Patents were originally a way to induce inventors to share their discoveries with the public. The requirement for a patent is that the method be detailed and published publically. In return for revealing this information the inventor received a short-term monopoly (14-20 years) on the production of their invention--long enough to recoup their investment costs and make some profit.
You're right on the money, and it's actually rather depressing how many Americans don't believe in this at all. I've talked to a lot of people I know locally about this, and a lot of them shockingly hold the opinion that patents should never expire and that "inventors" should have full control of everything down to the basic concept until the end of time. They don't believe patents are working for the public, but that they're for individual gain only.
MEPIS is because is non-standard. Warren repeatedly warns against upgrading packages from the standard Debian repositories. There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next. There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.
It's things like this that convince me never to try any of the "small" oddball distros. After years of learning linux, I realized a lot of crucial things, such as "No matter where you go, it's still linux."
In the end, your best bet is always to go with projects that good tools, a large user base (or very strong support). Sometimes it's cool to hate major distributions; even I went through that "I hate Red Hat" stage. There's only so much GNU you can do, however, before you realize that all the good distro work boils down to Red Hat, Debian, and sometimes Slackware. Distros like Ubuntu and SuSE are like icing on the cake.
After messing around with distro after distro, I just end up running Fedora or Ubuntu. Some distros are better for special needs, but I'm not really a special needs kind of guy.:)
DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!
I agree with your point of view, but let's talk semantics for a moment. I'm sure none of us anti-DRM folks are against the technology of encryption. For our own personal use, that's some great power--who here doesn't use OpenSSH or kerberos? I have two examples off the top of my head, but the list goes on and on.
However, DRM specifically means "digital rights management," and its name explicitly links the technology to copyright law. Now, if you see where I'm going with this, already we're talking government enforcement.:-/
DRM is also a technology whose primary purpose is to aid software developers to limit the functionality of their clients' systems. They will say "I'll give you a piece of software that claims to allow you to enjoy your music, but it's rigged to stop you from listening to it when we don't think you should be able to."
You raise the point, "Well, I can just decrypt the thing and nobody is infringing on my personal freedoms." Ouch, well... even if technically you are not violating copyright law, for those of us in the United States of America, there is that little thing called the DMCA. The mere circumvention of DRM and other copyright enforcement methods has been made illegal, even if one is not actually violating copyright in doing so. Only in a few explicitly stated scenarios are you allowed to circumvent copyright protection.
Granted, I'm not the most educated person on these issues. I recommend picking up some books written by Lawrence Lessig, such as Free Culture.
Anyhow, my main response to you is this: DRM is not encryption itself, but is a larger mechanism that makes use of encryption at some point. Also, many governments do already have laws regarding how you may not use encryption. I don't like such laws myself, but you should be aware that those of us who are against DRM are asking for something a little different than outlawing the use of encryption.
- Widespread prosperity shields people from the ordinary trials of life that build character and bring people together.
I've met a lot of people, including people who live or have grown up outside of the United States. Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character. On the other hand, it has more to do with personal values and the way they were raised. I've noticed that in general people who have suffered more "trials of life" actually are more poorly adjusted and have more personal problems and flaws in their character.
- Peace deprives people of the bond of a common cause
Why don't you just wear a sign on your forehead that says "Bush 4 Life"? Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
- Feminization weakens us by favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism over resolve and steadfastness
Looking back at the very recent cold war, I'd say these "weak" values managed to save us from destroying civilization. Favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism has nothing to do with feminizim or the female sex; you're assigning your own conservative cultural values to other people. Maybe you are taking this for granted, but it's a gross error. That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness." Intelligent people naturally favor more clever solutions than simply using power to force their own "rightness."
Open up a dictionary right now and look up the word "conciliation." You spew all this crap about creating bonds and bringing people together, and then you outright denounce conciliation as a weak feminine value? Go figure.
- Government policies have undermined the importance of families on dozens of fronts
You're not specific enough--examples please.
- Right and wrong have given way to "political awareness" tests. Say the right things and you're golden.
You always have to please authority--that's life. Of course, you loath having to pay lip service to a culture that is not your own, and you have a strong urge to devalue you it and attack it, citing "political correctness" as some sort of liberal conspiracy, making yourself look like the brave little guy sticking it to the man. Spare me.
Quick disclaimer: I've never had a panic attack while awake. I've suffered several night terrors in my adolesance, which I consider to be like panic attacks while you're sleeping (this could be a flawed analogy, but hey--I'm not a professional. And it damn sure feels like how I make it sound.).
