I'm not usually into movie trivia like this, but that was a pretty neat article. Their single-minded devotion to creating the exact prop from the film is a bit eerie, though.
Yeah, but if they're only 3 weeks behind and a lot more stable, does it really MATTER that MS is 'leading'?
These guys are just doing to MS what MS has typically done in the past: Latch onto something successful and take the ride. It's amazingly hard to get something truly innovative into common usage. It's a lot easier to latch onto a rising star, then follow it to the top and do it just a little better.
What's 'better' in this case? How about fewer bugs and vulnerabilities, as well as working on more browsers and operating systems.
Wait, where did I say that someone, or something, else is to blame? I merely stated that there is nothing I'd rather be doing.
For some people, they'd rather be fishing, or racing, or whatever. I prefer to play video games, and I admit I spend more time and money on it than I really should. I -can- put it down any time I want, but I don't -want- to. When I don't have a good game to play, I'm not as happy, and I get 'bored.' (That's a word meaning I don't want to do anything, since there is -always- something that needs doing.)
Yes, in drug addictions, the withdrawal symptoms are much worse, and can be fatal. But withdrawal is withdrawal, and like any decent addiction, if I manage to stop for a while, and go back, I'm hooked as hard as before.
As I stated before, I don't think this addiction is severe enough to warrant government help, if based on gaming addiction. If you base it on the fact that some people do it to the detriment of themselves and others, that needs to be taken care of, whether it's drugs, gambling, or gaming.
I have obsessive-compulsive tendencies in all aspects of my life. I often find myself unable to say things unless said in a certain way, and I find myself unable to leave a job done 'well enough', when I could do it 'right'. And I tend to over-indulge in anything I enjoy, especially gaming. There's a very fine line between perfectionism and OCD, and I can see it from where I'm standing.
Alcohol isn't addictive by itself. Not everyone who touches it get addicted.
In fact, most 'addictive' drugs can have the same thing said about them. You have to abuse them before you get 'addicted'.
Gaming can also drain someone's bank account. You talk about 'gaming addiction' as if it only applies to World of Warcraft, and the only costs are the $15/month. You completely forget the entire gaming hardware race, and the cost of consoles and other games. And it's not as if you could just drain the account once and be done, no. There are new games released constantly. More than enough to keep someone broke, especially if they've already lost their job to the addiction.
I admit it. I'm addicted to gaming. There's nothing I'd rather be doing. When I can manage to do -nothing- else but play a game, preferably a new exciting one, I'll do it. This means not showering some days, eating quick unhealthy meals, and occasionally skipping work because I just -have- to play that new game.
Do I think I need help? No. I don't even -want- it classified as a disorder that the government will help with. Normal obsessive-compulsive disorder probably covers this well enough anyhow, for those that take it far enough to warrant help.
But don't dismiss this problem simply because you don't have it yourself. And don't make fun of it, either.
If you want to treat WoW's gold as legal currency, it IS income as you are earning it, since it can be traded for real money.
If I work for room and board, instead of money, that's still income. The money just went directly towards room and board instead.
If I play WoW and earn 1000 gold, then sell it for $100, that's $100 worth of income. If I don't see it, it's still worth the same $100, even if I don't do the currency conversion.
If instead, you treat WoW gold as an object (the way real gold is treated, even though it -could- be treated as currency), the tax would be done on the sale of the goods, instead of the acquisition. No taxes would be applicable until real money is obtained.
According to the sites I just went to, 1000 gold is worth $60-100. So it does indeed have value.
The problem is not taxing someone's income, it's trying to tax it before it becomes income. If the person sells that gold on EBay (or otherwise for real USD), it -should- be taxed. If they merely hold it on their character and do nothing, there should be no tax. Oddly enough, the current tax laws -should- cover this already. If people aren't paying the tax, that's the government's fault for not cracking down on tax evasion.
Blizzard has a very real problem if the government starts to tax the virtual goods directly. That means that the characters, items, and gold on their servers have real value, and if they take that value from someone, or deprive them of access to it, they can be sued. That means that if someone cancels their account, they have to either continue to provide access to it, or pay them out. And if there's a data failure, they have to reimburse everyone. (Luckily, they could do so in WoW Gold, which they can make freely.)
Blizzard does have one ace up their sleeve for this fight, though. They have already made it clear that selling gold for real USD is against the TOS and is not allowed. This is quite clearly saying that it has no real value.
At any rate, the summary is deliberately starting a ruckus. They have said they are looking into it finally, not that they favor taxing it or any such thing. At -some- point they had to meet, even if only to say 'not taxable' and lay it to rest.
Actually, most of them won't care about your grades your first year, either. I got a 2 yr degree with a 4.0 average (Yes, never made a B) and was (of course) valedictorian, and it didn't matter jack. Nobody was impressed. (Not even me, cuz I know it was easy, since I was taking classes I already knew how to do, just to get the paper. I had no real experience.)
