirely a local security gain for users who will be interacting with local graphics hardware.
No, there is nothing that is free of cost. It is paid for somewhere along the line.
The catch is when too many people delude themselves into thinking "oh I don't need to (pay|donate) because plenty of others will" that the number of (donors|buyers) drops under a critical level. I think it will start happening, at least for the mass internet audience who feel entitled to things for free.
just because a game developer didnt prevent something doesnt mean that its within the rules.
So what you're saying is that even though they -didn't- make it impossible for him to attack the opposing faction, he was wrong for doing so. Despite the fact that doing so was the intent of the game's setup?
if developers force any player base into something they do not like, they QUIT. and go to another game.
So why haven't the people who play City of Heroes/Villains all left? Because there's nothing to prevent anyone from starting a character and attacking the opposing faction. In fact, it's encouraged.
herefore, for all those badass/darth maul wannabee morons out there - you wont be able to freely be a badass asshole even in a mmo game - regardless how hard you argue that 'its within the rules', any assholery you commit is going to get added to your reputation, and eventually you'll find yourself changing your realm AND your character's nickname.
Wait, so playing the game as it was INTENDED to be played is being an asshole?
people doesnt give a shit about what's within the hard rules of the game or not - they have their own opinions and judgments - noone can change that, neither a badass wannabee asshole, or self-righteous developer.
This is the biggest pile of deluded nonsense ever. They intended for PvP to happen. PvP happens. Idiots cry.
so cut the bullshit about 'its within the rules', and get used to living in a society.
It's not society, it's a game. I imagine that people such as yourself who confuse the two might have a problem with what he did.
The full court press is extremely effective, yet if you use it, the other team will no doubt call your win "cheap". Poor losers will always attempt to excuse themselves by attacking the other team. Any team that accuses another of being "cheap" got outplayed and doesn't know how to compensate legitimately.
Perhaps as followup research he can start referring to people of other ethnicity using racial slurs.
because it is entirely ridiculous and indicative of what the users (how can you call them players, when they ignore the intent of the game) are doing. Basically, he played the game (actually fighting villains) and was hated for it. Not because he was being vile or crude (indeed, completely contrary to what you suggest) but by violating game defeating "customs." Why the hell have a city full of heroes and villains, if the villains and heroes just idly chat and don't actually fight each other?
And when someone does play the game, the natives get pissy as all get out. Sounds like a bunch of crybabies inhabit those games if you ask me.
No, if something being royalty-free were a downside they would not have included a BSD userspace with OS X. While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations. As I recall back when Vorbis was getting off the ground, the implication was made that people with patents wouldn't care unless it got off the ground and then they would start looking for violations.
Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them, regardless of what the developers and/. thinks. And all it takes is someone with a patent and the muster to enforce it and everyone who implemented them in their browser suddenly has a huge problem.
Wasn't the decision to force everyone to support OGG/Theora dropped months ago?
Never mind that there are no hardware codecs for either, which is probably a huge part of why there was external pressure to avoid forcing a codec on everyone.
I run Battlezone (1998 fps/rts hybrid) in VMWare Workstation on my Core i7 in software rendering mode at 1280x1024 and it's doing at least 60fps. I have yet to try WoW or any other recent game, but for software rendering in a VM, I'm still impressed.
Sadly, the game is incredibly buggy and requires DirectX 6 so the D3D hardware support doesn't set up properly.
tl;dr: You can game in a VM, if you have enough RAM and CPU cycles to throw at it.
They'll cover ARM when someone sells a motherboard with a socket I can stick a 2+ GHz quad-core ARM in and get performance equal to an equivalent AMD or Intel chip.
As it stands, ARM is irrelevant outside the embedded/pda/non-x86 netbook scope.
>>Apple loved their one button mouse for a decade when everyone else knew how stupid that was. Having a billion buttons on your mouse (or hell, even two) doesn't make it better. Apple's got only one button and it makes sense. Geeks who fail to THINK from other points of view and can't see a reason for something will generally miss good ideas.
I remember reading long ago, forget where, that official CCP policy was that if they were to arrive on the moon before the US returned, their first goal was to remove as much evidence of American landing sites as possible so as to claim the US had lied and in fact China was the first on the moon.
Probably some wharrgarbl from the intertubes stuck in my head, but who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
And they can't defend their religion to their children? Certainly not the fault of the school or science. Definitely not a justifiable reason to attack science and, by proxy, rationality and reason.
The study of evolution is -basic- to the study of biology, genetics, inheritance, and the scientific method. Hiding it to satisfy anti-intellectuals who can't handle it when someone presents a topic that they feels contradicts their superstitious beliefs is completely unproductive and only serves to strengthen their destructive cause.
No, they should keep their faith to themselves and not try and push science around. And no one should let them.
Let me see if I get this straight, you're too lazy to figure out how to do things the non-Windows way, so you want Linux distros and developers to do things the (sloppy) Windows way. Because you don't want to learn. Right.
