Representative Democratic country. Currently leader nation. The true power behind the UN. Little things like that.
Canadians have an ongoing debate about what we are and we find important. Yes, there is overlap with the states. As long as there is dialogue, that's what we are. It's a strong acknowledgement of regional differences.
See, the problem is, you're being rational and polite. I don't have any problem with rational, polite Canadians (or similar people of any nationality).
But just like I can't do anything about Texas yahoos or headline-grabbing idiocy like the subject of this article, you can't do anything about the people in your country who are vocally anti-American. Nor can you do anything about your media which is so heavily tinged with anti-US sentiment that other content is almost invisible.
We're not talking about acknowledgement of regional differences, or measured debate, or even discussion. We're talking open mockery.
The obvious reason for this is Canada's relatively miniscule presence in world matters. I was watching Global News last night as they reported on the Iraq election (the relative success of which has many Canadians gnashing their teeth). The reporter's question to their expert panelist? "What did Canada have to do with this whole thing?". To Canadians, that was the most important thing. The answer was "Virtually nothing" (from a Canadian expert).
Though its possible that Canada could suffer a major terrorist attack, we're not a likely target because we don't have a history of meddling and manipulating foreign governments.
Well, first of all, you don't really have a history. Your country isn't even 200 years old. The US is young, but you're still our junior. Second, you're not a big enough military power or presence in the world to have this concern. It is rather interesting to me how you rely so heavily upon our military for protection but mock and ridicule our military policies.
The lack of international Canadian influence certainly isn't because of a moral superiority - we are, after all, both derived from European rule which is historically arrogant and dominant.
Your rationale reminds me of the common anti-war sentiment during WWII - "The Nazis haven't attacked us yet!". The key word there is yet.
Someone will pay for the Arar mess! In any country there is a range of political beliefs and practice. Some segments in our government completely identify with the post 9/11 policies. Is that a surprise?
Someone should pay for the Arar fiasco. But what is important is that Canadians realize the role their government had in this matter. Very few are aware of the amount of involvement Canada had, thinking the US just bullied its way in and took the guy. It's interesting how you are encouraged to demonize America to divert attention from your own problems, but that is a much more lengthy discussion.
I have no hatred for Americans but am able to note differences that further anchors me to this country.
Well there's nothing wrong with believing in your country, or loving your country. But this continued self-hating (and other-hating) nonsense of Canada being a beacon of freedom is tiresome. Canada has its ups and downs, and the US has its ups and downs.
I have no hatred for Canadians. I just wish they would learn how to navigate an intersection with a four-way stop sign.
- Canadian, and thus so deeply entrenched in kneejerk hatred and jealousy of the US that he takes every chance to spout anti-American vitriol
or
- Self-hating American (because them's SMARTER!)
If you're not Canadian, I suggest you spend some time living there. Then come back and tell me how much "greater" freedom is in that country.
Canada is no bastion of freedom, and certainly not a country to emulate. Hell, they don't even have a national identity - beyond their dislike of the US.
People who rail against any form of curtailing of freedom simply do not understand the social contract. Not allowing you to commit murder is taking away your freedom. Not allowing you to drive without wearing a seatbelt is taking away your freedom. We exchange some freedoms for security, just as all citizens of all countries do (some voluntarily, some involuntarily).
I can guarantee you that Canada would do exactly what we have done were they bombed by terrorists. In fact, they've already started - remember who handed the US Maher Arar gift-wrapped in a bow.
Why did that mean replacing OpenGL, which at the time game developers like Carmack were perfectly happy with
As I said, I won't attempt to defend MS's business practices. But so you know, MS didn't do anything explicitly to kill OpenGL. They simply stopped directly supporting it to focus on their own API. They developed an alternative. This itself is not a destructive action, and is in fact the very heart of a competitive marketplace.
GameDev magazine reviewed the two APIs in the early days and concluded Microsoft should just discontinue Direct3D altogether
I believe at the time GameDev also ran articles on creating "next generation voxel engines". In other news, Bill Gates claimed nobody would need more than 640K of memory; IBM thought PCs were "a fad", etc. Oh, and recently we were told that Firefox would never be a competitor in the browser market. Don't believe everything you hear.
D3D went through some extremely nasty iterations, but has emerged as a very stable and useful API (as has most of the rest of DirectX).
OpenGL was clearly and unambiguously the better technology and it's widely regarded that it wasn't until DirectX 8 that it caught up.
What a hyperbolic statement. OpenGL was better than a new, virtually untested technology? Shock.
Yes, after Microsoft squashed them out of the market it stagnated: what a surprise.
A demonstrably false statement: OpenGL is alive and thriving today, so nobody "squashed them out of the market". And OpenGL has mostly stagnated because of the nature of open standards and the weight of having to support so many disparate fields. Having used both APIs I, personally, find D3D to be easier to manage. But the choice is still there, so there's no need to exaggerate.
Microsoft dropped OpenGL support entirely as soon as Direct3D started development. It didn't ship with Windows 95 at all originally. They went out of their way to kill OpenGL, so quite how that was "beneficial" to it by providing competition I do not know
More hyperbole and propaganda. MS simply stopped actively supporting it. One can easily download the OpenGL libraries (just as one normally has to do for other operating systems), and GL apps still compile in VC.
Competition would have been if both OpenGL and Direct3D were fully supported on Windows, but they were not. It was never a fair fight, so to reach this conclusion is ridiculous
Really? So, by your argument, OpenGL is not competitive because D3D "isn't supported" on SGI workstations.
Odd how people like you are for competition, unless it's competition by someone you don't like. D3D is a very useful API, and has been beneficial for the game development industry.
Filtering through the "open source" - and therefore anything with the word "open" in it - fanatacism:
Microsoft did Direct3D as a way to lock 3D content into the Microsoft platform. Only id Software's stance on OpenGL for gaming saved the day.
