It's been about a year I think since I posted to slashdot. I forgot the obnoxious way it handles line breaks. And then like an evil person I not only didn't use preview, I also have now replied to my own post. May the slashdot gods have mercy on my soul.
Time/Money is a poor metric for reasons many have posted. I think my formula is pretty decent. It is a pretty good approximation of my actual feelings about a game.
Let f(t) be the function of fun over the course of a game.
Let E be the constant that represents my average entertainment during my freetime (when I could choose to play a video game or not).
Then the value of a game to me is the (integral on t of (f() - E)) / (cost of the game + small constant) + various bonus constants.
These various constants tip the scales a bit but don't generally massively change the overall value.
They include positive bonuses for:
* Open Source
* Cross Platform
* "Independently" developed
Games that have done very well by this metric:
* Civilization I, II, IV, Alpha Centauri, the original Colonization
* Half Life (original) + free Counterstrike and Day of Defeat mods
* Dwarf Fortress (bay12games.com)
* Company of Heroes
* Starcraft and Warcraft II
In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.
Your posting history seems to indicate that you are a reasonable and intelligent person, so I have to assume that you mean something very specific by "cases like this". Because if "cases like this" is interpreted as even a somewhat general thing then you seem to be saying that by default any (physiologically altering?) substance should be illegal until it has been proven to be safe for several decades.
I think rather the opposite: that a substance should only be made illegal if it is proven to be harmful--and what is more, it should only be made illegal if it directly harms a person other than a person consenting to be harmed by it.
I'd like clarification on what cases you think should be illegal by default. Maybe you could suggest a blanket law that would define a class of things as illegal for intake until they are approved?
Disclaimer: I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal drug.
I think you misunderstood. Your parent was not claiming that commercial software doesn't generate wealth. He was stating that open source does generate wealth. And he/she is correct. You are correct in saying that commercial software also generates wealth. The point of your parent was twofold: 1.) That the article is incorrect in its statement that FOSS doesn't create wealth and 2.) That FOSS software is perhaps a more lasting wealth as it is more likely to survive the collapse of the company that made it.
I cannot say enough good things about the Logitech Trackman Marble. For those who have not used them, these are the thumb-operated and designed for comfort.
My first pointing device was the original Trackman by Logitech (the funny looking one actually shaped like a hand with a green ball). I fell in love with it buy a new one for every computer I use a lot. It's well worth it. It'd like to add to the list of good and bad.
More Good:
* Extremely comfortable - I use the computer 8-16 hours a day and have done so for a decade with no uncomfort whatsoever.
* Higher Productivity - After some time, you will find that with a single quick flick of the thumb you can get your pointer to almost exactly where you want it.
* Excellent for use where lots of fast (but not perfectly precise) movements are needed - Examples include FPS and RTS games.
* Portability - Can be used on tiny surfaces or lap. If turned upside down, it can actually function fairly well with no surface at all (this takes some practice).
More Bad:
* Only three buttons (including clickable scroll wheel)
* Needs occassional cleaning for optimal performance - I'll admit to being a dirty person and eating while I use the computer. Consequently, I need to pop the "marble" out of the trackball and clean the rollers every other day or so. This is not difficult or time consuming.
I don't comment on slashdot articles often, but this was one is close to my heart. I can't recommend Logitech's trackman enough.
If his phone service works anything like my phone, he is probably not downloading/to/ his phone, he's probably downloading/through/ his phone. Windows (and presumably other OSes) sees a phone as an internet connection. My phone can act as a 802.11b access point, or do the same through phone based internet service. I haven't read the license agreement for this fellow's service, but I would assume that to be fair access. Nevertheless, this isn't even the point.
The point is that they advertise the service as unlimited. If it's not unlimited, then that is simply false advertising. We need to hold companies accountable to what they say. And they don't need any help twisting their words to mean the complete opposite of what they say. That have armies of lawyers to do that for them. It is not unreasonable to demand accountability and honesty in the marketplace. Don't let them convince you that it is.
