First party cookies are useful to both you and the places you frequent. Confusing them with 3rd party tracking cookies just means you'll pay more than other customers, take longer to find what you want, and miss out on deals.
Worse still, you'll grow a second head, become really unpopular with girls, and inevitable become sucked into a life of violent crime, culminating in an death row jail cell.
Seriously, your argument could just as easily work the other way. "This one bought some expensive stuff off us last week - add 30% to all the prices. He can afford it. This one buys from us every week - no point in wasting discounts on him - save it for the ones we haven't hooked yet".
It may be unreasonable, but I'd like to be charged the same price as everyone else, please.
I mean, I completly understand your love of privacy, and I believe that it is your right to keep that information to yourself if you want to.
Excellent. That is all I ask.
If they know their customers a little better, they can improve their business, just as any salesman who recognized a regular customer would.
To the benefit of whom? I feel no incentive to assist in this process.
But if you feel better always being a stranger then I dont see any problem with that.
A stranger to whom? To doubleclick.net? Yes please! And let us not forget the resale value of aggregated marketing data. I think I'd like to remain a stranger to a lot of people online.
But not everyone. I don't post as an AC for example. I think I can manage my own privacy thank you.
But ultimatly, most users would probably enjoy the massive improvments in customer expierience that could be achieved using this information.
"could" being the significant term. I have no confidence that this information would be utilised to improve my life. What they going to do? Give me targetted ads? Adverts that more closely match my interests? Only an adman thinks of that as a benefit.
It sounds like you're laying the foundation for a claim that cookie deletion deprives you and your family of income.
From there, you can try and make a case that visitors to a site have a moral, and possibly legal, obligation not to delete cookies.
(If that sounds far fetched, someone actually tried it on with me the last time this topic came up).
The fact that you restricted your use of cookies to ethical activities does not mean that others are similarly restrained. It's the
others that brought cookie use in disrepute, and it is for their benefit that so many people have taken to deleting cookies.
Perhaps back in the shaky post-divorce days of IBM and Microsoft, when the fight for the power desktop was between NT 3.1 and OS/2 2.0, there was some FUD. But that's ancient history by now.
I think the GPs point was that the "ancient and historical" FUD you refer to was so successful at the time as to deny OS2 any sort of market share. Which in turn made it uneconomic for IBM, which led to its being retired.
Sure the registry may be brittle, but is that any way of dealing with real issues on Linux? The only way to fix things to stop deflecting criticism and do something about it. It is this "Linux is superior" attitude that actually hurts the platform's development.
Really? I could have sworn we were talking about Michael Taylor of Microsoft and his "Windows is Superior" attitude. Sauce for the goose is after all sauce for the gander.
You wouldn't fault a few people just for offering a counter example or two, would you?
Linux should stop trying to imitate other platforms and actually try to come up with solutions to existing problems.
Like what?
For example, did we have to wait for Apple to come up with Launchd to solve the init script issues,
Oh, right. But if that's been solved, then it's not an existing problem, is it? And if we did try and solve it, you'd just say "ah-ha! imitating other platforms AGAIN!"
You were trying to set a little logic trap there, weren't you, you sly old dog you...
Incicdentally, what init script issues? They work just fine on my box.
do we really need to immitate Windows to make a better OS?
Who do you mean by "we" in this context? Linux is only the kernel remember. If Linux was to imitate windows, they'd probably have embedded Firefox into it by now or something.
If you mean the desktop environments like KDE and Gnome, I might almost agree with you. Me, I use FVWM which hasn't been accused of copying MS since Windows95 demonstrated several groundbreaking marketing concepts. However, KDE and Gnome are popular because people seem to like them. That seems all the justification windows ever needs, so I guess it's OK for them too.
Ypu want to broaden the net a little, we have Reiser4 working while WinFS is still vaporware, we have projects like apache which is uncontested as field leader, with everyone else playing catch up. Even with something as old as transparency, we still see redmond furiously "innovating from the rear" as they desperately try catch up with X.Org and Apple in time for longhorn.
But, not to get too far from the central point: Martin Taylor is talking tripe. That's the important point
I submit for your consideration a couple points that - while I haven't found convincing arguments for them, I have been considering:
A. Capitalism != Freedom. There is no dependency between Capitalism and (presonal) Freedom. They may co-exist (they are not mutually exlusive), but either can exist without the other.
B. Socialism and Freedom are not mutually exclusive.
I have been thinking along similar lines.
A lot of the trouble comes from the cold war era. it was convenient to bundle the concepts of Democracy, Captialism and Freedom into a single package and portray it as diametrically opposed to the Communism/Totalitarianism/Oppresion bundle as explified by soviet Russia. Many people still hold these equivalences as articles of faith.
