With Wikipedia, yeah I can go and look it up, but will it be the same as it was when the student looked at it? On most things, yeah, probably, but on some subjects.... Yes, it will be exactly the same as when the student looked at it. All you have to do is click the "history" tab at the top of the article, then select the version that was latest at the date the student referenced the article. That doesn't deal with what time the article was accessed vs when it was last edited, but it's still fairly good.
People forget that while "any Tom Dick or Harry can edit Wikipedia" they can't actually change anything, only add to it. Everything that ever was - and every version of it - is still there and accessible (apart from deleted articles, i think).
They're not designing this weapon to be used in warfare. I seem to recall that the geneva conventions do not apply to what a government does with it own population, which this seems to be designed for.
That's naive. The US's military isn't quite so strong that it can effortlessly crush any and all opposition whenever it chooses. Countries can and have resisted invasions by US forces by conventional means.
What you're effectively saying is that attacks against civilians are perfectly justified as long as they balance the karmic scale. That's the kind of attitude that leads to ethnic cleansing.
The fact is that attacks on civilians is a heinous crime worthy of condemnation and legal repercussions. ALL such crimes - no matter what; there is NO "eye for an eye". To accept otherwise is to embrace anarchy.
...if MySQL is Open Source, why didn't anyone go in and fix the problems themself? I realise misfeatures like this are difficult to correct without revising the whole design, but surely in ten years at least some of the crap could be fixed?
I always thought that if you prevent an object from reflecing light then it's the exact same effect as if the object were black. So it scatters light rather than send it towards the viewer; where's the part where you can see through it, rather than see a whatever-shaped black mass?
I've never really seen much of a conflict between the two concepts, myself, and don't really see why people get their undergarments in a tangle about it. The biblical account itself seems to support evolution (my interpretation only, blah blah blah, don't get all holier than thou on me. That said: onward...)
If you consider the notion that a "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours, and that's not too much of a stretch. After all, if you define a day to mean one planetary rotation that alone complicates matters (which planet? was Earth always spinning at the same speed?).
Anyway, in the text the order in which things were created is: light, earth, plants, sea creatures, land creatures, humans. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty much the same as the order the theory of evolution places things in.
Damn right! Civilization even has a "Civilopedia" documenting all game concepts (such as technological advances), including a brief historical account describing the technology.
I'm mildly ADD, and I've been taking Dexamphetamine for several years now. It was no secret that dex boosts the mental agility of anyone who takes it, rather than correcting the specific problems manifest as ADD. I was told that there were actually cases of kids with ADD selling part of their prescribed medication to other kids, who want it to help them study better.
New trials my arse. This is something I was told about years ago.
"goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o"... is too long a word. Try using a shorter word.
The thing about video games is that they have two main parallels with other forms of entertainment and, at the moment, they're not up to par with either. In particular games are like movies - a tale complete with characters, setting and story - and also like sports.
The sports aspect of gaming is gaining ground, although it hasn't really reached mainstream yet (outside of Korea, that is). Games offer competition - the a battle of skills, wits and reflexes to see who's the best which is pretty much exactly the appeal of sports. Competing - especially as part of a team - is fun. Supporting and following exceptional players or teams is fun. Watching skilled players do their thing is widely regarded as entertaining. Anyway, this area of gaming is gaining ground - there are professional leagues, many games have well-run competitive ladders and organised teams, and shoutcasting is relatively common. It's getting there, but not quite there yet.
The storytelling aspect of gaming is where it all falls apart horribly. While film is a medium for expression, the medium serving the purpose of conveying a tale, this is not the case with games.
For better or worse, the storyline serves the medium rather than the other way around. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when the storyline is always secondary it will suffer as a consequence. Usually, however, the situation isn't even as favourable as that - typically, a game's storyline is nothing more than an afterthought (if it has a story at all!). The vast majority of games that do feature some semblance of storyline do not succeed (or even attempt) to truly thrust the player into the role of the character, and the storyline is irrelevant and easily ignored.
