Re:Why do people get this superority kick from ris
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 2
It's a matter of what's important to you. If freedom is not important to you then by all means follow your own advice.
Most people have certain lines that they will not let others cross without a fight. This issue appears to be one of those lines for many of the/. ers who have expressed...disagreement.. with your post. You have your own lines, whether it is the defense of your family, the right to eat yogurt, or an intolerance of rap music. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that freedom will (not might) occasionally require sacrifices.
The "superiority kick" may be because many people feel that those that value freedom so little don't deserve the freedom they have.
Thanks for the links. The "eternity service" on the Soft Tempest page has proved especially thought provoking. If I had any moderator points I'd pop an "Informative" on ya.
Re:Isn't it just replacing television!?
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
My wife and I play Everquest together almost every night. We're online, we're talking, and we smite foul minions of evil (no offense to any minions of evil reading this).
Granted, I've found most geek men don't have geek women who will share their addictions.
As the net becomes more filled out though, I can see a lot more applications being developed that stress interaction and cooperation between individuals.
Political correctness is a scourge on humanity. On the other hand, in some settings I can understand arguments for it. Since my feelings about it are obviously conflicted, I'll refrain from attempting an incoherent rebuttal.
Instead how about a:
Ya, you may be right (no pun intended).
The world would be a better place if everybody was thick skinned and understood that you don't have to read books/surf sites/go to movies that you don't like.
I'm curious to see if that Star Bridge FPGA system ever becomes popular. They claim to have a programming language that mixes hardware specification with software, blurring the line between the two. Their system is proprietary (I believe) but an OS that would take care of that sort of flexibility probably wouldn't look too much like linux when you went under the hood.
Personally, I think some folks are already anticipating the de-emphasis on linux. I think that's why "Open Source" is being strongly advocated instead of just "Linux Open Source".
What I really want is to continue to have access to all the cool stuff that goes on behind the scenes, whether that happens to involve linux or some future operating system is more or less irrelevant to me.
I think the entire concept is a fallacy. Wealthy organizations can make as many schedules as they want, but software rarely comes out ahead of schedule. Sometimes it seems like an "on time" release is rare, and this is with in-house programming.
He's also confusing "Open Source" with "contract employment" and his particular combination isn't pretty. It's also not likely to be reflected in the real world.
Open source programmers who are not gainfully employed (to the complaining party) won't be responding to "hot lists". Any corporation, wealthy or otherwise, that demands impossible schedules will be ignored. This is the nature of the software and any business model that can't deal with this aspect of open source will not use the open source model.
Even the borg doesn't do this kind of software. When was the last time Microsoft made customized Word features for a wealthy company? What he's talking about is contract niche software.
I would agree with the statement that the right wing doesn't have the monopoly on dumb ideas. What I think prompted the original poster's statements was the fact that the major contributing factor behind filtering software adoption seems to be the right wing christian groups.
This is not to say that all conservatives are christian, or believe that censorship is acceptable. Merely a recognition of the "enemy".
It's an observable condition that most (not all, but most) attempts to restrict free speech in recent memory have originated from right wing groups.
The fact that the generalization is made to include all right wingers is consistent with the current prevailing opinion that many people follow one of the two mainstream ideologies. Alas, what I'd give for a political system that included more than two parties (realistically that is).
Ahh, yes, the joy of each question being answered by a little mini-Katz article
I don't often agree with they guy, but come on!This is an interview! He's a verbose guy and he's answering questions. The fact that they espouse his opinions should surprise nobody.
pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions
Did you read the article? He is praising those that take the time to disagree with him with rational explanations. The "stupid" (your words, not his) people are the adolescent bozos that flame him, obviously without even bothering to read what he says.
He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise
Where the heck did you read that? He wrote books. People who aren't writers don't write books. He is claiming that (constructive) feedback from/. is making him a better writer. Nowhere in his answers does he claim that volume of work equates to more writing talent.
Claiming that he's a bad writer is your particular right. I don't like his writing much either, but at least I don't make stuff up about what he's saying.
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
The big deal is that people don't understand what they are sacrificing because the advocates of filtering mislead them.