However, as you suggest, the equivalence is false. Capitalism supposedly guarantees economic freedom: you are free to set up in business for yourself and compete with the big boys.
This is like the "freedom" enjoyed by a feudal serf to rebel against his overlord. The serf undoubtledly could, at any time he chose, begin the process of raising an army. However, his overlord already had one, trained and
equipped to boot. The rebels would be crushed as soon as they appeared to pose a threat. And while occasional rebellions did succeed, history records a far greater number that were bloodily surpressed.
The "freedom" to start your own business increasingly falls into the same category as the serf's "freedom" to rebel, with a number of big players dominating the market and locking out newcomers. When a startup does occasionally succeed, it is touted as evidence that a serf who works hard can make it into the ranks of the aristocracy. However, hard work is no guarantee of success, or even reward.
In both cases, the newcomer to the field is free in that he is capable of making the attempt. However this freedom must be viewed in the context of massvely powerful and aggresive vested interests who do not desire competition.
Similarly, B is usually seen in the context of russian totalitarianism, but there is no implicit lack of freedom. Granted, hardline communism will curtail your rights to amass a personal fortune via trade and commerce - but democracy and capitalism will do that, unless you are very lucky or already have a personal fortune to begin with. Socialism doesn't require xensorship, for example. Nor does it require atheism.
I think it's left over propaganda from the cold war, that has proved useful for certain corporate interests when they seek to expand their own privilege at the expense of individual freedoms. It's a very personal viewpoint, but I hope it's of interest.
Their job isn't to help Microsoft maintain a monopoly just because they already have one.
For this particular job, they also have vastly superior applications.
*sigh*
What applications? Which job?
Superior by what criteria?
Superior for what purpose?
Superior according to whom?
Vastly by what scale of measurement?
If you think you have a point, support it!
Does that mean we shouldn't use them?
It's rarely sound policy to make purchasing decisions based purely on adjectives and adverbs.
As the GP mentioned, for the purposes of teaching general computer skills, the choice of OS is of little difference. Skills gained on OpenOffice will be readily transferrable to Office. The desktop metaphor isn't so very different that it's going to cause problems either.
And this way the kids get exposed to some alternatives to MS and don't leave school thinking computing begins and ends at Redmond. That's a good reason in its own right.
His main arguments are that CC unnecessarily complicates copyright law...
I really don't see how applying a set of rules makes the rules themselves more complicated. Do navigation sidebars complicate HTML? Does "grep" complicate the C programming language?
In both cases, the rules - the language in this case - are unchanged by the application. Dvorak is trolling as usual.
...and that the name sounds dumb
If you want "dumb", you've got to go a long way to beat "John Dvorak" IMHO.
I wasn't so much saying that slashdot users advocate downloading illegal copies of Win XP. There is a large contingent however, who would take issue with it being called "stealing" or "piracy" which is the point I was trying to make.
You are of course correct. There are a large number of us that feel that "copyright infringement" should be used to refer to in the infringement of copyright, while reserving "theft" for the crime of depriving another of their property and "piracy" for matters involving the violent seizure of goods at sea.
If it helps, we also oppose decribing grafitti artists as "murderers", dislike the use of the term "rape" to mean "jaywalking" and we have been known to get tetchy when people refer to dropping litter as "armed robbery with violence". I guess we're just funny that way.
A lot of us, and not always the same ones, also feel that copyright law is badly in need of reform. We don't condone breaking the law, we just don't feel society is well served by extensive corporate monopolization of ideas, and we like to exercise our rights to say so in public. Apparently this makes us communists. I never did figure that one out.
While we're swapping shallow negative stereotypes, there are also a very vocal group of trolls and astroturfers who hold that we peons^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers should obey they law where it favours corporate interests, because hey! it's the law! and that where it doesn't favour the corporations we should do what the corps want because it's ethical. As far as the corporations are concerned,
breaking the law is good business unless proven in supreme court, and businesses have an ethical duty to their shareholders to be completely unethical to as many other people as possible. But it's capitalism, which makes it ok when they do it.
Apparently, that's not hypocrisy either. Odd that.
The diffrence is your spin will never be heard by the media.
Bit like inital advertising for firefox, then.
We're a grass roots phenomenon. Whord of mouth has great power for firefox adherents. And word-of-email, word-of-bulletin-board, word-of-chat-client...
