Yeah, that's the one that I'm talking about. The graphics are very impressive, the networked multiplayer is very fun, and great improvements to the some of the weapons. There is nothing like seeing a funky bomb in 3D!
SCOrched Earth
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Did anyone else get excited when they saw that tag line? I love Scorched Earth, the mother of all games! There is actually a 3D multiplayer version now that I like very much.
$50 for 2 years? That's not bad. I want more information about pricing because I couldn't find anything about on their web site. Is it a per hour, or flat montly rate? What is the cost after Dec 8th?
MS has yet to learn the lesson (and someday it will) that IBM had to learn: you have to evolve from a company that sets standards to a company that contributes to them.
Well that sure explains why IBM is doing so much better that MS, doesn't it? I'm not trying to troll, it's just that what motivation does MS have to follow other peoples standards when they can set the terms themselves and force the rest of the world to follow without any repercussions? I'm with you in wishing that they would, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it would actually be good for MS's bottom line, all it would do would let other people compete on a more equal ground, and they don't want that to happen.
In a broad sense it comes back to voting, but the original post was asking who to complain to in order to stop this, and you are implying that the nation had a vote to decide on this FBI bill but we didn't show up to vote against it. That is not how this country works. This is an important point to understand properly. The USA is not a democracy. No I'm not spewing left-wing bias, it's the truth and it was designed that way. The USA is a Representative Republic. There is a big difference. We don't vote on every little law that goes through, instead we vote to elect Congressmen/women who do the actual voting for us on our behalf. This is how Al Gore can win the popular vote but still lose the election (no don't start a flame war about that election, that's not my point). It's not decided by popular vote, instead you go state by state and say "how many electoral votes do you have?" Lets say your state has 4. Everybody votes, and when you are voting the actually candidate doesn't matter, what matters more is what party your vote belongs to. If the majority of people in your state vote Republican, then the Republican party of your state gets to decide what actual candidate to give the four electoral votes to. If they chose to do so the Republican party could actually give all for to the democratic candidate. In fact I think that actually happened somewhere during the 2000 election. In the case of FBI bills and other things like that the people who we have elected decide to vote on it or not and the president either signs it into law, or veto's it. If it is law, then it stays that way until the Supreme court declares it unconstitutional.
So to answer the question, how do we keep laws like this from happening? We elect congressmen who will not vote for them, and when a bill comes up we contact them and tell them not to vote for it. They do actually try to vote according to how the people in their state want it done because otherwise they couldn't get re-elected. If that doesn't work and it actually gets made into law, the only way to stop it is to either have your congressman introduce a new law that counters it, or to have it challenged in court and have the supreme court revoke the law.
You make a good point. We should definitely be aware of the underlying politics involved here, because it will have a big effect on how the internet is played out. One important thing to keep in mind is that when capitalist western countries like the USA are in charge of the internet (or have the biggest influence or what-have-you) the policy changes are most likely to be ones that are good decisions for business application, or will make someone some money somewhere. If the internet is controlled by third-world countries the decisions will lean toward crippling the bigger powers to boost their own 'net presence (of course they wouldn't word it that way, but it amounts to the same thing even if you use the words "fairness"). If the internet is controlled by a world organization such as the UN the internet will start to be shaped to answer the objections of the nations involved such as China who wants to guarantee censorship to it's citizens. Change needs to happen, and ICANN has defiantly made some bad decisions but my point is, let's not rush into a change just because we don't like what they have done. Another group could do FAR worse if we are not careful.
You can call me selfish if you want, but why should I be compeled to donate my voucher anywhere? If I had a voucher (I don't because I'm not in California) it would because MS had screwed me over. And the one time that they get taken to task over it, I'm supposed to give the benifit to someone else? This is just like when I got a $600 check from the government from GW Bush's tax cut, and the Democratic party said that the tax cut was immoral so they wanted me to donate the entire check to them. Excuse me? That wasn't a $600 gift any more the the voucher is a gift, it's giving back to me what was mine in the first place. I'll keep it, thank you very much. And don't think that I never donate money, code or stuff to OSS projects, because I do, just on my own terms.
They could easily make loads more money if they focused instead on a model closer to the Open Source model.
Do you honestly believe that? Look, I would LOVE to see MS adopt a more open model, but that is because I know how much it would benefit me, and the rest of the tech community, not because I believe for a minute that it would actually be better for Microsoft. Do you really think they would have 90% market share with open source products? Of course not. They got where they are by not sharing the pie with anyone. If they opened up, others would take what they have done and run with it. People would release 100% compatible versions of Windows, Office, IIS, etc that were more secure with less bug fixes, and Microsoft would have to work harder, spend more money in development and QA, and still end up with less of the market, thus less money. For that matter why would anyone buy XP if Windows NT 4 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date? Would all this be good for the rest of the world? Yes. Would it make MS "loads more money"? Absolutely not.
