Yeah, but my browser detects non-responsive scripts and offers to kill them for me. As opposed, I guess, to ActionScripts that detect a responsive browser and make the decision to kill it for me.
Given that the problem is poorly skilled developers constructing poorly designed and poorly tested scripts for the web, I would very much doubt that there's some magic technological bullet that will fix it, including using a different language. If anything, I think Javascript ticks the three boxes I'd put as requirements to defend myself from unskilled developers: sandboxes, exceptions, and automatic memory management.
Jetstar is an extremely budget airline. I flew Jetstar to Japan last year; nine hours overnight, ticket price excludes luggage, meals, blankets, and entertainment device. Entertainment device currently means about an 8" screen heavy brick with a handful of old movies, budget sitcoms, and cheap games.
Qantas, the more expensive, dare I say "premium" airline that owns and operates the Jetstar subsidiary, has an in-seat entertainment system on international flights. Of the eight flights I've made on Qantas airplanes in the past two years, six of them have featured several hours to the whole flight with the entertainment system being down or only able to show a reduced content because it's unable to scale to demand. Two were on the A380; one was just fine, the other I have a photo of the boot-up sequence, which I got to see several times.
1) 3GS has better processor, graphics, and more memory than 3G. iPhone has better location and a camera, iPod Touch does not. These differences exist, they just don't currently impact more than a few niches of applications.
2) Clearly not happening.
3) If you ignore the hyperbolic nonsense about remotely killing devices, this is happening. The original iPhone and iPod Touch devices are not supported by iPhone OS 4.0. The iPhone 3G is no longer available for sale, on the same trajectory as the original iPhone was a year ago. Apple have shown that they won't hang on to old hardware forever - OS X 10.6 doesn't support PPC, for example.
One thing is highly in Apple's favour right now: all devices can upgrade to the most recent OS without the carrier being involved. There's very limited OS-level fragmentation in the App Store; users who never sync very rarely purchase, and users too cheap to spend $10 on their iPod Touch are generally too cheap to buy many apps. Developers can target the most recent OS version quite happily. When the original iPhone is no longer supported by the current OS, there will be a lost market segment for people still happy with their device but unable to keep up.
A higher resolution on the new iPhone will probably increase fragmentation, though many apps should not need any work at all, if they followed the UI guidelines and used auto-resizing and system fonts. Unless they specifically need to use the higher resolution, new apps going forward should have very little trouble targeting the whole family (less the two out of support originals).
I'm all for enjoying the journey, and the levelling game is actually one I usually quite enjoy. But Aion is really terrible at the journey. The quests are sparse, so most of your journey is killing indiscriminately. That's compounded by the fact that you've seen the entire game world by the end of level 2. I shit you not. Everything else is the same crap rebadged. Instead of a Blurr, it's a Ferocious Blurr, or an Enraged Blurr, or a Beastly Blurr. Same model. Same skin. Same behaviour. Same shit, served up cold, over and over and over and over and over.
The other thing that I hoped would set the game apart was the flight. But, it turns out, the flight is pure gimmick. You can fly at level 10 (or 20, I forget). Exciting, yes? No. Once you learn to fly, you move on to the next levelling zone. Three or four quests that make you fly to complete them later, you step out of the town, and into a no-fly zone. With Grumpy Blurrs to kill, and like seven quests to last you for the next 10 levels.
That's the point I just gave it up. The journey in Aion sucks.
It's an odd principle, and one that seems to be applied only to Apple vs. Adobe.
Can't seem to develop in C for Android. Can't seem to develop on a Mac for Windows. Can't seem to develop for an iPod other than the Touches, at all. Can't seem to develop swf in anything but Adobe's tools.
The obvious conclusion is that Adobe is deliberately whipping up a frenzy.
The obvious solution is to use Android. Fuck, it's not that hard. It's a good platform. It runs on some good handsets. It's advancing at a faster pace than the iPhone. It supports Flash, for those who truly believe the Web can't be experienced without Flash.
For myself, I truly believe I don't want to experience the web without FlashBlock, but YMMV.
Aha! Thank you! I've been looking for a documented reason for the selection order of getaddrinfo() for a while now. That does illuminate the problem further for me, and if Apple is preferring IPv6 unconditionally in their getaddrinfo() implementation, even if the IPv6 is transitional, that certainly would count as an issue to be fixed by Apple.