When enough people understand the true picture, the media will magically get the picture. Again, a bit like the initial spread of firefox
NOT that I don't resolve to such trickery once in a while. [...] If your cubicle is in a public place, virtual desktops comes in handy. gaim open on desktop 1, quickly move to desktop2 with source code open when you hear footsteps... or for the windows fans, alt tab to a full screen program where you have "actual work" open...
And if you only do it once in a while, you may well get away with it. Just be aware that it gets pretty easy to spot if someone jumps for the same key combo every time you approach their desk.
Just because no one's said anything, it doesn't mean they don't realise what you're doing. Nor does it mean they will remain silent if you keep it up.
That said, I had one colleague who used to do the same thing on the command line. He'd keep a vi session in the background, editing this program he'd had checked out for about three months. In the forground, he'd mess around, waste time, or do the crossword in the paper. When the boss asked what he was up to, he'd just type "fg" and say, "well, I'm still working on program foo.ca here..."
Uh, Microsoft isn't likely to even keep half their existing xbox installed base with the 360. It is hard to imagine how things could be going worse for the 360.
Really? I confess I've not been following the Xbox saga very closely of late.
I'm surprised anyone can make informed judgements amidst all the hype and FUD. Do you mind if I ask your source?
I did a bit of checking before replying. Google yeilded a lot of hype sites and breathless gushing speculation - meaningless for the most part, I feel. The general consensus seems to be for a realease date aimed at Christmas. The Xbox site just says "Holiday 2005". I'm guessing they don't mean summer, since I expect even I'd notice the ad blitz for this one.
Then again, it's not a platform that much interests me, so I could be mistaken here.
I also did a quick trawl of the usual suspects: ars technica, tom's hardware, the register... None of them seemed unduly negative about the specs, and none of them reported any rumours of a fiasco.
Speaking of Ars, John Stokes had this to say about the 360:
If anyone had any doubts that Microsoft is serious about playing in the home entertainment and media space that Sony and Apple are currently eyeing, they should've been dispelled last night. Microsoft has the hardware, the gaming titles, the media formats, and the momentum to move into the living room and take up residence. They also have the jump on Sony, and with their requirement that all Xbox 360 games be done in 720p, they're poised to ride the swelling HDTV wave. In short, the Xbox 360 is a threat that Sony will take very seriously
So, I'm really, really curious about the source of your data, given that you speak with such authority.
In any case, it doesn't affect my argument at all: MS are hardly going to choose an architrchture for the XBox that locks them out of their own networking scheme
Aye. Moreover, Microsoft seem determined to position the XBox2 as the PC of the future. That way they get to control the platform in hardware and software, right?
So why would MS migrate this shining new hope of theirs to an arcitechture that was going to be locked out of the net by a standard they created?
That makes no sense at all.
If Loeb is right, there'd need to be a lot more to the story than is printed in TFA. I think I'm going to apply Occam's Razor here and assume he's just plain wrong
For example, I run a website with around 52,000 members. Each member has opted to join a mailing list, and they also receive alerts when they have a new message waiting for them on the website.
If we as Americans don't want the U.N. running the DNS system-- and I don't think we do, though I do have serious issues with the antidemocratic nature of the ICANN organization as it exists right now-- the thing to do would be remove the need for the U.N. to control it
Well, I Am Not An American, but I think one way or another we're looking at the impending fragmentation of the DNS system. If the political will to address these issues existed, ICANN would still be headed for independance, possibly after a spot of reform.
As it is, it seems inevitable that some non-us groups will be dissatified with the arrangement, and will investigate alternatives. It's unlikely however that the UN will find much greater favour than the US. Bizarre a it seems in the context the current discussion, there are still a lot of nations where the UN and its subordinate organizations are distrusted as having an unfair bias in favour of the US.
I doubt we'll see the UN govern ICANN. We may see the UN set up an alternative body; more likely I think is a number of alternatives. Since the fragmentation of the net serves no one's interestes, we can then expect some interesting bridging technologies to evolve.
Eventually, with a bit of luck, we may see a better DNS system arise from the debris; something decentralised and resistant to mischief. I don't think the current one can endure overt politicisation.
I disagree with the death penalty in any form, but if we're going to punish people for these kinds of things, let's also look at whether companies knowingly release horribly insecure software.
First of all, you did get that my post was sarcastic, right? Ok, just checking...
In which case, the approach would probably be to set standards for OS security to which vendors were obliged conform. Then by licencing the OS, the vendor assumes responsibility for compliance.
Of course, that would be open to abuse. Look to MS to lobby for extensive, high ceremony, expensive mandatory certification, to argue that free software should be likewise certified, and that all software, not just operating systems should be certified. And expect them to push for frequent review of the regulations, requiring regular re-certification of software.