Lenghty disclaimer: I'm not a good student. I haven't been for several years. My grades faltered in high school but were perfectly decent in hindsight. In college my grades polarized; some classes were easy A's while others were dead failures. I don't like doing work that I don't want to do; if a subject interests me, I'll devour it. If it doesn't, I lack the discipline to study. I'm aware that I have a problem, but I haven't gotten over it yet.
Additional warning: This post is a lenghty reiteration of the "stop caring" post.
That being said, I've been accused of being an intelligent person. I excelled in my studies up until the point where I couldn't just ace everything without trying. In some ways, my gifts might have caused me to become lazy and complacent, something I regret. The classmates I knew who got the best grades were also noticeably less intelligent than a lot of people I knew who were getting less done.
Now, it seems to me that you are a good student. I like that. However, from my own limited perspective, this little tidbit may lend some insight into the reason why you've had a panic attack. You have discipline, you are a good worker, and naturally you are under a lot of stress.
Your work ethic demands that you get things done. If you are overwhelmed or feel like you can't do something, the panic attack is the ultimate consequence that you've been fighting to avoid by doing your studies. The fact that you have never had one before suggests to me that you've done a great job of keeping yourself in the groove. You can't stay in it all the time--it happens.
What most people on Slashdot are suggesting is that you take some measures to get yourself back into the groove. I guess healthy people do this, but is that really going to get to the heart of the problem? It sounds like you need an attitude change.
Never in my life have I had trouble taking exams. I just take them. Lots of people preoccupy themselves with things that fall outside the scope of the exam itself. They can't get out of their head how good they'll do on the exam. Some people count questions they don't know and try to figure out their grade before they even turn the damn thing in. Some people think about what will happen if they fail, or how great they'll feel when they're done, or mommy and daddy--hell, I have no idea. Whatever it is you're thinking about, STOP. The piece of paper in front of you is now your world. First you read it, then you write (or mark something). That's some basic I/O there. If you continue to feel anxiety while engaging in this behavior, you're not doing it correctly.
Yeah, we all want to be like linux--it's true. Don't get me wrong--linux is great, but now you've got to be DOS. You are DOS, and the exam is your dot ee ex ee. Comprende? Sorry, I'm tired.
Also, while you're at it, pick up the Bhagavad Gita. Read it; live by it.
Remember that worrying reduces your performance. So does worrying about worrying. And worrying about not worrying. Don't worry; just forget about it. Either you can do the exam, or you can't. If you can't, at least find ways to amuse yourself. I've written in a lot of jokes into exams I've done poorly on. You may have just failed, but at least you'll brighten your day and the day of whoever grades it. Do the world a favor!
Don't second guess yourself. Just do it. Think of Master Yoda in a Nike commercial.
Also, don't overburden yourself. You might be doing that too.
This doesn't just happen because of MMORPGs. I've been playing games since I was a wee lad, and the shocking truth is that you spend the bulk of your time playing the best games you have, even if you've had them for a long time. For example, when I was a kid I liked Quest for Glory so much, I played it through many times despite having much newer games. You could argue that it prevented me from investing as much in those games (time, money, or otherwise).
That game was an RPG, but there were others. Later I got addicted to Final Fantasy, and then Counterstrike in my late high school years. When I played CS, I didn't buy or play any other shooters, and this lasted for quite a while.
I think it just shows that when you find a game that you really enjoy, you buy less overall because you're more satisfied with what you've got. I get the feeling that the industry learned this less a long time ago, what with all mediocre games that keep being released; they keep you coming back for more.
I skimmed the summary the first time, and when I read "xXx", I thought to myself, "hi-def porn." I mean, that must be one incentive to go HD that will actually bring in customers. Fifth Element? Please.
I have interest in trying this new distro, as I'm curious to see what a company like SCO would turn out. Sure, they were bastards, but it could be good. Who knows?
I remember when I started running linux, I noticed that a lot of my geeky friends had tried and then gave up, going back to Windows. They all said something along the lines of "linux sucks, it doesn't work." These were people who had absolutely no idea how to run unix, let alone linux.
The results of the survey stand, but my interpretation differs from that of the Yankee group (and with a name like that, who wants to agree with them?). It's not so much scarcity of documention (it's there, trust me), but the scarcity of people who actually know how to manage linux servers. Windows sysadmins are a dimea dozen--they probably turn out thousands of them every year. The unices also have their fair share of support, but they're patently different from gnu/linux.
...well.. I think I speak for most of us when I say, "I'm going to continue using Ubuntu."