First, while I certainly won't defend MS's business practices, it's more than a bit short-sighted to say MS only created D3D to "lock" developers onto Windows. MS wanted to grow Windows as a gaming platform (beyond crap like WinG) so they made their own accelerated API. One could certainly argue that the existence of D3D has pushed OpenGL to stay modern and competitive, so has been twofold beneficial.
Second, where does this nonsense about id saving OpenGL come from? OpenGL has always had plenty of users - as you mention it is consistently used in CAD tools. There is no valid reason, other than fanboyism, to believe that OpenGL would have died if Carmack hadn't used it in his games. And there are other people who have used OpenGL to make their games work on multiple platforms (which, by the way, is usually a very hard sell to your publisher).
Developers should use OpenGL in preference to Direct3D if they want cross-platform compatibility, or simply to use a better API
What a smooth, effortless transition from fact to propaganda.
As a person who has written numerous game engines, I can attest to the fact that OpenGL is - for me - not a better API. It is convoluted and over-complicated by the very fact that it is an "open" standard, decided upon by a committee of people who wouldn't know good design if it bit them in the rear.
Just the fact that most of the features easily found in D3D cannot be accessed in OpenGL, years after their invention, without the use of custom extensions is enough to throw me off the API.
If you want to use OpenGL that's your right. But it is not an objectively better API any more than Mac is objectively better than PC, Linux objectively better than Windows, or any of the other/. propaganda that we consistently read.
Anyone else think this guy missed the point? Most people I know who whined about "wasting time" in high school weren't lamenting the lack of challenging, thought-provoking experiments to conduct in their spare time. They wanted more time to party and get wasted.
Not that partying and getting wasted are inherently bad things, but I will say that all the people I know who kept telling me "school is a waste of time" are working in grocery stores and casinos, so one can draw their own conclusions.
This seems more like another one of those bits of advice tainted by the rosy hue of nostalgia, and which better applies to adults. I definitely agree that, as an adult, it is imperative that you find something to do in your spare time that interests you. Otherwise the dull drudgery of the daily grind would begin to wear.
You'll have to excuse me as apparently I'm permanently labeled a troll for having a dissenting opinion. But you don't get it. Not by a long shot.
This move by TTwo does not justify EA's actions in the slightest. If TTwo is actually doing this, it is a defensive move - and one that was virtually demanded by its shareholders.
Microsoft is just about the perfect analogy for EA. EA is a noncompetitive behemoth, and they want to squash anyone who challenges their authority (sound familiar?). Surely you cannot argue that both companies have done some pretty shady deals to protect their own interests. Disregarding whether or not either entity makes a usable product, or even good products, the business ethic is nonexistent for both. They want to control by any means necessary.
You can argue that TTwo, Activistion, etc are no different. But the fact is, nobody else was doing what EA has recently been doing. Now the other companies are being forced to do so to protect some part of the market share.
In case you missed some of the developments: EA now owns Renderware. They now have exclusive rights for NFL, AFL, and ESPN into the forseeable future. They attempted to force a controlling position in Ubisoft, and would have taken over DICE completely had they not firmly stood their ground (and had such a massive hit game in the wings). While other companies have been guilty of seeking out exclusive contracts, nobody has done so to the extent or dominance that EA has.
Further, EA is a slave labor sweatshop which reports 75% turnover, on average. Again one can argue that the games industry is just flawed, but EA is the clear leader in this category. And they just add salt to the wounds by continually releasing statements about how they're "people people", and how much they love their employees.
There are many valid reasons to hate EA. I don't agree with TTwo doing this deal on principal, but given the playing field EA has created I certainly can't blame them.
"Somewhere more enlightened". So, a place without airline security? So you can promptly whine, bitch, and moan the next time there is a terrorist attack/hijacking/anything else about how nothing was done to prevent it? What does "enlightened" mean to you - other than the obvious implication of never incurring the most remote possiblity of inconveniencing you in the slightest?
Nothing more irritating than whiny armchair liberals. The US isn't the only country with tight air security, we're just one of the countries that had the good fortune to not need air security so restrictive. I suggest you try taking a flight in Israel to see what real security is about.
What reason could you have for running a huge study on the intellectual limits of one sex or another, or one race or another, but to use that information to exclude that race or sex on the basis of their supposed lack of ability?
Perhaps to stop the tiresome, ignorant assertion that the only reason the world isn't run by women is because some man is holding them back?
I'm so tired of hearing about how company X doesn't have "enough" female executives, or there aren't "enough" female programmers, or "enough" female rocket scientists, or whatever. More often than not this is simply because women don't apply for the jobs. And even this is made not their fault - it's the fault of some nebulous anti-woman sensation they get when their chakras mix with the auras of Harvard, or some such new-age nonsense.
Women have to deal with their own problems and stop blaming it on someone else. Maybe - just maybe - women have general personality attributes that work against them? How about the fact that women don't vote for women? The fact that two women, in a professional environment, will more often fight than get along?
In more controversial news, it has been proven that women tend to work less hours than men (although women tend to be more "company loyal"), and take more leaves than men.
All of these positions can be labeled "sexist" by some person just looking to seem PC (or get laid by some hairy hippie chick). But they are all valid lanes of investigation and inquiry.
The "men suck" position, the "men are holding us back" position, all the "glass ceiling" bullshit needs to go. Few of us had the path paved for us either, and just because you don't feel like your hand is held every step of the way doesn't mean you can blame the male gender for your failures.
Seriously. I'm not a PC guy, but when I see crap like this, I can only really see one reason for it. He's making a case that Harvard needen't worry about having a balanced enrollment in math or science, because females are too stupid to be in those courses of study
Exactly why you're wrong. He's not making that case at all. He, in fact, directly states that this is not the case he is making.
Guess I shouldn't be surprised, after all the apologist male feminist position is pretty much based on self-delusion.
He deserves to be roasted
Or to have his balls cut off! Goddamn men, let's just kill them all!