Looks like it's in Libinfo, in the si_addrinfo_list_from_hostent() function in si_getaddrinfo.c -- it always preferences v6 over v4. The glibc (2.3.6) implementation of getaddrinfo() is far less complicated, and clearly does an RFC 3484 sort (using a function called rfc3484_sort() in fact!). Doesn't look like Debian Etch has patched the sort.
Regarding the statistics, I'm going on the direct quote: The graphs are generated by simply removing all log lines that contains "Mac OS X" in the User-Agent field prior to running the calculations. I agree that the correlation is clear; I agreed with that in my original post. I disagreed with the analysis of the problem lying with Mac OS X, but my disagreement was incorrect based on my assumption that getaddrinfo() behaved similarly on all POSIX hosts. I think the ability of Airports to provide 6to4 and any possible high correlation between use of Mac OS X and use of Airports may exacerbate the problem, but I'm not sure how one could measure that correlation passively; I don't think NAT devices are differentiated enough in any of the bits they fiddle in headers to be detected reliably.
Another poster had already corrected me on the other 6to4 enabled CPEs, and also mentioned that the Airports don't enable it by default.
My apologies, you are quite right on the other CPE devices supporting 6to4, and I will happily take your word for it that you must enable 6to4 by default, in which case I would amend my original statement to note that I think there is no issue on Apple's plate at all.
A request to an authoritative name server made over IPv4 should return an answer based only on the contents of the QUERY section. If the QUERY section requests an AAAA record, the server should either return RCODE 0 (NOERROR) and one ANSWER section per AAAA record (including 0, if there are none) if the label exists, or it should return RCODE 3 (NXDOMAIN) if the label does not exist.
That is what RFC 4074 states.
And the very first two sentences in RFC 4074 are, I quote with added emphasis, "This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
So to refute your statements, (1) this is not a standard, (2) the behaviour you describe is neither recommended by the informational memo, and (3) the behaviour you describe has been discussed in DNSOPS and the consensus as I have read it is that you should not do that, since you are only testing IPv6 connectivity to the resolver, not to the client.
I may be wrong, if so, please let me know what part of that RFC I've missed or misread, or in which way I've misinterpreted your post.
Content providers are generally leery of enabling IPv6 on their services, because there's a large number of people with bad IPv6 implementations at some point in the network path that would either experience significant delays, or the Blank Page of Doom.
Take Google. On a host behind a Hurricane Electric tunnel, I can ping6 2001:4860:8005::6a just fine, and even use http://2001486080056a/ to search the Web over v6. But if I do a DNS resolution of www.google.com, I don't get AAAA records, only A. On a host with a Global Unicast address, known to Google to be good, a DNS resolution of www.google.com gets a set of AAAAs, including 2001:4860:8005::6a. Google use DNS tricks to only serve IPv6 to clients they believe can correctly receive it. On the other hand, I can always use http://ipv6.google.com/ and take what I get.
A number of content providers use ipv6.example.com to provide a trial v6 service, because it's safer. Simply going dual stack, even if you mitigate the risks of 6to4 and tunnels, will cause some problems for some clients.
That's why anything that contributes to problems can be considered a block to IPv6 deployment: because it provides an incentive to stick with v4 and expect v6 only clients to pass through a CGN or NAT-PT or similar horrible hack.
The article, and the accompanying 'raw' data, are not sufficiently detailed to draw the conclusion that OS X is at fault. The observation is that browsers with Mac OS X in the User-Agent string are more commonly using 6to4 addresses. The faulty assumption is that Mac OS X prefers 6to4 addresses to RFC1918 addresses.
The reality is that getaddrinfo() on several platforms prefers IPv6 addresses over IPv4, if the host OS has an active IPv6 service. This is not unique to OS X, nor is it a bug.
The interesting part is that the only CPE devices which support IPv6 are Apple Airports - the Extreme and Express models. They use 6to4 if there is no native IPv6 address provided. No ADSL modems available to consumers support IPv6 out of the box, ergo, almost every Airport user has 6to4 enabled. If one assumes that most Airport users are also Mac users, then the observation that excluding Mac OS X User-Agents from the result set also excludes the bulk of IPv6 users is not surprising.
If Apple has an issue, it's that they enable 6to4 by default on a consumer device, when 6to4 is a known-bad mechanism that should be avoided.
IPv6 tunnels, firewalls set to drop ICMP, removal of router fragmentation in IPv6, and application name resolution behaviours combine to cause a noticeable number of IPv6 connections to open successfully, but not send data.
