Er, forgot to point out that some commercial OSes can do all the above, but they cost muchly (and arnt BSD licenced.) I love Linux, but its just not as stable in my experience.
In 6+ years as a systems developer, very little approaches the way FreeBSD balances all considerations such as centralized development process, ported software, stability, and feature set.
I like FreeBSD. Its never leading edge, its never trailing edge, it never supports the most hardware, it never does desktop best.. but when it comes to running a server, its hard to argue with an OS that took well over 80 software platform upgrades (our own) without nary an OS crash.
Uptimes were 2+ years, 40 hits per second avg, and every freakin C bug I could throw at it.
FreeBSD is rock solid. ROCK solid. Oh, plus its dying.;)
> (2) The controls are horrible and the game is *WAY* too difficult. Lack of save points will have you throwing the controller in rage as the game kills you again and again
You suck at video games. Viewtiful Joe is not that hard.
In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.
It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).
This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)
We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.
This is my udnerstanding of our system. Corrections are invited.
No, because pop gaming nerds think The Matrix was a good game, while real gaming nerds know that most of the world will miss out on gems like Viewtiful Joe.
Same goes for any of the other formats available. Trying to convince 'cool nerds' of the hidden treasures in each medium only make them easily identifyable as the uncool nerds again.
Nerds will always be around. They arn't identifiable by what mediums they like, only the great lengths they will go to discuss or aquire specific works.
No, the original parent posters' point is that the argument can be made that as soon as companies treat you like a revenue stream, and not a person, you cease being a revenue stream to them.. because you take your business elsewhere.
Its much like the argument that there is no such thing as altruism. Sure, maybe theres no such things as altruism, that we do things purely for self, including helping others in seemingly selfless ways. However, if society as a whole accepts that there is no such thing as altruism, its behaviour changes. People stop doing things for other people, since they figure, as long as we dont expect each other to be selfless, they may as well stop doing the things they used to do for other people. The perception is that if you're helping others to help yourself, why not just help yourself and skip the 'middleman'? The punchline is that unless you can prove that acting selfishly is inately 'cheaper' and better for society than acting selflessly, changing the way people think about themselves and their actions causes their behaviour to change - and in this case, I postulate, not to the benifit of those participating in said society.
If companies want citizens = maximum possible revenue streams, its probably not in their best interest to flaunt the equation in front of us. People have a way of resisting expected behaviour when they suspect they are being manipulated to act in the interests of somebody else. It is entirely possible (and this is what I believe) that the more self-aware people become to their true 'roles' in the economy, the less they act in the interests and wishes of companies. It poisons the natural social dynamics people exhibit in a capitalist market, and weakens the ability of the system to serve its intended purpose.. ie, to raise our standard of living and increase our satistfaction in life. This is why I think its a moot point to assert that humans = revenue streams, to the extent where such a level of cynical self-awareness may in fact be detrimental to the health of our society and the economy.
whoa now, programmers should make what they make.. its the execs at the distributors who are making too much.
fleeced means they dont get the proportion of the revenues that I believe they should get. i dont think the programmers should get more.. only the execs who dream up those 'brilliant' tie-ins or promotions or exclusive offers that *supposedly* are responsible for ensuring a games success in the market.
The publishers make good money if the game sells appropriately.. the content creators, true to western economy form, get fleeced.
AS usual, control over the distribution channels is where the money's at. It's the 1600's in England all over again. Guess what law they created to break the monopoly that the distributors had over the profits from publishing.. thats right.. Copyright law! (Probably the best way to prove that copyright law has long stopped serving the people it was meant to benifit - the content authors.)
One of the problems with games and movies today is that the production values are too high.. the risk inherent in rampant piracy should dictate that (if producers of content assume piracy will always exist) you manage the risk by lowering production values and making the product able to compete with piracy on a price point level.
.. the radio still eclipsed the TV in terms of audience for the World Series.
Maybe 'we' dont need them, but their miniturization and tiny cost make them a difficult technology to let go of, if you look across the demographic spectrum.
To say nothing about me prefering drivers listening to the radio rather than watching TV, if they are interested in having somebody else picking the tunes...
A government trying to make it hard to find important information isn't really that much worse than a government that makes the information completetly unavailable..
Not that I'm saying this is a straight up attempt to limit the dissemination of information that is supposedly publicly available, but if it is..
intent is 4/5th of the law? Or something?
It's just another example of a government making it difficult for people to educate themselves and inform themselves about the doings of their elected representatives. Maybe.
I'm not wearing tin-foil, and I do think the guy above who posted that it might just be a carefully crafted honey-pot might have the best theory.
However, I'd get suspicious any time my government tried to limit the 'visibility' of information. We've known for years that the placement of information in a newspaper (front page or back page) plays a major role in determining how many people become aware of certain stories and events, and this might be much the same. By making the information non-searchable for a large portion of the internet's search engines, they are decreasing the chance of people coming across this information. And I'm not sure how much of a 'non event' it is when governments (and public companies, for that matter) attempt to reduce the visibility of information they are legally obligated to make publicly available.