Yeah, and all the libraries should have the exact same name, and be stored in the exact same place, just like windows. I mean, if we don't have DLL Hell, what fun would it be?
It has great hardware detection and support, provided the hardware developers (or someone else) has written a driver for it.
Why? It's just guaranteed to cause more frustration when it doesn't work as implied and people will blame "Linux" despite the kernel having nothing to do with it.
I find it hard to believe you've plugged any hardware in for a long time. There are no dip switches on (production) hardware these days, and config files are a whole lot better than the registry. Also, yell at the hardware manufacturers who guard drivers as if they were hiding something that would otherwise make a device unsaleable in them.
Basically for you to use Chrome OS, it'd need to be Windows, or otherwise seamlessly incompatible. You don't want Linux. Please stop trying.
It's sad that it has to eat an entire core's worth of processing time, the whole time I was on the page I had an extremely powerful GPU sitting idle.
I think before anything like that can truly take off, they need a means of taking advantage of the hardware we have.
To be fair, OS X has supported doing that since 10.4, possibly earlier. I was doing that for a right click on my Macbook in 2006, and I'd be suprised if it wasn't being done before.
Sure there would.
Binaries don't do the majority of people (not even software developers) any good. Sure you could reverse engineer and decompile the binary, but that's a significant hassle. Not only that but no copyright guarantees anyone could take my code, pack it into a binary, and never release any changes (running counter to the -intent- of the GPL,) making it really hard to get them.
A million F/OSS programmers and Indie musicians aren't engaging in a business model.
Free does not run a business. At some point they make money, or they do something that earns money to subsidize the free work.
Short of waiting to be blessed by some rich benefactor, how do YOU suggest a photographer make money at their trade?
Oh wait, right this is Slashdot. Shaft first, think of ways to compensate later.
So it's basically true that pirates are simply avoiding compensating the creators of a work?
Man, no one should pay you for doing your day job. You should work for free and like it.
Goodness, a short sale period and high secondhand prices on extremely niche games? Say it ain't so!
Or would you prefer they overproduce and lose money on the whole deal, crippling their ability to do future releases.
Niche games are like that precisely because the potential audience is so small. If you are really interested, you need to be ready to go from the start, or you're probably SOL.
I pointed out a hole in your anti-copyright, anti-producer rant, namely that the internet is not revolutionary and that there are still BASE COSTS to production you feel it good to not merely gloss over but pave over. The world is very much -capitalist- and if artists (other than musicians) have no means of generating income, or taking the initiative without getting screwed, then you essentially require a socialist utopia where their needs are cared for. Since you obviously don't want that, then chances are they won't bother, or if they do it'll be at a significantly lower rate or lower quality. Take your pick, you will likely get both.
Man, you should go into marketing, you spew it with the best of them. It hasn't changed the game, it's only made it easy to reproduce things. Creating -orignial- things still takes time, effort, and *gasp* money. Those without money will simply take more time. With too little money the time required becomes untenable and people will just stop.
Indeed, we should abolish copyright and let WAL-MART buy up CD and DVD replicators and let them stuff the shelves of their stores, and extract ALL the value from creative works (oh and never mind the actual creators.) Because that's exactly what would happen.
Couldn't resist the ad-hominem, eh? My point is that in a capitalistic world you need CAPITAL to do something, or have collateral to exchange for it. Implying that non-physical works have zero value or opportunity cost to produce is ignorant in the extreme.
Fear of a world where the people who take initiative to create things that can't be played in a bar for $300 a show, that cost more than a $400 laptop and flaky $300 guitar, and are stuck holding the bag as everyone basically says "fuck you." Or yeah, a world of ultracapitalism where only the richest can compete and everyone else gets the short end of the stick.
You can't honestly think a true capitalist will invest money into something that won't give them a return on investment do you? What does that leave us with?
Let me point to a post a ways up that basically points out that without copyright we return to the days where we had "patrons of the arts," and I don't know about you but I don't necessarily like the same things as the super rich and vice versa. I like it when people can take the initiative, bet on their skills, and don't have to wait for someone with big pockets to come along.
You would just have them never do so, since their work would simply be jacked by whoever owned a dvd replicator and p2p networks, and hope that some rich fool with too much money takes pity on them.
The revolutionary aspect should be people using social networks to produce new, fantastic works. If you're so right then they should be able to undermine the existing industries with a grassroots initiative. Not this "oh hey guys we like your work, but we won't pay you for it at all" attitude of entitlement that seems to be the definition of the internet and p2p these days.
No recoup of expenses, either. This is a money driven world, not some socialist utopia where your needs are taken care of.
Sure it did. It grants control over redistribution to the creator. It paid no mind as to whether it was going to be charged for or not, or who distributed it.
No. No, no, no. The -purpose- was to give people who created works an incentive to release them by allowing them a means of turning their work into collateral. Instead of having to sit idle until someone came along and paid them, they could take the initiative and produce works of their own accord, and (if they didn't suck) not starve in the process. They could do like any other tradesman and focus entirely on their chosen field and leverage it to live.