Personally, I am flat-out amazed that this kind of thing hasn't taken off much sooner. There is a public outcry right now about "Privacy" and all kind of laws are being enacted to ensure consumer protection of personal information. So why isn't there a much higher demand from consumers for "Privacy" when it comes to data transmission and data storage? It's not like it's hard from a technology standpoint. Encrypted communications have been around since long before cellular phones. We just need more people asking for it to see this kind of thing standard in phones, bluetooth, 802.11, etc.
I know that was intended as a joke, but you would be surprised how often I find news stories on Google News before I find them on Slashdot. That includes, Anti-MS, Anti-SCO, Pro-Linux, and quantum enlightenment. You should give it a try if you haven't already.
How can you say that with a strait face? Doesn't that sound just a little bit like "no one will ever need more than 64k of ram"? ALL technology has built-in obsolescence. It probably won't be in three years like AMD wants us to believe, but 32 bit systems will eventually be obsolete, just like the horse drawn buggy you will only be able to find them in museums and in the basements of fanatic collectors. I feel like writing a cron job that will remind me to look you up in 2023 and remind you of that statement you made.
Im not sure about that
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a common misconception, but it's not quite true. SCO hasn't refused to show the code to everyone. They have refused to show the code unless people viewing the code sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. SCO offered to show the code to Linus, and several other people who are involved, but they refused to sign the NDA so they didn't get to see it. I'm not on SCO's side of this, what they are doing with all this mess is immoral, but I can see both sides of the code disclosure issue. Linus says "If I sign an NDA, then you could sue me next time I try to right UNIXy code!", and SCO says, "But if you don't sign an NDA, there is nothing stopping you from giving away our code, or putting it into Linux." Thus the two parties are at in impasse. Of course there is still the issue that SCO doesn't want Linus or others to read the code. I have not read the terms of the NDA, but I expect they were ridiculously restrictive so that SCO knew that Linux would never sign.
The amount of interest by non-Netscape companies in Mozilla is surely a positive sign for the future of the project.
I know we are all anxious to see the project have a long-term future, especially with the recent changes, but that is jumping the gun just a bit. There is a big difference in companies having interest in Mozilla employees than having interest in Mozilla. Just because IBM hired Daniel Glazman doesn't mean they have any interest in Mozilla, they just know he is qualified in specific development areas that they want to focus on.
So this officially depricates going to confront the bad-guy and sending a sealed envelope to someone with instructions like "if I'm not back by midnight, open this letter". We can just use email instead. I can see it now: "I've got the source to your virus Mr. Badguy. If I'm not back to my office in 24 hours, my automated service will email the source to the FBI."
Before people start blubbering about DRM and how this model is restrictive, please keep this in mind: Before this, there was NO LEAGAL WAY TO PURCHASE these games from them. I know that the subscription model doesn't really let you purchase them but ANY move at all to make availble old game ROMS that are other wise dying as old cartriges/cabinets stop working needs to be applauded and supported. Don't forget about StarRoms too. The way I see it, the first step is to let the game companies sell the ROMS in whatever protected and limited fashon they are comfortable with, and then after they see a consumer demand for it, market forces would start letting competitive companies offer better EULAs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's the one that I'm talking about. The graphics are very impressive, the networked multiplayer is very fun, and great improvements to the some of the weapons. There is nothing like seeing a funky bomb in 3D!
Did anyone else get excited when they saw that tag line? I love Scorched Earth, the mother of all games! There is actually a 3D multiplayer version now that I like very much.
$50 for 2 years? That's not bad. I want more information about pricing because I couldn't find anything about on their web site. Is it a per hour, or flat montly rate? What is the cost after Dec 8th?
So for you 50 pounds is virtualy free? That's ~$85 US dollars! Can I get a job where you work? You guys must be rich in the UK!
That's kinda how I feel about my small local television. I take it that my UHF dial won't pick up any of these new channels...
Or "wauka wauka" like Fozzie.
Well that sure explains why IBM is doing so much better that MS, doesn't it? I'm not trying to troll, it's just that what motivation does MS have to follow other peoples standards when they can set the terms themselves and force the rest of the world to follow without any repercussions? I'm with you in wishing that they would, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it would actually be good for MS's bottom line, all it would do would let other people compete on a more equal ground, and they don't want that to happen.
So to answer the question, how do we keep laws like this from happening? We elect congressmen who will not vote for them, and when a bill comes up we contact them and tell them not to vote for it. They do actually try to vote according to how the people in their state want it done because otherwise they couldn't get re-elected. If that doesn't work and it actually gets made into law, the only way to stop it is to either have your congressman introduce a new law that counters it, or to have it challenged in court and have the supreme court revoke the law.
You make a good point. We should definitely be aware of the underlying politics involved here, because it will have a big effect on how the internet is played out. One important thing to keep in mind is that when capitalist western countries like the USA are in charge of the internet (or have the biggest influence or what-have-you) the policy changes are most likely to be ones that are good decisions for business application, or will make someone some money somewhere. If the internet is controlled by third-world countries the decisions will lean toward crippling the bigger powers to boost their own 'net presence (of course they wouldn't word it that way, but it amounts to the same thing even if you use the words "fairness"). If the internet is controlled by a world organization such as the UN the internet will start to be shaped to answer the objections of the nations involved such as China who wants to guarantee censorship to it's citizens. Change needs to happen, and ICANN has defiantly made some bad decisions but my point is, let's not rush into a change just because we don't like what they have done. Another group could do FAR worse if we are not careful.
