Desktop retailers should stop being such pansies and just ship machines with linux pre-installed. A company with the resources of Dell could put together a tidy little package with a solid distro and an easy "system restore" disk in case the user fouls things up too bad.
Wouldn't it be great for those people that go "I'd really like to learn more about linux, but I can't figure out how to install it." Installing and configuring any kind of *nix system is a black art, and it's a bit harsh to have to subject newbies to it.
FreeDOS doesn't do many people much good these days, but at least with linux a person could check their e-mail and browse the web. Dell could offer a disclaimer saying they won't offer support if they don't want to deal with the hassle.
Linux is where it is today thanks to the GNU project and the idea of free software; without these things there wouldn't even be a linux kernel.
The GPL is often portrayed by many people as being "restrictive," but it is what it is in order to protect our freedoms ("we" being the free software movement and general users). While private interests detest the GPL's requirement of openness and cooperation, I refuse to believe that other, more "friendly" licenses (such as the BSD license) are better for the community (that means you).
Censorship and regulation? So because children shouldn't play some games, you want to censor them so no one can play them?
I never said that. In fact, I said quite the opposite; we as a society ought to cooperate in raising well-socialized children and, in some cases, engage in cencorship so they don't get hurt. However, it's important not to overstep our bounds (children need to be exposed to the world if they are expected to grow and be intelligent), and I'm not suggesting a solution here.
You can take that censorship you so love and stuff it. I don't need the government telling me what I should be playing.
Again, I didn't say that; please read my post. Unless you're 12 years old (which isn't very farfetched, knowing slashdot), I specifically made the point that YOU should be allowed to enjoy what games you want.
The article heralds gaming as being a priceless cultural artifact and a savior of national economies.
Honestly, I don't think that video games are really that important. I grew up playing them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketting.
The one very good point that I see the article raise is how games are treated very differently from films. In Australia, why aren't games allowed to have adult ratings when films are? I do agree that games that are overly violent or sexual in nature are bad particularly for young children (and adults, mildly), and that's why I agree with censorship and regulation.
I always thought that a good happy medium could be found in countries like Germany, where games that are for adults only are kept behind the counter in stores; they can't be displayed where children can see them, which is okay, and they can't be sold to minors at all, which I think is a good idea. At the end of the day, though, the games are still on the market, and they are still finding their way into the hands of the people that are most fit for playing them.
The socialist libertarian inside of me says that parents should always have the ultimate choice as to what their kids' game consumption habits are, but I think a society that takes some measures to protect children is a good one, as long as these measures don't stifle beneficial aspects of the industry.
When all is said and done, however, what's the big deal? I think that the train of thought that leads to discussions like this stem from that pervasive fear that games are corrupting our children. But, in the past, other mediums like televisions and books were doing the same.
Let's face it; we have to look out for our children, whether we're trying to "save" them from games, movies, comics, Ozzy Osbourne, Socrates, of liberalism (I say that facetiously). However, I think that what truly corrupts a human being takes place at home, and bad parents/societies should stop using scapegoats like video games, which fosters discussions like this.
I spent a couple months scripting scenes for the Hero6 project. I don't know if the project is still active anymore, but the building of the game was heavily centered on LUA scripts that made event calls to the game engine, which I think was written in either C or C++. It was an excellent approach, and LUA was perfect for the job; it made development very simple and easy.
When I saw this, I thought it was a satire, and I'm still sort of hoping that it is.
I see a lot of positive reviews on Slashdot, but to be perfectly honest, it seems like a terrible design to me. I don't think I'll consider buying a Revolution if that's it.
It is important that people are careful with copyrights, but as long as it is clear who owns them and under what terms they are usable, this should never be an issue.
Well, that's certainly everything I wanted to hear. I'm seeing your point a bit more clearly now, and while it's always debateable about how restrictive a license is or isn't as long as the licensing is such that you can legally use the software. It's a "right tool, right job" relationship.
Certainly, licensing should be a primary issue. Before one does anything with a program, there needs to be an answer to the questions, "Who does it belong to? What am I allowed to do with it?" At the very least, those questions ought to be answered "Mine," and "Whatever I want." Ideally, it should be answered, "Ours, and we want." If it doesn't belong to you and you can't do certain things with it, you can only get by ignoring this for so long until it becomes a major issue.
