Carmack loves ObjC...and so do I!
on
New Doom Details
·
· Score: 1
It may be the only thing I share in common with this great, great man!
In all seriousness, the main reason Carmack is so wound up about MOSX is because he'll finally have another chance to work with OPENSTEP development tools! He's been a NeXT guy forever and would like to see the technologies (OPENSTEP, Objective C, Mach) get another chance. I know I'm glad all over about it!
What Quake was *supposed* to be
on
New Doom Details
·
· Score: 2
Does anyone else remember the hype for Quake back in the early 90s? Remember in the very first episode of Commander Keen how they had a "What's Next" screen; it told the story of a new game iD was working on. That game, even back then, was to be called "Quake". It was supposed to be a combination of a first-person perspective fighting game and a complex role-playing game. We were supposed to be able to talk to the artificial characters, (who were supposed to have real AI,) build alliances, explore, and ultimately, solve the puzzles necessary to reach the end of the game. We were supposed to use both our arcade-honed reflexes (ala FPS) and our wits (ala Zork or King's Quest). To me, this sounded like the best thing I'd ever heard of. What a tradgedy they opted to just implement the FPS portion of this idea. How 'bout it, Carmack? Can we have a *real* FPS-RPG/Adventure game combo?
So what's the difference between copying a bit at stealing a bit?
That wasn't what I meant. I was talking about what they're going to put on a warrant. I mean, if they suspect that you have a gun in your house that was used in a murder, they put exactly what they're looking for on the warrant; they can come take that gun but they can't take anything else, even if they find something else incriminating.
What do they do when monitoring email? They can't say "we're looking for him to say such and such a thing." They can use anything you say; it's not limitable to one piece of information.
I mean, really, as much as all you privacy fanatics out there want to download your pr0n in safety
Why is it that every time we have a discussion on privacy, people trot out this tired old assumption that this is just about pornography? It isn't. What about when they use this stuff to frame people for crimes? (And if you think the government wouldn't do that, you're nuts.) What about when they start cracking down on religious or political viewpoints they don't like? (Which isn't to say that they aren't already doing this.)
Actually, this can also be quite useful! A couple of my neighbors always need technical help (with Windows). If I need to transfer something, like diagnostic software, it becomes very easy!
Yes, I noticed this too. I don't believe that it's property (although your computer is property, and there have been cases where they have seized machines).
The question he raised about getting a warrant interested me, however. With a regular search and seizure, as he noted, you must specify what you're looking for. How can you specify what you're looking for with a wiretap or interception of email? Information isn't an item you can just single out and take.
A question: do you have to pay these "lawyer's fees" if you comply with the request? Or is this a processing fee you pay whether you continue trademark infringement or not?
I understand that they have to protect their trademark; but charging someone money because they accidentally used a trademark? It would be different if they were maliciously doing it.
Why can't they say something like, "Well, it looks like they weren't really trying to take our trademark; why don't we just be friendly and understanding and work something out?" Instead of, "Ha ha ha ha! We're going to sue your fucking ass!"
It's also wrong to blow innocent children to bits, but I guess it's more important to cripple government to the point of being comatose than it is to enable government to protect its most helpless citizens (which by the way is its primary function.)
Yes. The government must stay within the proper bounds of authority while maintaining law and order. For example, we could really cut down on crime by taking all suspects out and shooting them. Everyone would be stone-cold scared out of their wits of pissing off the government. However, do you want to live in that kind of country? I don't.
If crime is so bad that the government must break the law to prevent it, we might as well just hang it up and drink the poison Kool-Aid.
The same Dot Matrix things were posted a while ago, was it not? Plus the site is slow-as.
Yes--twice. I was about to complain myself but the Dot Matrix Symphony #2 is so cool that I decided it needed as much exposure as possible. The phasing must have taken a lot of time to work out.
