Unless you are running specific cards which excel at OGL, then that is not true. When UT2003 first came out, there were some cards that had "issues" running in D3D, and I remember the developers suggesting that people try OGL mode to rectify the problem. That it should work, but they would also experience decreased speed. I did, and it was slower, 10-20fps slower at that. It didnt help also that the renderers were broken, so scenes would often misrender, and you would get an enourmous visual tear right where a sniper was picking you off. Fun!
My guess would be that, this move is aimed at cornering that section of the PC-building market that try to trick consumers by offering amazing deals for PCs by omitting to mention they come with no OS, since most Joe Sixpacks assume that a computer always has an OS.
Now these shifty folks can safely claim that it does have an OS on it, with no increase in cost to them. Just think of the numbers of lindows boxes that are going to get handed out to ignorant buyers now!
My parents have an Odyssey, its the family wagon so to speak. Between the six of them (mum, dad, four small kids) they amazingly manage to use pretty much every cup holder in the car when they go on road-trips. If the few spare dont have cups in them, theyre usually filled with something else, like chips, nuts, or other snack for the ferocious carnivores that are my siblings.
That said, I agree with you on the pgup/pgdown keys. Theyre not exactly highly used. Which makes me constantly beg the question, why did the G4 mini-keyboard opt to keep those keys, and not the much more used Del/End/Home keys.
Wanna see something fun? Well, my system is watercooled (please don't hurt me), and of course that means I have, inside my case, a pump. And of course, pumps of the magnitude required for PC use are all based on solenoids. Hence, they generate some marvelous electrical fields. Add that to the EMI the hardware itself makes, and you end up with a box so active that theres a minimum safe distance it can come to any monitor.
It'd be a great way to entertain yourself when stoned though, put the box next to a monitor and lose yourself in the purty colours man!
"You're talking about using the Internet as a tool for disseminating ideas that I created and that I don't want to you disseminate." I'm talking about the internet being the focal point of a revolution, wherein you WANT to freely give of your information to others.
How can the artist rent a performance venue without paying for it? Well, once again, let me reiterate, I am talking about the internet. Stop bringing up that annoying real world. But nonetheless, I will humour you. In my view, the artist is perfectly able to use public space in which to perform. If no-one OWNS the venues, if there is, somewhere, a concert theater builder who, without regard for profit, is going around building venues for no-one, for nothing. Hence you have a venue which is freely available (on the internet the metaphor for this would be free web-space which of course is still relatively abundant, if you know where to look). And more importantly, both the artist, and the venue-builder have been doing whatever thing they do, not because they have been compelled to, but because they WANT to. They both know that by performing their respective function, something that they have skills in, they are making the world better for others, and so on and so forth.
You state that money will take you anywhere you wish to go. Unfortunately, that is only true because you are not looking outside of your capitalistic bottleneck. Money is great to have in a capitalist society, and the terrible compulsion to gain more of it will own your entire life. You continue to perform your function, whatever that may be, because it provides you with money, which in turn provides you with capitalistic ownership over material items. So woop-de-doo, you've got a bigger car, bigger house, better TV. When you get an infection, I bet you're going to be mighty glad that someone went to the effort to invent penicillin. And now, was penicillin invented because Alexander Flemming was being paid per infection he cured, and wanted to make some more cash? I think not. Did Ben Franklin figure out that electricity thing because he figured it would be a great way to fund his political campaign? I could go on, but it would be laboring the point.
Every day, every single one of us benefits from things done by people who have done amazing things, not for monetary gain, but because of the perceived value it would have to society. But I guess I'm asking too much if I assume that people are ever going to stop being greedy and start giving back to humanity.
I'm out. Reply if you want, but I've said my piece.
I suggested that informational-communism is the next step of evolution, following the line that I laid out. Let us say that I wanted to buck the trend, so to speak, and decided that I wished to behave like a tribal savage, and went and bashed my neighbours to death. By your logic, I should be allowed to do that, I am simply choosing to resist change, and that is my right, "no-one should be able to force me to do it".
Capitalism is not a form of government, it is an ideology, an economic system based on private ownership of capital. I suggest that the examples you keep drawing from that demonstrate inherent downfalls in communist government are for that very reason, an ideology is being turned into a government, and, perhaps that is not the correct way to approach things.
"Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit)". Profit does not make you a better person. It will not make you happy, it will not make you a nicer person, making a profit does not improve you over any other person on this planet. And further to that, an artist is bettered by their music being heard by people, by performing, creating more music, by expressing themselves better through their music. Since when did art become 'only-for-profit'? By its very nature, art should be about expression, not capital gain.
"Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to?"
More importantly, why do you want a better roof? Do you need a better roof? Is there any reason, apart from pure unbridled consumerism that you wish to have a better roof?
And please, can you try to stay on topic. I am talking about the internet. How you choose to put food on your table is your business, I am talking about the free exchange of information by electronic means, not the complete overthrowing of the world and a united communist rule.
I do not suggest that we move to china, or hop in the time machine back to the 70s and go live in the USSR.
I acknowledged that there are flaws in the current systems that exist in terms of government, and I in no way advocated that they are any better or worse than any other form of government. What I am talking about is something that quite clearly spawns from the online world, and how real-world governments react to it, I hope, will decide their fate.
I submit for your consideration a few things. Firstly, the nature of the internet itself, which clearly lends itself to a free dissemination of information. You need to know something, you google for it, you have that information. This costs you nothing. The person who made that information available does not charge you for it. In fact, in most cases, they are actually marginally out of pocket for providing you with that information (bandwidth and hosting costs, time to prepare the information, so forth). Secondly, as soon as new methods of online communication spring up, be they IM, forums, or even IRC, you see communities develop which are devoted to assisting and providing information others. Just look at the myriad of 'help' channels that exist on IRC. Here we have people who are often quite skilled in their field, who give up their time and energy to help others. They receive no reward for this beyond the satisfaction of helping others. And perhaps this is the greatest example of what I hope to see.
It doesnt attempt to reverse human nature, it evolves it. In a similar manner that humanity has come from warring tribal savages, to become an (to some extent - in the arguably more civilized societies) accepting, integrated community.
Firstly, let me inroduce you to my friend, Mr. Metaphor. Whether or not you prostate yourself nightly is unknown to me, your comments make it clear, however, that you place great worth in money, material ownership, and capitalism. This demonstrates that you are "praying to the god of money". By continuing to not only hold your belief in the intrinsic value of money, but by exercising that belief in your life.
Secondly, why does communism scare you? It failed in the USSR because, as I mentioned, people are greedy, and because of numerous flaws with the system. That doesnt mean the Internet is not now in a position to bring to pass a glorious age information-communism. A world where data flows freely, outmoded concepts such as "ownership" are disbanded, and humanity begins to work in harmony for good of fellow man. Instead of in direct competition with one another for a greater profit.
Because clearly, the quest for profit has done such great things for humanity so far.
What a terribly capitalist viewpoint.
I think the real issue here, underlying the copyright issues and the legal issues and the profit issues is one of pure, unbridled capitalism. The current situation with music is, I believe, the first serious example of the increasing struggle between the old world and the new. Between the bloodthirsty quest for increasing profit, and the altruistic quest for freely disseminated information. Unfortunately, people are greedy, so I don't hold out any great hope.
But you keep praying to your money God, and I'll keep praying to my God of "freely distributed information".
Bad analogy...the people who made the roads were paid to do so; Microsoft was not paid by anybody to build their IM network.
Yes they were. No capitalist corporation does something, especially something that costs money, unless there is a benefit involved. Microsoft, whilst not garnering profit directly (except for of course visa vi the advertising), undoubtedly gain from the MSN network.
And clearly what is happening here is, they are trying to increase the amount that they gain from it. Stopping 3rd parties from profiting from their service is fair enough. Stopping 3rd parties from producing clients at all without paying, be they open source or otherwise, has the benefit of increasing the marketshare of their client (and the resulting ad revenue), as well as strengthening their desktop position.
The masses of MSN weenies are going to grow up, and be buying PCs in the next few years. If they know that open source competitors cannot use MSN, then they clearly want be inclined to migrate.
Its for obvious benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Would YOU like to know more?