If you have the choice, avoid tunnels, both by using a native v6 connection yourself, and by only peering with known-good native v6 entities, which is what Google do.
If you have the choice, avoid dual stack. Test it, by all means, so you're ready to provide service should v6 actually work, but avoid presenting AAAA and A records for the same name.
If you have no choice, set your interface MTU to 1280 bytes, which resolves a large number of the problems.
Be careful about how you vote, if you're looking at any candidate other than a Liberal or Labour candidate.
Whether you vote above or below the line, your vote will wind up being an ordered list of preferences below the line. If you vote above, your ordered list is determined by a registered group vote by your above the line vote preference.
Until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the next preference of voters who chose that candidate are counted. Effectively, this means that unless your seat has an awful lot of people voting for an independent or minor party candidate, your vote will either be irrelevant, or eventually count for whichever of Liberal or Labour you put first.
You still need to choose your devil.
Personally, Abbott scares me. He's fucking insane. Rudd is a little prick, but at least he's a predictable little prick. He'll push the filtering back to past the election, since it's so unpopular, then introduce it, ticking the 2004 election promise box. At that point I think there's a fairly good chance it'll be defeated in the House at second vote, after pols can demonstrate they're thinking of the children, and then demonstrate that the Other Party have screwed it up in debate.
There is, of course, a chance it'll get through, particularly under a Labour government with a large body of weak support from party line toeing.
But, frankly, I'll take a half-assed Internet filter adding 100ms to my ping and $15 to my monthly over the gibbering festering frothy insanity that is Tony Abbott.
Meh, the camera is held too steady in the real world. Without shaking and ULTRA CLOSE FACE ZOOMs it just doesn't feel like anything is really happening, ya know?
Reformat and reinstall is the only way to remove a root kit.
I abandoned Windows about six months ago as being simply too expensive to maintain. I do not look forward to the inevitable increase in attacks targeting macs. At least OS X doesn't do autorun.
Why no tapering or curves?
As you will see in a future article, the new iPhone is so miniaturized and packed that there's no room for the tapered, curved surfaces. Everything is as tight as it could get, with no space for anything but electronics.
Or in other words, Gizmodo expect to gain double the ad revenue by stretching out a twelve bullet point list of the hardware within into a full article in a few days to a week, to pull everyone back again. Fine by me, more power to 'em. My contract doesn't run out until November anyway, I can wait.
Actually, yes. Good art enhances games, but do not complete them. The essence of a game is the goals, interactions, and rules that define a pocket universe, and fun is derived from gaining an understanding of that essence. Graphics can help create immersion, but cannot help create fun. Game art can be a thing to be appreciated on its own, of course, and I do not mean to diminish the cultural impact of game art at all, but I do contend that game art is not a critical component of a good game -- my evidence of this is that good games exist without game art. People have spent decades having a capital T chase their Y, and people have spent decades being scared when they've immersed themselves thoroughly in the game, round a corner, and have a T suddenly charge them. The human brain is remarkably capable of interpreting even the sparsest of signals into a cohesive world -- the entire Impressionist movement depends on the fact!
As for Egbert, I'm pretty sure he's saying that the whole package of art, rules, interaction, and goals is not art itself, not that the art within the game is not art. I'm pretty sure he's wrong, too, since a good game will cause changes in the player in much the same way that good art will. Games seem most closely related to works of fiction, in my experience, in that good experiences in either form will leave the participant with a slightly shifted view of things that persists after the fact. Consider the changes in yourself after having played Paper Mario, and after having read Flatlander. Both, for me, offer related ideas on the nature of perception and hidden worlds. I don't remember the end of Paper Mario, I remember the experience of playing it.
If you've read this far without hitting reply to yell at me for saying art isn't critical, thanks! Game art is unquestionably art, and often wonderful; the growth of the medium has been marvellous to watch, but I can't help likening it to illustrations in books: helpful, sometimes essential to the story being told, but not essential to books in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else read that headline as "Google's Chrome OS to Launch and Fail" ?
Yeah, but my browser detects non-responsive scripts and offers to kill them for me. As opposed, I guess, to ActionScripts that detect a responsive browser and make the decision to kill it for me.
Given that the problem is poorly skilled developers constructing poorly designed and poorly tested scripts for the web, I would very much doubt that there's some magic technological bullet that will fix it, including using a different language. If anything, I think Javascript ticks the three boxes I'd put as requirements to defend myself from unskilled developers: sandboxes, exceptions, and automatic memory management.