Filtering does not filter all porn and filtered content does not consist excusively of material that could be considered to be inappropriate. In a factual analysis, as can be found on censorware.org or peacefire.org, it is clear that the fundamental flaws of the software are so explicit that "mislead" is even a mild term. They border on outright lies.
The disputable assertion that the majority of people want it that way is irrelevant if they have been mislead to believe that filtering will provide the solution they are looking for.
The big deal is that by implementing filtering software that is biased towards right wing christian values they are attempting to remove all evidence of conflicting belief systems.
In an ideal world I'm sure they would. However, given the resources of the MPAA it's nothing to them to expand their suit to two more people, while for two more people it is a major drain on their funds and their time.
The lawsuit is bogus, why should they endanger themselves to satisfy hubris? Far smarter to have one guy be the stalking horse and let the other two continue to write the software we like.
Nothing the tech community does in regard to this case will ever make us look bad in comparison to the arrogance and stupidity of the MPAA.
I agree that in the terminology phrased, the judge was correct. However, the judge omitted in his ruling that the issue was not copy protection (and never has been), but rather control of the players. It is not economically feasible to copy DVDs nor will it be for quite some time. Even if it were economically feasible, there's not much to support the thesis that ability to copy a media results in rampant piracy.
There happen to be a number of laws that allow for reverse engineering for compatibility and "fair use". If you own a DVD, you should theoretically be able to view that DVD using any means that is technologically capable of doing so. I haven't read the license agreement, but I suspect that there is no provision that you must use a licensed PLAYER to view the DVD.
The judge has ignored that aspect of the defense. Instead he has followed the MPAA's lead and chosen to make this a "piracy" trial. It's never been about piracy.
I would only agree contingent that either the parents in question have full access to the list of blocked sites or are aware of the short comings of filtering software.
Too many times filtering software is advertised as flawless and it seems that most politicians are in the business of agreeing with this patently false assertion.
That said, blaming the Feds for raiding this place is like blaming fire for buring down your house after you fell asleep smoking. The devices made here did violate US law -- deviced to bug phones and otherwise spy on people. I'm a bit shocked that the Slashdotters are defending the very people who make the gear to strip away our privacy.
I think the point of contention is twofold. First, it's disputable that the devices they made were usuable for espionage. Devices that could be used for bugging purposes also can have other, less malicious, purposes. As stated in the article, the FBI (disguised as a customer) tried to get one of the employees to admit that one of their devices could be used for bugging, but the employee specifically mentioned that it would be unreliable for such a purpose.
The second point I'm less sure of but I have heard (anybody know how the law stands on this?) that it is not illegal to sell listening devices, merely to use them for illegal surveillance.
While not an argument against the raid (two wrongs don't make a right after all), it is also ironic that an agency that conducts surveillance of citizens is trying to crack down on companies that allow citizens to do the same. Don't they trust us:)
Let's remove all responsibility from the individual and place it all on the various organizations that they deal with. Do you have to worry about your employees dangerously exposing themselves to dental dangers if they come to work with bad breath from not brushing their teeth?
Yes, tasks specifically requested by employers should be covered, but if somebody has an unsafe house there's no way in hell the employer should be responsible for it.
Personally I like the concept that I'm responsible for my actions and the consequence of those actions. This is just another excuse to blame (and sue) somebody else for things that are your own damn fault.
I suspect that there are a number of petroleum companies that have significantly more money than MS. Not to mention some of the bigger food companies. MS is probably the biggest software manufacturer, but all things told the world doesn't use nearly as much software as they do food and oil.
The three laws are bunk anyway. An AI that could conceivably be advanced enought to navigate them would have to be godlike anyway.
The first law alone implies that robots would have to weigh every action nearly endlessly to be sure that their action caused no harm to others.
For example, a robot would never be able to drive a car because the laws of physics dictate that an object as massive as a car cannot be stopped by (brake) friction alone should a human jump in front of it. By driving a car, a robot would be endangering the lives of any humans that, accidentally or purposefully, stepped in front of the car.
Human beings call that sort of thing "acceptable risk", but a robot hardwired never to harm humans would never be able to accept that risk. There are a multitude of tasks that are of a similar nature, such that it would be difficult to use a robot for anything besides a doorstop.
The 3 laws are excellent sci-fi (or perhaps that's just Asimov's writing) but implementationally impossible.