I love Debian, and I love Free software, but sometimes a guy just wants to run Java. You know what I'm saying? I think the distribution of Java would help linux immensely, and I'm all for seeing my beloved OS reach new levels of convenience and usability. Only way to oust Windows, you know...
You're correct that lots of people will produce stuff for free -- if they want to.
I'm glad that you've emphasized this point, because I agree with you whole heartedly. I'm of the opinion certain individuals with an inate drive to create music will probably make the best music. That means that by damaging the market for music, we will potentially lose a lot of music, but we'll lose the worst of it first and the best of it will remain. I understand if people disagree with me on this one.
Also, I'm still saying that people will continue to sell music or at least get paid to produce it. For example, harken back to the days of Mozart. I don't know what laws were applied to his works, but you can bet that they weren't burning the stuff of discs and selling it down at the local market. He created art because he was commissioned by the state. Maybe state-sponsorship is not the best way to go, but this is an example that our current system is not the only way to do things (during the renaissance, when art flourished, most artists lived off of wealth provided by patrons).
Record companies invest money first, then sell a product to recoup their investment.
Come on buddy, this is capitalism: investment failed--game over. It's not the government's job to legally ensure anyone profit in any market. Protection of "intellectual property", while not forbidden by the US constitution, is not gauranteed by it either.
Copyright is a bargain that the government makes on behalf of the public. It buys art and other intellectual property from artists by spending our freedom. With the help of copyright, publishing was once made sustainable. We've witnessed, however, that thanks to sites like allofmp3.com, that copyright protection is no longer a useful nor necessary foundation for the distribution of music.
Artists are not gods; they are not entitled to monetary rewards for their efforts. Neither are publishing companies. If they can manage to turn a profit, good for them--if not, ask if anyone cares. Lots of markets die, lots of industries go under. Cry me a river.
Times are changing, and artists will adapt. If music weren't so profitable, we'd probably see better music. Just as Free software has given us an example that self-motivated programmers can produce fantastic programs, self-motivated musicians can create amazing and wonderful music.
Also, we notice that many people who develop Free software actually make a decent living, and they're getting paid fairly. That's because there's more to making money than state-enforced manipulation of the distribution of information.
Lots of people scream at Free software and say it's not possible, that it isn't true, but that doesn't stop it from flourishing. Lots of people will scream at IP-free art. They can scream until they're blue in the face.
Harken back to days of yore, when we used to play games like Doom and Commander Keen. Actually, we played many more games than that, but most of us have forgotten what an adventure game is really like.
Games like Wolfenstein3D were pretty tricky. The game was still a lot of fun to play even without the secrets, but you notice that if you managed to find one, you either got some bonus points (doesn't really enhance the gameplay, but it gives clever/determined plays a hi score bonus they deserve) or you got some really wonderful powerup that made the game a lot easier. And let's face it: If you're having a really hard time on a certain level, and you keep dying or are being overly cautious while exporing, you are more and more likely to notice or stumble upon some secret. More skilled players can burn through the level without them and still enjoy the game just as much, but it gives players a welcome boost.
I'm not saying that gameplay should be focused on unlocking features and finding secrets or earning powerups, but all of those things have their place in a well-balanced game, so it would be hasty to condemn them outright.
In order to replace the fantasy excitement with real excitement, we provide various activities for the gaming clients, some of which are high adrenaline and provide the thrill of real life situations. Our coaches work with the clients to find new activities with which the client can fill the lost "time warp" hours.
When I read this, I thought to myself, "Okay, they don't like what these people are doing in their spare time, so they're trying to get them to do something else that they prefer."
I mean, let's face it; when people have free time, they choose what to do with it. Some people do drugs, some people gamble, some people "engage in romance", others play games, read books.
Let's replace games with books for a moment. Some people love to read books; they do it for several hours every day. Most people would in modern society would be highly offended if you tried to suggest that this voracious reader has a compulsive, addictive habit. If they stopped, they'd probably be dying to get back to their reading. That's "withdrawal" I guess. The time they read could be better spent...uh..I don't know.. playing sports or something. Oh yeah, that's SO much healthier. I've seen what sports have done to some people, and we're talking way beyond Counterstrike.
And for damaging relationships... a lot of the games mentioned are highly social--moreso than books. Say someone reads a lot? God forbid they spend most of their free time enjoying themselves in a way that doesn't involve other people. Some people like that--get over it.
