There have been roughly 125 000 people scammed by the 125 arrested scammers. If we just stick to the hypothesis that the average scam lasts for one year (if anyone has more information about that, welcome), it makes a difference of 47 000 (125 000 - 4*3*58000) between the scammed people and the number of complaints.
Given that the overall loss is estimated to 100 million US, and making a real nice average calculation, we can just imagine that 37,6 million (47 000/125 000*100 million) dollars have not been claimed.
really I understand the bitter taste that Mr Stallman may feel every brand new day.
Just imagine, for one moment, a whole life dedicated to freedom. Just imagine how frustrating it is to see that, despite all your time involved in making an ideal (which is not that idealistic indeed) come true, people are still so unaware of the shifting you're trying to put into. Just imagine the genius of such a guy spent into software, interviews, sites, philosophy that is not rewarded by anything else that an elusive thank you...
Fuck Richard, among all other people following you, THANK YOU.
I agree with you on the primary goal of the FSF, ie create moral software. But you will have noticed that moral values backed up by the FSF often - I would be tempted to say always - produce great software. This is the main asset of sticking to moral values...
the article raises, first, the general issue of technological anticipation in the IT field.
The problem is : is it wise to make plans that are supposed to be completed in seven years ? Is the tremendous amount of money provided worth a pure credential position ?
Furthermore, it seems to me like a race to the fastest network. RoK is well-known for its quick development in that sector, but this is now turning into a craze for speed. Maybe the technological process of networking will have changed at that time ; and if not, probably only a minority will need to download at that pace.
This article is already four years old. But it underlines the fact that connectivity might not be considered the same way in 6-7 years.
Actually this paper sounds like optimistic/futuristic sci-fi, but the Korean did make the same kind of bet by enforcing such a plan.
I'd like to take advantage of this topic to ask/.ers a very general question about Apple policy regarding softwares.
I've noticed that many of readers here seem to appreciate Apple as much as Linux. However, I do not understand why. Let me explain.
Despite the fact that Apple is very successful with its hardware, and for some good reasons indeed - they make very nice computers, and have a quite clever way of dealing with IT marketing - I still do not understand why anyone did not revolt yet against the fact that Apple is rewarding their audience by making them pay the upgrade of a FreeBSD-based platform for (I think some will become angry with my statement...) 129 USD (you might just have noticed that I didn't take into account the 'free' upgrade that allows you to benefit from Panther if you purchased a Mac after October the 8th, which is two weeks before the official release ; indeed it would have been beyond the human limits of decency).
As every geek, I'm interested in aesthetics. This is why I
own an iPod. A windows iPod that I make run on Linux. But again this is deceiving. I've been using an older 5 Gb iPod on a friend's iMac, it was working *so* well. But the present one is all the more buggy with every day passing.
It may sounds weird, but my point is that Apple is taking advantage of its position of Windows' crusher, alongside with Linux and others (just look how clever it was from a marketing point of view to use a free platform). But in my opinion Apple is far far far away from the Linux community's state of mind. How can free-minded persons visit Apple Web Site and not be shocked by the understatement "The Best OS in The World ?" How can the GNU/Linux community allows, without saying a word, a multinational to take advantage of what has been built over for so many years ? How can Mac users keep waiting hours for a software that is overrated, both on financial and on technical points of view ?
The late misfortunes I had with my so beloved iPod made me realise that Apple developpers might not be so good as they appear to be. Again, one could answer that the FreeBSD license is completely free, and that maybe I'm not well informed of the very philosophical core of the problem. But even on a commercial plan, I've seen nothing worse than Apple business plan. They make good, not great, softwares, and they make you pay something about three time the price you would be able to bear for Microsoft XP, which is at last, a respectable OS.
My step-father did buy a 15'' G4 last year. We made comparisons between Linux, XP, OS9 and OSX. Despite the fact that my step-father is part of the strong community that is blindly backing up Apple choices, we were both compelled to acknowledge that - yes, yes- his G4 when running Mac OS X was beaten by WinXP running on my Centrino 1,3 Ghz, 512 RAM, slow IDE disk, when making graphic processing with Photoshop. When switching back to Mac OS 9, of course Mac was eventually faster. Not fast enough for Linux and the Gimp, but this is another problem.
These are just thoughts in the air. And I would be glad if some good soul could give me some answers about the ever-growing support, amongst the free software community, for Apple, no matter the orientations.
Regards,
Jdif
Which representation of knowledge ?
on
News at a Glance
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This is quite interesting to see that the same people asking for technical papers on IT are rejoicing about the prospect of feeling clever by looking at some non-sense pictures.
I'm not going to discuss about the strength of the immediate impact of a very intuitive and emotional object, ie a picture, a photography. I think history gave us some very interesting examples of misuse of information through pictures, videos, etc. My main point is that we should be careful, because our relationship to visual stimuli are not that rational ; you can go there if you want to learn more about the debate on the power of pictures, and what they really represent in our society.
Our world is by now so complex, so wide-open, that only strong and addictive stimuli can catch our attention. This is not surprising that the story of pictural representations is tightly related to the complexification of the world we're living in right now.
Thus, I have such an admiration for photographers such as James Nachtwey; what the folks like him did and still do is all the more useful than everyday brings a little more sadness to our daily lives.
But in no manner they represent - and themselves acknowledge it frankly - the truth. Because the truth is not in a picture, nor it is in a series of pictures. Photographers are here to draw our attention to urgent, revolting, funny, clever, ie interesting subjects. But I hate nothing more than people going to see Rwanda's genocide exposition in a museum, and then coming back with the so good-conscience feeling about the fact that yes, they did something, and what's more, they understood the problem.
Pictures are a beginning. I see a beautiful -yes, beautiful- picture of kids starving in Ouganda, my first reaction is to take some time and read papers about it. If I have some interest in Africa's demise (yes, yes, you'll see that in some time, the Southern part of Africa will be empty of black people), and if I have some time to spend on that, I'll read very different papers. Read NGO reports on the subject. Try to understand how I can be of any help. Etc. etc. etc.
A site that is supposed to make you understand the whole international actuality with pictures and snippets is the best way, first to make Ignorance's realm all the more important, and second to encourage, indeed, lazzyness. I don't even see why/.ers are not discussing more sharply such a decisive issue.
Of course, this is socially gratifying to be able to discuss on a shallow way of roughly every subject on Earth. But when you meet someone that truly knows what he/she is talking about (exactly the same way that people on/. know what they are talking about when it comes to IT), then you are fucked up. It's worth to get involved in a more serious way of learning how our world is rotating.This is exactly what I try to do by visiting this site, and learning from people that are competent on this precise subject.
And this is really what a responsible citizen should do with the general purpose information.
I do not agree with your reflexion on competition. I really think, without being too much idealistic, that what drives free software projects is not competition, it is the will of making software useful. Dot.
I'd like a stastitical report that tells us in which context did programmers decide to write softwares. My instinctive opinion is that there was a need, and someone could match the technical requirements for it, did it, and freely distributed it.
