I'm really unhappy with CNN. This theory is insultingly ludicrous.
It's preposterous to think that there could have been even ONE supernova in our vicinity (let alone "several" as stated in the article) without obvious lingering effects, i.e., a remnant special star like a neutron star or a black hole and/or some sort of nebula. "Several million years" is nothing in cosmic time--the nebulae that those stars would have left would barely have dispersed at all.
Not to mention that our position in the galaxy is somewhat peculiar. We are on the rim of a huge and empty vastness called the local bubble. The speculation (since there's a pulsar on the other side of the local bubble) is that the portion of space near us was cleared out by a big supernova some time ago (probably ~5-6 billion years ago, as our sun was almost certainly formed in its wake). How could these researchers possibly think that several supernova could have passed through without leaving similarly obvious signatures?
Considering that your IP is included in that info-bundle they get, you should expect to see some very exotic targeted advertising if you embark on that campaign.
Who cares? They would have done it to us if they had been less interested in fighting each other and had developed the technology to get to Europe first.
A lot of people have been insulting this, and asking why in the world anyone would play it, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Pain makes your body produce adrenalin, which would definitely heighten the gaming experience. It's not like the pain this machine delivers is extremely intense--but it should be enough to get your endorphins pumping and get your cheeks flushed and make you enjoy the game THAT much more when you win. Sure, it's not for you wusses who wouldn't play the pain game back in grade school, but who wants to play with people who can't take the consequences of losing anyway?:)
Personally, I'd like to see a study that pits the enjoyment derived from regular pong vs. pain-pong. I wouldn't be surprised if people reported a much higher level of enjoyment during pain-pong, even if they lost some of the time.
This is clearly Germany's attempt to ensure that they will be bathing in Gold Medals when Pong is made an olympic sport. Or maybe they're just going to do more S&M with it; I hear a LOT of Germans are into that.
It's around $600 for the PS2 + the Linux kit (someone else quoted the exact component prices somewhere above). I don't get this OpenGL business (and I'm genuinely curious), so humor me. Can't you develop for OpenGL on any system? Would they really be PS2 games if they didn't use the PS2 APIs?
Yes, I know you'd have to reboot the machine. That's part of why I think this is stupid. Another part is that it's not cheap. It is about $600. And I would like it if someone could explain to me what this has to do with developing PS2 console games; I don't see what good this would be without the PS2 APIs.
Anyway, I'm glad you have money to burn, but I'd rather buy something that is useful and not redundant.
Perhaps my question is naive, as I am not a computer programmer, but if you are running Linux, how does that qualify as game programming for a console? Isn't that game programming for Linux that you just happened to do on a console?
Didn't we see a demo of an AOL client for PS2 Linux last time this topic came up? If so, are we looking at a future where Microsoft faces a consortium of Linux-supporting companies?
While on one hand we might enjoy seeing Linux get an opportunity to properly take on Microsoft, this will only lead to grief for the greather Linux community. This is the beginning of the end, methinks, or perhaps the end of pupation.
What exactly is the point of this? I know we've gone over this before in previous Linux PS2 articles, but it never really seems to add up. If you want to play games, you buy a console. If you are the type of person who wants to run Linux (and has a broadband connection to use the PS2's ethernet adapter), then you already have a computer (and you probably consider it and its brothers/sisters members of your family). If you don't, then you're probably experiencing phantom pains.
The problem I see is that the PS2 + Linux kit isn't really cheap enough to justify itself, except for the nerd-factor. It's a lot of money, and for what? So your lazy ass doesn't have to walk to the other room to check Slashdot during a break in your gaming?
It certainly isn't for the wealth of Linux gaming software. So what gives? Is this another "just because I can" deal? Doesn't building your own box appeal more to people who think that way?
Seriously, here is what you said. Perhaps you were possessed.
laws simply codify what a society already does
Nothing in there about what society sanctions. I was surprised that you said it, but you did; don't blame me if you can't be coherent. Furthermore, descriptive laws can be just as maleficent as prescriptive ones.
Laws hold a society together. They protect the group from individuals, yes, but they also protect individuals from the group. Copyright protects justice for businesses. Like I've said before, I agree that the music industry would be better off if they found a way to distribute copyright that was not pirateable--it's clear that people do not realize that piracy will be a serious threat to the industry in the future. It's not now, but when broadband becomes the norm rather than a luxury, piracy will begin to seriously hurt record sales. I know of many people with broadband who have stopped buying cds since they got broadband. In fact, I don't know anyone with broadband who ever buys CDs anymore.
Maybe that will be better. Maybe the RIAA needs to fall--they certainly aren't pushing good content. But the principle is the one I'd like to uphold--a company should be able to protect its copyrights. It is important if laws are to be effective that they be consistent.
The knowledgeable mac user clearly has many options available to him/her. The average one is ignorant of those options. The same is true for PCs. Get a clue and lose the mac zealotry. It wasn't personal.
The reason why music piracy is suddenly an issue NOW is because, through the internet, it has been made easy and has lost its obvious criminality (it's harder to discern whether something is legal if it's on your computer screen as opposed to in a scruffy guy's trunk).