This seems to be one of Richard Dawkins's favorite things to say. I don't know if you're simply repeating what he says or if you came up with this yourself. I don't mean to offend, but this argument makes you sound either:
1.) Ignorant (if you don't understand what theism is) or
2.) Malicious (if you are trying to warp its meaning to suit your argument)
Since Dawkins is a well-educated man, I would guess that his use of "theism" in this way is malicious. As for you, you may simply be ignorant (nothing wrong with that, but until you learn the most basic terms of arguments about God/gods, you probably should simply avoid the arguments).
The definition of theism is simply:
"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities." - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)
"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Webster (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei d=Mozilla-search&va=theism)
So you see that Joe, who is a Lutheran and believes in the Christian God is a theist even though he does not believe in Zeus.
It really scares me that 9 of 10 posts here don't say the same thing. I'm not naive enough to believe that things won't change and that the internet won't continue to be a major force in the computing world. I'm also quite certain there are unforeseen wonders we'll see in the next 10-20 years but for goodness sake, let me keep my data on my local machine that I own running software that I own (not license).
While obviously the poster was joking, many of those items are not mutually exclusive. His list does allow for overlap. For instance, one can imagine a page with both Bush haters and Bush supporters on slashdot with potty humor. Although there will seldom be overlap between for instance, myspace pages and math geniuses. (-8
self-righteous atheists who attack religous people
I have to take great exception to a couple of your statements
Is this a joke? Are you honestly suggesting that your posting was somehow not self righteous and that you don't attack Christians? There is blame to be put on both sides. Plenty of it. And from where I'm standing, the blame can be spread quite evenly.
I'm all for people using their computer in a way that is more efficient for them. As for me, I despise things being stored on the desktop. But what I wanted to comment on was the idea of the desktop metaphor.
I use my computer desktop the same way I use my physical desktop: as a place to do work, not a place to store things. I put my documents in the file cabinet. I put the tape dispenser in the drawer (since I seldom need it). My critical documents and passport go in the safe. I use both my physical and virtual desktop as a place to/do/ work. Therefore for me, to keep lots of crap and downloaded files on the desktop is the abuse of the metaphor. Not keeping it clean. Nevertheless, to each their own.
Gregg,
I looked through your page a bit and at the forums and didn't see a license on this game. I'm somewhat interested in helping or at least sharing some code. I'm currently working on my own space exploration/combat/colonizing/trading game based heavily on dynamic and fractal-based content. Is OuterSpace open source? Also, are there plans to make it multi-platform?
This is admittedly off-topic, but not intended to be wholly philosophical or controversial. I am merely curious.
In the sense of technology and forward thinking, I do not consider myself to be an 'average person', yet I have trouble understanding why to so many people, the survival of the human race is of such high importance. Naturally I agree that a single human life has intrinsic value (and therefore so also, does a group of humans or the whole human race). I have also read enough humanistic literature to know that to many people, the survival and (sort of vaguely defined) betterment of our race is the prime virtue. Yet I still don't understand why people believe this (and I hope I have judged correctly that you fit in this group).
So please forgive me if this seems like an odd or stupid question. I certainly don't mean it to be an insulting one. It's just that you asserted something quite strongly that I'm not sure I believe and so I'm curious as to why you believe it so strongly. Beyond your natural instinct to survive and reproduce, what additional reasons do you have to believe that the universe is 'better off' with the complex molecules that are our genome floating around here and there? Perhaps what I'm asking is:
* Why do you believe the survival of our species has intrinsic value?
And as a bonus:
Is there anything more important than the preservation of our species (i.e. somem particular moral)?
I'm interested in anyone's opinion. Thanks.
-Charles
Read his/her post carefully. First, he didn't say that Apples do last longer, but rather that some have made that argument. Second, the switch to Intel involves a great deal more hardware than a single chip. Intel chips go on Intel compatible motherboards. I can't quote any statistics on hardware failure rates but between the CPU and some part of the motherboard, I'd guess you have a pretty high percentage of desktop computer hardware failure rates. But he is not making that argument, others have. So once again, in answer to your question:
Do you REALLY think that since they changed CPUs, their quality is going to suffer? That changing CPUs magically makes their RAM (for example) worse than it was with PPC?
I would guess that your parent poster would answer 'No. I don't think that. But those who would make that argument, have a much weaker argument to make.' But that's just my guess. The point is, settle down and be graceful with the posts of other people.
My work phone is a Cingular 8125 which runs Windows Mobile 5.