The GNU system exists because of free software; linux is what it is today because of free software. Licensing becomes an issue when the software doesn't belong to you and you don't have the freedom to do stuff with it.
Your stance seems to contradict your "use what works best!" mentality. When there is a licensing issue, the water may be calm at the moment, but in the future some IP owner could potentially destroy your project or deny your use. Do you really want that to happen? You won't think it's so usable when your project is taken away from you (and this can happen in more ways than one).
On a side note, I totally agree with you that FreeBSD is an easier target than linux. linux is more fragmented than FreeBSD (and don't get me wrong, this is a strength in many aspects, but it does make broad system changes more difficult).
I'd like to speak in your defense against the slightly-inflammatory responses you are getting.
If you stop and think about it, why do we have operating systems? Simply put, every machine is different, and the same code cannot power two unique devices.
Bootable games is a great idea, but the first problem you hit is this: "What is the program going to tell the hardware?" If the hardware is not the same on every device, it won't know what to say! If you try to tackle this program yourself, you'll have written an operating system before you know it. Your operating system will veritably do less hardware support and fewer features than, say, linux.:-)
Game consoles can handle bootable games because they are designed to make everyone's life easy; every unit is usually identical and almost always compatible. We PC users don't have the luxury.
It's not that you have a horrible idea. You have a good idea, but just not a realistic one.
Re:Does anybody buy this Bullshit?
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
You found it! Cute, isn't she?;)
Re:Does anybody buy this Bullshit?
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
My uncle used to develop communication protocols and firmware for phone systems; he was an engineer for Lucent when he retired (that was the company he went with after the breakup).
One of the things I learned from him was that when they were developing a method for data transmission, the test data they used was a nude photograph of a woman (I'm afraid I don't know the name, but the picture is instantly recognizeable). The picture is in good taste, but it's pornographic in some level (be it implicit or otherwise). If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please post a link.
While not the purpose of the design, it is in fact the first use of the technology. It's a tradition.
WHy does everyone keep saying nethack is complex? it is not. it is simple and boring...there I said it.
But how much have you actually played nethack? I think you simply missed a lot of the game's depth. This depth has nothing to do with graphics, but rather all the problems you encounter and the clever ways of going about solving them. In addition, the depth also draws from the fact that the game is chock full of many odds and ends that would take literally years of gameplay to discover (I've played it on and off for ages and always see something I've never seen before; can Diablo do that? At all?).
My friends would often laugh at me because I would start so many anecdotes with, "I was playing nethack..." I always had a story to tell, and each one was unique and interesting. I did this countless times; how many times have you told friends stories about Diablo? I don't mean game flukes or multiplayer tomfoolery, but actual scenarios that the game engine was designed to accommodate.
"One time, in diablo, I killed a monster. Then it dropped a shield, so I equiped it. Later, I killed the same monster and went to a new level, which had more monsters." Wowee. Meanwhile, nethack players are doing all the same things and much, much more.
Nethack has more years of development than Diablo (I or II, or both combined). The game is larger, and unquestionably more complex. I can only imagine that you think it's simple because of its graphics or interface; it in fact does more than you are aware of. Hell, it does more than I'm even aware of, and I've played many hours of it. It in fact does more than any RPG I've -ever- played, and I've all of the ones that you might think have more "depth", whatever that is to you.
Diablo draws it heritge from text adventures like the automobile draws it's heritage on the wheel.
We call this a "false analogy." Automobiles are more complex devices; they has more parts and more functions. Text adventures have more parts and functions than Diablo (nethack is a good example), and are therefore more complex.
I own Diablo. I played it the other day. It's EXCRUCIATINGLY boring. I played it for some hours when it was new, but now I can't play it for more than a few minutes. If you've played it for ten minutes, you've played nearly the entire game. I can still sit down and play a full game of nethack (until I die) and find out something new.
If Diablo were open source, it would be interesting to compare the size of the source code between it and Nethack. Forget about graphics code and network code, but focus on the core game engine. How many more lines of code do you suppose Nethack has merely devoted to game mechanics? Probably a staggering amount.