I suppose you're technically right that I overstated--I thought that we would be keeping this in the realm of computerized music piracy since this was an article about that and only that. Once you can get over that, though, you're being delusional if you think that internet music sharing isn't rampant--and that piracy could NOT be possible without ripping. The fact that ripping is advertised and made easy by Apple (among others) increases the volume of pirated content.
Why are Mac users so touchy? The article was about Apple, so I was talking about Mac users. There are plenty of stupid PC users too, that's quite certain, but at least they aren't so petulant about their ignorance.
Copyright was a legal institution long before music piracy became fashionable and easy. Just because a law is easily circumvented doesn't mean it isn't justified. It's very difficult to prevent people from driving drunk. It should definitely be illegal to drive drunk, though.
Things like copyright are in place for a reason. I do not respect them for their legal status, they have legal status because a lot of people respect(-ed?) them.
If laws codified what a society already did, we would have a murder quotient, where murder was allowed some of the time, since before laws people sometimes got murdered. That is to say that you are sickeningly wrong. Laws represent the way a society wishes it could be. Laws would not be necessary if everyone already obeyed them. The point of them is to represent the ideals of the people who make them (in our case, with popularly elected officials, the general idea is to reflect what the population idealizes).
Like I've said: if you think that most people are like you claim to be (using ripping for solely legitmate purposes), you're crippled by delusion. Even if most people DID do the legitimate thing, the overwhelming volume of people who do not is enough to make the technology a sketchy affair.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think most people care about this shit as much as you seem to. Nobody's boycotting. Nobody's shitting bricks. Just like people accept that computers are "supposed" to crash thanks to Microsoft, people will accept that CDs don't play everywhere, or can't be copied, or whatever. I'm not saying that's for the best, but it's true.
So. You only rip the idea of the CD when you pirate music? It's essence? This isn't star-wars, ace. We're talking about real property. So what if it happens to be easily copied--it's still very real, and its copyrights are just as worthy of respect as anything else's.
But Ok. It's illegal to drive with an open container of alcohol. You don't have to be drinking it. You don't even have to know it's there. But lo: if you are stopped, and there is an open alcoholic beverage container, await a
summons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really unhappy with CNN. This theory is insultingly ludicrous.
It's preposterous to think that there could have been even ONE supernova in our vicinity (let alone "several" as stated in the article) without obvious lingering effects, i.e., a remnant special star like a neutron star or a black hole and/or some sort of nebula. "Several million years" is nothing in cosmic time--the nebulae that those stars would have left would barely have dispersed at all.
Not to mention that our position in the galaxy is somewhat peculiar. We are on the rim of a huge and empty vastness called the local bubble. The speculation (since there's a pulsar on the other side of the local bubble) is that the portion of space near us was cleared out by a big supernova some time ago (probably ~5-6 billion years ago, as our sun was almost certainly formed in its wake). How could these researchers possibly think that several supernova could have passed through without leaving similarly obvious signatures?
WTC perhaps not right- but justified? Well that's something else altogether.
Considering that your IP is included in that info-bundle they get, you should expect to see some very exotic targeted advertising if you embark on that campaign.
I hope they incorporate First Post technology into these boards. And some professors I know could use a lameness filter.
Who cares? They would have done it to us if they had been less interested in fighting each other and had developed the technology to get to Europe first.
A lot of people have been insulting this, and asking why in the world anyone would play it, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Pain makes your body produce adrenalin, which would definitely heighten the gaming experience. It's not like the pain this machine delivers is extremely intense--but it should be enough to get your endorphins pumping and get your cheeks flushed and make you enjoy the game THAT much more when you win. Sure, it's not for you wusses who wouldn't play the pain game back in grade school, but who wants to play with people who can't take the consequences of losing anyway? :)
Personally, I'd like to see a study that pits the enjoyment derived from regular pong vs. pain-pong. I wouldn't be surprised if people reported a much higher level of enjoyment during pain-pong, even if they lost some of the time.
They went to all this trouble to invent the "Painstation" and the best they could do was PONG? Talk about rubbing salt in your game-inflicted wounds.
He'd probably like it.
This is clearly Germany's attempt to ensure that they will be bathing in Gold Medals when Pong is made an olympic sport. Or maybe they're just going to do more S&M with it; I hear a LOT of Germans are into that.
It's around $600 for the PS2 + the Linux kit (someone else quoted the exact component prices somewhere above). I don't get this OpenGL business (and I'm genuinely curious), so humor me. Can't you develop for OpenGL on any system? Would they really be PS2 games if they didn't use the PS2 APIs?
Yes, I know you'd have to reboot the machine. That's part of why I think this is stupid. Another part is that it's not cheap. It is about $600. And I would like it if someone could explain to me what this has to do with developing PS2 console games; I don't see what good this would be without the PS2 APIs.
Anyway, I'm glad you have money to burn, but I'd rather buy something that is useful and not redundant.
Perhaps my question is naive, as I am not a computer programmer, but if you are running Linux, how does that qualify as game programming for a console? Isn't that game programming for Linux that you just happened to do on a console?
