The article makes a good point - parents should be looking out for kids, not developers. But read this:
but then the game isn?t to blame if the kid is under seventeen and their parent bought the game for them knowing it wasn?t considered age appropriate.
Fine, that seems nice enough. But this really implies that a game can sometimes be responsible for someone's actions. Or, as the article considers some time later, another form of entertainment. But this is nonsense - people are people, responsible for their actions. Sentient. Once we start taking that responsiblity from them, they aren't really human anymore, are they?
But you've got a biased sample here - anyone can just pack up and leave, without any penalty. It's a bit tougher in the real world. And you've got the costs that don't show up in these games, like depreciation and stuff. It's a good idea, especially with a game-teoretical foundation, but it's got a way to go.
Yeah, but show me where you can trade space exploration for food, straight up. We've got plenty - we just need to distribute it more evenly. Remember, we can't solve everything. That's why we need to explore despite the other things we have to take care of.
My/. page became the #1 result for "Omkar" before I posted a single journal article. Google is great, but as this illustrates, it's certainly not infalliable.
I don't know; while what you say is interesting, I don't quite agree.
I always catch this because I remember this Dilbert strip, where Dilbert's like, "Hey, don't underestimate my intelligence." Dogbert responds, "I could never underestimate your intelligence," and Dilbert is satisfied.
ok, ok, but it had to be said. This is a really nice idea, but I think it needs to be refined. Couldn't if follow the links to the domain where the e-mail originated? That way, I wouldn't be able to send out, say 500 messages, with a link to some AOL site and bring it down.
SCO's challenge of IBM's use of its software is not a threat to the open-source Linux operating system. If fact, SCO is a toad about to face a steamroller.
Alarm bells are ringing throughout the open-source software world. SCO Group has filed suit against IBM, accusing it of illegally incorporating SCO's Unix code into the Linux operating system. Some analysts are predicting an onslaught of legal attacks that will kill Linux.
The alarm is overdone. While no one relishes the prospect of going to court, this lawsuit is actually a good thing for Linux in the long run.
The story behind the lawsuit goes like this: In 1995, SCO Group purchased the code for the Unix System V operating system from Novell. IBM has a contract with SCO to use this code as part of its own operating system, known as AIX. (An outside observer would be forgiven if he thought this lawsuit is all about a bunch of acronyms suing each other). SCO charges that IBM violated the contract and stole SCO's trade secrets by incorporating SCO software into the hugely popular Linux operating system. SCO claims a whopping US$3-billion in damages. Linux defenders accuse SCO of being a gold-digger, a two-bit player trying to exploit Linux's success for money.
At the centre of the lawsuit, Linux has its own interesting tale. Linux doesn't belong to any one company. Instead it was created through a fascinating process known as open-source development. A team of talented volunteer programmers led by Linus Torvalds collaborated over the Internet and built a stable, spiffy and very cheap operating system. In less than a decade it has become Microsoft's most dangerous rival. The operating system is now deployed on 14% of servers and its market share is growing at a torrid pace of 60% a year.
Four years ago, IBM recognized Linux's strength. It put 250 of its own engineers to work on it and integrated Linux into its products. The bet has paid off handsomely: In the fourth quarter alone, IBM shipped US$160-million worth of Linux servers.
And there lies the rub. Linux is now big business. It powers products for Dell and HP. It is finding its way (albeit at a slower pace) on to desktops and consumer electronics gear. Linux was born out of a warm and fuzzy let's-work-together idealism that is typical of all open-source projects. Today it finds itself front and centre in a world where market share projections and $800-an-hour litigation lawyers count for as much as spiffy code.
Software analysts worry that SCO's lawsuit will put the big chill on Linux development. This would be a bad thing, not least because it would leave Microsoft in a stronger position than ever. But there's another, more stout-hearted way of looking at it: SCO's legal action is the first harbinger of the corporate makeover of Linux. Open-source advocates are outraged at the audacity of the lawsuit. They should instead be thankful. Linux must inoculate itself against the nasty legal toxins that are endemic in the corporate environment. And if we were to perversely pick a poison, the SCO suit has a lot going for it. SCO is strong enough to provoke a strengthening of Linux's defences but not so strong that it poses any real danger.
What makes the SCO action the ideal first-time lawsuit for Linux is this: First, it is directed at IBM rather than directly at Linux customers. This means there is no immediate threat against the deployment and continuing use of Linux.
Second, the substance of SCO's claims appears weak. Eric Raymond, who heads the Open Source Initiative (OSI) advocacy group, has been a vocal debunker of SCO's charges. According to Raymond, it is unlikely there were trade secret transfers from SCO code to Linux. The codebase owned by SCO is an old and creaky one, a jalopy compared to the Formula One technology found in Linux. Furthermore, SCO itself had made its codebase freely available for public downloading, making its trade secret
SCO is strong enough to provoke a strengthening of Linux's defences but not so strong that it poses any real danger.