By the way, I'd like pseudo-economic discussions to be a bit more imaginative. We have all learned in Samuelson/Stiglitz books that competition is responsible for innovation. But what most people forget is the fundamental underlying principle of this statement : this is true when people earn money for it. People do innovate in the name of competition when they are sure to get some money from it. The main economic statement is : 'there is no free lunch'. And the fact is that GNU/Linux seems to be one of the first free lunch appearing on Earth. Don't you think that the GNU/Linux experience is a blatant experience that shows that innovation can come from another incentive ? I'll let you meditate on that.
I really don't think that Gnome was made to compete with KDE. I think it was made to bring GNU a Gui, and to elude the pessimistic prospects, at that time, of a non totally-free GUI (the Qt library wasn't free at this time if my memory is correct).
What is, at the core point, interesting in Linux, is that competition is not the first thing that pushes up developpers to make their produces. Of course a some point there is a kind of competition, but this is a sound one, just like between MPlayer and Xine ; they don't have the same way to tackle problems, but at least they are not praying for the demise of the rival project. They are doing their best.
And this is all the contrary than what you're doing now. As I saw in a post following your response, you said that, unlike Gnome, KDE was useful/usable. And this is, from my point of view, a pure insanity to say so. Gnome is usable, as KDE is. Both are oriented in different ways, but you can't shed a cursed spell like that on one third of Linux GUI developpers. First they don't deserve it, and second, you're not skilled enough to make a better thing, so the best position is just to shut up. Or maybe you are, and then give me your adress at sourceforge ; I can assure you that I'll give you an unbiased point.
But please don't say that you did respond in an objective manner. Maybe you were angry when seeing KDE criticized like this, and I can understand it, but as I stated before, you did respond in the same way. Which is not very clever, from my point of view. And that's it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that your advocacy of the 'pen and paper' system relied on the fact that there were no limitations in the practice of RPGs, right ?
'you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used'
To illustrate your point of view, I'd say that, for you, Final Fantasy is not an RPG because you are restricted by the materia system and the fantasy world right ?
But, as I think you're talking about D&D RPG systems, do you really think that the 'pen and paper' system has no limitations ? As every other RPGs, D&D has rules, very precise rules, that often discourage people from getting involved in the so simple 'pen and paper' system (I'm thinking about the massive rules book). This is a first restriction. Furthermore, typical RPGs are restricted by the natural imagination, creativity, and credibility of the game master.
So, to draw an effective comparison, my point is that RP video games are all the same, because you are restricted by a set of rules, and by the imagination of the main developers/artists taht made the game. Whether the RPG is good or not is a very different question : I loved FF7-9 and hated FF8-10 (guess my karma is more suitable for odds), exactly the same way I loved 'pen and papers' fantasy RPGs and hated space ones.
Of course in the Japanese tradition of adapting RPGs, there is a clear trend to simplify the rules. But still you have Baldur's Gate, right ?
For me there is no difference, except that the illusion that you have the choice is far more blatant, and thus deceptive, when playing with real humans...
It's been interesting to read your post. But you're using the same weapons, and hence, the same weaknesses as your fellow writer.
As a very newbie (4 years) Linux user, I've been using first KDE, and then Gnome, for the policy was more transparent, and because I like to stick to the GPL, and GNU philosphy.
I'm not against KDE. But I'm agaisnt useless disputes (Gnome is better than KDE/KDE is better than Gnome), because at the end, Linux and the various free softwares have been made to offer choice. You may just want to use KDE, and I may just want to use Gnome, but what really surprises me is that we are arriving at a point where people argue on who made the first step, on who made the first implementation of this feature etc. This is supposed to be backed up by a community sense, and a will to share. It just looks like stupid competition. KDE AND Gnome are here to make people happy. And that's it. Those stupid endless disputes can have only one exit : make development even slower. It reminds me of the horrible story of Xfree CVS access, not granted to Howard, for no reason. We shouldn't behave like that when we are supporting such a state of mind as the one that makes GNU/Linux live. It really sounds like babbling.
I could have written the mail to the Gnome advocate, because the article/post is even more inane than yours. You are fighting with rules that do not define the GNU/Linux community.
I'd like Slashdot editorialists to be a little more precise about the title of their stories. When I read "Brazil Moves away from Microsoft", I really think that Brazil is moving away, whereas actually Brazil is thinking about moving away. How many countries did already think about moving away from Microsoft ? Since 5 years, I think, everyone. But who did ? I think in 5 years, none.
I would'nt like to be pessimistic about Linux vs Microsoft, but, as I argued before, and I as red it in this thread, this is about negotiations. Brazil's signal will be answered by Microsoft agreements, ie free software, cut prices, etc.
My question is : do you really think that any country is ready and able to switch RIGHT NOW ? Because actually we only need one move to make other people realize that this is affordable. This is just like international politics : everyone is praising it, but this is still like a philosophical antic.
I've browsed the numerous posts on the subject, and I've seen many reactions that emphasize the fact that EU is repeating the US government mistakes, that lawsuits suck etc.
So far, readers should consider giving some original responses, just as they ask for original tackling of the MS issue.
I'd like you to think about another way of considering the problem. The main question is : why did the EU do that ? Why did they do it *that* way and not another ?
It is a bit of a political thinking. I've red that the EU would suffer massive damage if they filed a too blunt lawsuit against MS. I've red that the WMP thing was a pretext to send a signal to Microsoft. I've red that the Echelon program was used sometimes through MS products. All these statements were in my mind since some time, and I think that, with a bit of political understanding of the situation, one can draw some different conclusions than the average "it means nothing" ones.
First of all, do you really think that EU political leaders are that stupid ? We've all seen that there was a study advising to bypass Windows and change to Linux. And one of the greatest advantage (among too much drawbacks) of the EU is that many voices are taken into account when a decision is made. So my point is that EU policy-makers were in this state of mind : we may consider a shifting in our computer policy, but for that we need to make it clear, just because MS may answer our needs correctly. I think that this lawsuit is a part of this movement. But the EU can't afford to 'defy' MS, because retaliation would be a disaster, in any form (withdrawal of software, intensifying of industrial-spying, which stays a hot issue between EU and the US, I trust MS to find some awkward ways to do it). Furthermore, do you think that such a lawsuit is revealed to/. readers at the same moment as it is to MS leaders ? EU and MS are by now negotiating around the terms of an agreement, because the agreement has no importance. What is important here is to say ; hey MS, we're considering other way to comprehend the computer world. This is a signal, sent to both MS and newspaper readers. It doesn't mean a clash, it doesn't mean a shift. It means a possibility that MS may -or may not- be able to tackle well. Shifting to another possibility (ie Linux or similar) is a very expensive and brain-sucking thing to do, so the EU is considering in which ways they could accept to stay in a under-efficient situation. Taken form this perspective, the EU action means something. And it means a lot ; the way it has been offered to MS is all the same that the recent dispute between US/MS, but the underlying message is all the more different. This is *diplomacy*. The answer of Microsoft is elusive, for it doesn't say yes or no. It says, basically, piss off, which is very different from a simple no. We just be aware that much things that happen on that level are unknown. Things keep being interesting.