Methods for doing "genetic repair" actually aren't doing too badly these days. The method I've heard most frequently is to custom create billions of non-replicating virii that will change a section of genetic code. Injected into a subject that usually will do the trick. Cerebral neurons are a little tough to do this way though.
If nanotech ever takes off, that would probably be an excellent method as well and wouldn't have any troubles with accessing the brain tissue either.
Wouldn't it be spiffy if they implemented strong encryption and then ran into trouble with the US govm't for doing so?
"Sorry sir, you can't take that laptop out of the country unless you remove the DVD drive".
Unlikely I know (it would be stupid of them to implement encryption that strong), but it's fun to imagine. Sorta like that Dilbert where Phil and Catbert square off and Dilbert comes home with the comment "Two wrongs made a right".
This has nothing to do with open source and everything to do with stupid patents. The "technology" in question is simply the idea to store customer information so that when the user clicks a button then all the saved info is used to build an order (instead of having to ask the customer for that information again).
Amazon should never been granted a patent because there are almost certainly examples of prior use and the idea is also an obvious application of other technologies. The fact that the patent was granted shows the shortcomings of the patent office. This is further made evident by the fact that, so far, the patent is being upheld.
Amazon isn't trying to protect their investment in their "technology", they're trying to use the legal system to beat down their competition with ludicrous patents. It's like a writer of murder mysteries trying to sue other murder mystery writers for using his patented "frame the daughter for the the brother's crime" plot twist, just so that he can take their books off the market.
There are some inherent problems with using your brain to compile, simply because what you're talking about also involves the ability to put a compiler in your brain (not something to which the human brain is naturally good with). Given the difficulty of the task, it's far more likely that people will stick to leaving things like compilers on computers dedicated to that purpose.
So far as being able to "write" to the brain, that's a harder task. While there are certain common themes in brain activity, there are also a lot of differences from individual to individual. There isn't a universal language that can just write stuff to your brain. It might be possible, over time, to train a computer how to write to a specific brain but that's significantly more advanced than what we can do today.
I do recommend reading Neal Stephenson's "Interface" (under the Stephen Bury psuedonym) for a more interesting (if fictional) view on the man/machine interface. While it is fiction, it is obviously well researched as is the norm for his books. The kind of "write" to the brain described in his books is far more plausible than the Matrix "kung fu cartridge". It's worth noting that in "Interface" they had to dupe the implantee into cooperating with them so that they could map out his neural connections for them to "write" to his brain.
I love babelfish =) Sometimes it has some nice translations like this:
"The vehemente support of the US Government for the plans Intels excited special suspicions. Vice-president aluminium Gore had praised the seriennummer in the Jaenner as true miracle drug for the setting in motion of the e-Commerce in motion."
So now we know what "Al" stands for. This confirms my suspicions that he is in fact a robot.
While I agree with your comments about the nature of the feedback system, I have some doubts about the validity of your argument not to buy UT without linux in the box.
For one thing, Epic did everything in their power to ensure a linux version of the game. They are to be commended for their willingness to support linux. GTI, being a mismanaged and cash poor company, chose not to incur significant cost by hiring or training their support staff to support linux in spite of Epic's wishes to the contrary. I'm hoping Infogrames fires all their execs and puts in folks with a clue.
At this stage of the game, I think it's still a bit early to try to demand linux support. Both Epic and GTI could have ignored linux and still made off like bandits. The fact that at least Epic has not is a point in their favor.
Your arguments work great except when the X% is so low that the folks in question don't give a damn. It's also assuming that the executives at the company are even aware of what X% is. Far better to buy the game be loud and complain a lot to give them an impression of increased X% than to simply ignore their product altogether and let them assume that sales were X% under expectations due to lack of player interest (it's not like GTI execs have any clue what makes a game good).
It's my understanding that they won't be releasing the data on the net (otherwise why buy the game). The main executable(s) should be the only stuff released on the net. Those should be limited in size to a few megs, thus there shouldn't be too much strain on their servers.
This way, you buy a CD for windows but you download the appropriate binaries to run the linux version. I could be wrong of course, but this approach seems the most logical.