Unless you'd like to think that you could spend a day doing manual labor and still have the energy to write software, make music, or create films. Sure you could, but it probably wouldn't be as good or in anywhere near the quantity.
Except it's not limited like that at all. If it were, it'd be pointless, which it definitely is not.
No it's not. It's simply a super efficient distribution channel. The physical channels would be just as efficient if copyright weren't in effect at all. What people -should- do is leverage that efficient distribution and communication to create new works and license them under terms they agree with, instead of jacking the works of others.
I'd buy into the argument that the internet and P2P were truly revolutionary if -new- works and more fairly licensed works were giving the RIAA and MPAA a run for their money. But they aren't. All they're doing is giving the MPAA and RIAA a run for their money by trading works owned by the RIAA and MPAA. Thus they prove the RIAA and MPAA's point.
I'm not sure I grasp the concept of X Hosting, and how this non-SUID server would help that.
X is not required to be running on the remote system for X11 forwarding over SSH. Even running an Xvnc server doesn't require it to be SUID. This seems to be entirely a local security gain for users who will be interacting with local graphics hardware.
I guess "TANSTAAFL" applies here.
No, there is nothing that is free of cost. It is paid for somewhere along the line.
The catch is when too many people delude themselves into thinking "oh I don't need to (pay|donate) because plenty of others will" that the number of (donors|buyers) drops under a critical level. I think it will start happening, at least for the mass internet audience who feel entitled to things for free.
So what you're saying is that even though they -didn't- make it impossible for him to attack the opposing faction, he was wrong for doing so. Despite the fact that doing so was the intent of the game's setup?
So why haven't the people who play City of Heroes/Villains all left? Because there's nothing to prevent anyone from starting a character and attacking the opposing faction. In fact, it's encouraged.
Wait, so playing the game as it was INTENDED to be played is being an asshole?
This is the biggest pile of deluded nonsense ever. They intended for PvP to happen. PvP happens. Idiots cry.
It's not society, it's a game. I imagine that people such as yourself who confuse the two might have a problem with what he did.
I like your suggestion:
because it is entirely ridiculous and indicative of what the users (how can you call them players, when they ignore the intent of the game) are doing. Basically, he played the game (actually fighting villains) and was hated for it. Not because he was being vile or crude (indeed, completely contrary to what you suggest) but by violating game defeating "customs." Why the hell have a city full of heroes and villains, if the villains and heroes just idly chat and don't actually fight each other?
And when someone does play the game, the natives get pissy as all get out. Sounds like a bunch of crybabies inhabit those games if you ask me.
Might I suggest you take your brilliant means of stuffing words in other people's mouths and go back to 4chan.
No, if something being royalty-free were a downside they would not have included a BSD userspace with OS X. While Ogg Theora is royalty free, there are no -known- patent violations. As I recall back when Vorbis was getting off the ground, the implication was made that people with patents wouldn't care unless it got off the ground and then they would start looking for violations.
Basically, Theora and Vorbis are huge unknowns with potential patent bombs in them, regardless of what the developers and /. thinks. And all it takes is someone with a patent and the muster to enforce it and everyone who implemented them in their browser suddenly has a huge problem.
Wasn't the decision to force everyone to support OGG/Theora dropped months ago?
Never mind that there are no hardware codecs for either, which is probably a huge part of why there was external pressure to avoid forcing a codec on everyone.
I run Battlezone (1998 fps/rts hybrid) in VMWare Workstation on my Core i7 in software rendering mode at 1280x1024 and it's doing at least 60fps. I have yet to try WoW or any other recent game, but for software rendering in a VM, I'm still impressed.
Sadly, the game is incredibly buggy and requires DirectX 6 so the D3D hardware support doesn't set up properly.
tl;dr: You can game in a VM, if you have enough RAM and CPU cycles to throw at it.
Hey look guys, it's someone talking out of his ass!
>>Guess I'll skip that DSi.
As if they were ever accepting of something that could force open the source code of a game on their system?
They'll cover ARM when someone sells a motherboard with a socket I can stick a 2+ GHz quad-core ARM in and get performance equal to an equivalent AMD or Intel chip.
As it stands, ARM is irrelevant outside the embedded/pda/non-x86 netbook scope.
You might charge for it. And according to Slashdot, compensating artists for their work is bad.
>>Apple loved their one button mouse for a decade when everyone else knew how stupid that was.
Having a billion buttons on your mouse (or hell, even two) doesn't make it better. Apple's got only one button and it makes sense. Geeks who fail to THINK from other points of view and can't see a reason for something will generally miss good ideas.
I remember reading long ago, forget where, that official CCP policy was that if they were to arrive on the moon before the US returned, their first goal was to remove as much evidence of American landing sites as possible so as to claim the US had lied and in fact China was the first on the moon.
Probably some wharrgarbl from the intertubes stuck in my head, but who knows.