Service: 4/10
Hardware: 9/10
Software: 2/10
In terms of hardware, the phone is great, but when it comes to software, I have a hard time imagining anyone doing worse. It takes a ridiculous number of 'keypresses' (it's a touch screen) to simply add someone to my address book. Even worse, however, is that the phone **crashes**. My cell phone actually will simply up and reboot, or the system will hang until I power it down. I for one cannot wait for the day when Linux phones own the market. It may not ever happen. If it does, it may not be all delicious smelling roses. But I certainly can't imagine it being _this_ bad.
I just wanted to throw in a quick voucher for 'Sam's OpenGL SuperBible' as I picked it up this last weekend (3 days at the inlaws (-8). It's excellent. Being a 4-5 kilo book, it has both breadth and depth on the subject of OpenGL. As a math person, I wish that it touched a bit more on the linear algebra side of things but the fact that it keeps things within the mathematical grasp of about any reader while still being useful is probably a better decistion.
And while I'm posting (this doesn't happen often), I'd like to throw my two cents into the fountain of this Indie games debate. Good for you if you want to write a game, however... Do something new, do something creative, do something that you and your friends and family members and immediate contributors can realistically accomplish. And for the love of sanity, DO IT FOR FUN! If you're in it for money and it's not your full-time job, then don't bother.
Also, if you're a good programmer and find your game lacking content, consider procedural content. It really depends on the kind of game you're writing. The downside is that it can remove the beautiful, personal touch of human-generated content, and it is also very hard to do. The upshot is that if you really enjoy programming and are making your game for you own personal enjoyment, the challenge can be very exciting and entertaining. The second upshot is that procedural content when done well and applied to the right kind of game, can greatly add to replayability. This is the path that I've chosen for the game I'm writing right now (In-depth pausable real-time tactical starship combat). I'm having a blast!
I know there is a lot of pent-up frustration in the scientific community about Intelligent Design, but really, understanding how bees fly is completely unrelated to ID. I'm disturbed at how an exciting discovery in the fields of biology and aerodynamics can result in a random lashing out against ID rather than dialog about what this means to us. I'm dissappointed that slashdot has so far had so few responses regarding the science and applications of this new found knowledge and instead has just attacked ID. This is schoolyard behavior.
Yes. I understand that those supporting ID have used this as an example of how we don't have a complete understanding of the universe. But this isn't a 'nail in the coffin' of ID for three simple reasons. Listen closely:
1.) This is not evidence against ID nor is it evidence for creation or intelligent design or the fact that Macs suck or that Pepsi is better than Coke or any other controversial subject. ID states that the bee was designed, evolution says that it evolved. This doesn't favor the one over the other.
2.) There are an infinite number of things that we don't understand about the universe or the particular field of biology, so understanding this one more really makes no actual difference. Proponents of ID can simply pick any number of other things we don't understand as use it as an example of no one has yet formulated a complete understanding of the universe.
3.) Intelligent Design is stated in such a way that it cannot be scientifically disproven. HINT: That's why it's not science. That's WHY it can't be taught in science class. If claim that by using science you have somehow "driven a nail into it's coffin" then you infer that it is in fact falsifiable. As it it typically stated, it is not.
So mod me how you like, but please, let's not make false claims about ID to make our selves feel better, and let's not lose sight of the real meaning of this discovery.
I seriously doubt that and find this argument a little boring.
Sorry, no. Personally, I had a great deal of trouble learning how to use Photoshop. I had much less trouble getting to know my way around the GIMP. While I may be in the majority, quit it with these blanket statements that no one could possibly find a system easier that you find more difficult. Do you realize how arrogant and ridiculous that is?
Now I'm not going to defend the GIMP's interface with my life, but the point is, while Photoshop is excellent software, it isn't above reproach either. Let's move away from the irrational zealousness and find some reasonable middle ground.
The Caprice may not have been in the text portion of the article, but it wass at the end of their slide show of bad cars and was criticized for it's handling and styling. If you watch the slide show, you'd better be a power reader. It goes by pretty quickly.