Last but not least, I've red a post saying that MS was not a monopoly. In fact, it was said that is was not a *legal* monopoly. I'd like the writer to understand that reality has not been embedded in an economics book yet. MS, de facto, *is* a monopoly, because the very proper definition of a monopoly implies choice. But not the choice to change the product after you were compelled to use it to understand how your fucking computer work. You may realize that the vast majority of people using computers are not/.ers : there are some people that want their computer to work, pure and simple. It took two months to my mother to understand where the power button was ; she's far from being stupid, but she is not interested in computer stuff, and that's it. So, for her, Microsoft is a fucking monopoly, mainly because all the conditions for making it a practical (by opposition to a theorical one) one are here. I'm not going to enter the details, but just for the anecdote, you'll find that many reports describing the computer world as obscure and te
I think we do agree. And you can tell me the end, I red LOTR 4 times already.
Between Arwen and Elrond, I think that there is no sacrifice of the entire elven people. It's just about Arwen and Aragorn. Elves are fleeing Middle-Earth, as they fled already during part of the Third Age, and even before when they entrenched in Nargothrond.
Aragorn and Eowyn just look like Santa Barbara. Eowyn in the book is much more like a warrior with a thin skin of a lover ; not a lover that can handle a sword with the force of love.
I agree with the Boromir/Aragorn conversation. Of course it wasn't in the book, and PJ may have been, as many readers, frustrated not to have any verbal explanation about Boromir's failure. He did it well.
In my opinion, Isengard scenes are so useless ("will burn in the fire of industry" pfff), just to see zombie-like creatures to spawn out of fucking nasty cocoon. It's ok, nothing to see, move on. Saruman, again is important, because he defines what is Gandalf, not because it has any importance in the storyline. This is *all* about Sauron.
About Saruman being cut, no problem for me, except for the palantir. The palantir is fucking important.
And eventually about the changes on characters, fucking shame. Of course this only involves my personal point of view on the book. I've seen some of friends interpretating the story between Frodo/Sam as a gay come out...
Of course there is the Moria, and it was one of the greatest achievements of the first movie.
But then, Gimli was fucked up. I have a very precise remembering that the Two Towers is the moment when Gimli and Legolas become friends, especially in the Fangorn Forest.
In the movie apart from competing about the "frags", nothing on this. Even in the first one, Gimli litterally falls in love with Galadriel. But in the movie, he looks such like a mentally-deficient kid in the boat.
Save the dwarves ; they are endangered. The dwarves can be enlightened too. Dwarves can have a regular sexual life. Dwarves POWA !! *ouch*
An argument that has not been conjured up in the Linux overall picture is the gaming industry. And I think this is one very important aspect of the present situation.
I'm going to give you my own exemple, but I have several friends in the same situation as I was some years ago and that didn't change their OS.
Basically I'm a hardcore-gamer since the age of 15. It means playing games 6 hours in the night, and sleeping 4 hours a night to still be efficient at school. At some point, at I was interested in computers in a more general way, I began considering Linux, roughly at that age, but with no skills in anything but clicking the mouse.
I just got into it, with some work, installing on my own etc. But the fact is that I never left Window$ because of the lack of games in Linux. I was really positive about Winex, until I saw it running, badly actually with my config. So the situation is : on my laptop I have both OSes, I really would like to uninstall MSWin, but sometimes I know that I need to strengthen my grasp on my fiber Wire (Hitman 2). However I found great games on Linux, especially RTCW, with very funny people (the Panzerfaust is so cool).
So I really think that Linux geeks are enticed so see the gaming industry arise. At least, many of my friends are waiting for that opportunity to switch, pure and simple. I think it caters to many many many people. And as far as I am concerned, of course I would be all the more enthusiastic to spend my money on Linux's games if it allows me not to see *ever* the green and blue xp task bar.
the fact that Saruman has been cut is not a huge problem in itself, indeed. It worries me for the palantir which, I hope, will not fall from the golden sky.
But actually this questions the whole process involved in making the trilogy. I am a die-hard fan, and I liked the Felllowship and the Two Towers.
I found that Jackson added too much scenes, that, if they were designed to make the story more understandable and/or the characters cooler, proved to be useless. Let's consider it : first you have the Rohirrim knights slaughtering the Orcs that took away Merry and Pippin. If my memory is ok, I think that Tolkien gives it 4 lines. Jackson, on the other hand gives it at least 5 minutes. Second, we have the destruction of a Rohirrim village ; actually the tale of the little boy who has to leave his mother and then become a warrior to avenge her etc. is, say, sad (/?) but stupid. It takes 5 minutes (Go ! Go! my son Go!). Aragorn wounded after the battle against the vile goat-dog-dragon, saved by his horse, fainting in the setting sun. The death of the fat elven guy at the end, who has no importance but that of being the character that dies at the end. I'm sure I omitted some others, but let's say that it took something like 15-20 minutes. It is *plenty* of time to put other things instead.
Nevertheless I liked the Two Towers. But less than the first one, for there was some very strong misunderstandings between the book and the movie.
- Who *ever* said that Saruman was the vilain ? (I base my comment on the fact that Jackson said that in the ROTK, Sauron was now the vilain) Again if my memory is ok, it is always said, mainly by Gandalf, that Saruman is a pet in the Dark Lord's hands. That Saruman's armies are strenghten by His spirit. Well, in my opinion, it was a complete mistake to present Saruman as the first enemy ; Sauron then seems to be a challengeable partner. We shouldn't forget that he is one of the God's servants.
-Who *ever* said that Gimli was a fucking asshole ? Who *ever* wrote that dwarves needed to be thrown ? This completely kills the Gimli character, and frankly, this is a shame. It relies on the very intuitive human cliche of the fantasy world, in which humans are warriors, elves are archers and clever, and dwarves are axemen and quite stupid beared creatures. I think Tolkien showed that he had much more sharpness in its way of considering the *main* character, and that it could have been underlined in the movie.
For the Lord of the Rings (book) does not cater to intellectuals, and there was absolutely NO need to put some attractive but all the more boring sequences (I've seen the trailer of ROTK, and I was frightened by the scene between crying Eowyn and Aragorn : "No Eowyn, you're never going to see a king's dick").
Cutting was Ok, but adding and shifting the overall sense of the story : no good.
I didn't want to be unpleasant ; nonetheless this is what you try to be with your last post.
I think my point is quite clear. If you forgot it, just read my first post, where my main arguments are.
But to make things even clearer, let's just relinquish innovation on games principle, for we can't find an agreement on that. I would just like to add that Blizzard triggered a revolution in the games treatment. - Amazing support for the games : Diablo II 1.10 patch, even if there are plenty of things to say about that, is a blunt evidence of it. - Amazing support for the players : what about the Christmas wallpapers and extra maps, which, even it you can find it futile, is, at least, an effective marketing, and, at most, community-building.