But they would get just as many hits with an article entitled, "Linux [or OpenBSD, or BeOS, or whatever] Is So Great That This Time Next Year We'll All Be Using Windows CDs to Clean Toilets"
I don't give a damn how insignificant the abuse of rights is--our government doesn't respect our rights and this is called breaking the law.
Puh-leeeeeeze. Unless the FBI all of a sudden raises its number of employees by a factor of ten thousand or so, surveillance on every American citizen is not possible.
This isn't about the FBI looking at everything that everyone does. It's a matter of principle--what they're doing is wrong.
Even if it were, why would the government bother? They've got better things to do than watch you defile yourself in front of electronic porn.
Well, for one thing, law enforcement officials are often prying power-hungry individuals that get their kicks from snooping on people. But far more importantly, what if I say something the government doesn't like. You've heard of Joe McCarthy no doubt? I disagree completely with Communism but people have the right to believe it if they want! Hell, people can preach it from the rooftops if they please. But our government wouldn't allow something like that. They have a Jesus Christ complex (we must save the world from evil!)
Personally, I think that the only people that need to be monitored are those who are worried about the government monitoring them.
Your lack of understanding about human nature floors me.
By expressing worries, they've expressed that they are probably doing something illegal or extralegal.
This is so much bullshit that I won't even touch it. Are you really that arrogant? I don't want people poking their noses into my business, no matter how innocent I am.
Hum, then I wonder why it is so many artist sign with such evil record labels.
Because until now, musicians have had no choice. The record labels had all channels of distribution completely locked up. Now, the technology is in place for both independent production and independent distribution of music. If this technology continues to mature, the record labels will die. If they can kill electronic distribution before it goes anywhere, they can continue to dictate their own terms because they will continue to control channels of distribution.
Do you think it might possibly be because the artits excptects to profit in some form from the services provided under thier contract with the label?
Like I said, they didn't have any choice. It boils down to this: we, the recording industry, control distribution and advertising; you either sign our contract, or you don't exist. Period. This is extortion.
Sure, the Recording industry makes lots of money off of its artits, but I doubt they make very much off of the struggling, poor artits they've signed. If the artist has no money, where does the labels cut come from?
If a musician doesn't bring home the bacon, they cease to exist as far as the record label is concerned. If you're not popular, they boot your butt out. They can't afford to keep "struggling, poor artists" on their roster.
The reason an artist signs a contract with such an evil entity is because that artist wishes to sucseed, and utlimitly make lots of money (because we are talking about america here).
Heh. Do you realize how much of the profits go to the musicians? Less than 1%. The record labels get over 50%. Everything else goes to middlemen.
Yes, the record label's get the majority of the costs from album sales, but you must remember how much they do in the process of realease.
Yes, they hire many lawyers to write contracts that screw the musicians. That's the way it works. The musicians lose all rights to their work, they lose all profits; and once they realize they've been screwed, the CEOs laugh in their faces.
Actually, I don't even think they care about piracy all that much. I think it's more of a kneejerk "They stole our Intellectual Property (DeCSS). Kill 'em!" This is the mindset of most CEOs and lawyers.
Yes, this means even more work than just parsing a natural language and would require a pretty sophisticated model of interaction, but isn't that the kind of challenge that produces revolutionary advances in computing?
IMO, revolutionary advances in computing are generally a matter of making things simpler and more elegant. The more sophisticated things are, the more chances for things to be screwed up. Not to mention the speed penalties suffered.
They look quike a bit alike (They do!), at least enough to completely dilute whatever special LOOK that the designers of the Qube had tried to instill on thier product.
I've seen both of them, and I don't know how anyone could confuse the two. They're completely different.
Anything that encourages people to use Objective C and the Cocoa (formerly OPENSTEP) API is great! Plus, maybe this will give GNUstep a kick in the butt. I'm drooling over all the easy ports to Linux using GNUstep.