That'd work better than patents to chill emerging competition.
The problem does not occur when people start suing others for completely ridiculous reasons.
No , the problem occurs when they start to win cases!
Alas, no.
A large company can bankrup a smaller one with a protracted lawsuit. The case never gets so far as to be decided becase the smaller company runs out of money for legal fees.
I don't think crippleware does justice to what you got when downloading them, but strictly spoken, neither were proper shareware.
As you like. The "try-then-buy" aspect is the bit i'm interested in.
Hmm.. What content did ID create after Doom that qualifies as 'good' by any standard?
After Doom II? Sod all I can think of. I'm just saying that the content on the early dooms was excellent IMHO obviously. RtCW had its moments, but I'd have been happier if they'd stayed with the wolfestein theme and not tried to sell Counterstrike to a bunch of guys who were looking for more twisted nazi gothic superscience. But that's a different issue, really.
Well, same was true for Quake III Arena imho. While it was a superb engine for FPS games, the initial game was crap imho.
I am glad I payed for it anyway, the return on investment has been very good for me so to say (think RTCW, Enemy Territory etc)
I don't do multiplayer on the whole, so QIIIA had zero appeal.
I'm glad the engine sold, but somehow I don't think I want to encourage this trend. If I happily buy game X saying "the gameplay is crap - but good things will come of it", does that not encourage game companies in the belief that gameplay is unimportant?
I demand good gameplay and some sort of plot from my shooters. I dont get them, I't's going to put me off buying from that company.
Death for virus writers. Whoo. Why'd no one think of this sooner?
And we don't have to stop there. Let's do the spammers too. They are the ones who profit. And the DDOS cartels; death to them too.
Lazy sysadmins who fail to patch their servers promptly: they're costing industry millions. They gotta die.
Who else? Howabout billionaires who aggressivley market insecure operating systems? It's all their fault, after all. Sayonara, Billy-Boy,
And as long as we're motivated by financial loss, let's have people who download illegal MP3 files. Get 'em up against the wall! Offering movies over BitTorrent? Off with yer head! Run Warez? Bye-bye! Say "Hi" to Bill for me...
What else can we do? Employee sickness costs billions to industry. Let's have the death penalty for catching a cold! It doesn't just serve as an incentive - it improves the gene pool as well!
How about criticsing the government? I'll bet millions are spent on spinning the facts every time some ungrateful fool goes and blows the whistle. Let's string 'em up today!
Think you're clever writing open source software do you? you're costing illegal software monopolies money with every line code. Don't think you've escaped our notice.
Oh, and let's include mindless trolls who write idiot stories for major newspapers, and the brain damaged editors who dignify such claptrap by printing it. Let's off them as well. I can't think of a good reason why, but in amidst all this bloodshed, who the hell's going to notice?
The original versions of Doom 1 and 2 were called shareware, but they were not proper shareware. A possitive name for them would be 'demo', a less positive name would be 'crippleware'. ID used a shareware like method by lack of a proper and widespread distribution channel, but for the rest very little changed.
As I remeber, the downloads had the full game engine and the wads for one third of the levels. The only criplling I remember (feel free to refresh my memory) was that some of the secrets were omitted.
If you wanted, you could have downloaded a demo version of Doom 3, and looked at the game before buying it, just like I did.
What did make a difference of course is that due to the hype, more people got the full version of Doom 3 without ever seeing the demo.
Initially though, wasn't the shareware+upgrade the ony way to get Doom. I know the sequel appeared in the shops, but I dont remember doom appearing there until the ultimate doom re-releases started. I doubt many peole would have bought doom3 if they'd had to try it first.
As I mentioned in another post, ID is not good at creating content, and ever since total conversions of Doom 2 started appearing, it became clear that they needed others to make good games based on their engines. They fully realized this when they made Quake 3, but failed to remember while making Doom 3 obviously.
Well, they were good at content, but most of the content creators seem to have left to do their own thing. Sandy Petersen and American McGee spring to mind. Doom and Doom II had some beautifl levels. But as you say, doom 3 is abysmal. And not in a good way.
It's going to be a while before I spend money on another Id game. If I'm going to underwite the cost of demoing their engines, I at least expect a playable game for my trouble
Q1 used a limited palette as a speed hack. you have to put quake 1 in its proper place in time... it was the first true 3D game. so of course the sprite 2.5D games looked better because the art is entirely hand-created and not limited by choice of color.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to say it was a bad game and it surely had legions of fans. I just found it interesting that for the two Id games I really disliked, poor visibility was a major factor.
id Software has never been known for great single player games. There are two things the original Doom was known for: being the first truely immersive "3D" game and one of the best multiplayer games ever created.