I think that beyond all the disputes about innovation on games, and my point remains the same, ie at some stage you can say there was innovation even if the game principle was not new, Blizzard has been innovative on that point.
I loved your last statement. I AM the fanboy. Seirously, I tend not to be a fan of any kind ; as I said previously, I do not support the eventual orientation of Blizzard, since the departure of Roper and the likes.
Again, and now it will come to very different feeling about the gaming experience: - I was 8 when I first play to Dune II ; in my mind, despite the fact that strategy has been revealed, it was more a kind of fun - just send your spy and win the game by stealing spice ressources - than real micro-war strategy. Maybe I was too young ? - You are talking about games that I've never played. My parents didn't have yet the idea of having sex to make a child. But, as far as I know, those game (Rogue, Nethack) illustrated the principle of slashing enemies again and again right ? Are you making them the builders of the Diablo style, just because of their precedence in a concept that is as old as the human being ? Why do you think people play darts ? Shooting with bows ? Making paintball parties ?
It would be just if as I was saying : The new testament did not invent anything, for there was the ancient one before him. Come on...:)
This is amazing that/. published such a provocative/flamebait statement over Blizzard Entertainment.
I had previous discussions with ex-DiabloII players who convinced me of the very structural drawbacks the company developped the last past years.
But if there is something that cannot be retrieved, well, it IS their innovative way of thinking video games. I red the posts so far, and saw some people arguing about the upgrading skills of Blizzard.
Let me argue in two points. 1) Blizzard released twice two revolutionnary gaming principles. First Warcraft I, that, if it may have been inspired by older games (I'm thinking of Populous), initiated the micro-war strategy. And then Diablo which emphasized a very simple principle of repetitive fun into an overall fantasy scheme. So please don't tell they have not been innovative. Or maybe one may think that being innovative is truly to invent something ; in which case the only ever innovative game was Pong.
2) Concerning the improving skills, I can only agree. But keep in mind that they only improved the very principles they just have been making before. This in the basic principle of sequels and extensions. Let's examine what were the improvements. In Warcraft II, the right-click availability in order to made orders and strategies easier to achieve. In Starcraft, the principle of TOTALLY different races, with customizations of buildings, units, and basic strategy. In Warcraft III, the implementation of heroes inside a strategy game, with experience, skills, and special items. In Diablo II, skills organized by trees, specialization inside the trees. Etc. etc. etc. As it is said somewhere, different words carry differents ideas. Improvement is not innovation, but f***** important improvements sometimes do look like innovation.
Offtopic I may be. But really this is not fair. I don't have any shares form Blizzard, and I do disagree with their latest strategical orientations. But good work definitely needs to be recognized.
You really took my point as an agressive and arrogant statement. I'm not just saying that people are stupid, neither you should be a graduate from anything to be able to use the Internet.
But the fact IS that fucking intrusive ads are here because they are effecient. And it means that some people do use it. I'm not going to explain my point again, I think that despite my desperate English, it remains clear.
I totally agree with you about the quality management, except that this is not anthropology. I was speaking about people behavior, not economics and the like. People like quality, fine. And they like to gain access to it quickly, without any requirements, fine.
To answer precisely: 1) you can find quality sites everywhere on the internet. What you're talking about, very annoying pop-ups, fake IDs etc. is often the counterpart of some illegal -or almost illegal- stuff. You may know that about 70% of connections are made to visit pornographic sites, so it's not surprising to see so many people complaining about that. Warez - and i've been a customer of these sites - do practice ads ands ads ands ads ands ads a lot, but this is the logical counterpart for an illegal, expensive, and risky activity right ? If you don't want to see ads, you can just avoid these sites. I've been on the internet since 4 years (quite late right?) and now that I quitted visiting the two kind of sites above, I didn't receive ANY spam, and I wasn't bothered by any pop-ups you described in your previous message. So please don't say that advertising undermines the internet, because basically it's wrong.
2)My main anthropologic statement was : when you place a large population in an quite confidential, unprotected, and uncontrolled area, whether it's a physical one or not, most likely you will see appear some VERY irrational behaviors, including, in that precise case, people that think the Internet will bring them what has been always prohibited (I keep the Nigerian scam exemple). You then may think that it can be solved by education (which is my default opinion), or regulation, or everything else you want.
But you can't have the product, the money from the product, and the pleasure to fuck the beautiful vendor at once. This is a matter of choice. You can have a "free" internet, but you have less content, and less users. You can have quality content, but it comes at the price of regular ads. And you can have all kind of contents, but with it all kind of ads. I'm not taking sides for anything above, but there is a choice to make. And as, by definition, choices are individual in the Internet, we are at the third stage. If you want some regulation, please tell it. But I'm not sure this is the right solution.
Again I don't want you to misunderstand what I say ; I'm not despising at all, I'm not a pro Ads activist. They piss me off too, but I'm aware that the vast majority are a source of funding for the internet, and that the minority of intrusive ones are taking advantage of people unawareness.
There are so many hassling ads, right. But what are they here ? Because, as you underlined it, people do fall into the fucking trap. But why people fall into this fucking trap ?
Here you have two options.
1)You may believe that some computer users are stupid, I mean in general. This is quite rude to say, right. And even if it does not imply on the overall scheme that drives those people (who may act very kindly, simply, honestly), the fact is that they are stupid. On that basis, please try to be a bit more tolerant towards these that suffered the first inequality in life, and understand that some need time to understand where the right "close" button is. This is all about education, and the Western world lacks computers education, for sure.
2)You may think that most internet users consider this medium, (and it has been sodl to them like this) as a dense jungle to explore. But like in natural exploration, the most unpredictable behaviors appear (think of the Nigerian scam). Again this is all about education. Annoying ads wouldn't be there if nobody clicked on them.
Internet has been made totally free and without framework. So don't blame the logical counterpart, ie mean businesses taking advantage of this lack of structure.
We all do agree that ads, especially popups and flash ads are fucking boring. But the roots of the problem are not anymore within computer sciences. It's within anthropology.
Regards, Jdif
Sorry for my french, but we still can't accept that Napoleon is dead...:)
Don't make too much brainstorming about that ; the vietnamese government always claims such plan-making things. It would be great of course ; but we should too be wary of what a communist state might do with GPL software.
[The Patriot Act] allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring the "trespassers" on their computers. This change made the law technology-neutral; it placed electronic trespassers on the same footing as physical trespassers. Now, hacking victims can seek law enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.
I think they just didn't play the Game of Life enough.
Slashdot Mirror
if you want to get into the details(pdf file)
Regards,
jdif
let's make some maths together.
- There have been roughly 125 000 people scammed by the 125 arrested scammers. If we just stick to the hypothesis that the average scam lasts for one year (if anyone has more information about that, welcome), it makes a difference of 47 000 (125 000 - 4*3*58000) between the scammed people and the number of complaints.