What the RIAA is really scared about is the fact that electronic distribution could make musicians truly independent of the recording industry. The technology to record at high quality and low cost has been around for quite some time now. The problem has been that it was still difficult to distribute. The major recording companies still have the corner on that market. More and more, it is becoming possible to distribute your music electronically and completely bypass record companies, thus eliminating the lucrative and restrictive recording contracts. If musicians shut the industry out of both recording and distribution, the industry as it once existed will die.
Napster is a drop in the bucket compared with what will happen when electronic distribution makes them irrelevant. However, if they can kill electronic distribution now, they can continue their monopoly.
First, there has been extensive work on frying the sensitive equipment in satellites and aircraft with high-intensity microwave beams. A few years ago, the Air Force tested a system to destroy warheads with high-powered energy beams (I can't remember what exactly...CO2 lasers?).
At any rate, it's always a good idea to prepare for new weapons technology--even before it comes online.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, the main reason Carmack is so wound up about MOSX is because he'll finally have another chance to work with OPENSTEP development tools! He's been a NeXT guy forever and would like to see the technologies (OPENSTEP, Objective C, Mach) get another chance. I know I'm glad all over about it!
Does anyone else remember the hype for Quake back in the early 90s? Remember in the very first episode of Commander Keen how they had a "What's Next" screen; it told the story of a new game iD was working on. That game, even back then, was to be called "Quake". It was supposed to be a combination of a first-person perspective fighting game and a complex role-playing game. We were supposed to be able to talk to the artificial characters, (who were supposed to have real AI,) build alliances, explore, and ultimately, solve the puzzles necessary to reach the end of the game. We were supposed to use both our arcade-honed reflexes (ala FPS) and our wits (ala Zork or King's Quest). To me, this sounded like the best thing I'd ever heard of. What a tradgedy they opted to just implement the FPS portion of this idea. How 'bout it, Carmack? Can we have a *real* FPS-RPG/Adventure game combo?
That wasn't what I meant. I was talking about what they're going to put on a warrant. I mean, if they suspect that you have a gun in your house that was used in a murder, they put exactly what they're looking for on the warrant; they can come take that gun but they can't take anything else, even if they find something else incriminating.
What do they do when monitoring email? They can't say "we're looking for him to say such and such a thing." They can use anything you say; it's not limitable to one piece of information.
Why is it that every time we have a discussion on privacy, people trot out this tired old assumption that this is just about pornography? It isn't. What about when they use this stuff to frame people for crimes? (And if you think the government wouldn't do that, you're nuts.) What about when they start cracking down on religious or political viewpoints they don't like? (Which isn't to say that they aren't already doing this.)
Actually, this can also be quite useful! A couple of my neighbors always need technical help (with Windows). If I need to transfer something, like diagnostic software, it becomes very easy!
The question he raised about getting a warrant interested me, however. With a regular search and seizure, as he noted, you must specify what you're looking for. How can you specify what you're looking for with a wiretap or interception of email? Information isn't an item you can just single out and take.
A question: do you have to pay these "lawyer's fees" if you comply with the request? Or is this a processing fee you pay whether you continue trademark infringement or not?
Why can't they say something like, "Well, it looks like they weren't really trying to take our trademark; why don't we just be friendly and understanding and work something out?" Instead of, "Ha ha ha ha! We're going to sue your fucking ass!"
Yes. The government must stay within the proper bounds of authority while maintaining law and order. For example, we could really cut down on crime by taking all suspects out and shooting them. Everyone would be stone-cold scared out of their wits of pissing off the government. However, do you want to live in that kind of country? I don't.
If crime is so bad that the government must break the law to prevent it, we might as well just hang it up and drink the poison Kool-Aid.
Yes--twice. I was about to complain myself but the Dot Matrix Symphony #2 is so cool that I decided it needed as much exposure as possible. The phasing must have taken a lot of time to work out.