Ok. Seriously. The Caprice was a poorly rated car? Ok, I'll give Forbes the fact that it is perhaps the most boring styling ever place on a set of wheels, but shoot, who has ever heard of a Caprice that didn't last at least 250,000 miles? Those things were the epitomy of reliability. Cheaper cars from the eighties, in general, were not expected to perform well after 120,000 miles. I've never heard of a Caprice that needed any kind of major power train work until after 200,000 miles. That's becoming more common in recent times or in diesels or more expensive cars, but for the price in the late eighties you could not buy a more reliable car. End of rant. I'll go take my pills now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been about a year I think since I posted to slashdot. I forgot the obnoxious way it handles line breaks. And then like an evil person I not only didn't use preview, I also have now replied to my own post. May the slashdot gods have mercy on my soul.
Time/Money is a poor metric for reasons many have posted. I think my formula is pretty decent. It is a pretty good approximation of my actual feelings about a game. Let f(t) be the function of fun over the course of a game. Let E be the constant that represents my average entertainment during my freetime (when I could choose to play a video game or not). Then the value of a game to me is the (integral on t of (f() - E)) / (cost of the game + small constant) + various bonus constants. These various constants tip the scales a bit but don't generally massively change the overall value. They include positive bonuses for: * Open Source * Cross Platform * "Independently" developed Games that have done very well by this metric: * Civilization I, II, IV, Alpha Centauri, the original Colonization * Half Life (original) + free Counterstrike and Day of Defeat mods * Dwarf Fortress (bay12games.com) * Company of Heroes * Starcraft and Warcraft II
In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.
Your posting history seems to indicate that you are a reasonable and intelligent person, so I have to assume that you mean something very specific by "cases like this". Because if "cases like this" is interpreted as even a somewhat general thing then you seem to be saying that by default any (physiologically altering?) substance should be illegal until it has been proven to be safe for several decades.
I think rather the opposite: that a substance should only be made illegal if it is proven to be harmful--and what is more, it should only be made illegal if it directly harms a person other than a person consenting to be harmed by it.
I'd like clarification on what cases you think should be illegal by default. Maybe you could suggest a blanket law that would define a class of things as illegal for intake until they are approved?
Disclaimer: I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal drug.
I think you misunderstood. Your parent was not claiming that commercial software doesn't generate wealth. He was stating that open source does generate wealth. And he/she is correct. You are correct in saying that commercial software also generates wealth. The point of your parent was twofold:
1.) That the article is incorrect in its statement that FOSS doesn't create wealth and
2.) That FOSS software is perhaps a more lasting wealth as it is more likely to survive the collapse of the company that made it.
I cannot say enough good things about the Logitech Trackman Marble. For those who have not used them, these are the thumb-operated and designed for comfort.
My first pointing device was the original Trackman by Logitech (the funny looking one actually shaped like a hand with a green ball). I fell in love with it buy a new one for every computer I use a lot. It's well worth it. It'd like to add to the list of good and bad.
More Good:
* Extremely comfortable - I use the computer 8-16 hours a day and have done so for a decade with no uncomfort whatsoever.
* Higher Productivity - After some time, you will find that with a single quick flick of the thumb you can get your pointer to almost exactly where you want it.
* Excellent for use where lots of fast (but not perfectly precise) movements are needed - Examples include FPS and RTS games.
* Portability - Can be used on tiny surfaces or lap. If turned upside down, it can actually function fairly well with no surface at all (this takes some practice).
More Bad:
* Only three buttons (including clickable scroll wheel)
* Needs occassional cleaning for optimal performance - I'll admit to being a dirty person and eating while I use the computer. Consequently, I need to pop the "marble" out of the trackball and clean the rollers every other day or so. This is not difficult or time consuming.
I don't comment on slashdot articles often, but this was one is close to my heart. I can't recommend Logitech's trackman enough.
If his phone service works anything like my phone, he is probably not downloading /to/ his phone, he's probably downloading /through/ his phone. Windows (and presumably other OSes) sees a phone as an internet connection. My phone can act as a 802.11b access point, or do the same through phone based internet service. I haven't read the license agreement for this fellow's service, but I would assume that to be fair access. Nevertheless, this isn't even the point.
The point is that they advertise the service as unlimited. If it's not unlimited, then that is simply false advertising. We need to hold companies accountable to what they say. And they don't need any help twisting their words to mean the complete opposite of what they say. That have armies of lawyers to do that for them. It is not unreasonable to demand accountability and honesty in the marketplace. Don't let them convince you that it is.