This reminds me of when the Hootie guy wanted to keep women out of the Masters tournament because the club where it was held was - shock! - all male! The outcry over this was ridiculous, despite the fact that it was a private club and despite the stunning prominence of all-female gyms, all-female clubs, etc. See, it's ok for women to be exclusionary because they need to be able to get away from us horrible guys, but if men want to have something separate from women...
Just as in this case, the man's quotes were taken out of context and his position misrepresented to fire up some good old man hatred. Anything for the cause.
Parent obviously modded "insightful" because it is PC (meaning, insulting towards males and not females, which is the correct approach).
The myth that women are better drivers is exactly that - a myth. Women also get out of tickets more often than men (flash a little tit and the officer lets it go) and tend to drive less than men.
Funny how it's not sexist if it's ignorantly biased against men.
A good point. Actually Hook has been busy doing basically nothing, and milking his miniscule fame for having been marginally involved with id.
First he wrote a crap game programming book), then he did some crap articles, and then apparently set up a web page where if you believe in the church of Hook you can read his every tiny little brain dropping. Not surprising he's on the "bash MS" bandwagon, as everyone knows bashing MS means you're smart (nevermind the fact that he's writing for their platform because that's the only one you can make a profit on).
Seems to me that id has been responsible for producing the most untalented, self-absorbed ass clowns in the computer industry: Brian Hook, John Romero, and American McGee. Was John Carmack worth the cost?
A perfect example of how "bad" is a completely subjective term.
I love this canned response - he was paid for doing a job, he agreed to do the job, so everything he invented belongs to his employers - because it takes a very telling position: that employers exist to exploit employees, and one should never be able to change their mind. Essentially that contracts only exist to help employers screw people over.
Big deal he signed an employment contract that said he'd be paid $40K (or whatever) to do "his job". At the time of the contract I doubt anyone knew he'd be inventing this thing. So once he has invented it he certainly has the right to challenge the agreement (which he did) and the courts have the right to side with the employee (as they did). This doesn't set a bad precedent.
People need to stop thinking like drones. Employees make companies, not the other way around.
You're trolling, but I've got nothing better to do.
I don't understand people like you who seem to get joy out of repeating that anyone who dies in this war has died "senselessly". It seems ghoulish.
You don't know enough about the situation to make such a comment. Disregarding the pretense that started the Iraq war, there was a large faction of the American public (and the military) who felt that this was the right action to take in order to bring democracy to Iraq. If this was what the soldier who died was fighting for, then he didn't die senselessly. He died fighting for his beliefs.
We could argue all day about whether or not democracy will succeed in Iraq, or whether it makes any sense to try to impose democracy on a people. But there is no argument about whether or not there was sense to his death. There was cause and effect, and the man knew the risks. You should respect his decision - he has the right to disagree with you - and not use every opportunity to soapbox. Particularly not if it involves mocking the dead.
It is possible - just possible - that this is one of those issues that it is very difficult to be 100% right or wrong on. Just like the war in Vietnam. One can argue all they want about whether or not the US belonged there, if what we were doing was right. That doesn't change the fact that after we pulled out, a mass genocide was committed while the world turned a blind eye; a genocide that we helped delay and possibly could have prevented by being totally committed to the action.
The complexity of these issues is masked by the self-importance of the polarized sides: some hide from it with the "Kill them all" attitude, some by burning and pissing on the flag. Neither attitude changes the fact that there were and are young men out there fighting, and dying.
Do nothing, there is blood on your hands. Do something, there is blood on your hands. The world can be very confusing.
May this young man rest in peace, and my condolences to his family.
Thank God I'm not the only person who's sick of this bullshit. It is so tiring to constantly hear how it is of the utmost importance that we change everything to try to include people who don't want to be included.
If a bunch of girls are really pissed that there are no games for them to play, they'll get together and make a game. If they do, good for them. Otherwise get off our fucking case. Just because it doesn't cater to your every whim doesn't mean it's sexist.
Is it just me, or does this article remind anyone else of their friends in college who always regaled you with stories about how they've "done so much acid, everything has trails!".
There's just something so pathetic about people who complain about how they spend so much time doing something that is, basically, a privilege of comfortable and well-off people, that they can't separate it from their normal lives.
I don't know, just doesn't seem like news to me, or something worthy of a headline. Get a grip.
Humorously enough, the clip you link to actually shows what I absolutely despise about Canadian TV: your unabashed, open, and pathological fixation with contantly ridiculing and harassing people from the U.S.
I particularly love Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans" featurette, because it is executed in a quite capable manner as far as propaganda goes. He "carpet bombs" people asking them stupid questions, and only shows the people who give the stupid answer he wants (much like the American show "Street Smarts"). But to give the impression of fairness, he occasionally shows one American catching him in the act.
Nevermind the fact that Canada is not as big a part of American life as the US is of Canadian life; nevermind that Canada isn't even as much a part of the global life. Americans are considered foolish because we don't know much about Canada. And it's not as if Canadians know much about the US (except for pop culture). Most Canadians I've met can't even tell me the three branches of American government, the capitals of most states, or pinpoint most states on a map. And please don't reply with answers to these questions, I'm not challenging you. I'm just making a point.
The mockery of Americans in Canadian media is pervasive. I was watching The Global Network on New Year's and I was absolutely amazed - their "goofy lines" of the year were all from Americans. No Canadian said anything funny all year (how about Svend Robinson? Carolyn Parrish? Anything Chretien ever says?) And after focusing on this for a while, they started deriding the US for our response to the tsunami disaster (even though we organized the relief effort, contributed the most material and funds, promised the largest initial contribution, and continued to expand our contributions). The funny thing is, Canada has offered far less materiel and funds than the US. This wasn't even mentioned.