- Given that the overall loss is estimated to 100 million US, and making a real nice average calculation, we can just imagine that 37,6 million (47 000/125 000*100 million) dollars have not been claimed.
Where will that money go ?Regards,
jdif
Hi,
really I understand the bitter taste that Mr Stallman may feel every brand new day.
Just imagine, for one moment, a whole life dedicated to freedom. Just imagine how frustrating it is to see that, despite all your time involved in making an ideal (which is not that idealistic indeed) come true, people are still so unaware of the shifting you're trying to put into. Just imagine the genius of such a guy spent into software, interviews, sites, philosophy that is not rewarded by anything else that an elusive thank you...
Fuck Richard, among all other people following you, THANK YOU.
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
I agree with you on the primary goal of the FSF, ie create moral software. But you will have noticed that moral values backed up by the FSF often - I would be tempted to say always - produce great software. This is the main asset of sticking to moral values...
Come on, who's not using gcc here ?
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
the article raises, first, the general issue of technological anticipation in the IT field.
The problem is : is it wise to make plans that are supposed to be completed in seven years ? Is the tremendous amount of money provided worth a pure credential position ?
Furthermore, it seems to me like a race to the fastest network. RoK is well-known for its quick development in that sector, but this is now turning into a craze for speed. Maybe the technological process of networking will have changed at that time ; and if not, probably only a minority will need to download at that pace.
This article is already four years old. But it underlines the fact that connectivity might not be considered the same way in 6-7 years.
Actually this paper sounds like optimistic/futuristic sci-fi, but the Korean did make the same kind of bet by enforcing such a plan.
Regards,
Jdif
I'd like to take advantage of this topic to ask /.ers a very general question about Apple policy regarding softwares.
I've noticed that many of readers here seem to appreciate Apple as much as Linux. However, I do not understand why. Let me explain.
Despite the fact that Apple is very successful with its hardware, and for some good reasons indeed - they make very nice computers, and have a quite clever way of dealing with IT marketing - I still do not understand why anyone did not revolt yet against the fact that Apple is rewarding their audience by making them pay the upgrade of a FreeBSD-based platform for (I think some will become angry with my statement...) 129 USD (you might just have noticed that I didn't take into account the 'free' upgrade that allows you to benefit from Panther if you purchased a Mac after October the 8th, which is two weeks before the official release ; indeed it would have been beyond the human limits of decency).
As every geek, I'm interested in aesthetics. This is why I own an iPod. A windows iPod that I make run on Linux. But again this is deceiving.
I've been using an older 5 Gb iPod on a friend's iMac, it was working *so* well. But the present one is all the more buggy with every day passing.
It may sounds weird, but my point is that Apple is taking advantage of its position of Windows' crusher, alongside with Linux and others (just look how clever it was from a marketing point of view to use a free platform). But in my opinion Apple is far far far away from the Linux community's state of mind. How can free-minded persons visit Apple Web Site and not be shocked by the understatement "The Best OS in The World ?" How can the GNU/Linux community allows, without saying a word, a multinational to take advantage of what has been built over for so many years ? How can Mac users keep waiting hours for a software that is overrated, both on financial and on technical points of view ?
The late misfortunes I had with my so beloved iPod made me realise that Apple developpers might not be so good as they appear to be. Again, one could answer that the FreeBSD license is completely free, and that maybe I'm not well informed of the very philosophical core of the problem. But even on a commercial plan, I've seen nothing worse than Apple business plan. They make good, not great, softwares, and they make you pay something about three time the price you would be able to bear for Microsoft XP, which is at last, a respectable OS.
My step-father did buy a 15'' G4 last year. We made comparisons between Linux, XP, OS9 and OSX. Despite the fact that my step-father is part of the strong community that is blindly backing up Apple choices, we were both compelled to acknowledge that - yes, yes- his G4 when running Mac OS X was beaten by WinXP running on my Centrino 1,3 Ghz, 512 RAM, slow IDE disk, when making graphic processing with Photoshop. When switching back to Mac OS 9, of course Mac was eventually faster. Not fast enough for Linux and the Gimp, but this is another problem.
These are just thoughts in the air. And I would be glad if some good soul could give me some answers about the ever-growing support, amongst the free software community, for Apple, no matter the orientations.
Regards,
Jdif
This is quite interesting to see that the same people asking for technical papers on IT are rejoicing about the prospect of feeling clever by looking at some non-sense pictures.
/.ers are not discussing more sharply such a decisive issue.
Of course, this is socially gratifying to be able to discuss on a shallow way of roughly every subject on Earth. But when you meet someone that truly knows what he/she is talking about (exactly the same way that people on /. know what they are talking about when it comes to IT), then you are fucked up. It's worth to get involved in a more serious way of learning how our world is rotating.This is exactly what I try to do by visiting this site, and learning from people that are competent on this precise subject.
I'm not going to discuss about the strength of the immediate impact of a very intuitive and emotional object, ie a picture, a photography. I think history gave us some very interesting examples of misuse of information through pictures, videos, etc. My main point is that we should be careful, because our relationship to visual stimuli are not that rational ; you can go there if you want to learn more about the debate on the power of pictures, and what they really represent in our society.
Our world is by now so complex, so wide-open, that only strong and addictive stimuli can catch our attention. This is not surprising that the story of pictural representations is tightly related to the complexification of the world we're living in right now.
Thus, I have such an admiration for photographers such as James Nachtwey; what the folks like him did and still do is all the more useful than everyday brings a little more sadness to our daily lives.
But in no manner they represent - and themselves acknowledge it frankly - the truth. Because the truth is not in a picture, nor it is in a series of pictures. Photographers are here to draw our attention to urgent, revolting, funny, clever, ie interesting subjects. But I hate nothing more than people going to see Rwanda's genocide exposition in a museum, and then coming back with the so good-conscience feeling about the fact that yes, they did something, and what's more, they understood the problem.
Pictures are a beginning. I see a beautiful -yes, beautiful- picture of kids starving in Ouganda, my first reaction is to take some time and read papers about it. If I have some interest in Africa's demise (yes, yes, you'll see that in some time, the Southern part of Africa will be empty of black people), and if I have some time to spend on that, I'll read very different papers. Read NGO reports on the subject. Try to understand how I can be of any help. Etc. etc. etc.
A site that is supposed to make you understand the whole international actuality with pictures and snippets is the best way, first to make Ignorance's realm all the more important, and second to encourage, indeed, lazzyness. I don't even see why
And this is really what a responsible citizen should do with the general purpose information.
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
I do not agree with your reflexion on competition. I really think, without being too much idealistic, that what drives free software projects is not competition, it is the will of making software useful. Dot.
I'd like a stastitical report that tells us in which context did programmers decide to write softwares. My instinctive opinion is that there was a need, and someone could match the technical requirements for it, did it, and freely distributed it.