This seems to be one of Richard Dawkins's favorite things to say. I don't know if you're simply repeating what he says or if you came up with this yourself. I don't mean to offend, but this argument makes you sound either:
i d=Mozilla-search&va=theism)
1.) Ignorant (if you don't understand what theism is) or
2.) Malicious (if you are trying to warp its meaning to suit your argument)
Since Dawkins is a well-educated man, I would guess that his use of "theism" in this way is malicious. As for you, you may simply be ignorant (nothing wrong with that, but until you learn the most basic terms of arguments about God/gods, you probably should simply avoid the arguments).
The definition of theism is simply:
"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities." - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)
"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Webster (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?source
So you see that Joe, who is a Lutheran and believes in the Christian God is a theist even though he does not believe in Zeus.
Thank you!
It really scares me that 9 of 10 posts here don't say the same thing. I'm not naive enough to believe that things won't change and that the internet won't continue to be a major force in the computing world. I'm also quite certain there are unforeseen wonders we'll see in the next 10-20 years but for goodness sake, let me keep my data on my local machine that I own running software that I own (not license).
While obviously the poster was joking, many of those items are not mutually exclusive. His list does allow for overlap. For instance, one can imagine a page with both Bush haters and Bush supporters on slashdot with potty humor. Although there will seldom be overlap between for instance, myspace pages and math geniuses. (-8
I'm all for people using their computer in a way that is more efficient for them. As for me, I despise things being stored on the desktop. But what I wanted to comment on was the idea of the desktop metaphor.
/do/ work. Therefore for me, to keep lots of crap and downloaded files on the desktop is the abuse of the metaphor. Not keeping it clean. Nevertheless, to each their own.
I use my computer desktop the same way I use my physical desktop: as a place to do work, not a place to store things. I put my documents in the file cabinet. I put the tape dispenser in the drawer (since I seldom need it). My critical documents and passport go in the safe. I use both my physical and virtual desktop as a place to
Gregg,
I looked through your page a bit and at the forums and didn't see a license on this game. I'm somewhat interested in helping or at least sharing some code. I'm currently working on my own space exploration/combat/colonizing/trading game based heavily on dynamic and fractal-based content. Is OuterSpace open source? Also, are there plans to make it multi-platform?
Cheers,
Charles
This is admittedly off-topic, but not intended to be wholly philosophical or controversial. I am merely curious.
In the sense of technology and forward thinking, I do not consider myself to be an 'average person', yet I have trouble understanding why to so many people, the survival of the human race is of such high importance. Naturally I agree that a single human life has intrinsic value (and therefore so also, does a group of humans or the whole human race). I have also read enough humanistic literature to know that to many people, the survival and (sort of vaguely defined) betterment of our race is the prime virtue. Yet I still don't understand why people believe this (and I hope I have judged correctly that you fit in this group).
So please forgive me if this seems like an odd or stupid question. I certainly don't mean it to be an insulting one. It's just that you asserted something quite strongly that I'm not sure I believe and so I'm curious as to why you believe it so strongly. Beyond your natural instinct to survive and reproduce, what additional reasons do you have to believe that the universe is 'better off' with the complex molecules that are our genome floating around here and there? Perhaps what I'm asking is:
* Why do you believe the survival of our species has intrinsic value?
And as a bonus:
Is there anything more important than the preservation of our species (i.e. somem particular moral)?
I'm interested in anyone's opinion. Thanks.
-Charles
I would guess that your parent poster would answer 'No. I don't think that. But those who would make that argument, have a much weaker argument to make.' But that's just my guess. The point is, settle down and be graceful with the posts of other people.
-Combatjuan
My work phone is a Cingular 8125 which runs Windows Mobile 5.
Service: 4/10
Hardware: 9/10
Software: 2/10
In terms of hardware, the phone is great, but when it comes to software, I have a hard time imagining anyone doing worse. It takes a ridiculous number of 'keypresses' (it's a touch screen) to simply add someone to my address book. Even worse, however, is that the phone **crashes**. My cell phone actually will simply up and reboot, or the system will hang until I power it down. I for one cannot wait for the day when Linux phones own the market. It may not ever happen. If it does, it may not be all delicious smelling roses. But I certainly can't imagine it being _this_ bad.