That's not how I remember it. Doom II was the great single player game. It's been eclipsed since, sure. But it's still on my machine, and if I fancy a spot of mindless violence it's doom or doom2 I fire up.
The interesting thing, I think, is that Doom I & II were released shareware. Doom had to be a seriously good game or no one would ever have bought the full version. How many full versions of Doom3 would have been sold, I wonder?
And what is it with Caramack and poor visibility levels anyway? My main impression of Quake I; brown ceilings and walls set off by tasteful brown highlights, and featuring hidden brown monsters throwing brown bombs at you. Didn't look at another Id game after that until RtCW
After Doom 3, it'll probably be a while until I consider another one as well...
Done that.
The best test of your belief in free speech is when someone says something you don't like.
I don't think anyone is denying his right to free speech. We're just pointing out that he makes himself sound like a right prick sometimes. I guess we're entitled too.
The best test of free software is when someone does something with it that you don't like (e.g. making money).
More power to him, I say. It's just a shame about the attitude, really.
This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time.
I don't mind him making money. It's the sneering at the "amateurs" (not his "hari krishnas" please note) that rankles. Amateurs created the infrastructure that allowed him to launch his business. He sounds like a man who has got what he wanted from the FLOSS world, and who now wants it to go away before it helps anyone else.
I don't begrudge Fleury his money, but I don't particularly feel I deserve his contempt either. I'm unlikely to join his fan club any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse still, you'll grow a second head, become really unpopular with girls, and inevitable become sucked into a life of violent crime, culminating in an death row jail cell.
Seriously, your argument could just as easily work the other way. "This one bought some expensive stuff off us last week - add 30% to all the prices. He can afford it. This one buys from us every week - no point in wasting discounts on him - save it for the ones we haven't hooked yet".
It may be unreasonable, but I'd like to be charged the same price as everyone else, please.
If they know their customers a little better, they can improve their business, just as any salesman who recognized a regular customer would.
To the benefit of whom? I feel no incentive to assist in this process.
But if you feel better always being a stranger then I dont see any problem with that. A stranger to whom? To doubleclick.net? Yes please! And let us not forget the resale value of aggregated marketing data. I think I'd like to remain a stranger to a lot of people online.
But not everyone. I don't post as an AC for example. I think I can manage my own privacy thank you.
But ultimatly, most users would probably enjoy the massive improvments in customer expierience that could be achieved using this information.
"could" being the significant term. I have no confidence that this information would be utilised to improve my life. What they going to do? Give me targetted ads? Adverts that more closely match my interests? Only an adman thinks of that as a benefit.
And I've yet to hear mention of any other
If I said "no", what would be your next point?
It sounds like you're laying the foundation for a claim that cookie deletion deprives you and your family of income.
From there, you can try and make a case that visitors to a site have a moral, and possibly legal, obligation not to delete cookies. (If that sounds far fetched, someone actually tried it on with me the last time this topic came up).
The fact that you restricted your use of cookies to ethical activities does not mean that others are similarly restrained. It's the others that brought cookie use in disrepute, and it is for their benefit that so many people have taken to deleting cookies.
I think the GPs point was that the "ancient and historical" FUD you refer to was so successful at the time as to deny OS2 any sort of market share. Which in turn made it uneconomic for IBM, which led to its being retired.
Really? I could have sworn we were talking about Michael Taylor of Microsoft and his "Windows is Superior" attitude. Sauce for the goose is after all sauce for the gander. You wouldn't fault a few people just for offering a counter example or two, would you?
Linux should stop trying to imitate other platforms and actually try to come up with solutions to existing problems.
Like what?
For example, did we have to wait for Apple to come up with Launchd to solve the init script issues,
Oh, right. But if that's been solved, then it's not an existing problem, is it? And if we did try and solve it, you'd just say "ah-ha! imitating other platforms AGAIN!" You were trying to set a little logic trap there, weren't you, you sly old dog you...
Incicdentally, what init script issues? They work just fine on my box.
do we really need to immitate Windows to make a better OS?
Who do you mean by "we" in this context? Linux is only the kernel remember. If Linux was to imitate windows, they'd probably have embedded Firefox into it by now or something.
If you mean the desktop environments like KDE and Gnome, I might almost agree with you. Me, I use FVWM which hasn't been accused of copying MS since Windows95 demonstrated several groundbreaking marketing concepts. However, KDE and Gnome are popular because people seem to like them. That seems all the justification windows ever needs, so I guess it's OK for them too.
