the game developers have been working harder to make sure the game is theftproof than worth buying.
Sorry but you're blaming the wrong people here. Most game developers never even think about copy protection. That is something added by the publishers for the gold master. Worse, its usually something licenced from a 3rd party (Macrovision and their clones). Most of the time its just a knee-jerk "we've got to have it" kind of thing that they've been sold on by those 3rd party companies.
Perhaps more useful than the source code - can we buy the 3d models, characters animations etc. The biggest thing holding back open source game development is not code - there's vast amounts of good open source engine code out there already - it's the lack of any decent art. [Offtopic for a mo: why aren't there more artists contributing stuff to the commons?]
So now the USA can exercise its cowardice to even greater levels. With high altitude bombers and cruise missiles they've been able to kill in safety for a while but now they'll be able to do it on the ground as well.
Just how many more innocent people do they intend to murder to maintain their suv-loving lifestyle? Iraqis are currently paying 30:1 in lives for Sept 11th and Iraq had nothing to do with it.
France's opposition to the US war in Iraq had *nothing* to do with priciple and everything to do with
I know I shouldn't rise to flamebait but... let us remember that the US war in Iraq had as much to do with Iraq renegotiating its Food for Oil deal with the UN so as to deal with France in Euros rather than the US in dollars - something that scared the US treasury shitless (if the ROTW drops dollars, America is seriously screwed).
Well, as you say, duh! Good predictions after the event is what voodoo, magic and many other 'disciplines' are very good at. The measure of science has been its ability to predict before the event. Basic statistics is behind most of economics' better predictions. Economics has no stable philosophical foundation (do you choose Marx, Keynes or Friedman). Its basic axioms are bunk (most people don't spend their money rationally). And at the end of the day it has its head up the arse of politics.
'm not claiming the whole science of economics is BS, BTW.
Please don't dignify economics by calling it a science. It isn't despite all the wonderful computer models that economists drag out to explain what has just happened. Economics is half way between philosophy and history. It explains the past (badly) and rarely predicts the future - if it did economists would, by their own definition, be fabulously wealthy.
LOL! Do you really thing the DPR will act against the USA. It's simple: the US has told the UK that it will bar entry to flights from the UK and UK citizens for whom full data records are not handed over. In the interest, of course, of 'security' and 'prevention of terrorism'. The US is starting to make the old USSR look enlightened in its entry requirements.
That's some sick stuff on that site of his you linked to!
May God bless you in the meantime. If you have kids, have them start shooting hoops instead of humans.
Gag! Pass the sick bag, Vicar!
Jack Thompson has appeared recently on a number of national television program with victims of two teenage Tennessee snipers whom police concluded trained obsessively on Grand Theft Auto to prepare for their sniping spree.
I think not. Counter-Strike or BF1942 would be much better practice for snipers than GTA!
What a load of complete rot. You assert much but justify nothing. You call yourself Toby The Economist but I doubt that you have read any of the books you accuse others of not reading.
I travel to the UK quite a bit on business. While there, I watch a number of U.S. shows, such as the Simpsons, Star Trek (Next Gen, Voyager, and Enterprise), Charmed, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, just to name the ones I can remember.
You can't have been watching the BBC much then. Sounds more like Sky One's lineup.
There are, of course, tons of English shows... news, stuff with Judy Dench, game shows, etc, but I have to wonder if Americans viewing commercials are not subsidizing the entertainment costs of England...
How do you work that one then? The BBC pays a fortune for your American rubbish. Indeed there have been motions to limit the amount that the BBC pays foreign producers for its content (it is more than is spent internally).
If we weren't in a global economy, I wonder if the BBC would be making equivalent programming.
When we weren't in this global economy (back in the 60s and 70s) we were making even better stuff!
Wrong. Mere ownership of a set capable of receiving broadcast TV is enough to trigger the Licence Fee.
However, when I was at college I had an early computer connected up to a TV (as most were) and managed to persuade the licencing authorities that my TV was just a computer monitor. Amazingly they let me off - I have no idea whether there is similar discretion available these days now that the TV Licencing has been privatised...
This is unethical, and it violated the principles of the free market.
Your ethics not mine. The free market is not a universally held principle (nor does it, in any meaningful sense, exist). Indeed the free market is unethical as it violates the principles of socialism and public accountability.
If a private company sets up a TV channel and I, a private individual, want to watch that channel, what right do *other* private individuals (the BBC) have to *force me* to then pay for *their* TV channels?