There's another factor at play here, actually. There's still plenty of room for innovation in the gameplay itself, even for games that aren't storyline oriented. Unfortunately this is the area that's suffering the worst because it's far more dangerous to try to create something that deviates from the currently defined genres than it is to assemble something that's already well understood and proven by positive sales figures. It's not just a question of greed, either. I'm not talking about companies that churn out simple rehashes. Take Blizzard, for example. They're experts in the field of refining and polishing existing game concepts to produce successful Real Time Strategy games, but nothing in the gameplay is ever new. For a game company to create something that has not been done before is an incredible risk. If it's tried and true it is certain to sell. If it's experimental then - good game or not - it is a huge risk.
History has shown that it's not a risk that often pays off. Dune 2 wasn't the father of the Real Time Strategy genre but its firstborn; the honour goes to a game called Herzog Zwei that few people have heard of and fewer played. The rise of stealth-based games probably owe their existence to Looking Glass Studios' Theif series - completely different to anything anyone had played before (but actually good) as well as featuring a rich setting and plot - but despite a small, loyal following the company they went bankrupt. Theif 3 was only possible after the effects of the first two games eventually precipitated a recognisable genre and viable market. Sacrifice came onto the scene with a completely new take on strategy, an engaging storyline which the player's actions actually shape, graphics that were ahead of their time and still quite pretty by today's standards, and even humour. It was receieved with critical acclaim, then nobody bought it.
History has also shown that it's not the quality of the game that counts but rather how well it is marketed. And I mean "marketed", not "marketable". The Half-Life mod scene is an excellent case study, as there is a myriad of mods of varying quality and inventiveness yet this isn't what dictates which mods rise to the top and which languish in obscutity. Take Counterstrike, for example. Counterstrike's immense p
You own nothing more than the physical media the software is packaged in and a license to use it. You do NOT own the software.
This is not a subject of debate! That's fact! Go find out for yourself, because I'm tired of arguing mindlessly. Next we'll be arguing about whether computers use electricity!
You seem to be confusing "the way things should be" with "the way things are".
When you buy software, you are buying a license only; that is irrefutable fact. That's the status quo. That's how things are. We can argue until the cows come home about the way things should be, but until then we're stuck with how they actually are!
I did not buy the "license" to use this software until the software developer arbitrarily decides my time is up. I bought the fucking software. I should be able to use it however I want, for as long as I want, on any and however many computers of mine that will run it.
Sorry, but you didn't.
If you don't like the fact that you didn't buy the software but in fact bought a license to use it on the terms of the developer, that's fine. If you think that state of affairs is wrong, that's fine too. If you don't think the degree of freedom allowed by he developers to use their software is sufficient, you're entirely entitled to your opinion.
I'm so sick of software makers restricting my freedom to use software the way I want to use it when I've paid for it
That's the problem, right there. "restricting your freedom". No, my friend, you've got it backwards; whether you like it or not, you do NOT have the innate right to do what you like. You're being granted more freedom than you initially had - NOT having some of your existing rights denied.
If you don't like the terms on which additional freedom is granted, don't accept them. If the license doesn't grant you as much freedom as you think you deserve but you agree to the deal, you are still bound by it. If you decide later on that you don't like this, tough shit.
Don't sign contracts on terms you are not prepared to accept! It's as fucking simple as that! If you do not agree to the terms of the agreement, do not agree to it! Find an alternative that suits you.
You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it.
*sigh*
No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to have missed it: you are not buying the software - you are buying the media it is delivered on and a license to use it. It's unfortunate that customers don't realise this is the case but that's entirely beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
People forget that while "any Tom Dick or Harry can edit Wikipedia" they can't actually change anything, only add to it. Everything that ever was - and every version of it - is still there and accessible (apart from deleted articles, i think).
They're not designing this weapon to be used in warfare. I seem to recall that the geneva conventions do not apply to what a government does with it own population, which this seems to be designed for.