I'm serious, you've confused me.
Didn't we see a demo of an AOL client for PS2 Linux last time this topic came up? If so, are we looking at a future where Microsoft faces a consortium of Linux-supporting companies?
While on one hand we might enjoy seeing Linux get an opportunity to properly take on Microsoft, this will only lead to grief for the greather Linux community. This is the beginning of the end, methinks, or perhaps the end of pupation.
What exactly is the point of this? I know we've gone over this before in previous Linux PS2 articles, but it never really seems to add up. If you want to play games, you buy a console. If you are the type of person who wants to run Linux (and has a broadband connection to use the PS2's ethernet adapter), then you already have a computer (and you probably consider it and its brothers/sisters members of your family). If you don't, then you're probably experiencing phantom pains.
The problem I see is that the PS2 + Linux kit isn't really cheap enough to justify itself, except for the nerd-factor. It's a lot of money, and for what? So your lazy ass doesn't have to walk to the other room to check Slashdot during a break in your gaming?
It certainly isn't for the wealth of Linux gaming software. So what gives? Is this another "just because I can" deal? Doesn't building your own box appeal more to people who think that way?
Seriously, here is what you said. Perhaps you were possessed.
laws simply codify what a society already does
Nothing in there about what society sanctions. I was surprised that you said it, but you did; don't blame me if you can't be coherent. Furthermore, descriptive laws can be just as maleficent as prescriptive ones.
Laws hold a society together. They protect the group from individuals, yes, but they also protect individuals from the group. Copyright protects justice for businesses. Like I've said before, I agree that the music industry would be better off if they found a way to distribute copyright that was not pirateable--it's clear that people do not realize that piracy will be a serious threat to the industry in the future. It's not now, but when broadband becomes the norm rather than a luxury, piracy will begin to seriously hurt record sales. I know of many people with broadband who have stopped buying cds since they got broadband. In fact, I don't know anyone with broadband who ever buys CDs anymore.
Maybe that will be better. Maybe the RIAA needs to fall--they certainly aren't pushing good content. But the principle is the one I'd like to uphold--a company should be able to protect its copyrights. It is important if laws are to be effective that they be consistent.
The knowledgeable mac user clearly has many options available to him/her. The average one is ignorant of those options. The same is true for PCs. Get a clue and lose the mac zealotry. It wasn't personal.
I might have, but luckily I didn't; I hate being wrong.
The reason why music piracy is suddenly an issue NOW is because, through the internet, it has been made easy and has lost its obvious criminality (it's harder to discern whether something is legal if it's on your computer screen as opposed to in a scruffy guy's trunk).
I suppose you're technically right that I overstated--I thought that we would be keeping this in the realm of computerized music piracy since this was an article about that and only that. Once you can get over that, though, you're being delusional if you think that internet music sharing isn't rampant--and that piracy could NOT be possible without ripping. The fact that ripping is advertised and made easy by Apple (among others) increases the volume of pirated content.
That's a fascinating peek at your personal life.
Unfortunately, you are in the minority, and that is why we're having this discussion.
Why are Mac users so touchy? The article was about Apple, so I was talking about Mac users. There are plenty of stupid PC users too, that's quite certain, but at least they aren't so petulant about their ignorance.
Copyright was a legal institution long before music piracy became fashionable and easy. Just because a law is easily circumvented doesn't mean it isn't justified. It's very difficult to prevent people from driving drunk. It should definitely be illegal to drive drunk, though.
Things like copyright are in place for a reason. I do not respect them for their legal status, they have legal status because a lot of people respect(-ed?) them.
If laws codified what a society already did, we would have a murder quotient, where murder was allowed some of the time, since before laws people sometimes got murdered. That is to say that you are sickeningly wrong. Laws represent the way a society wishes it could be. Laws would not be necessary if everyone already obeyed them. The point of them is to represent the ideals of the people who make them (in our case, with popularly elected officials, the general idea is to reflect what the population idealizes).
Yeah. But not mp3 players. So what's your point, son?
Nah. BlueOS is based on a Linux kernel. I recommend OpenBeOS. ..here
Like I've said: if you think that most people are like you claim to be (using ripping for solely legitmate purposes), you're crippled by delusion. Even if most people DID do the legitimate thing, the overwhelming volume of people who do not is enough to make the technology a sketchy affair.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think most people care about this shit as much as you seem to. Nobody's boycotting. Nobody's shitting bricks. Just like people accept that computers are "supposed" to crash thanks to Microsoft, people will accept that CDs don't play everywhere, or can't be copied, or whatever. I'm not saying that's for the best, but it's true.
So. You only rip the idea of the CD when you pirate music? It's essence? This isn't star-wars, ace. We're talking about real property. So what if it happens to be easily copied--it's still very real, and its copyrights are just as worthy of respect as anything else's.
But Ok. It's illegal to drive with an open container of alcohol. You don't have to be drinking it. You don't even have to know it's there. But lo: if you are stopped, and there is an open alcoholic beverage container, await a summons.