The BBC is not a private individual. It is a public corporation (in the British sense, not the American) created and run for the benefit of the British people. Private companies are created and run of the benefit of the few shareholders.
Any arguments about "they produce high quality TV" are obviously bunk.
They are? How? The BBC certainly does produce high quality TV. It is not of course unique in that.
Consider that you can apply that argument to anything. Care to have your food taxed, so that a State run enterprise can produce high quality food?
If the government can convince us of this, then yes. For a long time after the war, most food production and distribution was administered by the Boards (the Milk Board, the Poultry Board, etc) and a lot of farmers would like to return to this. Why? The Boards gave the farmers a better price than the supermarkets which use the 'free' market to screw the producers.
I tend to think that the BBC is as great as it is due to it being very well managed and structured, not by the fact that it is taxpayer funded. The mere fact that taxpayers pay for it does not guarantee success.
Well if it was commercially owned I think it would guarantee failure. The BBC's culture is quite unique and probably not particularly understandable unless you're a Brit as they're a hangover from the days of the Establishment - a belief (however pompous and misguided) in public service for the good of the nation (and who's good has always been hotly contested).
It would help if you bothered to read the original article before committing your arse to your post. Bruce Sterling does not advocate letting the UN run the net, he advocates the UN using the net. Cam you get your single braincell around the idea of the UN debating in a/. style form?
rather than launching into a "UN is evil, corrupt and anti-American" rant?? He actually suggests using the net, you know web pages, forums, chat lines, all that kind of goodness we as netizens are used to to bring us all together (even if for a good slagging match). He is not suggesting that the UN should run the internet FFS.
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Seconded! As a Brit we used to have similar propaganda about Catholics from the Spanish Armada to Guy Fawkes to the Jacobite rebellion. Most recently the IRA was used to demonise catholics. And of course most of the islamic world has historically seen Christians as the great terrorists ever since the crusades.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.
Yes, why don't you Americans fuck off and fester like the rogue state you are. Or you could try and engage with the rest of the world instead... (Y'know once upon a time I used to really like the USA, now I detest it - still like many Americans though, this poster excluded obviously)
Bzzz. Sorry wrong answer. Israel was founded out of British Palestine as a result of the Balfour Declaration by Britain, first announced in 1917, eventually implemented after the second world war. Why? Because the British government was fed up with Jewish terrorism. Most of the early leaders of Israel were previously on Britain's Most Wanted list. Bit like America leting Osama Bin Laden found a Moslem theocracy really.
And as to your second assertion, modern Israel at the time was populated by a fair old mix of Jews (some of them non-white and treated with contempt by the Russian and American Jews who immigrated there), Arabs, Christians among others. Most Israeli families hadn't been near Palestine for over a thousand years before modern Israel was founded. So wrong there also. Good job you posted as an AC, eh!
BOYCOTT ISRAEL: Don't buy their produce, don't do business with them. It worked for South Africa!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps more useful than the source code - can we buy the 3d models, characters animations etc. The biggest thing holding back open source game development is not code - there's vast amounts of good open source engine code out there already - it's the lack of any decent art. [Offtopic for a mo: why aren't there more artists contributing stuff to the commons?]
Just how many more innocent people do they intend to murder to maintain their suv-loving lifestyle? Iraqis are currently paying 30:1 in lives for Sept 11th and Iraq had nothing to do with it.
LOL! You mean you only use them at home? What to stop the Mexicans crossing your border?
Yes I think that was my point but switching trade to was too much for the $ to bear.
Well, as you say, duh! Good predictions after the event is what voodoo, magic and many other 'disciplines' are very good at. The measure of science has been its ability to predict before the event. Basic statistics is behind most of economics' better predictions. Economics has no stable philosophical foundation (do you choose Marx, Keynes or Friedman). Its basic axioms are bunk (most people don't spend their money rationally). And at the end of the day it has its head up the arse of politics.
Are we surprised? Everyone knows the USA is Israel's bitch!
LOL! Do you really thing the DPR will act against the USA. It's simple: the US has told the UK that it will bar entry to flights from the UK and UK citizens for whom full data records are not handed over. In the interest, of course, of 'security' and 'prevention of terrorism'. The US is starting to make the old USSR look enlightened in its entry requirements.
May God bless you in the meantime. If you have kids, have them start shooting hoops instead of humans.