We aren't so ridiculously insecure and snide that we need to make fun of you guys as viciously as you mock and ridicule us. Excepting "South Park" I can't even think of a mainstream form of entertainment that even mentions Canada, much less in a derogatory manner. I think your rating as a haven for "open journalism" rides a lot on your consistent monitoring of the US for every single detail you can possibly ridicule.
That said, I do like a lot of the CBC reporting. "The Fifth Estate" did an excellent documentary on Dick Cheney, as well as a good one on Bush's Saudi ties (which Michael Moore promptly stole and cashed in on).
You guys seriously need to lose the attitude though.
Not to be rude, but this one really doesn't make any sense to me. Why would someone pay money for a site where people specifically create accounts just so they can post their every miniscule thought, reaction, or hourly whine?
I can't even imagine how LiveJournal makes enough money for someone to want to buy it. Perhaps through ad sales, but I wonder if anyone is willing to do a study on how many of the clicks the site receives are the authors reading their own posts every five minutes.
Well the basic problem here is that we're working from uncommon ground. I have no idea what you think is crap. Perhaps you think Jar-Jar was the greatest gift of recent cinematic history. Most would disagree, but...
That's actually one of my two biggest complaints about the new Star Wars movies. Although they suck (and yes that is a completely subjective statement, but COME ON) some people not only like them, but vigorously defend them. They defend Jar-Jar. They defend C3PO and R2D2 running on a conveyor belt and jumping (and, presumably, collecting valuable coins and mushrooms). They defend "deathsticks". They defend Haydn Christensen.
My other big complaint is the people who realize these movies suck, but keep going to see them. Their philosophy is usually the same: "I have to see how much he screws it up!", or "It can't be as bad as the last one!"
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule of people changing as they age. But it's very rare that a person at 50 is anything like the person they were at 20.
The great works of art that we all love are the product of the creators being willing, at some point, to put down the paintbrush/guitar/camera and say "this is my statement". Seems like Lucas is just incapable of doing that.
And this, folks, is what we call a four-eyed spaz completely missing the point.:-P
"Oh please. There's no such thing as a 12-inch pianist!"
My original post was mostly in jest, but the argument that Lucas is "the same guy" doesn't hold any water. Flesh and blood, perhaps. Spiritually, and in his soul, definitely not.
C'mon, how many 60+-year-olds do you know who are the "same guy" they were in their 20's? Or haven't you noticed how conservative Dennis Miller has become?
Just because he's the same DNA doesn't make him the same person. This is the Evil George we're seeing now.
A little fire for your strawman: if Orson Welles were alive today and wanted to make a sequel to "Citizen Kane" in which Jason Biggs fucks a pie, would you have something to say?
Yeah! And if Michaelangelo's grandson wants to cover the Sistene Chapel's ceiling with boobies, it's his right because he has the legal right to do it! You're just the paying customer, so shut your piehole and fork over the $$$$! SHUT UP YOU FUCKING BABY!
Does anyone else get tired of hearing this? ID hasn't pushed what "gaming IS" for years. Did you play Doom3?
I give Carmack and his shop credit for what they do, which is producing impressive tech. But since all they do is tech, I'm really not surprised that they make their tech run on Linux. They have all the time in the world.
ID has a very unique position - they don't have to worry about appeasing anyone. They've proven themselves, have name recognition, and a bunch of fans who will line up to by the most derivative and repetitive games ever seen. So they get a lot of leeway with their publisher.
But most other people don't have that luxury.
Frankly, I would like to see how much money ID made from the Linux versions of their games. I doubt the percentage was even significant.
the iraqi people desire democracy (or at least what could pass for a democratic system under islam) but the iraqi people are largely passive. decades of living under an orwellian dictatorship sort of does that to people.
Hmm.
And you know this... how?
All available information points towards a people who are perfectly content with living the way they live.
Know how this comes across?
The ZERO PERCENT of democratic revolutions in Arabic countries.
Freedom comes from the will of the people, not the forced desire of some Western power.
If the Iraqi people wanted freedom bad enough, they would revolt. Obviously they don't. Their too cowardly to even police their own state, and constantly whine about how not enough is done for them.
those who believe in negativity: no action can actually improve the state of the world, and those who believe in the immoveability of inequality: iraqis, for example "just aren't ready for democracy"
BULLSHIT
what kind of condescending, patronizing, soft racism is that?
Man, I'm sick of hearing that shit.
The problem is not that people think, nor is it the case, that Iraqis aren't "ready for democracy" or aren't "capable of democracy", or "deserving of democracy".
The problem is: MOST IRAQIS DON'T WANT DEMOCRACY.
The problem is: DEMOCRACY GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE THEOCRATIC DESIRES OF MOST MIDDLE-EASTERN MUSLIMS.
The problem is: WE ARE TRYING TO FORCE DEMOCRACY ON A LARGELY UNWILLING PEOPLE.
You can be proud of this, and I might be too if I had any reason to believe it would work. But every day some nutjob blows up 15 more of his own people, or 15 of ours, just because they're trying to set up this democratic institution you hold so highly, the truth is further revealed.
If the Iraqi people wanted this democracy, they would be up in arms fighting with us. They would be turning in the suicide bombers before they could kill. They would be handing over the rebel clerics.
But they DON'T want this democracy. They want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Not to be told how to do it by the United States.
This "how can you be so racist?" crap is a strawman argument thrown out by the right, just like the "how can you be so unpatriotic?" nonsense whenever you question a military action foisted upon us by our robber-baron-in-chief.
You cannot FORCE your version of freedom upon another people. It will not work, and these kids are all dying for nothing.
A valid point, until one realizes that numerous (if not most) cinemas are owned by or majorly invested in the larger film companies.
This is just a part of the whole convoluted, symbiotic relationship between film companies and cinemas.
My point was, the disrespect started on their side long before ours. The examples are numerous. They treat us like their property. To think they will start treating us respectfully for any reason other than loss-of-profit is simply naive.