Jetstar is an extremely budget airline. I flew Jetstar to Japan last year; nine hours overnight, ticket price excludes luggage, meals, blankets, and entertainment device. Entertainment device currently means about an 8" screen heavy brick with a handful of old movies, budget sitcoms, and cheap games.
Qantas, the more expensive, dare I say "premium" airline that owns and operates the Jetstar subsidiary, has an in-seat entertainment system on international flights. Of the eight flights I've made on Qantas airplanes in the past two years, six of them have featured several hours to the whole flight with the entertainment system being down or only able to show a reduced content because it's unable to scale to demand. Two were on the A380; one was just fine, the other I have a photo of the boot-up sequence, which I got to see several times.
The beliefs of about a third of the world's population is hardly science.
I would hate Windows phones, but I'm having trouble finding one to hate on...
But let me answer your original point with a diagram.
1) 3GS has better processor, graphics, and more memory than 3G. iPhone has better location and a camera, iPod Touch does not. These differences exist, they just don't currently impact more than a few niches of applications.
2) Clearly not happening.
3) If you ignore the hyperbolic nonsense about remotely killing devices, this is happening. The original iPhone and iPod Touch devices are not supported by iPhone OS 4.0. The iPhone 3G is no longer available for sale, on the same trajectory as the original iPhone was a year ago. Apple have shown that they won't hang on to old hardware forever - OS X 10.6 doesn't support PPC, for example.
One thing is highly in Apple's favour right now: all devices can upgrade to the most recent OS without the carrier being involved. There's very limited OS-level fragmentation in the App Store; users who never sync very rarely purchase, and users too cheap to spend $10 on their iPod Touch are generally too cheap to buy many apps. Developers can target the most recent OS version quite happily. When the original iPhone is no longer supported by the current OS, there will be a lost market segment for people still happy with their device but unable to keep up.
A higher resolution on the new iPhone will probably increase fragmentation, though many apps should not need any work at all, if they followed the UI guidelines and used auto-resizing and system fonts. Unless they specifically need to use the higher resolution, new apps going forward should have very little trouble targeting the whole family (less the two out of support originals).
I canned Aion not too long after release.
I'm all for enjoying the journey, and the levelling game is actually one I usually quite enjoy. But Aion is really terrible at the journey. The quests are sparse, so most of your journey is killing indiscriminately. That's compounded by the fact that you've seen the entire game world by the end of level 2. I shit you not. Everything else is the same crap rebadged. Instead of a Blurr, it's a Ferocious Blurr, or an Enraged Blurr, or a Beastly Blurr. Same model. Same skin. Same behaviour. Same shit, served up cold, over and over and over and over and over.
The other thing that I hoped would set the game apart was the flight. But, it turns out, the flight is pure gimmick. You can fly at level 10 (or 20, I forget). Exciting, yes? No. Once you learn to fly, you move on to the next levelling zone. Three or four quests that make you fly to complete them later, you step out of the town, and into a no-fly zone. With Grumpy Blurrs to kill, and like seven quests to last you for the next 10 levels.
That's the point I just gave it up. The journey in Aion sucks.
Any media that no longer interests you after ejaculation.
Current government is strongly influenced by extreme nutbag religious folks.
Current opposition is strongly influenced by same extreme nutbag religious folks.
Yes, we're fucked, no, there's nothing we can do about it, any vote we cast at all is a vote for religious insanity.
I have shark-repellent bat spray.
It's an odd principle, and one that seems to be applied only to Apple vs. Adobe.
Can't seem to develop in C for Android. Can't seem to develop on a Mac for Windows. Can't seem to develop for an iPod other than the Touches, at all. Can't seem to develop swf in anything but Adobe's tools.
The obvious conclusion is that Adobe is deliberately whipping up a frenzy.
The obvious solution is to use Android. Fuck, it's not that hard. It's a good platform. It runs on some good handsets. It's advancing at a faster pace than the iPhone. It supports Flash, for those who truly believe the Web can't be experienced without Flash.
For myself, I truly believe I don't want to experience the web without FlashBlock, but YMMV.
Aha! Thank you! I've been looking for a documented reason for the selection order of getaddrinfo() for a while now. That does illuminate the problem further for me, and if Apple is preferring IPv6 unconditionally in their getaddrinfo() implementation, even if the IPv6 is transitional, that certainly would count as an issue to be fixed by Apple.