I rarely game these days, but when I was a child it was my favorite passtime. I didn't really have anything else fun to do, so I would play games for hours every day. It could have damaged my relationships if my family viewed my behavior as destructive, but they didn't at all; they just took it easy. I had a few close friends, and they didn't seem to mind either. Everything was fine, and I have good relationships with all of them. Of course you're going to have bad relationships if those relationships are very needy and view your hobbies (aka "addictions") with jealousy. And seriously, what good is a hobby if you're not addicted to it?
Of course, perhaps games can be created that are backwards compatible with DX9 with merely a reduced featureset to refelect the capabilities of the libraries. The same software will turn around and take advantage of DX10 features.
I would find it nice, however, if game companies made a strategic move by developing games using cross platform libraries (such as SDL, but more advanced) so that they could develop and distribute games rapidly for multiple platforms (read: more linux games?).
Everyone loves great games. Not everyone has the latest computer or version of Windows. If I were a game developer, I might target linux platforms because I'd be comforted to know that my product relies on software that will enable it to enjoy a higher level of system compatibility across the board and better legacy support after it becomes old.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Ah, I see, you were just looking for a reason to do some 'GPL advocacy'.. Let me make some small suggestion: Advocacy like this is just annoying the hell out of people, and makes you look like a fanatic idiot.
Three guesses who is being annoying and acting like a fanatical idiot, and it's not him.
I'm tempted to look at this as a good thing, actually. As the summary mentioned, we've gotten a lot of content for NWN--more than usual for games of its kind. I think the game has had an excellent run, and there is enough of it to keep me satisfied.
Depending on how profitable a game is, companies cannot be expected to keep supporting it for more than a few years without creating a sequal or new engine.
I own NWN, and I absolutely love it. So why am I glad to see support drop? Because deep down inside, there is a hope that Atari will release the source code. It's happened to a lot of classic games in the past, and I hope that this one won't be any different.
They won't do that, however, until the game has long since lost its support and isn't selling much.
Imagine seeing NWN ported to many different platforms; maybe some day in the future it will make a good game for PDA's (the mouse driven interface is just perfect for those types of machines).
Linux distributions might even distribute binary packages of source builds one day along with free, community-made content.
Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but every dark cloud should have a silver lining.:)
When I first read the headline, I didn't realize that it was referring to games. Rather, I thought it meant that Apple was getting ready to gear up for hitting the personal computer market. As time passes, they move themselves further and further in that direction; the popularity of the iPod/iTunes, the cheap Mac mini, moving to a different architecture, development and release of OS X. Never has Apple been more attractive to the consumer than they are today.
And what do consumers love? Games. If Apple can roll out some high quality hits, people will love the game first, then notice the publisher. They'll learn to associate Apple with good things, and next thing you know, they'll be buying one.
Sure, this is looking at it optimistically; whatever games they are going to produce are really going to have to take off in a big way for this to have more than a marginal impact, but to me it seems like a small step in the right direction.
It was mentioned by another poster that mathematics and philosophy are close neighbors of computer science--that is true.
When I was young, I always enjoyed mathematics and excelled in it, but I never thought seriously about studying it in college. After I had learned to program, computer science became the most obvious choice to me, because I discovered that I could take one of my favorite academic subjects (math) and use it to further one of my favorite hobbies (computing).
From then on, I looked at computer science not as a study of computing, but a study in applied mathematics.
One of my favorite quotes of all time is, "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." It's not about the computer--it's about studying something that computers just happen to enable us to learn more about. We can build the machines, but there is a lot out there to discover that we aren't aware of yet.
Part of my undergrad studies have been to take a course in logic and critical thinking. This course was part of the philosophy department, but introduced students to a manner of thinking that would be useful to exercise when undertaking an endeavor such as programming.
Mathematics are interesting, and so is philosophy, but I will always like computer science best because I like to feel that I am actually using what I have learned to produce something concrete and functional. If I were born before computing, I'd probably have become an engineer.
the big switch will be if/when microsoft doesn't allow xbox (1's) on xbox live..
Okay, but why would this happen, really? I don't think it would be difficult at all for 360 service and legacy service to coexist happily together, so why pull the plug when you're more likely to make people angry than drive up sales?
Slashdot Mirror
Patents were originally a way to induce inventors to share their discoveries with the public. The requirement for a patent is that the method be detailed and published publically. In return for revealing this information the inventor received a short-term monopoly (14-20 years) on the production of their invention--long enough to recoup their investment costs and make some profit.