Doesn't iTunes come with OSX?
Yes, but will they pay them for something?
When you say CF a lot of people think of Macromedia's Cold Fusion. That can get confusing.
Can someone tell me what X windows has to do with this story?
You can call me selfish if you want, but why should I be compeled to donate my voucher anywhere? If I had a voucher (I don't because I'm not in California) it would because MS had screwed me over. And the one time that they get taken to task over it, I'm supposed to give the benifit to someone else? This is just like when I got a $600 check from the government from GW Bush's tax cut, and the Democratic party said that the tax cut was immoral so they wanted me to donate the entire check to them. Excuse me? That wasn't a $600 gift any more the the voucher is a gift, it's giving back to me what was mine in the first place. I'll keep it, thank you very much. And don't think that I never donate money, code or stuff to OSS projects, because I do, just on my own terms.
Do you honestly believe that? Look, I would LOVE to see MS adopt a more open model, but that is because I know how much it would benefit me, and the rest of the tech community, not because I believe for a minute that it would actually be better for Microsoft. Do you really think they would have 90% market share with open source products? Of course not. They got where they are by not sharing the pie with anyone. If they opened up, others would take what they have done and run with it. People would release 100% compatible versions of Windows, Office, IIS, etc that were more secure with less bug fixes, and Microsoft would have to work harder, spend more money in development and QA, and still end up with less of the market, thus less money. For that matter why would anyone buy XP if Windows NT 4 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date? Would all this be good for the rest of the world? Yes. Would it make MS "loads more money"? Absolutely not.
Personally, I am flat-out amazed that this kind of thing hasn't taken off much sooner. There is a public outcry right now about "Privacy" and all kind of laws are being enacted to ensure consumer protection of personal information. So why isn't there a much higher demand from consumers for "Privacy" when it comes to data transmission and data storage? It's not like it's hard from a technology standpoint. Encrypted communications have been around since long before cellular phones. We just need more people asking for it to see this kind of thing standard in phones, bluetooth, 802.11, etc.
Step 5.
Figure out how to
do an html page
break.
I know that was intended as a joke, but you would be surprised how often I find news stories on Google News before I find them on Slashdot. That includes, Anti-MS, Anti-SCO, Pro-Linux, and quantum enlightenment. You should give it a try if you haven't already.
How can you say that with a strait face? Doesn't that sound just a little bit like "no one will ever need more than 64k of ram"? ALL technology has built-in obsolescence. It probably won't be in three years like AMD wants us to believe, but 32 bit systems will eventually be obsolete, just like the horse drawn buggy you will only be able to find them in museums and in the basements of fanatic collectors. I feel like writing a cron job that will remind me to look you up in 2023 and remind you of that statement you made.
This is a common misconception, but it's not quite true. SCO hasn't refused to show the code to everyone. They have refused to show the code unless people viewing the code sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. SCO offered to show the code to Linus, and several other people who are involved, but they refused to sign the NDA so they didn't get to see it. I'm not on SCO's side of this, what they are doing with all this mess is immoral, but I can see both sides of the code disclosure issue. Linus says "If I sign an NDA, then you could sue me next time I try to right UNIXy code!", and SCO says, "But if you don't sign an NDA, there is nothing stopping you from giving away our code, or putting it into Linux." Thus the two parties are at in impasse. Of course there is still the issue that SCO doesn't want Linus or others to read the code. I have not read the terms of the NDA, but I expect they were ridiculously restrictive so that SCO knew that Linux would never sign.
I enjoyed your post even though you should have RTFA, but I was left with one burning question:
Are you shocked or not?
I know we are all anxious to see the project have a long-term future, especially with the recent changes, but that is jumping the gun just a bit. There is a big difference in companies having interest in Mozilla employees than having interest in Mozilla. Just because IBM hired Daniel Glazman doesn't mean they have any interest in Mozilla, they just know he is qualified in specific development areas that they want to focus on.
So this officially depricates going to confront the bad-guy and sending a sealed envelope to someone with instructions like "if I'm not back by midnight, open this letter". We can just use email instead. I can see it now: "I've got the source to your virus Mr. Badguy. If I'm not back to my office in 24 hours, my automated service will email the source to the FBI."
Before people start blubbering about DRM and how this model is restrictive, please keep this in mind: Before this, there was NO LEAGAL WAY TO PURCHASE these games from them. I know that the subscription model doesn't really let you purchase them but ANY move at all to make availble old game ROMS that are other wise dying as old cartriges/cabinets stop working needs to be applauded and supported. Don't forget about StarRoms too. The way I see it, the first step is to let the game companies sell the ROMS in whatever protected and limited fashon they are comfortable with, and then after they see a consumer demand for it, market forces would start letting competitive companies offer better EULAs.
Yes, and I sure hope my server is up that day.