That's a good point, but I'm not convinced that their plan was to create a violent game, get shunned, and have the minority of people who think an AO rating is censorship come save the day.
It's not a solid business plan, and even as a defense plan, it sucks. There's only a few wackos screaming 'censorship' (because it's not) and only a few of those will actually buy the game in protest, most of which would probably have bought the game anyhow.
As for the 'it's art' statement... Well, they -would- feel that way, as they created the game. Personally, I don't find it as such, but then... I feel most 'art' is crap anyhow, and it's at least as artsy as random lines on a canvas, painted by an elephant.
At this point, it's not even the stores that are a problem. It's the console companies. And they -are- preventing it from existing... on those consoles.
There's nothing to stop Take Two from releasing it on PC (and possibly 360, if MS will agree) at this point. They simply won't be able to be on the consoles they had planned to.
What surprises me is that this appears to come as a shock to Take Two. Did they NEVER think about what would happen if they published an extremely violent game and ended up with an AO rating? A few years back, that wouldn't have been a likely thing, but these days, they are under HEAVY fire from all sides. I find it amazing that they have not done any defensive preparations before this.
I was initially like 'Why do I care?' but once I finally realized that it could help prevent people from using my domain name to spam -with- (rather than -to-), I was all for it. Especially since, as you note, it costs me nothing but a bit of time to set up. (And not much, since I use Google's mail servers, and they practically push the information on you.)
It may not have a huge effect, but as a domain owner, I have had my domain 'used' a few times as the return address. It hasn't happened since I set up the SPF record. (Likely spammers don't think I'm as nice a target now.)
Not long ago, I did this. I didn't set out to 'join an open source project', but that's what ended up happening.
I found a piece of software I was -very- interested in, felt I could help the team, and started talking to them. It wasn't long before I felt I had something to contribute, and they gave me SVN access. I did, they really liked it, and I was part of the team.
The key is that you have to -really- want to be a part of -that project-. If the goal is simply 'join any project' then you are going to hate it and the team will probably get quite upset with you for either contributing crap or not contributing much at all, and simply causing ruckus on the forums.
Again, don't join a project unless you really care about the project itself.
Yup, still wrong. As noted above by someone else, slashdot is removing the underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'. Probably because it's technically invalid and shouldn't be there anyhow.
DeviantArt allowed it for a long time as well, and some browsers (firefox was one, at the time) didn't work with those addresses. They don't allow it any more. (DA uses the username as part of the URL.)
Unfortunately, I don't have any stats to back up my claim, but I was talking accidents, not fatalities. It's quite possible to have the same percentage of fatalities but many fewer accidents. (They DO drive like maniacs, so any accidents they have are not likely to be fender-bumpers.)
I have been unable to find any statistics at all (for or against my statements), after quite a bit of searching. It's apparently more useful to report deaths than accidents. I have to wonder if that statistic would make things look very bad indeed for the USA.
Have you ever been to Jamaica? I doubt it, because you didn't use them as another example for your theory.
On most of those islands, there are indeeds traffic lights and whatnot, but only where absolutely necessary. In most places where roads meet, they rely on courtesy to know goes when. You'll be in a taxi and he'll just stop at a crossing with no sign to do so, simply because it's courteous and they do it that way there.
On top of that, they drive like madmen. There are no speed limits and they cut in and out like crazy. And yet they have very very few accidents. Why? The same reason as your parking lot theory: They have to be more aware of what's going on.
I would bet that most of the time you're called a troll is because of how you state the information, instead of what information you state. Using a lot of insults is the most common, but presenting things as totally one-sided will do it also.
As for 'lazy spelling'... It's not. It's an additional deliberate insult. 'boi' is used to mean 'gay boy', so they are insulting your fanatical one-sidedness as well as calling you 'gay'. 'Fanboys' are simply fanatically one-sided.
If you're giving 'PhD quality' information, you are probably also talking over their heads. If you sound like you are just spewing 'big words', they are going to think you are only trying to confuse them with made-up information. (It's a self protection mechanism. If they knew how stupid they were, they couldn't deal with life.) High-level logic is totally pointless with these people, and dumbing the logic down to a sufficient level is rarely going to be worth your time.
Personally, I've just accepted the fact that there are more idiots than geniuses, and I've quit responding -at all- to the idiots. They really do just go away if you ignore them.
My old boss (who owns a computer shop) is convinced that having a RAID in a system makes webpages come up faster. Every time he exclaims about how fast the pages come up because it's got hyperthreading and RAID (whether or not it really has hyperthreading or not!) I just stare at him.
At least when he says it has a RAID it really DOES have a RAID... Albeit just a RAID 0.
