From the article:
In the mid-'90s, many gamers thought Bungie had reached its creative zenith with Marathon. They were wrong. By the time the classic Mac and PC shooter had wasted millions of man-hours worldwide in 1999, the Bungie wizards were repackaging Marathon's rich story and innovative visuals into a next-generation first-person shooter. That game was Halo: Combat Evolved.
Note, it was always done in similar ways. Revolution, bloodshed, murdering the enemies. Totalitarism was there before communism.
It was never attempted by evolutionary ways... before FSF.
Lead by example, not by force. "Join us, follow us, if you want - leave, share your goods freely and don't try to steal others' free goods for your own".
Firstly it succeeded because it's about software. Easy to copy, once you have one, everyone can have one at marginal cost. Implementing communism in this environment is very easy - you give a cake but you don't lose a cake. Nobody else tried to introduce communism slowly, gently, in a responsible, reasonable way yet.
Because of the points outlined above, I would argue that the open source movement is not an example of communism, but rather an example of a commune. It does not attempt to overthrow the previous system, but rather work within it, and anyone who is a member of it is so by his own accord.
Things are rarely so nicely separated in real life. "Nasism" (sic) included the political platform of heavy economic regimentation; a political platform which was fully implemented. If Nazism had not included that political platform, it would no longer have been Nazism, but rather something else.
Confusing communism with totalitarism (sic). Yet again.
He is not confusing communism with totalitarianism; he is merely listing historical incidents, which have arisen as a result of attempts to create communist states.
Any attempt at communism, on anything other than a very small scale, regardless of the initial intentions, always leads to totalitarianism. This has proven by history, and is almost certainly guaranteed by human nature.
It is similarly to how shooting someone in the head at point blank range leads to that person's death.
So, to reiterate:
In the same way that shooting someone in the head at point black range --> Death,
Communism --> Totalitarianism
P.S. This is not an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The Soviet Union broke up without its citizens using the internet, China has embraced capitalism not due to the internet, the Berlin Wall fell in no part due to the internet. Infact as the internet has become so wide spread it has had little value-added effect other communication didn't already have in developing countries.
Just because certain events occurred without certain "amenities" in the past does not mean that those "amenities" would not have helped.
Just because some people cannot find a better use for the interned than looking at pr0n does not mean that others cannot use the internet to better their societies. While some people spend their time on Slashdot posting about what other people could live without, greater people are using the internet to attempt to bring about social change, and are getting arrested for it. If oppressive governments fear that the Internet could weaken their grip on their population enough that they are taking steps to restrict, who are you to say differently. Sure, social change can occur without the Internet, but it can occur much faster and better with it.
By the way, China has far from "embraced" capitalism.
There are several more here. The second one ("Linux is working") is interesting; it refers to Linux as "the boy who belonged to no one" two times. Perhaps IBM's way of giving SCO the finger?
My favourite is still "The Future is Open."
Citing e2 is a laughable form of proof.
And citing a website titled "Crazy English Page" and written by a Korean who appears to have a meager understanding of both English and HTML is somehow less laughable?
And, botanists have no right to redefine words in the English language.
What botanists may or may not do with respect to the English language and its common usage is of no concern to either of us. The fact of the matter is that even in the common usage of English fruits and vegetables are quite different, hence the phrase "fruits and vegetables". So, pray tell good sir, if both botanists and the common layman believe fruits and vegetables to be distinct, why should they be anything but?
"Vegetable originally meant any plant, as in "the vegetable kingdom", or Twenty Questions' opening gambit, "animal, mineral, or vegetable?" And fruit meant any edible plant part. With the development of the science of botany, however, the meanings of the words have shifted. Vegetable is now used to refer to herbaceous (non-woody) food plants or their edible parts. Fruits are the reproductive parts of a plant, the ripened ovary of a flower and its contents and related parts; vegetables as well as other plants like trees can have fruits." Source.
The Radeons "owned" the Geforce FXs. But then again, ATi must have paid off Gearbox for these scores, just like they paid off Valve and every other company and person, so that their products would outperform nVidia's. Right?
Really? Why then did the Americans pump the Russians full of aid and equipment? Did the Americans do it solely for their love for Stalin? Why did the Americans conscript their people and send them to Europe? Was it because they just love murdering their citizens?
The Red Army was not only grossly incompetent (this is a fact), but while the German Army was extremely mechanized, the Russians couldn't even transport their troops and to the Battlefield. They eventually used trucks that the Americans gave them for this purpose. If Hitler had not been a complete and utter moron and had listened to his generals instead of being stubborn, the Germans would have gotten to Moscow, at which point the Eastern front would have been no more, and this was even though the Americans (and also the Brits) were providing a lot of aid to the Russians.
Furthermore, Churchill was convinced that the possibility that the Germans might invade Britain was real. He devoted resources, men, and time to the training and equipping of the British Auxiliary Unit (which was maintained until November 1944). So tell me, if it was so obvious that the Germans could not win, why would all these people go to such extraordinary lengths?
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
In the mid-'90s, many gamers thought Bungie had reached its creative zenith with Marathon. They were wrong. By the time the classic Mac and PC shooter had wasted millions of man-hours worldwide in 1999, the Bungie wizards were repackaging Marathon's rich story and innovative visuals into a next-generation first-person shooter. That game was Halo: Combat Evolved.
Link
Seems like they mentioned it to me...
No, the open-source movement more closely resembles a commune.
Note, it was always done in similar ways. Revolution, bloodshed, murdering the enemies. Totalitarism was there before communism. It was never attempted by evolutionary ways... before FSF. Lead by example, not by force. "Join us, follow us, if you want - leave, share your goods freely and don't try to steal others' free goods for your own". Firstly it succeeded because it's about software. Easy to copy, once you have one, everyone can have one at marginal cost. Implementing communism in this environment is very easy - you give a cake but you don't lose a cake. Nobody else tried to introduce communism slowly, gently, in a responsible, reasonable way yet.