You're right on the money, and it's actually rather depressing how many Americans don't believe in this at all. I've talked to a lot of people I know locally about this, and a lot of them shockingly hold the opinion that patents should never expire and that "inventors" should have full control of everything down to the basic concept until the end of time. They don't believe patents are working for the public, but that they're for individual gain only.
...capitalism learns from open source!
MEPIS is because is non-standard. Warren repeatedly warns against upgrading packages from the standard Debian repositories. There is no upgrade path from one version of MEPIS to the next. There appears to be a very weak mechanism for collecting community know-how as to how to configure the system to "just work" on a particular platform.
It's things like this that convince me never to try any of the "small" oddball distros. After years of learning linux, I realized a lot of crucial things, such as "No matter where you go, it's still linux."
In the end, your best bet is always to go with projects that good tools, a large user base (or very strong support). Sometimes it's cool to hate major distributions; even I went through that "I hate Red Hat" stage. There's only so much GNU you can do, however, before you realize that all the good distro work boils down to Red Hat, Debian, and sometimes Slackware. Distros like Ubuntu and SuSE are like icing on the cake.
After messing around with distro after distro, I just end up running Fedora or Ubuntu. Some distros are better for special needs, but I'm not really a special needs kind of guy. :)
DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!
I agree with your point of view, but let's talk semantics for a moment. I'm sure none of us anti-DRM folks are against the technology of encryption. For our own personal use, that's some great power--who here doesn't use OpenSSH or kerberos? I have two examples off the top of my head, but the list goes on and on.
However, DRM specifically means "digital rights management," and its name explicitly links the technology to copyright law. Now, if you see where I'm going with this, already we're talking government enforcement. :-/
DRM is also a technology whose primary purpose is to aid software developers to limit the functionality of their clients' systems. They will say "I'll give you a piece of software that claims to allow you to enjoy your music, but it's rigged to stop you from listening to it when we don't think you should be able to."
You raise the point, "Well, I can just decrypt the thing and nobody is infringing on my personal freedoms." Ouch, well... even if technically you are not violating copyright law, for those of us in the United States of America, there is that little thing called the DMCA. The mere circumvention of DRM and other copyright enforcement methods has been made illegal, even if one is not actually violating copyright in doing so. Only in a few explicitly stated scenarios are you allowed to circumvent copyright protection.
Granted, I'm not the most educated person on these issues. I recommend picking up some books written by Lawrence Lessig, such as Free Culture.
Anyhow, my main response to you is this: DRM is not encryption itself, but is a larger mechanism that makes use of encryption at some point. Also, many governments do already have laws regarding how you may not use encryption. I don't like such laws myself, but you should be aware that those of us who are against DRM are asking for something a little different than outlawing the use of encryption.
- Widespread prosperity shields people from the ordinary trials of life that build character and bring people together.
I've met a lot of people, including people who live or have grown up outside of the United States. Enduring adversity does not appear to have any appreciable impact on their character. On the other hand, it has more to do with personal values and the way they were raised. I've noticed that in general people who have suffered more "trials of life" actually are more poorly adjusted and have more personal problems and flaws in their character.
- Peace deprives people of the bond of a common cause
Why don't you just wear a sign on your forehead that says "Bush 4 Life"? Peace deprives people of having to die, maybe, but it never hurt anyone's ability to bond socially.
- Feminization weakens us by favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism over resolve and steadfastness
Looking back at the very recent cold war, I'd say these "weak" values managed to save us from destroying civilization. Favoring consiliation and non-confrontationalism has nothing to do with feminizim or the female sex; you're assigning your own conservative cultural values to other people. Maybe you are taking this for granted, but it's a gross error. That aside, the worst people I have ever known were those with "resolve" and "steadfastness." Intelligent people naturally favor more clever solutions than simply using power to force their own "rightness."
Open up a dictionary right now and look up the word "conciliation." You spew all this crap about creating bonds and bringing people together, and then you outright denounce conciliation as a weak feminine value? Go figure.
- Government policies have undermined the importance of families on dozens of fronts
You're not specific enough--examples please.
- Right and wrong have given way to "political awareness" tests. Say the right things and you're golden.
You always have to please authority--that's life. Of course, you loath having to pay lip service to a culture that is not your own, and you have a strong urge to devalue you it and attack it, citing "political correctness" as some sort of liberal conspiracy, making yourself look like the brave little guy sticking it to the man. Spare me.
Quick disclaimer: I've never had a panic attack while awake. I've suffered several night terrors in my adolesance, which I consider to be like panic attacks while you're sleeping (this could be a flawed analogy, but hey--I'm not a professional. And it damn sure feels like how I make it sound.).