By the way, I'd like pseudo-economic discussions to be a bit more imaginative. We have all learned in Samuelson/Stiglitz books that competition is responsible for innovation. But what most people forget is the fundamental underlying principle of this statement : this is true when people earn money for it. People do innovate in the name of competition when they are sure to get some money from it. The main economic statement is : 'there is no free lunch'. And the fact is that GNU/Linux seems to be one of the first free lunch appearing on Earth. Don't you think that the GNU/Linux experience is a blatant experience that shows that innovation can come from another incentive ? I'll let you meditate on that.
I really don't think that Gnome was made to compete with KDE. I think it was made to bring GNU a Gui, and to elude the pessimistic prospects, at that time, of a non totally-free GUI (the Qt library wasn't free at this time if my memory is correct).
What is, at the core point, interesting in Linux, is that competition is not the first thing that pushes up developpers to make their produces. Of course a some point there is a kind of competition, but this is a sound one, just like between MPlayer and Xine ; they don't have the same way to tackle problems, but at least they are not praying for the demise of the rival project. They are doing their best.
And this is all the contrary than what you're doing now. As I saw in a post following your response, you said that, unlike Gnome, KDE was useful/usable. And this is, from my point of view, a pure insanity to say so. Gnome is usable, as KDE is. Both are oriented in different ways, but you can't shed a cursed spell like that on one third of Linux GUI developpers. First they don't deserve it, and second, you're not skilled enough to make a better thing, so the best position is just to shut up. Or maybe you are, and then give me your adress at sourceforge ; I can assure you that I'll give you an unbiased point.
But please don't say that you did respond in an objective manner. Maybe you were angry when seeing KDE criticized like this, and I can understand it, but as I stated before, you did respond in the same way. Which is not very clever, from my point of view. And that's it.
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that your advocacy of the 'pen and paper' system relied on the fact that there were no limitations in the practice of RPGs, right ?
'you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used'
To illustrate your point of view, I'd say that, for you, Final Fantasy is not an RPG because you are restricted by the materia system and the fantasy world right ?
But, as I think you're talking about D&D RPG systems, do you really think that the 'pen and paper' system has no limitations ? As every other RPGs, D&D has rules, very precise rules, that often discourage people from getting involved in the so simple 'pen and paper' system (I'm thinking about the massive rules book). This is a first restriction. Furthermore, typical RPGs are restricted by the natural imagination, creativity, and credibility of the game master.
So, to draw an effective comparison, my point is that RP video games are all the same, because you are restricted by a set of rules, and by the imagination of the main developers/artists taht made the game. Whether the RPG is good or not is a very different question : I loved FF7-9 and hated FF8-10 (guess my karma is more suitable for odds), exactly the same way I loved 'pen and papers' fantasy RPGs and hated space ones.
Of course in the Japanese tradition of adapting RPGs, there is a clear trend to simplify the rules. But still you have Baldur's Gate, right ?
For me there is no difference, except that the illusion that you have the choice is far more blatant, and thus deceptive, when playing with real humans...
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
It's been interesting to read your post.
But you're using the same weapons, and hence, the same weaknesses as your fellow writer.
As a very newbie (4 years) Linux user, I've been using first KDE, and then Gnome, for the policy was more transparent, and because I like to stick to the GPL, and GNU philosphy.
I'm not against KDE. But I'm agaisnt useless disputes (Gnome is better than KDE/KDE is better than Gnome), because at the end, Linux and the various free softwares have been made to offer choice. You may just want to use KDE, and I may just want to use Gnome, but what really surprises me is that we are arriving at a point where people argue on who made the first step, on who made the first implementation of this feature etc. This is supposed to be backed up by a community sense, and a will to share. It just looks like stupid competition. KDE AND Gnome are here to make people happy. And that's it. Those stupid endless disputes can have only one exit : make development even slower.
It reminds me of the horrible story of Xfree CVS access, not granted to Howard, for no reason. We shouldn't behave like that when we are supporting such a state of mind as the one that makes GNU/Linux live.
It really sounds like babbling.
I could have written the mail to the Gnome advocate, because the article/post is even more inane than yours. You are fighting with rules that do not define the GNU/Linux community.
Regards,
Jdif
I'd like Slashdot editorialists to be a little more precise about the title of their stories. When I read "Brazil Moves away from Microsoft", I really think that Brazil is moving away, whereas actually Brazil is thinking about moving away. How many countries did already think about moving away from Microsoft ? Since 5 years, I think, everyone. But who did ? I think in 5 years, none.
I would'nt like to be pessimistic about Linux vs Microsoft, but, as I argued before, and I as red it in this thread, this is about negotiations. Brazil's signal will be answered by Microsoft agreements, ie free software, cut prices, etc.
My question is : do you really think that any country is ready and able to switch RIGHT NOW ?
Because actually we only need one move to make other people realize that this is affordable. This is just like international politics : everyone is praising it, but this is still like a philosophical antic.
Who can do it ? Who will make it ?
Regards,
Jdif
I've browsed the numerous posts on the subject, and I've seen many reactions that emphasize the fact that EU is repeating the US government mistakes, that lawsuits suck etc.
/. readers at the same moment as it is to MS leaders ? EU and MS are by now negotiating around the terms of an agreement, because the agreement has no importance. What is important here is to say ; hey MS, we're considering other way to comprehend the computer world. This is a signal, sent to both MS and newspaper readers. It doesn't mean a clash, it doesn't mean a shift. It means a possibility that MS may -or may not- be able to tackle well. Shifting to another possibility (ie Linux or similar) is a very expensive and brain-sucking thing to do, so the EU is considering in which ways they could accept to stay in a under-efficient situation.
/.ers : there are some people that want their computer to work, pure and simple. It took two months to my mother to understand where the power button was ; she's far from being stupid, but she is not interested in computer stuff, and that's it. So, for her, Microsoft is a fucking monopoly, mainly because all the conditions for making it a practical (by opposition to a theorical one) one are here. I'm not going to enter the details, but just for the anecdote, you'll find that many reports describing the computer world as obscure and te
So far, readers should consider giving some original responses, just as they ask for original tackling of the MS issue.
I'd like you to think about another way of considering the problem. The main question is : why did the EU do that ? Why did they do it *that* way and not another ?
It is a bit of a political thinking. I've red that the EU would suffer massive damage if they filed a too blunt lawsuit against MS. I've red that the WMP thing was a pretext to send a signal to Microsoft. I've red that the Echelon program was used sometimes through MS products. All these statements were in my mind since some time, and I think that, with a bit of political understanding of the situation, one can draw some different conclusions than the average "it means nothing" ones.
First of all, do you really think that EU political leaders are that stupid ? We've all seen that there was a study advising to bypass Windows and change to Linux. And one of the greatest advantage (among too much drawbacks) of the EU is that many voices are taken into account when a decision is made.
So my point is that EU policy-makers were in this state of mind : we may consider a shifting in our computer policy, but for that we need to make it clear, just because MS may answer our needs correctly. I think that this lawsuit is a part of this movement.
But the EU can't afford to 'defy' MS, because retaliation would be a disaster, in any form (withdrawal of software, intensifying of industrial-spying, which stays a hot issue between EU and the US, I trust MS to find some awkward ways to do it).