Unless you are running specific cards which excel at OGL, then that is not true. When UT2003 first came out, there were some cards that had "issues" running in D3D, and I remember the developers suggesting that people try OGL mode to rectify the problem. That it should work, but they would also experience decreased speed. I did, and it was slower, 10-20fps slower at that. It didnt help also that the renderers were broken, so scenes would often misrender, and you would get an enourmous visual tear right where a sniper was picking you off. Fun!
Use a real dl manager that sends a referrer then. Der.
Because to be honest, chances are you couldnt pronounce their chinese names if your life depended on it.
And clearly theyre sick of people trying to, and failing miserably, so they pick anglocized names that most people can pronounce.
My guess would be that, this move is aimed at cornering that section of the PC-building market that try to trick consumers by offering amazing deals for PCs by omitting to mention they come with no OS, since most Joe Sixpacks assume that a computer always has an OS.
Now these shifty folks can safely claim that it does have an OS on it, with no increase in cost to them. Just think of the numbers of lindows boxes that are going to get handed out to ignorant buyers now!
My parents have an Odyssey, its the family wagon so to speak. Between the six of them (mum, dad, four small kids) they amazingly manage to use pretty much every cup holder in the car when they go on road-trips. If the few spare dont have cups in them, theyre usually filled with something else, like chips, nuts, or other snack for the ferocious carnivores that are my siblings.
That said, I agree with you on the pgup/pgdown keys. Theyre not exactly highly used. Which makes me constantly beg the question, why did the G4 mini-keyboard opt to keep those keys, and not the much more used Del/End/Home keys.
Ah logic.
Wanna see something fun? Well, my system is watercooled (please don't hurt me), and of course that means I have, inside my case, a pump. And of course, pumps of the magnitude required for PC use are all based on solenoids. Hence, they generate some marvelous electrical fields. Add that to the EMI the hardware itself makes, and you end up with a box so active that theres a minimum safe distance it can come to any monitor.
It'd be a great way to entertain yourself when stoned though, put the box next to a monitor and lose yourself in the purty colours man!
"You're talking about using the Internet as a tool for disseminating ideas that I created and that I don't want to you disseminate." I'm talking about the internet being the focal point of a revolution, wherein you WANT to freely give of your information to others.
How can the artist rent a performance venue without paying for it? Well, once again, let me reiterate, I am talking about the internet. Stop bringing up that annoying real world. But nonetheless, I will humour you. In my view, the artist is perfectly able to use public space in which to perform. If no-one OWNS the venues, if there is, somewhere, a concert theater builder who, without regard for profit, is going around building venues for no-one, for nothing. Hence you have a venue which is freely available (on the internet the metaphor for this would be free web-space which of course is still relatively abundant, if you know where to look). And more importantly, both the artist, and the venue-builder have been doing whatever thing they do, not because they have been compelled to, but because they WANT to. They both know that by performing their respective function, something that they have skills in, they are making the world better for others, and so on and so forth.
You state that money will take you anywhere you wish to go. Unfortunately, that is only true because you are not looking outside of your capitalistic bottleneck. Money is great to have in a capitalist society, and the terrible compulsion to gain more of it will own your entire life. You continue to perform your function, whatever that may be, because it provides you with money, which in turn provides you with capitalistic ownership over material items. So woop-de-doo, you've got a bigger car, bigger house, better TV. When you get an infection, I bet you're going to be mighty glad that someone went to the effort to invent penicillin. And now, was penicillin invented because Alexander Flemming was being paid per infection he cured, and wanted to make some more cash? I think not. Did Ben Franklin figure out that electricity thing because he figured it would be a great way to fund his political campaign? I could go on, but it would be laboring the point.
Every day, every single one of us benefits from things done by people who have done amazing things, not for monetary gain, but because of the perceived value it would have to society. But I guess I'm asking too much if I assume that people are ever going to stop being greedy and start giving back to humanity.
I'm out. Reply if you want, but I've said my piece.
I suggested that informational-communism is the next step of evolution, following the line that I laid out. Let us say that I wanted to buck the trend, so to speak, and decided that I wished to behave like a tribal savage, and went and bashed my neighbours to death. By your logic, I should be allowed to do that, I am simply choosing to resist change, and that is my right, "no-one should be able to force me to do it".