This type of thinking just confuses me - the thinking that says "If we do everything the RIAA/MPAA wants us to do, maybe they won't treat us like shit anymore!"
The other day I had a coworker try to explain to me (yell to me, that is) why downloading a copy of a videogame/movie/tv program/song is completely wrong and if I do it I'm a horrible person. Even if I already own the object in some form (e.g., if I own a vinyl copy of an album and want to listen to it in MP3 form), or if I'm just using the game as a demo (yes, people _do_ actually do this, and I have the game library to prove it), or if I missed this week's episode of "Be a Jackass for Money!" and just want to catch up.
We can debate whether or not it downloading content is morally acceptable all day, but one thing I can assure you: the RIAA and MPAA have ZERO respect for you. They just want your $$$. These are the _same_ people who decided that they'd charge $20 US for a ten-song disc, and cram 15 minutes of commercials before a movie you paid $12 to see. The _same_ people who put unskippable commercials and anti-piracy warnings on their DVDs, and who screw people with international families by "region encoding" to "maximize profit potential".
There's a generous amount of screwing taking place on both sides of this equation, they just have the money, lawyers, and capability to screw us more efficiently. Don't lie to yourself about how they're going to do away with their terrible practices and monopolies any time soon if you're a good boy.
Slashdot Mirror
Representative Democratic country. Currently leader nation. The true power behind the UN. Little things like that.
Canadians have an ongoing debate about what we are and we find important. Yes, there is overlap with the states. As long as there is dialogue, that's what we are. It's a strong acknowledgement of regional differences.
See, the problem is, you're being rational and polite. I don't have any problem with rational, polite Canadians (or similar people of any nationality).
But just like I can't do anything about Texas yahoos or headline-grabbing idiocy like the subject of this article, you can't do anything about the people in your country who are vocally anti-American. Nor can you do anything about your media which is so heavily tinged with anti-US sentiment that other content is almost invisible.
We're not talking about acknowledgement of regional differences, or measured debate, or even discussion. We're talking open mockery.
The obvious reason for this is Canada's relatively miniscule presence in world matters. I was watching Global News last night as they reported on the Iraq election (the relative success of which has many Canadians gnashing their teeth). The reporter's question to their expert panelist? "What did Canada have to do with this whole thing?". To Canadians, that was the most important thing. The answer was "Virtually nothing" (from a Canadian expert).
Though its possible that Canada could suffer a major terrorist attack, we're not a likely target because we don't have a history of meddling and manipulating foreign governments.
Well, first of all, you don't really have a history. Your country isn't even 200 years old. The US is young, but you're still our junior. Second, you're not a big enough military power or presence in the world to have this concern. It is rather interesting to me how you rely so heavily upon our military for protection but mock and ridicule our military policies.
The lack of international Canadian influence certainly isn't because of a moral superiority - we are, after all, both derived from European rule which is historically arrogant and dominant.
Your rationale reminds me of the common anti-war sentiment during WWII - "The Nazis haven't attacked us yet!". The key word there is yet.
Someone will pay for the Arar mess! In any country there is a range of political beliefs and practice. Some segments in our government completely identify with the post 9/11 policies. Is that a surprise?
Someone should pay for the Arar fiasco. But what is important is that Canadians realize the role their government had in this matter. Very few are aware of the amount of involvement Canada had, thinking the US just bullied its way in and took the guy. It's interesting how you are encouraged to demonize America to divert attention from your own problems, but that is a much more lengthy discussion.
I have no hatred for Americans but am able to note differences that further anchors me to this country.
Well there's nothing wrong with believing in your country, or loving your country. But this continued self-hating (and other-hating) nonsense of Canada being a beacon of freedom is tiresome. Canada has its ups and downs, and the US has its ups and downs.
I have no hatred for Canadians. I just wish they would learn how to navigate an intersection with a four-way stop sign.
- Canadian, and thus so deeply entrenched in kneejerk hatred and jealousy of the US that he takes every chance to spout anti-American vitriol or
- Self-hating American (because them's SMARTER!)
If you're not Canadian, I suggest you spend some time living there. Then come back and tell me how much "greater" freedom is in that country.
Canada is no bastion of freedom, and certainly not a country to emulate. Hell, they don't even have a national identity - beyond their dislike of the US.
People who rail against any form of curtailing of freedom simply do not understand the social contract. Not allowing you to commit murder is taking away your freedom. Not allowing you to drive without wearing a seatbelt is taking away your freedom. We exchange some freedoms for security, just as all citizens of all countries do (some voluntarily, some involuntarily).
I can guarantee you that Canada would do exactly what we have done were they bombed by terrorists. In fact, they've already started - remember who handed the US Maher Arar gift-wrapped in a bow.
As I said, I won't attempt to defend MS's business practices. But so you know, MS didn't do anything explicitly to kill OpenGL. They simply stopped directly supporting it to focus on their own API. They developed an alternative. This itself is not a destructive action, and is in fact the very heart of a competitive marketplace.
GameDev magazine reviewed the two APIs in the early days and concluded Microsoft should just discontinue Direct3D altogether
I believe at the time GameDev also ran articles on creating "next generation voxel engines". In other news, Bill Gates claimed nobody would need more than 640K of memory; IBM thought PCs were "a fad", etc. Oh, and recently we were told that Firefox would never be a competitor in the browser market. Don't believe everything you hear. D3D went through some extremely nasty iterations, but has emerged as a very stable and useful API (as has most of the rest of DirectX).
OpenGL was clearly and unambiguously the better technology and it's widely regarded that it wasn't until DirectX 8 that it caught up.
What a hyperbolic statement. OpenGL was better than a new, virtually untested technology? Shock.
Yes, after Microsoft squashed them out of the market it stagnated: what a surprise.
A demonstrably false statement: OpenGL is alive and thriving today, so nobody "squashed them out of the market". And OpenGL has mostly stagnated because of the nature of open standards and the weight of having to support so many disparate fields. Having used both APIs I, personally, find D3D to be easier to manage. But the choice is still there, so there's no need to exaggerate.