Gag! Pass the sick bag, Vicar!
Jack Thompson has appeared recently on a number of national television program with victims of two teenage Tennessee snipers whom police concluded trained obsessively on Grand Theft Auto to prepare for their sniping spree.
I think not. Counter-Strike or BF1942 would be much better practice for snipers than GTA!
What a load of complete rot. You assert much but justify nothing. You call yourself Toby The Economist but I doubt that you have read any of the books you accuse others of not reading.
You can't have been watching the BBC much then. Sounds more like Sky One's lineup.
There are, of course, tons of English shows... news, stuff with Judy Dench, game shows, etc, but I have to wonder if Americans viewing commercials are not subsidizing the entertainment costs of England...
How do you work that one then? The BBC pays a fortune for your American rubbish. Indeed there have been motions to limit the amount that the BBC pays foreign producers for its content (it is more than is spent internally).
If we weren't in a global economy, I wonder if the BBC would be making equivalent programming.
When we weren't in this global economy (back in the 60s and 70s) we were making even better stuff!
However, when I was at college I had an early computer connected up to a TV (as most were) and managed to persuade the licencing authorities that my TV was just a computer monitor. Amazingly they let me off - I have no idea whether there is similar discretion available these days now that the TV Licencing has been privatised...
Your ethics not mine. The free market is not a universally held principle (nor does it, in any meaningful sense, exist). Indeed the free market is unethical as it violates the principles of socialism and public accountability.
If a private company sets up a TV channel and I, a private individual, want to watch that channel, what right do *other* private individuals (the BBC) have to *force me* to then pay for *their* TV channels?
The BBC is not a private individual. It is a public corporation (in the British sense, not the American) created and run for the benefit of the British people. Private companies are created and run of the benefit of the few shareholders.
Any arguments about "they produce high quality TV" are obviously bunk.
They are? How? The BBC certainly does produce high quality TV. It is not of course unique in that.
Consider that you can apply that argument to anything. Care to have your food taxed, so that a State run enterprise can produce high quality food?
If the government can convince us of this, then yes. For a long time after the war, most food production and distribution was administered by the Boards (the Milk Board, the Poultry Board, etc) and a lot of farmers would like to return to this. Why? The Boards gave the farmers a better price than the supermarkets which use the 'free' market to screw the producers.
Well if it was commercially owned I think it would guarantee failure. The BBC's culture is quite unique and probably not particularly understandable unless you're a Brit as they're a hangover from the days of the Establishment - a belief (however pompous and misguided) in public service for the good of the nation (and who's good has always been hotly contested).
It would help if you bothered to read the original article before committing your arse to your post. Bruce Sterling does not advocate letting the UN run the net, he advocates the UN using the net. Cam you get your single braincell around the idea of the UN debating in a /. style form?
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all ;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Perhaps the United Nations of the 21st Century will be a Bazaar not a Cathedral?
Seconded! As a Brit we used to have similar propaganda about Catholics from the Spanish Armada to Guy Fawkes to the Jacobite rebellion. Most recently the IRA was used to demonise catholics. And of course most of the islamic world has historically seen Christians as the great terrorists ever since the crusades.
And no more corrupt a member state than the USA of course. The USA being one of the prime shit stirrers in the UN doesn't help.
Yes, why don't you Americans fuck off and fester like the rogue state you are. Or you could try and engage with the rest of the world instead... (Y'know once upon a time I used to really like the USA, now I detest it - still like many Americans though, this poster excluded obviously)
Sorry to dispute with you old bean, but the US is the 2nd world, Europe (and that most definitely does include Russia) is the 1st world.
Bzzz. Sorry wrong answer. Israel was founded out of British Palestine as a result of the Balfour Declaration by Britain, first announced in 1917, eventually implemented after the second world war. Why? Because the British government was fed up with Jewish terrorism. Most of the early leaders of Israel were previously on Britain's Most Wanted list. Bit like America leting Osama Bin Laden found a Moslem theocracy really.
And as to your second assertion, modern Israel at the time was populated by a fair old mix of Jews (some of them non-white and treated with contempt by the Russian and American Jews who immigrated there), Arabs, Christians among others. Most Israeli families hadn't been near Palestine for over a thousand years before modern Israel was founded. So wrong there also. Good job you posted as an AC, eh! BOYCOTT ISRAEL: Don't buy their produce, don't do business with them. It worked for South Africa!
Just done likewise.