Because of the points outlined above, I would argue that the open source movement is not an example of communism, but rather an example of a commune. It does not attempt to overthrow the previous system, but rather work within it, and anyone who is a member of it is so by his own accord.
Confusing again.
Things are rarely so nicely separated in real life. "Nasism" (sic) included the political platform of heavy economic regimentation; a political platform which was fully implemented. If Nazism had not included that political platform, it would no longer have been Nazism, but rather something else.
Confusing communism with totalitarism (sic). Yet again.
He is not confusing communism with totalitarianism; he is merely listing historical incidents, which have arisen as a result of attempts to create communist states.
Any attempt at communism, on anything other than a very small scale, regardless of the initial intentions, always leads to totalitarianism. This has proven by history, and is almost certainly guaranteed by human nature.
It is similarly to how shooting someone in the head at point blank range leads to that person's death.
So, to reiterate:
In the same way that shooting someone in the head at point black range --> Death,
Communism --> Totalitarianism
P.S. This is not an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Announcing that WineX 3.3 has support for Valve games that were written on the Quake 2 engine
Quake 1, actually.
Thank God so many of you are quite accomplished CS players.
:P
Good. This will get rid of all the bunny-hoppers when they try their "tactic" in real life. Certainly no great loss to the gene pool there.
The Soviet Union broke up without its citizens using the internet, China has embraced capitalism not due to the internet, the Berlin Wall fell in no part due to the internet. Infact as the internet has become so wide spread it has had little value-added effect other communication didn't already have in developing countries.
Just because certain events occurred without certain "amenities" in the past does not mean that those "amenities" would not have helped.
Just because some people cannot find a better use for the interned than looking at pr0n does not mean that others cannot use the internet to better their societies. While some people spend their time on Slashdot posting about what other people could live without, greater people are using the internet to attempt to bring about social change, and are getting arrested for it. If oppressive governments fear that the Internet could weaken their grip on their population enough that they are taking steps to restrict, who are you to say differently. Sure, social change can occur without the Internet, but it can occur much faster and better with it.
By the way, China has far from "embraced" capitalism.
Now that you mention it, I seem to recall it vaguely. Anyways, thanks for pointing that out.
Pipelines for what? Opium? There's no oil in Afganistan.
Actually, Europa is the name of the European continent in many European languages.
There are several more here. The second one ("Linux is working") is interesting; it refers to Linux as "the boy who belonged to no one" two times. Perhaps IBM's way of giving SCO the finger?
My favourite is still "The Future is Open."
Who is responsible for Libya opening? The US!
I do believe the Brits had something to do with that endeavour.
With optical mice, the rate at which they scan is also quite important.
FINAL SOLUTION for Israel
Hopefully, your "Final Solution" for the Israelites does not borrow heavily from previous such solutions.
CCCP, eh?
That's quite the acronym.
In CCCP, you get free colocated Internet access!
Citing e2 is a laughable form of proof.
And citing a website titled "Crazy English Page" and written by a Korean who appears to have a meager understanding of both English and HTML is somehow less laughable?
And, botanists have no right to redefine words in the English language.
What botanists may or may not do with respect to the English language and its common usage is of no concern to either of us. The fact of the matter is that even in the common usage of English fruits and vegetables are quite different, hence the phrase "fruits and vegetables". So, pray tell good sir, if both botanists and the common layman believe fruits and vegetables to be distinct, why should they be anything but?
"Vegetable originally meant any plant, as in "the vegetable kingdom", or Twenty Questions' opening gambit, "animal, mineral, or vegetable?" And fruit meant any edible plant part. With the development of the science of botany, however, the meanings of the words have shifted. Vegetable is now used to refer to herbaceous (non-woody) food plants or their edible parts. Fruits are the reproductive parts of a plant, the ripened ovary of a flower and its contents and related parts; vegetables as well as other plants like trees can have fruits." Source.
You do NOT get HL2 with the 200 dollar 9600XT.
Really?
When you buy the new RADEON(TM) 9800 XT or RADEON(TM) 9600 XT you will get a FREE copy of Half-Life(R) 2!
Tomatoes are fruits (berries).
I thought no one used Forth anymore. Now Linus tells us it is the future of Linux?
Seriously though, is it just me, or is the title phrased in a peculiar manner?
Allow me to introduce you to my two good friends sarcasm and irony.
The Radeons "owned" the Geforce FXs. But then again, ATi must have paid off Gearbox for these scores, just like they paid off Valve and every other company and person, so that their products would outperform nVidia's. Right?
Here's the Slashdot story upon which the parent post is based. It was a bs "human interest story" posted by everyone's favourite editor, JonKatz.
Really? Why then did the Americans pump the Russians full of aid and equipment? Did the Americans do it solely for their love for Stalin? Why did the Americans conscript their people and send them to Europe? Was it because they just love murdering their citizens?
The Red Army was not only grossly incompetent (this is a fact), but while the German Army was extremely mechanized, the Russians couldn't even transport their troops and to the Battlefield. They eventually used trucks that the Americans gave them for this purpose. If Hitler had not been a complete and utter moron and had listened to his generals instead of being stubborn, the Germans would have gotten to Moscow, at which point the Eastern front would have been no more, and this was even though the Americans (and also the Brits) were providing a lot of aid to the Russians.
Furthermore, Churchill was convinced that the possibility that the Germans might invade Britain was real. He devoted resources, men, and time to the training and equipping of the British Auxiliary Unit (which was maintained until November 1944). So tell me, if it was so obvious that the Germans could not win, why would all these people go to such extraordinary lengths?