Microsoft dropped OpenGL support entirely as soon as Direct3D started development. It didn't ship with Windows 95 at all originally. They went out of their way to kill OpenGL, so quite how that was "beneficial" to it by providing competition I do not know
More hyperbole and propaganda. MS simply stopped actively supporting it. One can easily download the OpenGL libraries (just as one normally has to do for other operating systems), and GL apps still compile in VC.
Competition would have been if both OpenGL and Direct3D were fully supported on Windows, but they were not. It was never a fair fight, so to reach this conclusion is ridiculous
Really? So, by your argument, OpenGL is not competitive because D3D "isn't supported" on SGI workstations.
Odd how people like you are for competition, unless it's competition by someone you don't like. D3D is a very useful API, and has been beneficial for the game development industry.
Microsoft did Direct3D as a way to lock 3D content into the Microsoft platform. Only id Software's stance on OpenGL for gaming saved the day.
First, while I certainly won't defend MS's business practices, it's more than a bit short-sighted to say MS only created D3D to "lock" developers onto Windows. MS wanted to grow Windows as a gaming platform (beyond crap like WinG) so they made their own accelerated API. One could certainly argue that the existence of D3D has pushed OpenGL to stay modern and competitive, so has been twofold beneficial.
Second, where does this nonsense about id saving OpenGL come from? OpenGL has always had plenty of users - as you mention it is consistently used in CAD tools. There is no valid reason, other than fanboyism, to believe that OpenGL would have died if Carmack hadn't used it in his games. And there are other people who have used OpenGL to make their games work on multiple platforms (which, by the way, is usually a very hard sell to your publisher).
Developers should use OpenGL in preference to Direct3D if they want cross-platform compatibility, or simply to use a better API
What a smooth, effortless transition from fact to propaganda.
As a person who has written numerous game engines, I can attest to the fact that OpenGL is - for me - not a better API. It is convoluted and over-complicated by the very fact that it is an "open" standard, decided upon by a committee of people who wouldn't know good design if it bit them in the rear.
Just the fact that most of the features easily found in D3D cannot be accessed in OpenGL, years after their invention, without the use of custom extensions is enough to throw me off the API.
If you want to use OpenGL that's your right. But it is not an objectively better API any more than Mac is objectively better than PC, Linux objectively better than Windows, or any of the other /. propaganda that we consistently read.
Not that partying and getting wasted are inherently bad things, but I will say that all the people I know who kept telling me "school is a waste of time" are working in grocery stores and casinos, so one can draw their own conclusions.
This seems more like another one of those bits of advice tainted by the rosy hue of nostalgia, and which better applies to adults. I definitely agree that, as an adult, it is imperative that you find something to do in your spare time that interests you. Otherwise the dull drudgery of the daily grind would begin to wear.
This move by TTwo does not justify EA's actions in the slightest. If TTwo is actually doing this, it is a defensive move - and one that was virtually demanded by its shareholders.
Microsoft is just about the perfect analogy for EA. EA is a noncompetitive behemoth, and they want to squash anyone who challenges their authority (sound familiar?). Surely you cannot argue that both companies have done some pretty shady deals to protect their own interests. Disregarding whether or not either entity makes a usable product, or even good products, the business ethic is nonexistent for both. They want to control by any means necessary.
You can argue that TTwo, Activistion, etc are no different. But the fact is, nobody else was doing what EA has recently been doing. Now the other companies are being forced to do so to protect some part of the market share.
In case you missed some of the developments: EA now owns Renderware. They now have exclusive rights for NFL, AFL, and ESPN into the forseeable future. They attempted to force a controlling position in Ubisoft, and would have taken over DICE completely had they not firmly stood their ground (and had such a massive hit game in the wings). While other companies have been guilty of seeking out exclusive contracts, nobody has done so to the extent or dominance that EA has.
Further, EA is a slave labor sweatshop which reports 75% turnover, on average. Again one can argue that the games industry is just flawed, but EA is the clear leader in this category. And they just add salt to the wounds by continually releasing statements about how they're "people people", and how much they love their employees.
There are many valid reasons to hate EA. I don't agree with TTwo doing this deal on principal, but given the playing field EA has created I certainly can't blame them.
Nothing more irritating than whiny armchair liberals. The US isn't the only country with tight air security, we're just one of the countries that had the good fortune to not need air security so restrictive. I suggest you try taking a flight in Israel to see what real security is about.
I blame PETA.
Perhaps to stop the tiresome, ignorant assertion that the only reason the world isn't run by women is because some man is holding them back?
I'm so tired of hearing about how company X doesn't have "enough" female executives, or there aren't "enough" female programmers, or "enough" female rocket scientists, or whatever. More often than not this is simply because women don't apply for the jobs. And even this is made not their fault - it's the fault of some nebulous anti-woman sensation they get when their chakras mix with the auras of Harvard, or some such new-age nonsense.
Women have to deal with their own problems and stop blaming it on someone else. Maybe - just maybe - women have general personality attributes that work against them? How about the fact that women don't vote for women? The fact that two women, in a professional environment, will more often fight than get along?
In more controversial news, it has been proven that women tend to work less hours than men (although women tend to be more "company loyal"), and take more leaves than men.
All of these positions can be labeled "sexist" by some person just looking to seem PC (or get laid by some hairy hippie chick). But they are all valid lanes of investigation and inquiry.
The "men suck" position, the "men are holding us back" position, all the "glass ceiling" bullshit needs to go. Few of us had the path paved for us either, and just because you don't feel like your hand is held every step of the way doesn't mean you can blame the male gender for your failures.
Seriously. I'm not a PC guy, but when I see crap like this, I can only really see one reason for it. He's making a case that Harvard needen't worry about having a balanced enrollment in math or science, because females are too stupid to be in those courses of study
Exactly why you're wrong. He's not making that case at all. He, in fact, directly states that this is not the case he is making.