If this isn't some sort of cyber-intel thing, then I'm gunna assume that its just another way that the current administration is single-minded in its goal to dillute and weaken the right of citizens to know what decisions and policies its government is setting.
I guess because if you have technology that prevents you technologically from being irresponsible, you can never learn how to be responsible?
What happens when they get out? "Wicked, I'm not being tracked anymore! I can do whatever I want to do, consequence free!"
I have strong feelings about technology 'absolving' humans from learning about responsibility and accoutability, and the merits of making the right choice when you're not forced at RFID-tag-point to do so.
Excuse me, but being able to incorperate a business is a priviledge, not a right. It is a legal fiction, and it makes me laugh to think that 'freedom' supposedly involves allowing people to use government granted permission (oh, the irony) to centralize economic power, and then use that power to abuse citizens' ability to compete in the market place, and raise the standard of living.
Fuck, abusing markets makes things tougher for people running businesses, not just consumers, and its hilarious to see people condone the exact sort of behaviour that makes it tough to run a business or compete in the market place.
Your inherent distrust of governmet, but clearly not of people running businesses, its foolish beyond reproach. For whatever corruption/abuse we see in the political system, this also happens in the private sector. You only hear about it in government tho, because guess what - corperations have 100 times the protection of privacy, which spares them from the visbility and resultant bad PR that the government is subject to from the get-go.
Maybe politicians feel more indebted to 'return the favour' if contributions got them in to office rather than just kept them in office, which is why it might be economically more advantagous to contribute against the entrenched party. More political bang for the buck, if you will.
you mean companies are allowed to take advantage of customers who don't care, by using their monopoly in one industry (OS) to a competative advantage in another industry (online music sales)?
Oops, I forgot, thats called abusing the market, and its codified in law precicely because consumer apathy (or rather the fact that consumers have to live their life and contribute to humanity instead of constantly wondering whether or not they are supporting a monopoly) is not an excuse to abuse markets.
Just remember, despite all those lawyers and the billions in the bank, Gates and Balmer are still personally thankful some of you out there get all hissy when somebody takes a (albiet unfunny and glib) cheap shot at MS! Maybe you'll get a chistmas card, hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to shoot things without being laughed at, I'm afraid theres no other choice to play FPSes on a PC. :P
Er, forgot to point out that some commercial OSes can do all the above, but they cost muchly (and arnt BSD licenced.) I love Linux, but its just not as stable in my experience.
In my experience. Flame away.
BSD license rules, btw.
In 6+ years as a systems developer, very little approaches the way FreeBSD balances all considerations such as centralized development process, ported software, stability, and feature set.
.. but when it comes to running a server, its hard to argue with an OS that took well over 80 software platform upgrades (our own) without nary an OS crash.
;)
I like FreeBSD. Its never leading edge, its never trailing edge, it never supports the most hardware, it never does desktop best
Uptimes were 2+ years, 40 hits per second avg, and every freakin C bug I could throw at it.
FreeBSD is rock solid. ROCK solid. Oh, plus its dying.
And while we're on the subject, why would he climb that mountain?
> (2) The controls are horrible and the game is *WAY* too difficult. Lack of save points will have you throwing the controller in rage as the game kills you again and again
You suck at video games. Viewtiful Joe is not that hard.
> People are so damn selfish
Well, you mean, everybody is selfish except the people who profit from selling music, right?
It doesnt matter. Downloading is legal whether you own what you are downloading or not.
You can borrow CDs from friends and copy them. Its legal. You can't make copies of your own CDs and give them to friends.
In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.
It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).
This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)
We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.
This is my udnerstanding of our system. Corrections are invited.
> start by turning the computer off you fat ass lazy "nerds"
... HOW??
To avoid the easy charge of hypocricy, I realize you posted while you were outside, and your computer was off (presumably indoors.)
The real question is
No, because pop gaming nerds think The Matrix was a good game, while real gaming nerds know that most of the world will miss out on gems like Viewtiful Joe.
Same goes for any of the other formats available. Trying to convince 'cool nerds' of the hidden treasures in each medium only make them easily identifyable as the uncool nerds again.
Nerds will always be around. They arn't identifiable by what mediums they like, only the great lengths they will go to discuss or aquire specific works.
No, the original parent posters' point is that the argument can be made that as soon as companies treat you like a revenue stream, and not a person, you cease being a revenue stream to them .. because you take your business elsewhere.
.. ie, to raise our standard of living and increase our satistfaction in life. This is why I think its a moot point to assert that humans = revenue streams, to the extent where such a level of cynical self-awareness may in fact be detrimental to the health of our society and the economy.
Its much like the argument that there is no such thing as altruism. Sure, maybe theres no such things as altruism, that we do things purely for self, including helping others in seemingly selfless ways. However, if society as a whole accepts that there is no such thing as altruism, its behaviour changes. People stop doing things for other people, since they figure, as long as we dont expect each other to be selfless, they may as well stop doing the things they used to do for other people. The perception is that if you're helping others to help yourself, why not just help yourself and skip the 'middleman'? The punchline is that unless you can prove that acting selfishly is inately 'cheaper' and better for society than acting selflessly, changing the way people think about themselves and their actions causes their behaviour to change - and in this case, I postulate, not to the benifit of those participating in said society.