That's naive. The US's military isn't quite so strong that it can effortlessly crush any and all opposition whenever it chooses. Countries can and have resisted invasions by US forces by conventional means.
What you're effectively saying is that attacks against civilians are perfectly justified as long as they balance the karmic scale. That's the kind of attitude that leads to ethnic cleansing.
The fact is that attacks on civilians is a heinous crime worthy of condemnation and legal repercussions. ALL such crimes - no matter what; there is NO "eye for an eye". To accept otherwise is to embrace anarchy.
...if MySQL is Open Source, why didn't anyone go in and fix the problems themself? I realise misfeatures like this are difficult to correct without revising the whole design, but surely in ten years at least some of the crap could be fixed?
I always thought that if you prevent an object from reflecing light then it's the exact same effect as if the object were black. So it scatters light rather than send it towards the viewer; where's the part where you can see through it, rather than see a whatever-shaped black mass?
I've never really seen much of a conflict between the two concepts, myself, and don't really see why people get their undergarments in a tangle about it. The biblical account itself seems to support evolution (my interpretation only, blah blah blah, don't get all holier than thou on me. That said: onward...)
If you consider the notion that a "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours, and that's not too much of a stretch. After all, if you define a day to mean one planetary rotation that alone complicates matters (which planet? was Earth always spinning at the same speed?).
Anyway, in the text the order in which things were created is: light, earth, plants, sea creatures, land creatures, humans. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty much the same as the order the theory of evolution places things in.
From the article: "We want to show that physics is not about the stereotype of the mad scientist. Physicists are normal people doing normal things."
I always thought mad scientists were a damn sight cooler than normal people doing normal things...
Ask them. See what they think.
"Most Excellent". I like that. You can tell they were really trying when they thought that one up.
Damn right! Civilization even has a "Civilopedia" documenting all game concepts (such as technological advances), including a brief historical account describing the technology.
I'm mildly ADD, and I've been taking Dexamphetamine for several years now. It was no secret that dex boosts the mental agility of anyone who takes it, rather than correcting the specific problems manifest as ADD. I was told that there were actually cases of kids with ADD selling part of their prescribed medication to other kids, who want it to help them study better.
New trials my arse. This is something I was told about years ago.
"goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o"... is too long a word. Try using a shorter word.
But... but... autocomplete said it was ok!
I bet you're pissed off that the army won't let you drive their tanks, too.
Where did you get this crap that because you pay your taxes you automatically have a right to use whatever they're spent on?
...could have been anything from a software glitch to a major hardware malfunction."
Mah nishtanah ha'laylah ha'zeh mi'kol ha'leylot...?
The thing about video games is that they have two main parallels with other forms of entertainment and, at the moment, they're not up to par with either. In particular games are like movies - a tale complete with characters, setting and story - and also like sports.
The sports aspect of gaming is gaining ground, although it hasn't really reached mainstream yet (outside of Korea, that is). Games offer competition - the a battle of skills, wits and reflexes to see who's the best which is pretty much exactly the appeal of sports. Competing - especially as part of a team - is fun. Supporting and following exceptional players or teams is fun. Watching skilled players do their thing is widely regarded as entertaining. Anyway, this area of gaming is gaining ground - there are professional leagues, many games have well-run competitive ladders and organised teams, and shoutcasting is relatively common. It's getting there, but not quite there yet.
The storytelling aspect of gaming is where it all falls apart horribly. While film is a medium for expression, the medium serving the purpose of conveying a tale, this is not the case with games. For better or worse, the storyline serves the medium rather than the other way around. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when the storyline is always secondary it will suffer as a consequence. Usually, however, the situation isn't even as favourable as that - typically, a game's storyline is nothing more than an afterthought (if it has a story at all!). The vast majority of games that do feature some semblance of storyline do not succeed (or even attempt) to truly thrust the player into the role of the character, and the storyline is irrelevant and easily ignored.