Furthermore, do you think that such a lawsuit is revealed to
Taken form this perspective, the EU action means something. And it means a lot ; the way it has been offered to MS is all the same that the recent dispute between US/MS, but the underlying message is all the more different. This is *diplomacy*.
The answer of Microsoft is elusive, for it doesn't say yes or no. It says, basically, piss off, which is very different from a simple no. We just be aware that much things that happen on that level are unknown. Things keep being interesting.
Last but not least, I've red a post saying that MS was not a monopoly. In fact, it was said that is was not a *legal* monopoly. I'd like the writer to understand that reality has not been embedded in an economics book yet. MS, de facto, *is* a monopoly, because the very proper definition of a monopoly implies choice. But not the choice to change the product after you were compelled to use it to understand how your fucking computer work. You may realize that the vast majority of people using computers are not
Who is ever going to launch a crack from its own computer ?
If I was part of this world, my first reflex would be to do it from an Internet Coffee or a public-place-based computer...
Did I miss a point at some time ?
Regards,
JDif
I think we do agree. And you can tell me the end, I red LOTR 4 times already.
Between Arwen and Elrond, I think that there is no sacrifice of the entire elven people. It's just about Arwen and Aragorn. Elves are fleeing Middle-Earth, as they fled already during part of the Third Age, and even before when they entrenched in Nargothrond.
Aragorn and Eowyn just look like Santa Barbara. Eowyn in the book is much more like a warrior with a thin skin of a lover ; not a lover that can handle a sword with the force of love.
I agree with the Boromir/Aragorn conversation. Of course it wasn't in the book, and PJ may have been, as many readers, frustrated not to have any verbal explanation about Boromir's failure. He did it well.
In my opinion, Isengard scenes are so useless ("will burn in the fire of industry" pfff), just to see zombie-like creatures to spawn out of fucking nasty cocoon. It's ok, nothing to see, move on. Saruman, again is important, because he defines what is Gandalf, not because it has any importance in the storyline. This is *all* about Sauron.
About Saruman being cut, no problem for me, except for the palantir. The palantir is fucking important.
And eventually about the changes on characters, fucking shame.
Of course this only involves my personal point of view on the book. I've seen some of friends interpretating the story between Frodo/Sam as a gay come out...
Regards,
Jdif
Yeah, we totally agree on that.
Of course there is the Moria, and it was one of the greatest achievements of the first movie.
But then, Gimli was fucked up. I have a very precise remembering that the Two Towers is the moment when Gimli and Legolas become friends, especially in the Fangorn Forest.
In the movie apart from competing about the "frags", nothing on this. Even in the first one, Gimli litterally falls in love with Galadriel. But in the movie, he looks such like a mentally-deficient kid in the boat.
Save the dwarves ; they are endangered. The dwarves can be enlightened too. Dwarves can have a regular sexual life. Dwarves POWA !! *ouch*
Regards,
Jdif
An argument that has not been conjured up in the Linux overall picture is the gaming industry. And I think this is one very important aspect of the present situation.
I'm going to give you my own exemple, but I have several friends in the same situation as I was some years ago and that didn't change their OS.
Basically I'm a hardcore-gamer since the age of 15. It means playing games 6 hours in the night, and sleeping 4 hours a night to still be efficient at school. At some point, at I was interested in computers in a more general way, I began considering Linux, roughly at that age, but with no skills in anything but clicking the mouse.
I just got into it, with some work, installing on my own etc. But the fact is that I never left Window$ because of the lack of games in Linux. I was really positive about Winex, until I saw it running, badly actually with my config. So the situation is : on my laptop I have both OSes, I really would like to uninstall MSWin, but sometimes I know that I need to strengthen my grasp on my fiber Wire (Hitman 2). However I found great games on Linux, especially RTCW, with very funny people (the Panzerfaust is so cool).
So I really think that Linux geeks are enticed so see the gaming industry arise. At least, many of my friends are waiting for that opportunity to switch, pure and simple. I think it caters to many many many people. And as far as I am concerned, of course I would be all the more enthusiastic to spend my money on Linux's games if it allows me not to see *ever* the green and blue xp task bar.
Regards,
JDif
Hi,
the fact that Saruman has been cut is not a huge problem in itself, indeed. It worries me for the palantir which, I hope, will not fall from the golden sky.
But actually this questions the whole process involved in making the trilogy. I am a die-hard fan, and I liked the Felllowship and the Two Towers.
I found that Jackson added too much scenes, that, if they were designed to make the story more understandable and/or the characters cooler, proved to be useless. Let's consider it : first you have the Rohirrim knights slaughtering the Orcs that took away Merry and Pippin. If my memory is ok, I think that Tolkien gives it 4 lines. Jackson, on the other hand gives it at least 5 minutes. Second, we have the destruction of a Rohirrim village ; actually the tale of the little boy who has to leave his mother and then become a warrior to avenge her etc. is, say, sad (/?) but stupid. It takes 5 minutes (Go ! Go! my son Go!). Aragorn wounded after the battle against the vile goat-dog-dragon, saved by his horse, fainting in the setting sun. The death of the fat elven guy at the end, who has no importance but that of being the character that dies at the end. I'm sure I omitted some others, but let's say that it took something like 15-20 minutes. It is *plenty* of time to put other things instead.
Nevertheless I liked the Two Towers. But less than the first one, for there was some very strong misunderstandings between the book and the movie.
- Who *ever* said that Saruman was the vilain ? (I base my comment on the fact that Jackson said that in the ROTK, Sauron was now the vilain) Again if my memory is ok, it is always said, mainly by Gandalf, that Saruman is a pet in the Dark Lord's hands. That Saruman's armies are strenghten by His spirit. Well, in my opinion, it was a complete mistake to present Saruman as the first enemy ; Sauron then seems to be a challengeable partner. We shouldn't forget that he is one of the God's servants.
-Who *ever* said that Gimli was a fucking asshole ? Who *ever* wrote that dwarves needed to be thrown ? This completely kills the Gimli character, and frankly, this is a shame. It relies on the very intuitive human cliche of the fantasy world, in which humans are warriors, elves are archers and clever, and dwarves are axemen and quite stupid beared creatures. I think Tolkien showed that he had much more sharpness in its way of considering the *main* character, and that it could have been underlined in the movie.
For the Lord of the Rings (book) does not cater to intellectuals, and there was absolutely NO need to put some attractive but all the more boring sequences (I've seen the trailer of ROTK, and I was frightened by the scene between crying Eowyn and Aragorn : "No Eowyn, you're never going to see a king's dick").
Cutting was Ok, but adding and shifting the overall sense of the story : no good.
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
I didn't want to be unpleasant ; nonetheless this is what you try to be with your last post.
I think my point is quite clear. If you forgot it, just read my first post, where my main arguments are.
But to make things even clearer, let's just relinquish innovation on games principle, for we can't find an agreement on that.
I would just like to add that Blizzard triggered a revolution in the games treatment.