If companies want citizens = maximum possible revenue streams, its probably not in their best interest to flaunt the equation in front of us. People have a way of resisting expected behaviour when they suspect they are being manipulated to act in the interests of somebody else. It is entirely possible (and this is what I believe) that the more self-aware people become to their true 'roles' in the economy, the less they act in the interests and wishes of companies. It poisons the natural social dynamics people exhibit in a capitalist market, and weakens the ability of the system to serve its intended purpose
Yeah, we all know how humans never let their motorcycles tip over at 100mph ...
whoa now, programmers should make what they make .. its the execs at the distributors who are making too much.
.. only the execs who dream up those 'brilliant' tie-ins or promotions or exclusive offers that *supposedly* are responsible for ensuring a games success in the market.
fleeced means they dont get the proportion of the revenues that I believe they should get. i dont think the programmers should get more
The publishers make good money if the game sells appropriately .. the content creators, true to western economy form, get fleeced.
.. thats right .. Copyright law! (Probably the best way to prove that copyright law has long stopped serving the people it was meant to benifit - the content authors.)
AS usual, control over the distribution channels is where the money's at. It's the 1600's in England all over again. Guess what law they created to break the monopoly that the distributors had over the profits from publishing
One of the problems with games and movies today is that the production values are too high .. the risk inherent in rampant piracy should dictate that (if producers of content assume piracy will always exist) you manage the risk by lowering production values and making the product able to compete with piracy on a price point level.
Next week, there'll be an article on how the company MS contracted to put this movie together did it with Apple iMovie or somesuch.
thats hilarious .. you dont need good code to be sure .. you only need somebody else's good code to run a firewall.
oh lordy.
Maybe 'we' dont need them, but their miniturization and tiny cost make them a difficult technology to let go of, if you look across the demographic spectrum.
To say nothing about me prefering drivers listening to the radio rather than watching TV, if they are interested in having somebody else picking the tunes
Just some stupid thoughts.
A government trying to make it hard to find important information isn't really that much worse than a government that makes the information completetly unavailable ..
..
Not that I'm saying this is a straight up attempt to limit the dissemination of information that is supposedly publicly available, but if it is
intent is 4/5th of the law? Or something?
It's just another example of a government making it difficult for people to educate themselves and inform themselves about the doings of their elected representatives. Maybe.
I'm not wearing tin-foil, and I do think the guy above who posted that it might just be a carefully crafted honey-pot might have the best theory.
However, I'd get suspicious any time my government tried to limit the 'visibility' of information. We've known for years that the placement of information in a newspaper (front page or back page) plays a major role in determining how many people become aware of certain stories and events, and this might be much the same. By making the information non-searchable for a large portion of the internet's search engines, they are decreasing the chance of people coming across this information. And I'm not sure how much of a 'non event' it is when governments (and public companies, for that matter) attempt to reduce the visibility of information they are legally obligated to make publicly available.
If this isn't some sort of cyber-intel thing, then I'm gunna assume that its just another way that the current administration is single-minded in its goal to dillute and weaken the right of citizens to know what decisions and policies its government is setting.
I guess because if you have technology that prevents you technologically from being irresponsible, you can never learn how to be responsible?
What happens when they get out? "Wicked, I'm not being tracked anymore! I can do whatever I want to do, consequence free!"
I have strong feelings about technology 'absolving' humans from learning about responsibility and accoutability, and the merits of making the right choice when you're not forced at RFID-tag-point to do so.
1984?
Excuse me, but being able to incorperate a business is a priviledge, not a right. It is a legal fiction, and it makes me laugh to think that 'freedom' supposedly involves allowing people to use government granted permission (oh, the irony) to centralize economic power, and then use that power to abuse citizens' ability to compete in the market place, and raise the standard of living.
Fuck, abusing markets makes things tougher for people running businesses, not just consumers, and its hilarious to see people condone the exact sort of behaviour that makes it tough to run a business or compete in the market place.
Your inherent distrust of governmet, but clearly not of people running businesses, its foolish beyond reproach. For whatever corruption/abuse we see in the political system, this also happens in the private sector. You only hear about it in government tho, because guess what - corperations have 100 times the protection of privacy, which spares them from the visbility and resultant bad PR that the government is subject to from the get-go.
Just a wild theory:
Maybe politicians feel more indebted to 'return the favour' if contributions got them in to office rather than just kept them in office, which is why it might be economically more advantagous to contribute against the entrenched party. More political bang for the buck, if you will.
you mean companies are allowed to take advantage of customers who don't care, by using their monopoly in one industry (OS) to a competative advantage in another industry (online music sales)?
Oops, I forgot, thats called abusing the market, and its codified in law precicely because consumer apathy (or rather the fact that consumers have to live their life and contribute to humanity instead of constantly wondering whether or not they are supporting a monopoly) is not an excuse to abuse markets.
Just remember, despite all those lawyers and the billions in the bank, Gates and Balmer are still personally thankful some of you out there get all hissy when somebody takes a (albiet unfunny and glib) cheap shot at MS! Maybe you'll get a chistmas card, hehe.