How much more single-player game data do you suppose Nethack has? Not graphics or sound data, but pure game data (ie items, monsters, quests, special scenarios, dialog, events, etc etc). Diablo would be seriously pwned. Dude. Seriously.
Don't believe me? I challange you to prove me wrong, and prove it computationally.
I agree. What does Linspire have to offer that's particularly special? The setup. The premade package is suitable for newbies.
When you're the builder, however, you have the advantage of configuring linux on the box so that the home users don't have to. What this gets you is the option of using just about any distro you want and doing the special add-ins and tweaks--that is to say, be you own Linspire.
Why do this? Simple. You can build a better system than Linspire did because you know *your* customers better than they do. You can dish out more of what they want and less of what they don't.
I didn't get to read the summary because of the slashdot effect, but I did read the entire transcript of the appearance.
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers.;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
I think it's strange to just assume that there would have been "mules." Horses and donkeys just happen to have genomes that come together that way. However, the vast majority of species contain DNA that, when combined, simply produce an embryo that fails to develop. Having studied biotechnology, it seems to me that the mule case is something of a rare occurence. However, I've done no formal research onto the topic of breeding between species, and I'm definitely not saying it's not possible that Neanderthals didn't have sterile children with the other thingies (aka us). I just feel that it's a little preemptive to start basing other theories off of that.
The point is that a lot of you on here with your anarchistic view of media and all your moaning about DRM is motivated not buy a love of art, but a love of getting something for nothing. I am not an musician myself, but I consider myself a huge fan music. I have yet to read any artist's opinion on slashdot (and I don't count all you wankers who think that your guitar wankery hobby puts you in the ranks of an actual musician) - Diversity of thought is not a strong suite of slashdot - But I think you'll find quite a few real full time artists that don't want their work stolen - and they want to be compensated for their work.
I am a musician. I play an instrument, and I take great enjoyment in my creations; I love to share them with others. I take pride in my hobby, and it's very disrespectful for you to call it "wankery." Yes, I'm an actual musician. Nobody pays me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a real musician. Look up the word in a dictionary, you insensitive clod.
I am deeply and personally motivated to make music. Furthermore, I don't believe in demanding money. Sure, I will accept money sometimes or even try to get it if I feel like I can, but that's not the point. I'd rather share with everyone and not take away anyone's freedom. Their freedom to play and enjoy my music if they like it--their freedom to share it with their friends and family--their freedom to change it if they think they can make it better.
Music is not proprietary; you don't own it. You do it because it makes you feel good and it makes others feel good. When you give something to them, they'll surely give back, but that doesn't necessarily have to come down to a bottom line. You can't measure humanity in dollars.
I'm sick and tired of money-sucking suits weaseling their way through our legal system and culture, making art into something I wish it weren't--profitable. I'm tired of capitalist entities invading our privacy and stamping on our freedom to manage our data and systems in a way that seems right to us. I'm tired of yuppies like you trying to say that you know what's best for me and my vocation.
I don't own your computer, the electricity you paid to run it, the data you have stored on it, or any of the equipment or services you use to modify or transmit that data. I DON'T own the CD I sold you or the data that's on it. I DON'T own any of the ideas, concepts, or expressions that may arise from the data.
I love the art more than you do. You didn't spend hours on an instrument every day for years just because you loved the beautiful sounds you could make. You don't have the dream of making music, or the fulfillment of making that dream a reality. You don't like music enough to do that. You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
I awaited that game with bated breath. Sierra Online had done a feature article about it while it was in development in their user magazine. I wasn't alone; quite a few people got excited, only to find out the game was later cancelled. If Sierra hadn't been so stupid and had actually gone ahead and made the game, they would have released it right before the huge LotR craze that hit the US. It could have been big bucks for Sierra and good times for LotR fans like myself.
Sometimes when I hit the road and feel a bit tired, I grab a cup of joe. At times like these I often wonder how many lives coffee has managed to save this way.
Also, we all know that coffee is a popular geek fuel. I think we'd be lacking in several technological advances and overall societary productivity if it weren't for this effervescent liquid of life. Et sepum e vitarium!