Lenghty disclaimer: I'm not a good student. I haven't been for several years. My grades faltered in high school but were perfectly decent in hindsight. In college my grades polarized; some classes were easy A's while others were dead failures. I don't like doing work that I don't want to do; if a subject interests me, I'll devour it. If it doesn't, I lack the discipline to study. I'm aware that I have a problem, but I haven't gotten over it yet.
Additional warning: This post is a lenghty reiteration of the "stop caring" post.
That being said, I've been accused of being an intelligent person. I excelled in my studies up until the point where I couldn't just ace everything without trying. In some ways, my gifts might have caused me to become lazy and complacent, something I regret. The classmates I knew who got the best grades were also noticeably less intelligent than a lot of people I knew who were getting less done.
Now, it seems to me that you are a good student. I like that. However, from my own limited perspective, this little tidbit may lend some insight into the reason why you've had a panic attack. You have discipline, you are a good worker, and naturally you are under a lot of stress.
Your work ethic demands that you get things done. If you are overwhelmed or feel like you can't do something, the panic attack is the ultimate consequence that you've been fighting to avoid by doing your studies. The fact that you have never had one before suggests to me that you've done a great job of keeping yourself in the groove. You can't stay in it all the time--it happens.
What most people on Slashdot are suggesting is that you take some measures to get yourself back into the groove. I guess healthy people do this, but is that really going to get to the heart of the problem? It sounds like you need an attitude change.
Never in my life have I had trouble taking exams. I just take them. Lots of people preoccupy themselves with things that fall outside the scope of the exam itself. They can't get out of their head how good they'll do on the exam. Some people count questions they don't know and try to figure out their grade before they even turn the damn thing in. Some people think about what will happen if they fail, or how great they'll feel when they're done, or mommy and daddy--hell, I have no idea. Whatever it is you're thinking about, STOP. The piece of paper in front of you is now your world. First you read it, then you write (or mark something). That's some basic I/O there. If you continue to feel anxiety while engaging in this behavior, you're not doing it correctly.
Yeah, we all want to be like linux--it's true. Don't get me wrong--linux is great, but now you've got to be DOS. You are DOS, and the exam is your dot ee ex ee. Comprende? Sorry, I'm tired.
Also, while you're at it, pick up the Bhagavad Gita. Read it; live by it.
Remember that worrying reduces your performance. So does worrying about worrying. And worrying about not worrying. Don't worry; just forget about it. Either you can do the exam, or you can't. If you can't, at least find ways to amuse yourself. I've written in a lot of jokes into exams I've done poorly on. You may have just failed, but at least you'll brighten your day and the day of whoever grades it. Do the world a favor!
Don't second guess yourself. Just do it. Think of Master Yoda in a Nike commercial.
Also, don't overburden yourself. You might be doing that too.
Peace.
This doesn't just happen because of MMORPGs. I've been playing games since I was a wee lad, and the shocking truth is that you spend the bulk of your time playing the best games you have, even if you've had them for a long time. For example, when I was a kid I liked Quest for Glory so much, I played it through many times despite having much newer games. You could argue that it prevented me from investing as much in those games (time, money, or otherwise).
That game was an RPG, but there were others. Later I got addicted to Final Fantasy, and then Counterstrike in my late high school years. When I played CS, I didn't buy or play any other shooters, and this lasted for quite a while.
I think it just shows that when you find a game that you really enjoy, you buy less overall because you're more satisfied with what you've got. I get the feeling that the industry learned this less a long time ago, what with all mediocre games that keep being released; they keep you coming back for more.
It's going to take more than mere nipples to titillate your average geek, mister; we have the internet.
I skimmed the summary the first time, and when I read "xXx", I thought to myself, "hi-def porn." I mean, that must be one incentive to go HD that will actually bring in customers. Fifth Element? Please.
...am intrigued.
I have interest in trying this new distro, as I'm curious to see what a company like SCO would turn out. Sure, they were bastards, but it could be good. Who knows?
No.
We all knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Many of us thought it had already been going on. Few of us are surprised.
I remember when I started running linux, I noticed that a lot of my geeky friends had tried and then gave up, going back to Windows. They all said something along the lines of "linux sucks, it doesn't work." These were people who had absolutely no idea how to run unix, let alone linux.
The results of the survey stand, but my interpretation differs from that of the Yankee group (and with a name like that, who wants to agree with them?). It's not so much scarcity of documention (it's there, trust me), but the scarcity of people who actually know how to manage linux servers. Windows sysadmins are a dimea dozen--they probably turn out thousands of them every year. The unices also have their fair share of support, but they're patently different from gnu/linux.