There's another factor at play here, actually. There's still plenty of room for innovation in the gameplay itself, even for games that aren't storyline oriented. Unfortunately this is the area that's suffering the worst because it's far more dangerous to try to create something that deviates from the currently defined genres than it is to assemble something that's already well understood and proven by positive sales figures. It's not just a question of greed, either. I'm not talking about companies that churn out simple rehashes. Take Blizzard, for example. They're experts in the field of refining and polishing existing game concepts to produce successful Real Time Strategy games, but nothing in the gameplay is ever new. For a game company to create something that has not been done before is an incredible risk. If it's tried and true it is certain to sell. If it's experimental then - good game or not - it is a huge risk.
History has shown that it's not a risk that often pays off. Dune 2 wasn't the father of the Real Time Strategy genre but its firstborn; the honour goes to a game called Herzog Zwei that few people have heard of and fewer played. The rise of stealth-based games probably owe their existence to Looking Glass Studios' Theif series - completely different to anything anyone had played before (but actually good) as well as featuring a rich setting and plot - but despite a small, loyal following the company they went bankrupt. Theif 3 was only possible after the effects of the first two games eventually precipitated a recognisable genre and viable market. Sacrifice came onto the scene with a completely new take on strategy, an engaging storyline which the player's actions actually shape, graphics that were ahead of their time and still quite pretty by today's standards, and even humour. It was receieved with critical acclaim, then nobody bought it.
History has also shown that it's not the quality of the game that counts but rather how well it is marketed. And I mean "marketed", not "marketable". The Half-Life mod scene is an excellent case study, as there is a myriad of mods of varying quality and inventiveness yet this isn't what dictates which mods rise to the top and which languish in obscutity. Take Counterstrike, for example. Counterstrike's immense p
Exactly. Time for a revival of the traditional "Excuse me, could you stfu please?" method.
They need to make then spider-like, with bubbly personalities and armour-piercing chainguns.
I'm getting *really* sick of this...
You own nothing more than the physical media the software is packaged in and a license to use it. You do NOT own the software.
This is not a subject of debate! That's fact! Go find out for yourself, because I'm tired of arguing mindlessly. Next we'll be arguing about whether computers use electricity!
Read the EULAs, kthx.
You seem to be confusing "the way things should be" with "the way things are".
When you buy software, you are buying a license only; that is irrefutable fact. That's the status quo. That's how things are. We can argue until the cows come home about the way things should be, but until then we're stuck with how they actually are!
I did not buy the "license" to use this software until the software developer arbitrarily decides my time is up. I bought the fucking software. I should be able to use it however I want, for as long as I want, on any and however many computers of mine that will run it.
Sorry, but you didn't.
If you don't like the fact that you didn't buy the software but in fact bought a license to use it on the terms of the developer, that's fine. If you think that state of affairs is wrong, that's fine too. If you don't think the degree of freedom allowed by he developers to use their software is sufficient, you're entirely entitled to your opinion.
I'm so sick of software makers restricting my freedom to use software the way I want to use it when I've paid for it
That's the problem, right there. "restricting your freedom". No, my friend, you've got it backwards; whether you like it or not, you do NOT have the innate right to do what you like. You're being granted more freedom than you initially had - NOT having some of your existing rights denied.
If you don't like the terms on which additional freedom is granted, don't accept them. If the license doesn't grant you as much freedom as you think you deserve but you agree to the deal, you are still bound by it. If you decide later on that you don't like this, tough shit.
Don't sign contracts on terms you are not prepared to accept! It's as fucking simple as that! If you do not agree to the terms of the agreement, do not agree to it! Find an alternative that suits you.
You buy something and you have absolutely zero control on how it works, when it works and for how long. Hence, you don't really own it.
*sigh*
No, you don't. Here it is again, as you seem to have missed it: you are not buying the software - you are buying the media it is delivered on and a license to use it. It's unfortunate that customers don't realise this is the case but that's entirely beside the point.
Is your friend a (lazy?) law student, by any chance?
"You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license"
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Cut the sophistry and actually make a point. Nothing you've said is in any way insightful; merely demagogic.