-Charles
I just wanted to throw in a quick voucher for 'Sam's OpenGL SuperBible' as I picked it up this last weekend (3 days at the inlaws (-8). It's excellent. Being a 4-5 kilo book, it has both breadth and depth on the subject of OpenGL. As a math person, I wish that it touched a bit more on the linear algebra side of things but the fact that it keeps things within the mathematical grasp of about any reader while still being useful is probably a better decistion.
And while I'm posting (this doesn't happen often), I'd like to throw my two cents into the fountain of this Indie games debate. Good for you if you want to write a game, however... Do something new, do something creative, do something that you and your friends and family members and immediate contributors can realistically accomplish. And for the love of sanity, DO IT FOR FUN! If you're in it for money and it's not your full-time job, then don't bother.
Also, if you're a good programmer and find your game lacking content, consider procedural content. It really depends on the kind of game you're writing. The downside is that it can remove the beautiful, personal touch of human-generated content, and it is also very hard to do. The upshot is that if you really enjoy programming and are making your game for you own personal enjoyment, the challenge can be very exciting and entertaining. The second upshot is that procedural content when done well and applied to the right kind of game, can greatly add to replayability. This is the path that I've chosen for the game I'm writing right now (In-depth pausable real-time tactical starship combat). I'm having a blast!
I know there is a lot of pent-up frustration in the scientific community about Intelligent Design, but really, understanding how bees fly is completely unrelated to ID. I'm disturbed at how an exciting discovery in the fields of biology and aerodynamics can result in a random lashing out against ID rather than dialog about what this means to us. I'm dissappointed that slashdot has so far had so few responses regarding the science and applications of this new found knowledge and instead has just attacked ID. This is schoolyard behavior.
Yes. I understand that those supporting ID have used this as an example of how we don't have a complete understanding of the universe. But this isn't a 'nail in the coffin' of ID for three simple reasons. Listen closely:
1.) This is not evidence against ID nor is it evidence for creation or intelligent design or the fact that Macs suck or that Pepsi is better than Coke or any other controversial subject. ID states that the bee was designed, evolution says that it evolved. This doesn't favor the one over the other.
2.) There are an infinite number of things that we don't understand about the universe or the particular field of biology, so understanding this one more really makes no actual difference. Proponents of ID can simply pick any number of other things we don't understand as use it as an example of no one has yet formulated a complete understanding of the universe.
3.) Intelligent Design is stated in such a way that it cannot be scientifically disproven. HINT: That's why it's not science. That's WHY it can't be taught in science class. If claim that by using science you have somehow "driven a nail into it's coffin" then you infer that it is in fact falsifiable. As it it typically stated, it is not.
So mod me how you like, but please, let's not make false claims about ID to make our selves feel better, and let's not lose sight of the real meaning of this discovery.
I seriously doubt that and find this argument a little boring.
Sorry, no. Personally, I had a great deal of trouble learning how to use Photoshop. I had much less trouble getting to know my way around the GIMP. While I may be in the majority, quit it with these blanket statements that no one could possibly find a system easier that you find more difficult. Do you realize how arrogant and ridiculous that is?
Now I'm not going to defend the GIMP's interface with my life, but the point is, while Photoshop is excellent software, it isn't above reproach either. Let's move away from the irrational zealousness and find some reasonable middle ground.
The Caprice may not have been in the text portion of the article, but it wass at the end of their slide show of bad cars and was criticized for it's handling and styling. If you watch the slide show, you'd better be a power reader. It goes by pretty quickly.
Ok. Seriously. The Caprice was a poorly rated car? Ok, I'll give Forbes the fact that it is perhaps the most boring styling ever place on a set of wheels, but shoot, who has ever heard of a Caprice that didn't last at least 250,000 miles? Those things were the epitomy of reliability. Cheaper cars from the eighties, in general, were not expected to perform well after 120,000 miles. I've never heard of a Caprice that needed any kind of major power train work until after 200,000 miles. That's becoming more common in recent times or in diesels or more expensive cars, but for the price in the late eighties you could not buy a more reliable car.
End of rant. I'll go take my pills now.