...well.. I think I speak for most of us when I say, "I'm going to continue using Ubuntu."
I love Debian, and I love Free software, but sometimes a guy just wants to run Java. You know what I'm saying? I think the distribution of Java would help linux immensely, and I'm all for seeing my beloved OS reach new levels of convenience and usability. Only way to oust Windows, you know...
You're correct that lots of people will produce stuff for free -- if they want to.
I'm glad that you've emphasized this point, because I agree with you whole heartedly. I'm of the opinion certain individuals with an inate drive to create music will probably make the best music. That means that by damaging the market for music, we will potentially lose a lot of music, but we'll lose the worst of it first and the best of it will remain. I understand if people disagree with me on this one.
Also, I'm still saying that people will continue to sell music or at least get paid to produce it. For example, harken back to the days of Mozart. I don't know what laws were applied to his works, but you can bet that they weren't burning the stuff of discs and selling it down at the local market. He created art because he was commissioned by the state. Maybe state-sponsorship is not the best way to go, but this is an example that our current system is not the only way to do things (during the renaissance, when art flourished, most artists lived off of wealth provided by patrons).
Record companies invest money first, then sell a product to recoup their investment.
Come on buddy, this is capitalism: investment failed--game over. It's not the government's job to legally ensure anyone profit in any market. Protection of "intellectual property", while not forbidden by the US constitution, is not gauranteed by it either.
Copyright is a bargain that the government makes on behalf of the public. It buys art and other intellectual property from artists by spending our freedom. With the help of copyright, publishing was once made sustainable. We've witnessed, however, that thanks to sites like allofmp3.com, that copyright protection is no longer a useful nor necessary foundation for the distribution of music.
Artists are not gods; they are not entitled to monetary rewards for their efforts. Neither are publishing companies. If they can manage to turn a profit, good for them--if not, ask if anyone cares. Lots of markets die, lots of industries go under. Cry me a river.
Times are changing, and artists will adapt. If music weren't so profitable, we'd probably see better music. Just as Free software has given us an example that self-motivated programmers can produce fantastic programs, self-motivated musicians can create amazing and wonderful music.
Also, we notice that many people who develop Free software actually make a decent living, and they're getting paid fairly. That's because there's more to making money than state-enforced manipulation of the distribution of information.
Lots of people scream at Free software and say it's not possible, that it isn't true, but that doesn't stop it from flourishing. Lots of people will scream at IP-free art. They can scream until they're blue in the face.
Harken back to days of yore, when we used to play games like Doom and Commander Keen. Actually, we played many more games than that, but most of us have forgotten what an adventure game is really like.
Games like Wolfenstein3D were pretty tricky. The game was still a lot of fun to play even without the secrets, but you notice that if you managed to find one, you either got some bonus points (doesn't really enhance the gameplay, but it gives clever/determined plays a hi score bonus they deserve) or you got some really wonderful powerup that made the game a lot easier. And let's face it: If you're having a really hard time on a certain level, and you keep dying or are being overly cautious while exporing, you are more and more likely to notice or stumble upon some secret. More skilled players can burn through the level without them and still enjoy the game just as much, but it gives players a welcome boost.
I'm not saying that gameplay should be focused on unlocking features and finding secrets or earning powerups, but all of those things have their place in a well-balanced game, so it would be hasty to condemn them outright.
In order to replace the fantasy excitement with real excitement, we provide various activities for the gaming clients, some of which are high adrenaline and provide the thrill of real life situations. Our coaches work with the clients to find new activities with which the client can fill the lost "time warp" hours.
When I read this, I thought to myself, "Okay, they don't like what these people are doing in their spare time, so they're trying to get them to do something else that they prefer."
I mean, let's face it; when people have free time, they choose what to do with it. Some people do drugs, some people gamble, some people "engage in romance", others play games, read books.
Let's replace games with books for a moment. Some people love to read books; they do it for several hours every day. Most people would in modern society would be highly offended if you tried to suggest that this voracious reader has a compulsive, addictive habit. If they stopped, they'd probably be dying to get back to their reading. That's "withdrawal" I guess. The time they read could be better spent...uh..I don't know.. playing sports or something. Oh yeah, that's SO much healthier. I've seen what sports have done to some people, and we're talking way beyond Counterstrike.
And for damaging relationships... a lot of the games mentioned are highly social--moreso than books. Say someone reads a lot? God forbid they spend most of their free time enjoying themselves in a way that doesn't involve other people. Some people like that--get over it.