If they couldn't be bothered to support linux then its kinda funny that they (Epic, not GTI) bothered to create a linux version of the game at considerable cost to themselves. GTI is to blame, not Epic. Frankly I don't understand what GTI was thinking since it costs them nothing to include a linux executable on the CD. Chalk it down to yet another clueless move by a large software distributor.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of what's important to you. If freedom is not important to you then by all means follow your own advice.
/. ers who have expressed...disagreement.. with your post. You have your own lines, whether it is the defense of your family, the right to eat yogurt, or an intolerance of rap music. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and that freedom will (not might) occasionally require sacrifices.
Most people have certain lines that they will not let others cross without a fight. This issue appears to be one of those lines for many of the
The "superiority kick" may be because many people feel that those that value freedom so little don't deserve the freedom they have.
Feel the power of the dark side.
I like it, it's evil, yet good, yet profoundly cruel. I'm gonna have to rename you Catbert.
Thanks for the links. The "eternity service" on the Soft Tempest page has proved especially thought provoking. If I had any moderator points I'd pop an "Informative" on ya.
My wife and I play Everquest together almost every night. We're online, we're talking, and we smite foul minions of evil (no offense to any minions of evil reading this).
Granted, I've found most geek men don't have geek women who will share their addictions.
As the net becomes more filled out though, I can see a lot more applications being developed that stress interaction and cooperation between individuals.
Political correctness is a scourge on humanity. On the other hand, in some settings I can understand arguments for it. Since my feelings about it are obviously conflicted, I'll refrain from attempting an incoherent rebuttal.
Instead how about a:
Ya, you may be right (no pun intended).
The world would be a better place if everybody was thick skinned and understood that you don't have to read books/surf sites/go to movies that you don't like.
I'm curious to see if that Star Bridge FPGA system ever becomes popular. They claim to have a programming language that mixes hardware specification with software, blurring the line between the two. Their system is proprietary (I believe) but an OS that would take care of that sort of flexibility probably wouldn't look too much like linux when you went under the hood.
Personally, I think some folks are already anticipating the de-emphasis on linux. I think that's why "Open Source" is being strongly advocated instead of just "Linux Open Source".
What I really want is to continue to have access to all the cool stuff that goes on behind the scenes, whether that happens to involve linux or some future operating system is more or less irrelevant to me.
I think the entire concept is a fallacy. Wealthy organizations can make as many schedules as they want, but software rarely comes out ahead of schedule. Sometimes it seems like an "on time" release is rare, and this is with in-house programming.
He's also confusing "Open Source" with "contract employment" and his particular combination isn't pretty. It's also not likely to be reflected in the real world.
Open source programmers who are not gainfully employed (to the complaining party) won't be responding to "hot lists". Any corporation, wealthy or otherwise, that demands impossible schedules will be ignored. This is the nature of the software and any business model that can't deal with this aspect of open source will not use the open source model.
Even the borg doesn't do this kind of software. When was the last time Microsoft made customized Word features for a wealthy company? What he's talking about is contract niche software.
I would agree with the statement that the right wing doesn't have the monopoly on dumb ideas. What I think prompted the original poster's statements was the fact that the major contributing factor behind filtering software adoption seems to be the right wing christian groups.
This is not to say that all conservatives are christian, or believe that censorship is acceptable. Merely a recognition of the "enemy".
It's an observable condition that most (not all, but most) attempts to restrict free speech in recent memory have originated from right wing groups.
The fact that the generalization is made to include all right wingers is consistent with the current prevailing opinion that many people follow one of the two mainstream ideologies. Alas, what I'd give for a political system that included more than two parties (realistically that is).
I don't often agree with they guy, but come on!This is an interview! He's a verbose guy and he's answering questions. The fact that they espouse his opinions should surprise nobody.
pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions
Did you read the article? He is praising those that take the time to disagree with him with rational explanations. The "stupid" (your words, not his) people are the adolescent bozos that flame him, obviously without even bothering to read what he says.
He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise
Where the heck did you read that? He wrote books. People who aren't writers don't write books. He is claiming that (constructive) feedback from
Claiming that he's a bad writer is your particular right. I don't like his writing much either, but at least I don't make stuff up about what he's saying.
>So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
The big deal is that people don't understand what they are sacrificing because the advocates of filtering mislead them.