Good point! I realized that one reason why I have so few complaints is because I'm not a very ferocious gamer; I usually just play games that I've investigated thoroughly and confirmed are good, so naturally my experience leaves less to be desired. Of course, what appears to be common sense to me may very well be elusive to *some* designers. I just hope the situation isn't as bad as it's made to sound here.
Open firmware (Apple's implentations at least), has some fairly lamentable problems. I can't get this oldworld powermac to load anything, and I've spent a few good hours just reading documentation on open firmware commands and techniques. This particular machine, however, loads the OF onscreen, and I'm sure that all newworld Macs default to this as well. As far as I know, serial console is only the default on particularly old versions of OF, and it may be possible to change this setting with the MacOS "Systemdisk" utility (basically an OF updater).
Slashdot Mirror
Gone on any interesting dates lately? :D
Wouldn't it be great for those people that go "I'd really like to learn more about linux, but I can't figure out how to install it." Installing and configuring any kind of *nix system is a black art, and it's a bit harsh to have to subject newbies to it.
FreeDOS doesn't do many people much good these days, but at least with linux a person could check their e-mail and browse the web. Dell could offer a disclaimer saying they won't offer support if they don't want to deal with the hassle.
Linux is where it is today thanks to the GNU project and the idea of free software; without these things there wouldn't even be a linux kernel.
The GPL is often portrayed by many people as being "restrictive," but it is what it is in order to protect our freedoms ("we" being the free software movement and general users). While private interests detest the GPL's requirement of openness and cooperation, I refuse to believe that other, more "friendly" licenses (such as the BSD license) are better for the community (that means you).
Um...I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say "wtf?" Show me that data you have to support your statement.
Censorship and regulation? So because children shouldn't play some games, you want to censor them so no one can play them?
I never said that. In fact, I said quite the opposite; we as a society ought to cooperate in raising well-socialized children and, in some cases, engage in cencorship so they don't get hurt. However, it's important not to overstep our bounds (children need to be exposed to the world if they are expected to grow and be intelligent), and I'm not suggesting a solution here.
You can take that censorship you so love and stuff it. I don't need the government telling me what I should be playing.
Again, I didn't say that; please read my post. Unless you're 12 years old (which isn't very farfetched, knowing slashdot), I specifically made the point that YOU should be allowed to enjoy what games you want.
The article heralds gaming as being a priceless cultural artifact and a savior of national economies.
Honestly, I don't think that video games are really that important. I grew up playing them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketting.
The one very good point that I see the article raise is how games are treated very differently from films. In Australia, why aren't games allowed to have adult ratings when films are? I do agree that games that are overly violent or sexual in nature are bad particularly for young children (and adults, mildly), and that's why I agree with censorship and regulation.
I always thought that a good happy medium could be found in countries like Germany, where games that are for adults only are kept behind the counter in stores; they can't be displayed where children can see them, which is okay, and they can't be sold to minors at all, which I think is a good idea. At the end of the day, though, the games are still on the market, and they are still finding their way into the hands of the people that are most fit for playing them.
The socialist libertarian inside of me says that parents should always have the ultimate choice as to what their kids' game consumption habits are, but I think a society that takes some measures to protect children is a good one, as long as these measures don't stifle beneficial aspects of the industry.
When all is said and done, however, what's the big deal? I think that the train of thought that leads to discussions like this stem from that pervasive fear that games are corrupting our children. But, in the past, other mediums like televisions and books were doing the same.
Let's face it; we have to look out for our children, whether we're trying to "save" them from games, movies, comics, Ozzy Osbourne, Socrates, of liberalism (I say that facetiously). However, I think that what truly corrupts a human being takes place at home, and bad parents/societies should stop using scapegoats like video games, which fosters discussions like this.
I spent a couple months scripting scenes for the Hero6 project. I don't know if the project is still active anymore, but the building of the game was heavily centered on LUA scripts that made event calls to the game engine, which I think was written in either C or C++. It was an excellent approach, and LUA was perfect for the job; it made development very simple and easy.
When I saw this, I thought it was a satire, and I'm still sort of hoping that it is.
I see a lot of positive reviews on Slashdot, but to be perfectly honest, it seems like a terrible design to me. I don't think I'll consider buying a Revolution if that's it.