But really, I thought the GPL et al. were pretty strong already. My impression of the SCO lawsuit was that the idiot courts play a much bigger role in prolonging it than any Linux advocate. Linux's legal defences are adequate; our country's implementation of them is not.
Most blockbusters ARE shovelware (Enter the Matrix, for example). Sure, there are GOOD games that succeed, but the industry has, by and large, abandoned quality for flash.
Don't agree? Explain how Sega had to go third party and Nintendo's first party titles aren't doing as well as hoped while Sony rakes in the cash with substandard stuff.
SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaims
Thursday August 7, 4:15 pm ET
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 7/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )
Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBM's original answer.
SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.
In an age where scientific studies only give you accurate data on who paid for them, is there anyone who wouldn't expect this administration to manipulate data? What else can we expect from lying politicians?
This attitude is what's scary about the world today, isn't it? We're being lied to and nobody gives a damn. I haven't read the article, but the apathy is appalling.
You mean, "God just made it like this, okay?" I'm sorry, that doesn't constitute anything akin to knowing or understanding. Furthermore, we have no choice but to accept an experimental fact - God serves no purpose here.
I'm not a physicist, but I think it's finite - multiply the age by the speed of light. However, it's also unbounded. Think of a 4D analog to the surface of a sphere.
It just twists complexity in order to show the existence of God. Think about it - if an ony of your gazillion variables were different, would we be here to comment? It's the Anthropic principle - the universe seems conducive to life since there is life around to observe it. We don't see any of the other places because there's nobody there to watch. And on earth, we evolved to fit the environment - it's no surprise that it's good for us.
You don't need a God to make the universe work. Although you may say that there's no concrete evidence against one, there's also no evidence to suggest that our whole universe isn't an elaborate 5D shadow puppet show run by unicorns. Occam's razor must be applied.
Slashdot Mirror
The article makes a good point - parents should be looking out for kids, not developers. But read this:
but then the game isn?t to blame if the kid is under seventeen and their parent bought the game for them knowing it wasn?t considered age appropriate.
Fine, that seems nice enough. But this really implies that a game can sometimes be responsible for someone's actions. Or, as the article considers some time later, another form of entertainment. But this is nonsense - people are people, responsible for their actions. Sentient. Once we start taking that responsiblity from them, they aren't really human anymore, are they?
But you've got a biased sample here - anyone can just pack up and leave, without any penalty. It's a bit tougher in the real world. And you've got the costs that don't show up in these games, like depreciation and stuff. It's a good idea, especially with a game-teoretical foundation, but it's got a way to go.
Yeah, but show me where you can trade space exploration for food, straight up. We've got plenty - we just need to distribute it more evenly.
Remember, we can't solve everything. That's why we need to explore despite the other things we have to take care of.
My /. page became the #1 result for "Omkar" before I posted a single journal article. Google is great, but as this illustrates, it's certainly not infalliable.
Agreed. When I first saw the word, I thought it was some sort of game.
I don't know; while what you say is interesting, I don't quite agree.
I always catch this because I remember this Dilbert strip, where Dilbert's like, "Hey, don't underestimate my intelligence." Dogbert responds, "I could never underestimate your intelligence," and Dilbert is satisfied.
The social impact of the credit card cannot be under-estimated.
That means it's really small! I think they mean it can't be oversetimated.
Filters Slashdot YOU!
ok, ok, but it had to be said. This is a really nice idea, but I think it needs to be refined. Couldn't if follow the links to the domain where the e-mail originated? That way, I wouldn't be able to send out, say 500 messages, with a link to some AOL site and bring it down.
I'm not sure if it's Netscape. I got the same error in IE, and just refreshed to make it go away.
To be more explicit: Linux has what it needs to protect itself. The courts are just doing a bad job of enforcing the rules.
Wynn Quon
National Post
Saturday, August 09, 2003
SCO's challenge of IBM's use of its software is not a threat to the open-source Linux operating system. If fact, SCO is a toad about to face a steamroller.
Alarm bells are ringing throughout the open-source software world. SCO Group has filed suit against IBM, accusing it of illegally incorporating SCO's Unix code into the Linux operating system. Some analysts are predicting an onslaught of legal attacks that will kill Linux.
The alarm is overdone. While no one relishes the prospect of going to court, this lawsuit is actually a good thing for Linux in the long run.