Filtering does not filter all porn and filtered content does not consist excusively of material that could be considered to be inappropriate. In a factual analysis, as can be found on censorware.org or peacefire.org, it is clear that the fundamental flaws of the software are so explicit that "mislead" is even a mild term. They border on outright lies.
The disputable assertion that the majority of people want it that way is irrelevant if they have been mislead to believe that filtering will provide the solution they are looking for.
The big deal is that by implementing filtering software that is biased towards right wing christian values they are attempting to remove all evidence of conflicting belief systems.
In an ideal world I'm sure they would. However, given the resources of the MPAA it's nothing to them to expand their suit to two more people, while for two more people it is a major drain on their funds and their time.
The lawsuit is bogus, why should they endanger themselves to satisfy hubris? Far smarter to have one guy be the stalking horse and let the other two continue to write the software we like.
Nothing the tech community does in regard to this case will ever make us look bad in comparison to the arrogance and stupidity of the MPAA.
I agree that in the terminology phrased, the judge was correct. However, the judge omitted in his ruling that the issue was not copy protection (and never has been), but rather control of the players. It is not economically feasible to copy DVDs nor will it be for quite some time. Even if it were economically feasible, there's not much to support the thesis that ability to copy a media results in rampant piracy.
There happen to be a number of laws that allow for reverse engineering for compatibility and "fair use". If you own a DVD, you should theoretically be able to view that DVD using any means that is technologically capable of doing so. I haven't read the license agreement, but I suspect that there is no provision that you must use a licensed PLAYER to view the DVD.
The judge has ignored that aspect of the defense. Instead he has followed the MPAA's lead and chosen to make this a "piracy" trial. It's never been about piracy.
I would only agree contingent that either the parents in question have full access to the list of blocked sites or are aware of the short comings of filtering software.
Too many times filtering software is advertised as flawless and it seems that most politicians are in the business of agreeing with this patently false assertion.
I think the point of contention is twofold. First, it's disputable that the devices they made were usuable for espionage. Devices that could be used for bugging purposes also can have other, less malicious, purposes. As stated in the article, the FBI (disguised as a customer) tried to get one of the employees to admit that one of their devices could be used for bugging, but the employee specifically mentioned that it would be unreliable for such a purpose.
The second point I'm less sure of but I have heard (anybody know how the law stands on this?) that it is not illegal to sell listening devices, merely to use them for illegal surveillance.
While not an argument against the raid (two wrongs don't make a right after all), it is also ironic that an agency that conducts surveillance of citizens is trying to crack down on companies that allow citizens to do the same. Don't they trust us :)
Let's remove all responsibility from the individual and place it all on the various organizations that they deal with. Do you have to worry about your employees dangerously exposing themselves to dental dangers if they come to work with bad breath from not brushing their teeth?
Yes, tasks specifically requested by employers should be covered, but if somebody has an unsafe house there's no way in hell the employer should be responsible for it.
Personally I like the concept that I'm responsible for my actions and the consequence of those actions. This is just another excuse to blame (and sue) somebody else for things that are your own damn fault.
I suspect that there are a number of petroleum companies that have significantly more money than MS. Not to mention some of the bigger food companies. MS is probably the biggest software manufacturer, but all things told the world doesn't use nearly as much software as they do food and oil.
The three laws are bunk anyway. An AI that could conceivably be advanced enought to navigate them would have to be godlike anyway.
The first law alone implies that robots would have to weigh every action nearly endlessly to be sure that their action caused no harm to others.
For example, a robot would never be able to drive a car because the laws of physics dictate that an object as massive as a car cannot be stopped by (brake) friction alone should a human jump in front of it. By driving a car, a robot would be endangering the lives of any humans that, accidentally or purposefully, stepped in front of the car.
Human beings call that sort of thing "acceptable risk", but a robot hardwired never to harm humans would never be able to accept that risk. There are a multitude of tasks that are of a similar nature, such that it would be difficult to use a robot for anything besides a doorstop.
The 3 laws are excellent sci-fi (or perhaps that's just Asimov's writing) but implementationally impossible.
Methods for doing "genetic repair" actually aren't doing too badly these days. The method I've heard most frequently is to custom create billions of non-replicating virii that will change a section of genetic code. Injected into a subject that usually will do the trick. Cerebral neurons are a little tough to do this way though.