Capitalism is not a form of government, it is an ideology, an economic system based on private ownership of capital. I suggest that the examples you keep drawing from that demonstrate inherent downfalls in communist government are for that very reason, an ideology is being turned into a government, and, perhaps that is not the correct way to approach things.
"Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit)". Profit does not make you a better person. It will not make you happy, it will not make you a nicer person, making a profit does not improve you over any other person on this planet. And further to that, an artist is bettered by their music being heard by people, by performing, creating more music, by expressing themselves better through their music. Since when did art become 'only-for-profit'? By its very nature, art should be about expression, not capital gain.
"Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to?"
More importantly, why do you want a better roof? Do you need a better roof? Is there any reason, apart from pure unbridled consumerism that you wish to have a better roof?
And please, can you try to stay on topic. I am talking about the internet. How you choose to put food on your table is your business, I am talking about the free exchange of information by electronic means, not the complete overthrowing of the world and a united communist rule.
I do not suggest that we move to china, or hop in the time machine back to the 70s and go live in the USSR.
I acknowledged that there are flaws in the current systems that exist in terms of government, and I in no way advocated that they are any better or worse than any other form of government. What I am talking about is something that quite clearly spawns from the online world, and how real-world governments react to it, I hope, will decide their fate.
I submit for your consideration a few things. Firstly, the nature of the internet itself, which clearly lends itself to a free dissemination of information. You need to know something, you google for it, you have that information. This costs you nothing. The person who made that information available does not charge you for it. In fact, in most cases, they are actually marginally out of pocket for providing you with that information (bandwidth and hosting costs, time to prepare the information, so forth). Secondly, as soon as new methods of online communication spring up, be they IM, forums, or even IRC, you see communities develop which are devoted to assisting and providing information others. Just look at the myriad of 'help' channels that exist on IRC. Here we have people who are often quite skilled in their field, who give up their time and energy to help others. They receive no reward for this beyond the satisfaction of helping others. And perhaps this is the greatest example of what I hope to see.
It doesnt attempt to reverse human nature, it evolves it. In a similar manner that humanity has come from warring tribal savages, to become an (to some extent - in the arguably more civilized societies) accepting, integrated community.
Firstly, let me inroduce you to my friend, Mr. Metaphor. Whether or not you prostate yourself nightly is unknown to me, your comments make it clear, however, that you place great worth in money, material ownership, and capitalism. This demonstrates that you are "praying to the god of money". By continuing to not only hold your belief in the intrinsic value of money, but by exercising that belief in your life.
Secondly, why does communism scare you? It failed in the USSR because, as I mentioned, people are greedy, and because of numerous flaws with the system. That doesnt mean the Internet is not now in a position to bring to pass a glorious age information-communism. A world where data flows freely, outmoded concepts such as "ownership" are disbanded, and humanity begins to work in harmony for good of fellow man. Instead of in direct competition with one another for a greater profit.
Because clearly, the quest for profit has done such great things for humanity so far.
What a terribly capitalist viewpoint. I think the real issue here, underlying the copyright issues and the legal issues and the profit issues is one of pure, unbridled capitalism. The current situation with music is, I believe, the first serious example of the increasing struggle between the old world and the new. Between the bloodthirsty quest for increasing profit, and the altruistic quest for freely disseminated information. Unfortunately, people are greedy, so I don't hold out any great hope. But you keep praying to your money God, and I'll keep praying to my God of "freely distributed information".
Bad analogy...the people who made the roads were paid to do so; Microsoft was not paid by anybody to build their IM network. Yes they were. No capitalist corporation does something, especially something that costs money, unless there is a benefit involved. Microsoft, whilst not garnering profit directly (except for of course visa vi the advertising), undoubtedly gain from the MSN network. And clearly what is happening here is, they are trying to increase the amount that they gain from it. Stopping 3rd parties from profiting from their service is fair enough. Stopping 3rd parties from producing clients at all without paying, be they open source or otherwise, has the benefit of increasing the marketshare of their client (and the resulting ad revenue), as well as strengthening their desktop position. The masses of MSN weenies are going to grow up, and be buying PCs in the next few years. If they know that open source competitors cannot use MSN, then they clearly want be inclined to migrate. Its for obvious benefit.