Guess I shouldn't be surprised, after all the apologist male feminist position is pretty much based on self-delusion.
He deserves to be roasted
Or to have his balls cut off! Goddamn men, let's just kill them all!
This reminds me of when the Hootie guy wanted to keep women out of the Masters tournament because the club where it was held was - shock! - all male! The outcry over this was ridiculous, despite the fact that it was a private club and despite the stunning prominence of all-female gyms, all-female clubs, etc. See, it's ok for women to be exclusionary because they need to be able to get away from us horrible guys, but if men want to have something separate from women ...
Just as in this case, the man's quotes were taken out of context and his position misrepresented to fire up some good old man hatred. Anything for the cause.
The myth that women are better drivers is exactly that - a myth. Women also get out of tickets more often than men (flash a little tit and the officer lets it go) and tend to drive less than men.
Funny how it's not sexist if it's ignorantly biased against men.
First he wrote a crap game programming book), then he did some crap articles, and then apparently set up a web page where if you believe in the church of Hook you can read his every tiny little brain dropping. Not surprising he's on the "bash MS" bandwagon, as everyone knows bashing MS means you're smart (nevermind the fact that he's writing for their platform because that's the only one you can make a profit on).
Seems to me that id has been responsible for producing the most untalented, self-absorbed ass clowns in the computer industry: Brian Hook, John Romero, and American McGee. Was John Carmack worth the cost?
I love this canned response - he was paid for doing a job, he agreed to do the job, so everything he invented belongs to his employers - because it takes a very telling position: that employers exist to exploit employees, and one should never be able to change their mind. Essentially that contracts only exist to help employers screw people over.
Big deal he signed an employment contract that said he'd be paid $40K (or whatever) to do "his job". At the time of the contract I doubt anyone knew he'd be inventing this thing. So once he has invented it he certainly has the right to challenge the agreement (which he did) and the courts have the right to side with the employee (as they did). This doesn't set a bad precedent.
People need to stop thinking like drones. Employees make companies, not the other way around.
I don't understand people like you who seem to get joy out of repeating that anyone who dies in this war has died "senselessly". It seems ghoulish.
You don't know enough about the situation to make such a comment. Disregarding the pretense that started the Iraq war, there was a large faction of the American public (and the military) who felt that this was the right action to take in order to bring democracy to Iraq. If this was what the soldier who died was fighting for, then he didn't die senselessly. He died fighting for his beliefs.
We could argue all day about whether or not democracy will succeed in Iraq, or whether it makes any sense to try to impose democracy on a people. But there is no argument about whether or not there was sense to his death. There was cause and effect, and the man knew the risks. You should respect his decision - he has the right to disagree with you - and not use every opportunity to soapbox. Particularly not if it involves mocking the dead.
It is possible - just possible - that this is one of those issues that it is very difficult to be 100% right or wrong on. Just like the war in Vietnam. One can argue all they want about whether or not the US belonged there, if what we were doing was right. That doesn't change the fact that after we pulled out, a mass genocide was committed while the world turned a blind eye; a genocide that we helped delay and possibly could have prevented by being totally committed to the action.
The complexity of these issues is masked by the self-importance of the polarized sides: some hide from it with the "Kill them all" attitude, some by burning and pissing on the flag. Neither attitude changes the fact that there were and are young men out there fighting, and dying.
Do nothing, there is blood on your hands. Do something, there is blood on your hands. The world can be very confusing.
May this young man rest in peace, and my condolences to his family.
If a bunch of girls are really pissed that there are no games for them to play, they'll get together and make a game. If they do, good for them. Otherwise get off our fucking case. Just because it doesn't cater to your every whim doesn't mean it's sexist.
There's just something so pathetic about people who complain about how they spend so much time doing something that is, basically, a privilege of comfortable and well-off people, that they can't separate it from their normal lives.
I don't know, just doesn't seem like news to me, or something worthy of a headline. Get a grip.
I particularly love Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans" featurette, because it is executed in a quite capable manner as far as propaganda goes. He "carpet bombs" people asking them stupid questions, and only shows the people who give the stupid answer he wants (much like the American show "Street Smarts"). But to give the impression of fairness, he occasionally shows one American catching him in the act.
Nevermind the fact that Canada is not as big a part of American life as the US is of Canadian life; nevermind that Canada isn't even as much a part of the global life. Americans are considered foolish because we don't know much about Canada. And it's not as if Canadians know much about the US (except for pop culture). Most Canadians I've met can't even tell me the three branches of American government, the capitals of most states, or pinpoint most states on a map. And please don't reply with answers to these questions, I'm not challenging you. I'm just making a point.
The mockery of Americans in Canadian media is pervasive. I was watching The Global Network on New Year's and I was absolutely amazed - their "goofy lines" of the year were all from Americans. No Canadian said anything funny all year (how about Svend Robinson? Carolyn Parrish? Anything Chretien ever says?) And after focusing on this for a while, they started deriding the US for our response to the tsunami disaster (even though we organized the relief effort, contributed the most material and funds, promised the largest initial contribution, and continued to expand our contributions). The funny thing is, Canada has offered far less materiel and funds than the US. This wasn't even mentioned.
We aren't so ridiculously insecure and snide that we need to make fun of you guys as viciously as you mock and ridicule us. Excepting "South Park" I can't even think of a mainstream form of entertainment that even mentions Canada, much less in a derogatory manner. I think your rating as a haven for "open journalism" rides a lot on your consistent monitoring of the US for every single detail you can possibly ridicule.
That said, I do like a lot of the CBC reporting. "The Fifth Estate" did an excellent documentary on Dick Cheney, as well as a good one on Bush's Saudi ties (which Michael Moore promptly stole and cashed in on).
You guys seriously need to lose the attitude though.