Well, that's certainly everything I wanted to hear. I'm seeing your point a bit more clearly now, and while it's always debateable about how restrictive a license is or isn't as long as the licensing is such that you can legally use the software. It's a "right tool, right job" relationship.
Certainly, licensing should be a primary issue. Before one does anything with a program, there needs to be an answer to the questions, "Who does it belong to? What am I allowed to do with it?" At the very least, those questions ought to be answered "Mine," and "Whatever I want." Ideally, it should be answered, "Ours, and we want." If it doesn't belong to you and you can't do certain things with it, you can only get by ignoring this for so long until it becomes a major issue.
The GNU system exists because of free software; linux is what it is today because of free software. Licensing becomes an issue when the software doesn't belong to you and you don't have the freedom to do stuff with it.
Your stance seems to contradict your "use what works best!" mentality. When there is a licensing issue, the water may be calm at the moment, but in the future some IP owner could potentially destroy your project or deny your use. Do you really want that to happen? You won't think it's so usable when your project is taken away from you (and this can happen in more ways than one).
On a side note, I totally agree with you that FreeBSD is an easier target than linux. linux is more fragmented than FreeBSD (and don't get me wrong, this is a strength in many aspects, but it does make broad system changes more difficult).
I'd like to speak in your defense against the slightly-inflammatory responses you are getting.
If you stop and think about it, why do we have operating systems? Simply put, every machine is different, and the same code cannot power two unique devices.
Bootable games is a great idea, but the first problem you hit is this: "What is the program going to tell the hardware?" If the hardware is not the same on every device, it won't know what to say! If you try to tackle this program yourself, you'll have written an operating system before you know it. Your operating system will veritably do less hardware support and fewer features than, say, linux. :-)
Game consoles can handle bootable games because they are designed to make everyone's life easy; every unit is usually identical and almost always compatible. We PC users don't have the luxury.
It's not that you have a horrible idea. You have a good idea, but just not a realistic one.
You found it! Cute, isn't she? ;)
One of the things I learned from him was that when they were developing a method for data transmission, the test data they used was a nude photograph of a woman (I'm afraid I don't know the name, but the picture is instantly recognizeable). The picture is in good taste, but it's pornographic in some level (be it implicit or otherwise). If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please post a link.
While not the purpose of the design, it is in fact the first use of the technology. It's a tradition.
But how much have you actually played nethack? I think you simply missed a lot of the game's depth. This depth has nothing to do with graphics, but rather all the problems you encounter and the clever ways of going about solving them. In addition, the depth also draws from the fact that the game is chock full of many odds and ends that would take literally years of gameplay to discover (I've played it on and off for ages and always see something I've never seen before; can Diablo do that? At all?).
My friends would often laugh at me because I would start so many anecdotes with, "I was playing nethack..." I always had a story to tell, and each one was unique and interesting. I did this countless times; how many times have you told friends stories about Diablo? I don't mean game flukes or multiplayer tomfoolery, but actual scenarios that the game engine was designed to accommodate.
"One time, in diablo, I killed a monster. Then it dropped a shield, so I equiped it. Later, I killed the same monster and went to a new level, which had more monsters." Wowee. Meanwhile, nethack players are doing all the same things and much, much more.
Nethack has more years of development than Diablo (I or II, or both combined). The game is larger, and unquestionably more complex. I can only imagine that you think it's simple because of its graphics or interface; it in fact does more than you are aware of. Hell, it does more than I'm even aware of, and I've played many hours of it. It in fact does more than any RPG I've -ever- played, and I've all of the ones that you might think have more "depth", whatever that is to you.
We call this a "false analogy." Automobiles are more complex devices; they has more parts and more functions. Text adventures have more parts and functions than Diablo (nethack is a good example), and are therefore more complex.
I own Diablo. I played it the other day. It's EXCRUCIATINGLY boring. I played it for some hours when it was new, but now I can't play it for more than a few minutes. If you've played it for ten minutes, you've played nearly the entire game. I can still sit down and play a full game of nethack (until I die) and find out something new.
If Diablo were open source, it would be interesting to compare the size of the source code between it and Nethack. Forget about graphics code and network code, but focus on the core game engine. How many more lines of code do you suppose Nethack has merely devoted to game mechanics? Probably a staggering amount.