Ypu want to broaden the net a little, we have Reiser4 working while WinFS is still vaporware, we have projects like apache which is uncontested as field leader, with everyone else playing catch up. Even with something as old as transparency, we still see redmond furiously "innovating from the rear" as they desperately try catch up with X.Org and Apple in time for longhorn.
But, not to get too far from the central point: Martin Taylor is talking tripe. That's the important point
By all means :)
A. Capitalism != Freedom. There is no dependency between Capitalism and (presonal) Freedom. They may co-exist (they are not mutually exlusive), but either can exist without the other.
B. Socialism and Freedom are not mutually exclusive.
I have been thinking along similar lines.
A lot of the trouble comes from the cold war era. it was convenient to bundle the concepts of Democracy, Captialism and Freedom into a single package and portray it as diametrically opposed to the Communism/Totalitarianism/Oppresion bundle as explified by soviet Russia. Many people still hold these equivalences as articles of faith.
However, as you suggest, the equivalence is false. Capitalism supposedly guarantees economic freedom: you are free to set up in business for yourself and compete with the big boys.
This is like the "freedom" enjoyed by a feudal serf to rebel against his overlord. The serf undoubtledly could, at any time he chose, begin the process of raising an army. However, his overlord already had one, trained and equipped to boot. The rebels would be crushed as soon as they appeared to pose a threat. And while occasional rebellions did succeed, history records a far greater number that were bloodily surpressed.
The "freedom" to start your own business increasingly falls into the same category as the serf's "freedom" to rebel, with a number of big players dominating the market and locking out newcomers. When a startup does occasionally succeed, it is touted as evidence that a serf who works hard can make it into the ranks of the aristocracy. However, hard work is no guarantee of success, or even reward.
In both cases, the newcomer to the field is free in that he is capable of making the attempt. However this freedom must be viewed in the context of massvely powerful and aggresive vested interests who do not desire competition.
Similarly, B is usually seen in the context of russian totalitarianism, but there is no implicit lack of freedom. Granted, hardline communism will curtail your rights to amass a personal fortune via trade and commerce - but democracy and capitalism will do that, unless you are very lucky or already have a personal fortune to begin with. Socialism doesn't require xensorship, for example. Nor does it require atheism.
I think it's left over propaganda from the cold war, that has proved useful for certain corporate interests when they seek to expand their own privilege at the expense of individual freedoms. It's a very personal viewpoint, but I hope it's of interest.
What applications? Which job?
Superior by what criteria?
Superior for what purpose?
Superior according to whom?
Vastly by what scale of measurement?
If you think you have a point, support it!
It's rarely sound policy to make purchasing decisions based purely on adjectives and adverbs.As the GP mentioned, for the purposes of teaching general computer skills, the choice of OS is of little difference. Skills gained on OpenOffice will be readily transferrable to Office. The desktop metaphor isn't so very different that it's going to cause problems either.
And this way the kids get exposed to some alternatives to MS and don't leave school thinking computing begins and ends at Redmond. That's a good reason in its own right.
I really don't see how applying a set of rules makes the rules themselves more complicated. Do navigation sidebars complicate HTML? Does "grep" complicate the C programming language?
In both cases, the rules - the language in this case - are unchanged by the application. Dvorak is trolling as usual.
If you want "dumb", you've got to go a long way to beat "John Dvorak" IMHO.
You are of course correct. There are a large number of us that feel that "copyright infringement" should be used to refer to in the infringement of copyright, while reserving "theft" for the crime of depriving another of their property and "piracy" for matters involving the violent seizure of goods at sea.
If it helps, we also oppose decribing grafitti artists as "murderers", dislike the use of the term "rape" to mean "jaywalking" and we have been known to get tetchy when people refer to dropping litter as "armed robbery with violence". I guess we're just funny that way.
A lot of us, and not always the same ones, also feel that copyright law is badly in need of reform. We don't condone breaking the law, we just don't feel society is well served by extensive corporate monopolization of ideas, and we like to exercise our rights to say so in public. Apparently this makes us communists. I never did figure that one out.
While we're swapping shallow negative stereotypes, there are also a very vocal group of trolls and astroturfers who hold that we peons^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers should obey they law where it favours corporate interests, because hey! it's the law! and that where it doesn't favour the corporations we should do what the corps want because it's ethical. As far as the corporations are concerned, breaking the law is good business unless proven in supreme court, and businesses have an ethical duty to their shareholders to be completely unethical to as many other people as possible. But it's capitalism, which makes it ok when they do it.
Apparently, that's not hypocrisy either. Odd that.
Anyway, welcome to slashdot :)
Bit like inital advertising for firefox, then.