I rarely game these days, but when I was a child it was my favorite passtime. I didn't really have anything else fun to do, so I would play games for hours every day. It could have damaged my relationships if my family viewed my behavior as destructive, but they didn't at all; they just took it easy. I had a few close friends, and they didn't seem to mind either. Everything was fine, and I have good relationships with all of them. Of course you're going to have bad relationships if those relationships are very needy and view your hobbies (aka "addictions") with jealousy. And seriously, what good is a hobby if you're not addicted to it?
Forcing people to upgrade? It sounds naughty.
Of course, perhaps games can be created that are backwards compatible with DX9 with merely a reduced featureset to refelect the capabilities of the libraries. The same software will turn around and take advantage of DX10 features.
I would find it nice, however, if game companies made a strategic move by developing games using cross platform libraries (such as SDL, but more advanced) so that they could develop and distribute games rapidly for multiple platforms (read: more linux games?).
Everyone loves great games. Not everyone has the latest computer or version of Windows. If I were a game developer, I might target linux platforms because I'd be comforted to know that my product relies on software that will enable it to enjoy a higher level of system compatibility across the board and better legacy support after it becomes old.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Ah, I see, you were just looking for a reason to do some 'GPL advocacy'.. Let me make some small suggestion: Advocacy like this is just annoying the hell out of people, and makes you look like a fanatic idiot.
Three guesses who is being annoying and acting like a fanatical idiot, and it's not him.
I'm tempted to look at this as a good thing, actually. As the summary mentioned, we've gotten a lot of content for NWN--more than usual for games of its kind. I think the game has had an excellent run, and there is enough of it to keep me satisfied.
Depending on how profitable a game is, companies cannot be expected to keep supporting it for more than a few years without creating a sequal or new engine.
I own NWN, and I absolutely love it. So why am I glad to see support drop? Because deep down inside, there is a hope that Atari will release the source code. It's happened to a lot of classic games in the past, and I hope that this one won't be any different.
They won't do that, however, until the game has long since lost its support and isn't selling much.
Imagine seeing NWN ported to many different platforms; maybe some day in the future it will make a good game for PDA's (the mouse driven interface is just perfect for those types of machines).
Linux distributions might even distribute binary packages of source builds one day along with free, community-made content.
Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but every dark cloud should have a silver lining. :)
When I first read the headline, I didn't realize that it was referring to games. Rather, I thought it meant that Apple was getting ready to gear up for hitting the personal computer market. As time passes, they move themselves further and further in that direction; the popularity of the iPod/iTunes, the cheap Mac mini, moving to a different architecture, development and release of OS X. Never has Apple been more attractive to the consumer than they are today.
And what do consumers love? Games. If Apple can roll out some high quality hits, people will love the game first, then notice the publisher. They'll learn to associate Apple with good things, and next thing you know, they'll be buying one.
Sure, this is looking at it optimistically; whatever games they are going to produce are really going to have to take off in a big way for this to have more than a marginal impact, but to me it seems like a small step in the right direction.
Are there any sites where minority opinions are actually allowed ?
Not when the task of moderation is assigned to the majority. :) Welcome to democracy.
It was mentioned by another poster that mathematics and philosophy are close neighbors of computer science--that is true.
When I was young, I always enjoyed mathematics and excelled in it, but I never thought seriously about studying it in college. After I had learned to program, computer science became the most obvious choice to me, because I discovered that I could take one of my favorite academic subjects (math) and use it to further one of my favorite hobbies (computing).
From then on, I looked at computer science not as a study of computing, but a study in applied mathematics.
One of my favorite quotes of all time is, "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." It's not about the computer--it's about studying something that computers just happen to enable us to learn more about. We can build the machines, but there is a lot out there to discover that we aren't aware of yet.
Part of my undergrad studies have been to take a course in logic and critical thinking. This course was part of the philosophy department, but introduced students to a manner of thinking that would be useful to exercise when undertaking an endeavor such as programming.
Mathematics are interesting, and so is philosophy, but I will always like computer science best because I like to feel that I am actually using what I have learned to produce something concrete and functional. If I were born before computing, I'd probably have become an engineer.
I spent $600 playing Magic instead
omg...
the big switch will be if/when microsoft doesn't allow xbox (1's) on xbox live..
Okay, but why would this happen, really? I don't think it would be difficult at all for 360 service and legacy service to coexist happily together, so why pull the plug when you're more likely to make people angry than drive up sales?