If nanotech ever takes off, that would probably be an excellent method as well and wouldn't have any troubles with accessing the brain tissue either.
Wouldn't it be spiffy if they implemented strong encryption and then ran into trouble with the US govm't for doing so?
"Sorry sir, you can't take that laptop out of the country unless you remove the DVD drive".
Unlikely I know (it would be stupid of them to implement encryption that strong), but it's fun to imagine. Sorta like that Dilbert where Phil and Catbert square off and Dilbert comes home with the comment "Two wrongs made a right".
This has nothing to do with open source and everything to do with stupid patents. The "technology" in question is simply the idea to store customer information so that when the user clicks a button then all the saved info is used to build an order (instead of having to ask the customer for that information again).
Amazon should never been granted a patent because there are almost certainly examples of prior use and the idea is also an obvious application of other technologies. The fact that the patent was granted shows the shortcomings of the patent office. This is further made evident by the fact that, so far, the patent is being upheld.
Amazon isn't trying to protect their investment in their "technology", they're trying to use the legal system to beat down their competition with ludicrous patents. It's like a writer of murder mysteries trying to sue other murder mystery writers for using his patented "frame the daughter for the the brother's crime" plot twist, just so that he can take their books off the market.
There are some inherent problems with using your brain to compile, simply because what you're talking about also involves the ability to put a compiler in your brain (not something to which the human brain is naturally good with). Given the difficulty of the task, it's far more likely that people will stick to leaving things like compilers on computers dedicated to that purpose.
So far as being able to "write" to the brain, that's a harder task. While there are certain common themes in brain activity, there are also a lot of differences from individual to individual. There isn't a universal language that can just write stuff to your brain. It might be possible, over time, to train a computer how to write to a specific brain but that's significantly more advanced than what we can do today.
I do recommend reading Neal Stephenson's "Interface" (under the Stephen Bury psuedonym) for a more interesting (if fictional) view on the man/machine interface. While it is fiction, it is obviously well researched as is the norm for his books. The kind of "write" to the brain described in his books is far more plausible than the Matrix "kung fu cartridge". It's worth noting that in "Interface" they had to dupe the implantee into cooperating with them so that they could map out his neural connections for them to "write" to his brain.
"The vehemente support of the US Government for the plans Intels excited special suspicions. Vice-president aluminium Gore had praised the seriennummer in the Jaenner as true miracle drug for the setting in motion of the e-Commerce in motion."
So now we know what "Al" stands for. This confirms my suspicions that he is in fact a robot.
While I agree with your comments about the nature of the feedback system, I have some doubts about the validity of your argument not to buy UT without linux in the box.
For one thing, Epic did everything in their power to ensure a linux version of the game. They are to be commended for their willingness to support linux. GTI, being a mismanaged and cash poor company, chose not to incur significant cost by hiring or training their support staff to support linux in spite of Epic's wishes to the contrary. I'm hoping Infogrames fires all their execs and puts in folks with a clue.
At this stage of the game, I think it's still a bit early to try to demand linux support. Both Epic and GTI could have ignored linux and still made off like bandits. The fact that at least Epic has not is a point in their favor.
Your arguments work great except when the X% is so low that the folks in question don't give a damn. It's also assuming that the executives at the company are even aware of what X% is. Far better to buy the game be loud and complain a lot to give them an impression of increased X% than to simply ignore their product altogether and let them assume that sales were X% under expectations due to lack of player interest (it's not like GTI execs have any clue what makes a game good).
It's my understanding that they won't be releasing the data on the net (otherwise why buy the game). The main executable(s) should be the only stuff released on the net. Those should be limited in size to a few megs, thus there shouldn't be too much strain on their servers.
This way, you buy a CD for windows but you download the appropriate binaries to run the linux version. I could be wrong of course, but this approach seems the most logical.
If they couldn't be bothered to support linux then its kinda funny that they (Epic, not GTI) bothered to create a linux version of the game at considerable cost to themselves. GTI is to blame, not Epic. Frankly I don't understand what GTI was thinking since it costs them nothing to include a linux executable on the CD. Chalk it down to yet another clueless move by a large software distributor.