We're a grass roots phenomenon. Whord of mouth has great power for firefox adherents. And word-of-email, word-of-bulletin-board, word-of-chat-client...
When enough people understand the true picture, the media will magically get the picture. Again, a bit like the initial spread of firefox
And if you only do it once in a while, you may well get away with it. Just be aware that it gets pretty easy to spot if someone jumps for the same key combo every time you approach their desk.
Just because no one's said anything, it doesn't mean they don't realise what you're doing. Nor does it mean they will remain silent if you keep it up.
That said, I had one colleague who used to do the same thing on the command line. He'd keep a vi session in the background, editing this program he'd had checked out for about three months. In the forground, he'd mess around, waste time, or do the crossword in the paper. When the boss asked what he was up to, he'd just type "fg" and say, "well, I'm still working on program foo.ca here..."
How he got away with that one, I will never know.
Really? I confess I've not been following the Xbox saga very closely of late. I'm surprised anyone can make informed judgements amidst all the hype and FUD. Do you mind if I ask your source?
I did a bit of checking before replying. Google yeilded a lot of hype sites and breathless gushing speculation - meaningless for the most part, I feel. The general consensus seems to be for a realease date aimed at Christmas. The Xbox site just says "Holiday 2005". I'm guessing they don't mean summer, since I expect even I'd notice the ad blitz for this one.
Then again, it's not a platform that much interests me, so I could be mistaken here.
I also did a quick trawl of the usual suspects: ars technica, tom's hardware, the register... None of them seemed unduly negative about the specs, and none of them reported any rumours of a fiasco.
Speaking of Ars, John Stokes had this to say about the 360:
So, I'm really, really curious about the source of your data, given that you speak with such authority.
In any case, it doesn't affect my argument at all: MS are hardly going to choose an architrchture for the XBox that locks them out of their own networking scheme
So why would MS migrate this shining new hope of theirs to an arcitechture that was going to be locked out of the net by a standard they created? That makes no sense at all.
If Loeb is right, there'd need to be a lot more to the story than is printed in TFA. I think I'm going to apply Occam's Razor here and assume he's just plain wrong
Hmm.... Anyone got 52,000 spare gmail invites?
If we as Americans don't want the U.N. running the DNS system-- and I don't think we do, though I do have serious issues with the antidemocratic nature of the ICANN organization as it exists right now-- the thing to do would be remove the need for the U.N. to control it
Well, I Am Not An American, but I think one way or another we're looking at the impending fragmentation of the DNS system. If the political will to address these issues existed, ICANN would still be headed for independance, possibly after a spot of reform.
As it is, it seems inevitable that some non-us groups will be dissatified with the arrangement, and will investigate alternatives. It's unlikely however that the UN will find much greater favour than the US. Bizarre a it seems in the context the current discussion, there are still a lot of nations where the UN and its subordinate organizations are distrusted as having an unfair bias in favour of the US.
I doubt we'll see the UN govern ICANN. We may see the UN set up an alternative body; more likely I think is a number of alternatives. Since the fragmentation of the net serves no one's interestes, we can then expect some interesting bridging technologies to evolve.
Eventually, with a bit of luck, we may see a better DNS system arise from the debris; something decentralised and resistant to mischief. I don't think the current one can endure overt politicisation.
Are we to assume that you have done so? Both your assertion and that of the GP seem overbroad to me.
Some specifics would be helpful.
First of all, you did get that my post was sarcastic, right? Ok, just checking...
In which case, the approach would probably be to set standards for OS security to which vendors were obliged conform. Then by licencing the OS, the vendor assumes responsibility for compliance.
Of course, that would be open to abuse. Look to MS to lobby for extensive, high ceremony, expensive mandatory certification, to argue that free software should be likewise certified, and that all software, not just operating systems should be certified. And expect them to push for frequent review of the regulations, requiring regular re-certification of software.
That'd work better than patents to chill emerging competition.
No , the problem occurs when they start to win cases!
Alas, no.
A large company can bankrup a smaller one with a protracted lawsuit. The case never gets so far as to be decided becase the smaller company runs out of money for legal fees.
Often the threat is enough.
As you like. The "try-then-buy" aspect is the bit i'm interested in.
Hmm.. What content did ID create after Doom that qualifies as 'good' by any standard?
After Doom II? Sod all I can think of. I'm just saying that the content on the early dooms was excellent IMHO obviously. RtCW had its moments, but I'd have been happier if they'd stayed with the wolfestein theme and not tried to sell Counterstrike to a bunch of guys who were looking for more twisted nazi gothic superscience. But that's a different issue, really.