Not to be rude, but this one really doesn't make any sense to me. Why would someone pay money for a site where people specifically create accounts just so they can post their every miniscule thought, reaction, or hourly whine?
I can't even imagine how LiveJournal makes enough money for someone to want to buy it. Perhaps through ad sales, but I wonder if anyone is willing to do a study on how many of the clicks the site receives are the authors reading their own posts every five minutes.
That's actually one of my two biggest complaints about the new Star Wars movies. Although they suck (and yes that is a completely subjective statement, but COME ON) some people not only like them, but vigorously defend them. They defend Jar-Jar. They defend C3PO and R2D2 running on a conveyor belt and jumping (and, presumably, collecting valuable coins and mushrooms). They defend "deathsticks". They defend Haydn Christensen.
My other big complaint is the people who realize these movies suck, but keep going to see them. Their philosophy is usually the same: "I have to see how much he screws it up!", or "It can't be as bad as the last one!"
Obviously there are exceptions to the rule of people changing as they age. But it's very rare that a person at 50 is anything like the person they were at 20.
The great works of art that we all love are the product of the creators being willing, at some point, to put down the paintbrush/guitar/camera and say "this is my statement". Seems like Lucas is just incapable of doing that.
"Oh please. There's no such thing as a 12-inch pianist!"
My original post was mostly in jest, but the argument that Lucas is "the same guy" doesn't hold any water. Flesh and blood, perhaps. Spiritually, and in his soul, definitely not.
C'mon, how many 60+-year-olds do you know who are the "same guy" they were in their 20's? Or haven't you noticed how conservative Dennis Miller has become?
Just because he's the same DNA doesn't make him the same person. This is the Evil George we're seeing now.
A little fire for your strawman: if Orson Welles were alive today and wanted to make a sequel to "Citizen Kane" in which Jason Biggs fucks a pie, would you have something to say?
Yeah! And if Michaelangelo's grandson wants to cover the Sistene Chapel's ceiling with boobies, it's his right because he has the legal right to do it! You're just the paying customer, so shut your piehole and fork over the $$$$!
SHUT UP YOU FUCKING BABY!
I give Carmack and his shop credit for what they do, which is producing impressive tech. But since all they do is tech, I'm really not surprised that they make their tech run on Linux. They have all the time in the world.
ID has a very unique position - they don't have to worry about appeasing anyone. They've proven themselves, have name recognition, and a bunch of fans who will line up to by the most derivative and repetitive games ever seen. So they get a lot of leeway with their publisher.
But most other people don't have that luxury.
Frankly, I would like to see how much money ID made from the Linux versions of their games. I doubt the percentage was even significant.
the iraqi people desire democracy (or at least what could pass for a democratic system under islam) but the iraqi people are largely passive. decades of living under an orwellian dictatorship sort of does that to people.
Hmm.
And you know this ... how?
All available information points towards a people who are perfectly content with living the way they live.
Know how this comes across?
The ZERO PERCENT of democratic revolutions in Arabic countries.
Freedom comes from the will of the people, not the forced desire of some Western power.
If the Iraqi people wanted freedom bad enough, they would revolt. Obviously they don't. Their too cowardly to even police their own state, and constantly whine about how not enough is done for them.
Our troops are dying for nothing.
BULLSHIT
what kind of condescending, patronizing, soft racism is that?
Man, I'm sick of hearing that shit.
The problem is not that people think, nor is it the case, that Iraqis aren't "ready for democracy" or aren't "capable of democracy", or "deserving of democracy".
The problem is: MOST IRAQIS DON'T WANT DEMOCRACY.
The problem is: DEMOCRACY GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE THEOCRATIC DESIRES OF MOST MIDDLE-EASTERN MUSLIMS.
The problem is: WE ARE TRYING TO FORCE DEMOCRACY ON A LARGELY UNWILLING PEOPLE.
You can be proud of this, and I might be too if I had any reason to believe it would work. But every day some nutjob blows up 15 more of his own people, or 15 of ours, just because they're trying to set up this democratic institution you hold so highly, the truth is further revealed.
If the Iraqi people wanted this democracy, they would be up in arms fighting with us. They would be turning in the suicide bombers before they could kill. They would be handing over the rebel clerics.
But they DON'T want this democracy. They want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Not to be told how to do it by the United States.
This "how can you be so racist?" crap is a strawman argument thrown out by the right, just like the "how can you be so unpatriotic?" nonsense whenever you question a military action foisted upon us by our robber-baron-in-chief.
You cannot FORCE your version of freedom upon another people. It will not work, and these kids are all dying for nothing.
This is just a part of the whole convoluted, symbiotic relationship between film companies and cinemas.
My point was, the disrespect started on their side long before ours. The examples are numerous. They treat us like their property. To think they will start treating us respectfully for any reason other than loss-of-profit is simply naive.
The other day I had a coworker try to explain to me (yell to me, that is) why downloading a copy of a videogame/movie/tv program/song is completely wrong and if I do it I'm a horrible person. Even if I already own the object in some form (e.g., if I own a vinyl copy of an album and want to listen to it in MP3 form), or if I'm just using the game as a demo (yes, people _do_ actually do this, and I have the game library to prove it), or if I missed this week's episode of "Be a Jackass for Money!" and just want to catch up.
We can debate whether or not it downloading content is morally acceptable all day, but one thing I can assure you: the RIAA and MPAA have ZERO respect for you. They just want your $$$. These are the _same_ people who decided that they'd charge $20 US for a ten-song disc, and cram 15 minutes of commercials before a movie you paid $12 to see. The _same_ people who put unskippable commercials and anti-piracy warnings on their DVDs, and who screw people with international families by "region encoding" to "maximize profit potential".
There's a generous amount of screwing taking place on both sides of this equation, they just have the money, lawyers, and capability to screw us more efficiently. Don't lie to yourself about how they're going to do away with their terrible practices and monopolies any time soon if you're a good boy.