Looks like it's in Libinfo, in the si_addrinfo_list_from_hostent() function in si_getaddrinfo.c -- it always preferences v6 over v4. The glibc (2.3.6) implementation of getaddrinfo() is far less complicated, and clearly does an RFC 3484 sort (using a function called rfc3484_sort() in fact!). Doesn't look like Debian Etch has patched the sort.
Regarding the statistics, I'm going on the direct quote: The graphs are generated by simply removing all log lines that contains "Mac OS X" in the User-Agent field prior to running the calculations. I agree that the correlation is clear; I agreed with that in my original post. I disagreed with the analysis of the problem lying with Mac OS X, but my disagreement was incorrect based on my assumption that getaddrinfo() behaved similarly on all POSIX hosts. I think the ability of Airports to provide 6to4 and any possible high correlation between use of Mac OS X and use of Airports may exacerbate the problem, but I'm not sure how one could measure that correlation passively; I don't think NAT devices are differentiated enough in any of the bits they fiddle in headers to be detected reliably.
Another poster had already corrected me on the other 6to4 enabled CPEs, and also mentioned that the Airports don't enable it by default.
My apologies, you are quite right on the other CPE devices supporting 6to4, and I will happily take your word for it that you must enable 6to4 by default, in which case I would amend my original statement to note that I think there is no issue on Apple's plate at all.
Um.
A request to an authoritative name server made over IPv4 should return an answer based only on the contents of the QUERY section. If the QUERY section requests an AAAA record, the server should either return RCODE 0 (NOERROR) and one ANSWER section per AAAA record (including 0, if there are none) if the label exists, or it should return RCODE 3 (NXDOMAIN) if the label does not exist.
That is what RFC 4074 states.
And the very first two sentences in RFC 4074 are, I quote with added emphasis, "This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
So to refute your statements, (1) this is not a standard, (2) the behaviour you describe is neither recommended by the informational memo, and (3) the behaviour you describe has been discussed in DNSOPS and the consensus as I have read it is that you should not do that, since you are only testing IPv6 connectivity to the resolver, not to the client.
I may be wrong, if so, please let me know what part of that RFC I've missed or misread, or in which way I've misinterpreted your post.
Content providers are generally leery of enabling IPv6 on their services, because there's a large number of people with bad IPv6 implementations at some point in the network path that would either experience significant delays, or the Blank Page of Doom.
Take Google. On a host behind a Hurricane Electric tunnel, I can ping6 2001:4860:8005::6a just fine, and even use http://2001486080056a/ to search the Web over v6. But if I do a DNS resolution of www.google.com, I don't get AAAA records, only A. On a host with a Global Unicast address, known to Google to be good, a DNS resolution of www.google.com gets a set of AAAAs, including 2001:4860:8005::6a. Google use DNS tricks to only serve IPv6 to clients they believe can correctly receive it. On the other hand, I can always use http://ipv6.google.com/ and take what I get.
A number of content providers use ipv6.example.com to provide a trial v6 service, because it's safer. Simply going dual stack, even if you mitigate the risks of 6to4 and tunnels, will cause some problems for some clients.
That's why anything that contributes to problems can be considered a block to IPv6 deployment: because it provides an incentive to stick with v4 and expect v6 only clients to pass through a CGN or NAT-PT or similar horrible hack.
Almost certainly the latter.
The article, and the accompanying 'raw' data, are not sufficiently detailed to draw the conclusion that OS X is at fault. The observation is that browsers with Mac OS X in the User-Agent string are more commonly using 6to4 addresses. The faulty assumption is that Mac OS X prefers 6to4 addresses to RFC1918 addresses.
The reality is that getaddrinfo() on several platforms prefers IPv6 addresses over IPv4, if the host OS has an active IPv6 service. This is not unique to OS X, nor is it a bug.
The interesting part is that the only CPE devices which support IPv6 are Apple Airports - the Extreme and Express models. They use 6to4 if there is no native IPv6 address provided. No ADSL modems available to consumers support IPv6 out of the box, ergo, almost every Airport user has 6to4 enabled. If one assumes that most Airport users are also Mac users, then the observation that excluding Mac OS X User-Agents from the result set also excludes the bulk of IPv6 users is not surprising.
If Apple has an issue, it's that they enable 6to4 by default on a consumer device, when 6to4 is a known-bad mechanism that should be avoided.