Well, same was true for Quake III Arena imho. While it was a superb engine for FPS games, the initial game was crap imho.
I am glad I payed for it anyway, the return on investment has been very good for me so to say (think RTCW, Enemy Territory etc)
I don't do multiplayer on the whole, so QIIIA had zero appeal.
I'm glad the engine sold, but somehow I don't think I want to encourage this trend. If I happily buy game X saying "the gameplay is crap - but good things will come of it", does that not encourage game companies in the belief that gameplay is unimportant?
I demand good gameplay and some sort of plot from my shooters. I dont get them, I't's going to put me off buying from that company.
And we don't have to stop there. Let's do the spammers too. They are the ones who profit. And the DDOS cartels; death to them too.
Lazy sysadmins who fail to patch their servers promptly: they're costing industry millions. They gotta die.
Who else? Howabout billionaires who aggressivley market insecure operating systems? It's all their fault, after all. Sayonara, Billy-Boy,
And as long as we're motivated by financial loss, let's have people who download illegal MP3 files. Get 'em up against the wall! Offering movies over BitTorrent? Off with yer head! Run Warez? Bye-bye! Say "Hi" to Bill for me...
What else can we do? Employee sickness costs billions to industry. Let's have the death penalty for catching a cold! It doesn't just serve as an incentive - it improves the gene pool as well!
How about criticsing the government? I'll bet millions are spent on spinning the facts every time some ungrateful fool goes and blows the whistle. Let's string 'em up today!
Think you're clever writing open source software do you? you're costing illegal software monopolies money with every line code. Don't think you've escaped our notice.
Oh, and let's include mindless trolls who write idiot stories for major newspapers, and the brain damaged editors who dignify such claptrap by printing it. Let's off them as well. I can't think of a good reason why, but in amidst all this bloodshed, who the hell's going to notice?
+++ SARCASM OFF
As I remeber, the downloads had the full game engine and the wads for one third of the levels. The only criplling I remember (feel free to refresh my memory) was that some of the secrets were omitted.
If you wanted, you could have downloaded a demo version of Doom 3, and looked at the game before buying it, just like I did.
What did make a difference of course is that due to the hype, more people got the full version of Doom 3 without ever seeing the demo.
Initially though, wasn't the shareware+upgrade the ony way to get Doom. I know the sequel appeared in the shops, but I dont remember doom appearing there until the ultimate doom re-releases started. I doubt many peole would have bought doom3 if they'd had to try it first.
As I mentioned in another post, ID is not good at creating content, and ever since total conversions of Doom 2 started appearing, it became clear that they needed others to make good games based on their engines. They fully realized this when they made Quake 3, but failed to remember while making Doom 3 obviously.
Well, they were good at content, but most of the content creators seem to have left to do their own thing. Sandy Petersen and American McGee spring to mind. Doom and Doom II had some beautifl levels. But as you say, doom 3 is abysmal. And not in a good way.
It's going to be a while before I spend money on another Id game. If I'm going to underwite the cost of demoing their engines, I at least expect a playable game for my trouble
Fair enough. I'm not trying to say it was a bad game and it surely had legions of fans. I just found it interesting that for the two Id games I really disliked, poor visibility was a major factor.
id Software has never been known for great single player games. There are two things the original Doom was known for: being the first truely immersive "3D" game and one of the best multiplayer games ever created.
That's not how I remember it. Doom II was the great single player game. It's been eclipsed since, sure. But it's still on my machine, and if I fancy a spot of mindless violence it's doom or doom2 I fire up.
And what is it with Caramack and poor visibility levels anyway? My main impression of Quake I; brown ceilings and walls set off by tasteful brown highlights, and featuring hidden brown monsters throwing brown bombs at you. Didn't look at another Id game after that until RtCW
After Doom 3, it'll probably be a while until I consider another one as well...
Done that. The best test of your belief in free speech is when someone says something you don't like.
I don't think anyone is denying his right to free speech. We're just pointing out that he makes himself sound like a right prick sometimes. I guess we're entitled too.
The best test of free software is when someone does something with it that you don't like (e.g. making money).
More power to him, I say. It's just a shame about the attitude, really.
This guy is following the license and spirit of the GPL, and making money doing it. People should be patting him on the back, not giving him a hard time.
I don't mind him making money. It's the sneering at the "amateurs" (not his "hari krishnas" please note) that rankles. Amateurs created the infrastructure that allowed him to launch his business. He sounds like a man who has got what he wanted from the FLOSS world, and who now wants it to go away before it helps anyone else.
I don't begrudge Fleury his money, but I don't particularly feel I deserve his contempt either. I'm unlikely to join his fan club any time soon.