The story behind the lawsuit goes like this: In 1995, SCO Group purchased the code for the Unix System V operating system from Novell. IBM has a contract with SCO to use this code as part of its own operating system, known as AIX. (An outside observer would be forgiven if he thought this lawsuit is all about a bunch of acronyms suing each other). SCO charges that IBM violated the contract and stole SCO's trade secrets by incorporating SCO software into the hugely popular Linux operating system. SCO claims a whopping US$3-billion in damages. Linux defenders accuse SCO of being a gold-digger, a two-bit player trying to exploit Linux's success for money.
At the centre of the lawsuit, Linux has its own interesting tale. Linux doesn't belong to any one company. Instead it was created through a fascinating process known as open-source development. A team of talented volunteer programmers led by Linus Torvalds collaborated over the Internet and built a stable, spiffy and very cheap operating system. In less than a decade it has become Microsoft's most dangerous rival. The operating system is now deployed on 14% of servers and its market share is growing at a torrid pace of 60% a year.
Four years ago, IBM recognized Linux's strength. It put 250 of its own engineers to work on it and integrated Linux into its products. The bet has paid off handsomely: In the fourth quarter alone, IBM shipped US$160-million worth of Linux servers.
And there lies the rub. Linux is now big business. It powers products for Dell and HP. It is finding its way (albeit at a slower pace) on to desktops and consumer electronics gear. Linux was born out of a warm and fuzzy let's-work-together idealism that is typical of all open-source projects. Today it finds itself front and centre in a world where market share projections and $800-an-hour litigation lawyers count for as much as spiffy code.
Software analysts worry that SCO's lawsuit will put the big chill on Linux development. This would be a bad thing, not least because it would leave Microsoft in a stronger position than ever. But there's another, more stout-hearted way of looking at it: SCO's legal action is the first harbinger of the corporate makeover of Linux. Open-source advocates are outraged at the audacity of the lawsuit. They should instead be thankful. Linux must inoculate itself against the nasty legal toxins that are endemic in the corporate environment. And if we were to perversely pick a poison, the SCO suit has a lot going for it. SCO is strong enough to provoke a strengthening of Linux's defences but not so strong that it poses any real danger.
What makes the SCO action the ideal first-time lawsuit for Linux is this: First, it is directed at IBM rather than directly at Linux customers. This means there is no immediate threat against the deployment and continuing use of Linux.
Second, the substance of SCO's claims appears weak. Eric Raymond, who heads the Open Source Initiative (OSI) advocacy group, has been a vocal debunker of SCO's charges. According to Raymond, it is unlikely there were trade secret transfers from SCO code to Linux. The codebase owned by SCO is an old and creaky one, a jalopy compared to the Formula One technology found in Linux. Furthermore, SCO itself had made its codebase freely available for public downloading, making its trade secret
But really, I thought the GPL et al. were pretty strong already. My impression of the SCO lawsuit was that the idiot courts play a much bigger role in prolonging it than any Linux advocate. Linux's legal defences are adequate; our country's implementation of them is not.
Don't agree? Explain how Sega had to go third party and Nintendo's first party titles aren't doing as well as hoped while Sony rakes in the cash with substandard stuff.
We have a highly-regarded, modded-up post that misspells the word 'not'.
How about at least trying to stay out of each other's way?
But seriously, does anyone here actually think people will care enough to boycott these companies?
Um, no. It's actually just convenient for people who don't RTFA. Main motive - I'm already at 'Excellent', why would I need more Karma?
SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaims
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
O GO )
Thursday August 7, 4:15 pm ET
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 7
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBM's original answer.
SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.
This attitude is what's scary about the world today, isn't it? We're being lied to and nobody gives a damn. I haven't read the article, but the apathy is appalling.
Halo is a well-executed FPS, that's what makes it great. It's an evolutionary game, not at revolutionary game.
Of course, I still hate it, because of the goddamn Xbox controller. Port Halo to GC and then we'll talk.
You mean, "God just made it like this, okay?" I'm sorry, that doesn't constitute anything akin to knowing or understanding. Furthermore, we have no choice but to accept an experimental fact - God serves no purpose here.
I'm not a physicist, but I think it's finite - multiply the age by the speed of light. However, it's also unbounded. Think of a 4D analog to the surface of a sphere.
It just twists complexity in order to show the existence of God. Think about it - if an ony of your gazillion variables were different, would we be here to comment? It's the Anthropic principle - the universe seems conducive to life since there is life around to observe it. We don't see any of the other places because there's nobody there to watch. And on earth, we evolved to fit the environment - it's no surprise that it's good for us.
You don't need a God to make the universe work. Although you may say that there's no concrete evidence against one, there's also no evidence to suggest that our whole universe isn't an elaborate 5D shadow puppet show run by unicorns. Occam's razor must be applied.
The movie files can be viewed on a PC or on a television connected to a computer
Hello, VCR! If I can watch it, I can copy it.
Biometric data, or "passpictures" perhaps?