How much more single-player game data do you suppose Nethack has? Not graphics or sound data, but pure game data (ie items, monsters, quests, special scenarios, dialog, events, etc etc). Diablo would be seriously pwned. Dude. Seriously.
Don't believe me? I challange you to prove me wrong, and prove it computationally.
When you're the builder, however, you have the advantage of configuring linux on the box so that the home users don't have to. What this gets you is the option of using just about any distro you want and doing the special add-ins and tweaks--that is to say, be you own Linspire.
Why do this? Simple. You can build a better system than Linspire did because you know *your* customers better than they do. You can dish out more of what they want and less of what they don't.
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
I think it's strange to just assume that there would have been "mules." Horses and donkeys just happen to have genomes that come together that way. However, the vast majority of species contain DNA that, when combined, simply produce an embryo that fails to develop. Having studied biotechnology, it seems to me that the mule case is something of a rare occurence. However, I've done no formal research onto the topic of breeding between species, and I'm definitely not saying it's not possible that Neanderthals didn't have sterile children with the other thingies (aka us). I just feel that it's a little preemptive to start basing other theories off of that.
Free as in freedom. Period.
I am a musician. I play an instrument, and I take great enjoyment in my creations; I love to share them with others. I take pride in my hobby, and it's very disrespectful for you to call it "wankery." Yes, I'm an actual musician. Nobody pays me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a real musician. Look up the word in a dictionary, you insensitive clod.
I am deeply and personally motivated to make music. Furthermore, I don't believe in demanding money. Sure, I will accept money sometimes or even try to get it if I feel like I can, but that's not the point. I'd rather share with everyone and not take away anyone's freedom. Their freedom to play and enjoy my music if they like it--their freedom to share it with their friends and family--their freedom to change it if they think they can make it better.
Music is not proprietary; you don't own it. You do it because it makes you feel good and it makes others feel good. When you give something to them, they'll surely give back, but that doesn't necessarily have to come down to a bottom line. You can't measure humanity in dollars.
I'm sick and tired of money-sucking suits weaseling their way through our legal system and culture, making art into something I wish it weren't--profitable. I'm tired of capitalist entities invading our privacy and stamping on our freedom to manage our data and systems in a way that seems right to us. I'm tired of yuppies like you trying to say that you know what's best for me and my vocation.
I don't own your computer, the electricity you paid to run it, the data you have stored on it, or any of the equipment or services you use to modify or transmit that data. I DON'T own the CD I sold you or the data that's on it. I DON'T own any of the ideas, concepts, or expressions that may arise from the data.
I love the art more than you do. You didn't spend hours on an instrument every day for years just because you loved the beautiful sounds you could make. You don't have the dream of making music, or the fulfillment of making that dream a reality. You don't like music enough to do that. You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
But how do you perform summation of an infinite set? :-/
I awaited that game with bated breath. Sierra Online had done a feature article about it while it was in development in their user magazine. I wasn't alone; quite a few people got excited, only to find out the game was later cancelled. If Sierra hadn't been so stupid and had actually gone ahead and made the game, they would have released it right before the huge LotR craze that hit the US. It could have been big bucks for Sierra and good times for LotR fans like myself.
Even when it's boiling?
Also, we all know that coffee is a popular geek fuel. I think we'd be lacking in several technological advances and overall societary productivity if it weren't for this effervescent liquid of life. Et sepum e vitarium!
Good point! I realized that one reason why I have so few complaints is because I'm not a very ferocious gamer; I usually just play games that I've investigated thoroughly and confirmed are good, so naturally my experience leaves less to be desired. Of course, what appears to be common sense to me may very well be elusive to *some* designers. I just hope the situation isn't as bad as it's made to sound here.
Open firmware (Apple's implentations at least), has some fairly lamentable problems. I can't get this oldworld powermac to load anything, and I've spent a few good hours just reading documentation on open firmware commands and techniques. This particular machine, however, loads the OF onscreen, and I'm sure that all newworld Macs default to this as well. As far as I know, serial console is only the default on particularly old versions of OF, and it may be possible to change this setting with the MacOS "Systemdisk" utility (basically an OF updater).