If one is running dual stack services, one should be aware of the most common pitfalls: see http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-05/v6hints.html for details.
Yes.
IPv6 tunnels, firewalls set to drop ICMP, removal of router fragmentation in IPv6, and application name resolution behaviours combine to cause a noticeable number of IPv6 connections to open successfully, but not send data.
If you have the choice, avoid tunnels, both by using a native v6 connection yourself, and by only peering with known-good native v6 entities, which is what Google do.
If you have the choice, avoid dual stack. Test it, by all means, so you're ready to provide service should v6 actually work, but avoid presenting AAAA and A records for the same name.
If you have no choice, set your interface MTU to 1280 bytes, which resolves a large number of the problems.
I didn't see even one decent way to pull off hover, and I'm sure you took more than 5 seconds to post that. Which are you?
Be careful about how you vote, if you're looking at any candidate other than a Liberal or Labour candidate.
Whether you vote above or below the line, your vote will wind up being an ordered list of preferences below the line. If you vote above, your ordered list is determined by a registered group vote by your above the line vote preference.
Until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the next preference of voters who chose that candidate are counted. Effectively, this means that unless your seat has an awful lot of people voting for an independent or minor party candidate, your vote will either be irrelevant, or eventually count for whichever of Liberal or Labour you put first.
You still need to choose your devil.
Personally, Abbott scares me. He's fucking insane. Rudd is a little prick, but at least he's a predictable little prick. He'll push the filtering back to past the election, since it's so unpopular, then introduce it, ticking the 2004 election promise box. At that point I think there's a fairly good chance it'll be defeated in the House at second vote, after pols can demonstrate they're thinking of the children, and then demonstrate that the Other Party have screwed it up in debate.
There is, of course, a chance it'll get through, particularly under a Labour government with a large body of weak support from party line toeing.
But, frankly, I'll take a half-assed Internet filter adding 100ms to my ping and $15 to my monthly over the gibbering festering frothy insanity that is Tony Abbott.
And I'm usually a Liberal voter.
Meh, the camera is held too steady in the real world. Without shaking and ULTRA CLOSE FACE ZOOMs it just doesn't feel like anything is really happening, ya know?
Reformat and reinstall is the only way to remove a root kit.
I abandoned Windows about six months ago as being simply too expensive to maintain. I do not look forward to the inevitable increase in attacks targeting macs. At least OS X doesn't do autorun.
Er, I haven't seen any evidence of that, either...
Or in other words, Gizmodo expect to gain double the ad revenue by stretching out a twelve bullet point list of the hardware within into a full article in a few days to a week, to pull everyone back again. Fine by me, more power to 'em. My contract doesn't run out until November anyway, I can wait.
Actually, yes. Good art enhances games, but do not complete them. The essence of a game is the goals, interactions, and rules that define a pocket universe, and fun is derived from gaining an understanding of that essence. Graphics can help create immersion, but cannot help create fun. Game art can be a thing to be appreciated on its own, of course, and I do not mean to diminish the cultural impact of game art at all, but I do contend that game art is not a critical component of a good game -- my evidence of this is that good games exist without game art. People have spent decades having a capital T chase their Y, and people have spent decades being scared when they've immersed themselves thoroughly in the game, round a corner, and have a T suddenly charge them. The human brain is remarkably capable of interpreting even the sparsest of signals into a cohesive world -- the entire Impressionist movement depends on the fact!
As for Egbert, I'm pretty sure he's saying that the whole package of art, rules, interaction, and goals is not art itself, not that the art within the game is not art. I'm pretty sure he's wrong, too, since a good game will cause changes in the player in much the same way that good art will. Games seem most closely related to works of fiction, in my experience, in that good experiences in either form will leave the participant with a slightly shifted view of things that persists after the fact. Consider the changes in yourself after having played Paper Mario, and after having read Flatlander. Both, for me, offer related ideas on the nature of perception and hidden worlds. I don't remember the end of Paper Mario, I remember the experience of playing it.
If you've read this far without hitting reply to yell at me for saying art isn't critical, thanks! Game art is unquestionably art, and often wonderful; the growth of the medium has been marvellous to watch, but I can't help likening it to illustrations in books: helpful, sometimes essential to the story being told, but not essential to books in general.
A link in a Score:5, Funny post in a thread about tentacle porn on a work day.
I dursen't click it. But I must. But I can't. Oh, slashdot, you eternal tease.