- Amazing support for the games : Diablo II 1.10 patch, even if there are plenty of things to say about that, is a blunt evidence of it.
- Amazing support for the players : what about the Christmas wallpapers and extra maps, which, even it you can find it futile, is, at least, an effective marketing, and, at most, community-building.
I think that beyond all the disputes about innovation on games, and my point remains the same, ie at some stage you can say there was innovation even if the game principle was not new, Blizzard has been innovative on that point.
Regards,
Jdif
Hi,
:
:)
I loved your last statement. I AM the fanboy. Seirously, I tend not to be a fan of any kind ; as I said previously, I do not support the eventual orientation of Blizzard, since the departure of Roper and the likes.
Again, and now it will come to very different feeling about the gaming experience
- I was 8 when I first play to Dune II ; in my mind, despite the fact that strategy has been revealed, it was more a kind of fun - just send your spy and win the game by stealing spice ressources - than real micro-war strategy. Maybe I was too young ?
- You are talking about games that I've never played. My parents didn't have yet the idea of having sex to make a child. But, as far as I know, those game (Rogue, Nethack) illustrated the principle of slashing enemies again and again right ? Are you making them the builders of the Diablo style, just because of their precedence in a concept that is as old as the human being ? Why do you think people play darts ? Shooting with bows ? Making paintball parties ?
It would be just if as I was saying : The new testament did not invent anything, for there was the ancient one before him. Come on...
Regards,
Jdif
This is amazing that /. published such a provocative/flamebait statement over Blizzard Entertainment.
I had previous discussions with ex-DiabloII players who convinced me of the very structural drawbacks the company developped the last past years.
But if there is something that cannot be retrieved, well, it IS their innovative way of thinking video games. I red the posts so far, and saw some people arguing about the upgrading skills of Blizzard.
Let me argue in two points.
1) Blizzard released twice two revolutionnary gaming principles. First Warcraft I, that, if it may have been inspired by older games (I'm thinking of Populous), initiated the micro-war strategy. And then Diablo which emphasized a very simple principle of repetitive fun into an overall fantasy scheme. So please don't tell they have not been innovative. Or maybe one may think that being innovative is truly to invent something ; in which case the only ever innovative game was Pong.
2) Concerning the improving skills, I can only agree. But keep in mind that they only improved the very principles they just have been making before. This in the basic principle of sequels and extensions. Let's examine what were the improvements. In Warcraft II, the right-click availability in order to made orders and strategies easier to achieve. In Starcraft, the principle of TOTALLY different races, with customizations of buildings, units, and basic strategy. In Warcraft III, the implementation of heroes inside a strategy game, with experience, skills, and special items. In Diablo II, skills organized by trees, specialization inside the trees. Etc. etc. etc. As it is said somewhere, different words carry differents ideas. Improvement is not innovation, but f***** important improvements sometimes do look like innovation.
Offtopic I may be. But really this is not fair. I don't have any shares form Blizzard, and I do disagree with their latest strategical orientations. But good work definitely needs to be recognized.
Regards,
Jdif
You really took my point as an agressive and arrogant statement. I'm not just saying that people are stupid, neither you should be a graduate from anything to be able to use the Internet.
:
But the fact IS that fucking intrusive ads are here because they are effecient. And it means that some people do use it. I'm not going to explain my point again, I think that despite my desperate English, it remains clear.
I totally agree with you about the quality management, except that this is not anthropology. I was speaking about people behavior, not economics and the like. People like quality, fine.
And they like to gain access to it quickly, without any requirements, fine.
To answer precisely
1) you can find quality sites everywhere on the internet. What you're talking about, very annoying pop-ups, fake IDs etc. is often the counterpart of some illegal -or almost illegal- stuff. You may know that about 70% of connections are made to visit pornographic sites, so it's not surprising to see so many people complaining about that. Warez - and i've been a customer of these sites - do practice ads ands ads ands ads ands ads a lot, but this is the logical counterpart for an illegal, expensive, and risky activity right ?
If you don't want to see ads, you can just avoid these sites. I've been on the internet since 4 years (quite late right?) and now that I quitted visiting the two kind of sites above, I didn't receive ANY spam, and I wasn't bothered by any pop-ups you described in your previous message. So please don't say that advertising undermines the internet, because basically it's wrong.
2)My main anthropologic statement was : when you place a large population in an quite confidential, unprotected, and uncontrolled area, whether it's a physical one or not, most likely you will see appear some VERY irrational behaviors, including, in that precise case, people that think the Internet will bring them what has been always prohibited (I keep the Nigerian scam exemple). You then may think that it can be solved by education (which is my default opinion), or regulation, or everything else you want.
But you can't have the product, the money from the product, and the pleasure to fuck the beautiful vendor at once. This is a matter of choice.
You can have a "free" internet, but you have less content, and less users.
You can have quality content, but it comes at the price of regular ads.
And you can have all kind of contents, but with it all kind of ads.
I'm not taking sides for anything above, but there is a choice to make. And as, by definition, choices are individual in the Internet, we are at the third stage. If you want some regulation, please tell it. But I'm not sure this is the right solution.
Again I don't want you to misunderstand what I say ; I'm not despising at all, I'm not a pro Ads activist. They piss me off too, but I'm aware that the vast majority are a source of funding for the internet, and that the minority of intrusive ones are taking advantage of people unawareness.
Regards,
JDif
But now you're shifting to another problem.
:)
There are so many hassling ads, right. But what are they here ? Because, as you underlined it, people do fall into the fucking trap. But why people fall into this fucking trap ?
Here you have two options.
1)You may believe that some computer users are stupid, I mean in general. This is quite rude to say, right. And even if it does not imply on the overall scheme that drives those people (who may act very kindly, simply, honestly), the fact is that they are stupid. On that basis, please try to be a bit more tolerant towards these that suffered the first inequality in life, and understand that some need time to understand where the right "close" button is. This is all about education, and the Western world lacks computers education, for sure.
2)You may think that most internet users consider this medium, (and it has been sodl to them like this) as a dense jungle to explore. But like in natural exploration, the most unpredictable behaviors appear (think of the Nigerian scam). Again this is all about education. Annoying ads wouldn't be there if nobody clicked on them.
Internet has been made totally free and without framework. So don't blame the logical counterpart, ie mean businesses taking advantage of this lack of structure.
We all do agree that ads, especially popups and flash ads are fucking boring. But the roots of the problem are not anymore within computer sciences. It's within anthropology.
Regards,
Jdif
Sorry for my french, but we still can't accept that Napoleon is dead...
When bananacaine will be made, then I will be more interested in DNA manipulations.
Don't make too much brainstorming about that ; the vietnamese government always claims such plan-making things. It would be great of course ; but we should too be wary of what a communist state might do with GPL software.
[The Patriot Act] allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring the "trespassers" on their computers. This change made the law technology-neutral; it placed electronic trespassers on the same footing as physical trespassers. Now, hacking victims can seek law enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.
I think they just didn't play the Game of Life enough.