But they would get just as many hits with an article entitled, "Linux [or OpenBSD, or BeOS, or whatever] Is So Great That This Time Next Year We'll All Be Using Windows CDs to Clean Toilets"
Puh-leeeeeeze. Unless the FBI all of a sudden raises its number of employees by a factor of ten thousand or so, surveillance on every American citizen is not possible.
This isn't about the FBI looking at everything that everyone does. It's a matter of principle--what they're doing is wrong.
Even if it were, why would the government bother? They've got better things to do than watch you defile yourself in front of electronic porn.
Well, for one thing, law enforcement officials are often prying power-hungry individuals that get their kicks from snooping on people. But far more importantly, what if I say something the government doesn't like. You've heard of Joe McCarthy no doubt? I disagree completely with Communism but people have the right to believe it if they want! Hell, people can preach it from the rooftops if they please. But our government wouldn't allow something like that. They have a Jesus Christ complex (we must save the world from evil!)
Personally, I think that the only people that need to be monitored are those who are worried about the government monitoring them.
Your lack of understanding about human nature floors me.
By expressing worries, they've expressed that they are probably doing something illegal or extralegal.
This is so much bullshit that I won't even touch it. Are you really that arrogant? I don't want people poking their noses into my business, no matter how innocent I am.
Uhhh...mysql isn't Free. (It's free-as-in-beer, but that isn't Free).
They might outlaw your butt. And I don't think I need to say that that would suck.
Because until now, musicians have had no choice. The record labels had all channels of distribution completely locked up. Now, the technology is in place for both independent production and independent distribution of music. If this technology continues to mature, the record labels will die. If they can kill electronic distribution before it goes anywhere, they can continue to dictate their own terms because they will continue to control channels of distribution.
Do you think it might possibly be because the artits excptects to profit in some form from the services provided under thier contract with the label?
Like I said, they didn't have any choice. It boils down to this: we, the recording industry, control distribution and advertising; you either sign our contract, or you don't exist. Period. This is extortion.
Sure, the Recording industry makes lots of money off of its artits, but I doubt they make very much off of the struggling, poor artits they've signed. If the artist has no money, where does the labels cut come from?
If a musician doesn't bring home the bacon, they cease to exist as far as the record label is concerned. If you're not popular, they boot your butt out. They can't afford to keep "struggling, poor artists" on their roster.
The reason an artist signs a contract with such an evil entity is because that artist wishes to sucseed, and utlimitly make lots of money (because we are talking about america here).
Heh. Do you realize how much of the profits go to the musicians? Less than 1%. The record labels get over 50%. Everything else goes to middlemen.
Yes, they hire many lawyers to write contracts that screw the musicians. That's the way it works. The musicians lose all rights to their work, they lose all profits; and once they realize they've been screwed, the CEOs laugh in their faces.
Where musicians lose the most money is from restrictive contracts foisted on them by record labels.
Actually, only the record labels expect musicians to take a vow of poverty; that's why they shaft them with craftily written contracts.
It's just some bonehead moderator who can't read between the lines. It's okay though, since others moderated you back up again.
Actually, I don't even think they care about piracy all that much. I think it's more of a kneejerk "They stole our Intellectual Property (DeCSS). Kill 'em!" This is the mindset of most CEOs and lawyers.
IMO, revolutionary advances in computing are generally a matter of making things simpler and more elegant. The more sophisticated things are, the more chances for things to be screwed up. Not to mention the speed penalties suffered.
I've seen both of them, and I don't know how anyone could confuse the two. They're completely different.
Anything that encourages people to use Objective C and the Cocoa (formerly OPENSTEP) API is great! Plus, maybe this will give GNUstep a kick in the butt. I'm drooling over all the easy ports to Linux using GNUstep.
Napster is a drop in the bucket compared with what will happen when electronic distribution makes them irrelevant. However, if they can kill electronic distribution now, they can continue their monopoly.
At any rate, it's always a good idea to prepare for new weapons technology--even before it comes online.