I'm all for standardizing the strict definition of 'open source' (within reason), and I'm all for encouraging people to use some of the more common licenses rather than invent their own. But when comes to 'it's not open source unless I say it's open source' then I draw the line. It has ceased to be a 'brand' and is now simply a term.
When you first hear the term, it's obvious that it means the source is available to modify. That infers that the source can also be compiled and used, because you can't modify it if you can't test it.
The term itself has no immediately meanings like 'no legal issues' or 'has to have an OSI approved license.' To find out that, you'd have to know to go to OSI's site to learn about it, and you wouldn't know that unless you had already been to OSI's site.
If they want to fight this fight, they've going to need to be more specific in their term. OSI-approved open source, or some such. Of course, that's unwieldy and nobody will use it.
Just the other day, and artist was releasing some of his 3d work for use for free games. (Non-commercial.) He used his own license he created that basically said 'do whatever, but not commercial.' Nicely permissive, and all that, but there's less hassle for everyone if he picks an existing license that says basically the same thing. After explaining why, he agreed that it was better and didn't harm him or his aims, and chose a Creative Commons - NC license.
People don't need to be bludgeoned over the head with a legal stick to see the light. It just has to be explained to them nicely.
Wow, check that out. GPLv3-licensed software is not 'Open Source'. Since it doesn't allow the use on devices with DRM/etc, it creates a legal burden every bit as much as 'badgeware' does.
The summary says they can't be safely used for transplant, but then, the day before they discovered that, they thought it couldn't be done at all. Given time, we'll we creating stem cells as-needed from patients in surgery, and in a short time later, use them to replace the damaged area. Skin grafts will become amazingly easy, and replacing a dead organ will be just a matter of waiting for it to mature, instead of waiting for a compatible donor. (Except in extreme emergencies, of course.)
The future is here. We can actually see the path to safe organ replacement. I expect major medical breakthroughs soon, now that research can continue without religion screaming "you're killing babies!" Oddly enough, for once the fanatics they were right. We -don't- need to sacrifice morals to advance science. We can do so with a clear conscience. Of course, those who still believe medicine -at all- is wrong are still shit out of luck.
I disagree about the memory/video bottlenecks. Have you played Dynasty Warriors? Even on a PS2, it manages an impressive number of on-screen characters, all doing their own thing. NNN on the 360 already has hundreds onscreen. 1000 on a PC is easily do-able right now. The network is the only bottleneck for that on the PC.
I agree with your idea for a network model, though. I've been thinking about a P2P-based MMO and how well it would work. I've been thinking a step further, though, where the main server was only needed for logon/update/coordinating communication between people, and not have to do the actual communication itself. There would be no massive server needed to simulate everything and keep everyone coordinated.
It does leave the system open to cheaters, though, as the clients have to trust each other, instead of trusting the server. That's true with your model as well, though.
I think that quote only applies to someone who is somewhat involved with the problem. As in, works for the company. Why should consumers feel required to solve problems for a mega-corporation, instead of just complaining about it?
Even assuming they SHOULD follow that advice... When has Microsoft ever listened to an idea and implemented it, instead of letting the competition prove it was worthwhile first?
Now, for your solutions... MS created that API already. It's in Windows XP even. It's so DRM-ridden that nobody wants to use it, and they've have to rework their device to do so. Any API would require reworking, as well.
Digital Cameras... You can just plug it into the USB and poof, there's your pics. There's no need for an API to complicate things for developers, when they can simply use it as the file system. Explorer itself can already view the directory as if it were a photo album. Scanners didn't have anything as simple as this, and so TWAIN was necessary. Windows has already gone a LONG way to standardizing different devices, through USB, because if the developers use the existing driver, they don't have to write and install a new one. I'm sure Microsoft isn't solely responsible for this, but as the major desktop OS, just encouraging it a little was enough.
Unfortunately, whenever MS -does- try to improve their operating system in meaningful ways, people get in an uproar. Remember the security thing? Where certain companies tried to sue MS for tightening secure so much their products couldn't do anything? And of course, shipping a full-fledged web browser has been 'evil' for years. I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue them for including a useful calculator and Wordpad with it, let alone the file manager.
I've been trying to find a reason to upgrade, and so far, you're the only person to suggest anything I might find useful... Unfortunately, it's just the first 2 and last 2 things on your list.
I haven't noticed redraw lag in years, with the exception of some really shitty apps.
Per-app volume... nice. Some just don't play nice, but most do, so not a huge thing here.
Launching an app via that method isn't so different than hitting windows-R and typing the name. Linux has an app called 'catapult' that does more like Vista, where I hit ctrl-space and start typing, and it'll suggest the first name that matches. Be nice to have that on Windows, but not killer.
Sorting... I just don't have much use for that complex of a sort.
Renaming... If I'm renaming that much, I'll find a utility to simplify it, or write one myself.
Windows XP search sucks. But then, I hardly use it, so no big deal.
Versioning NTFS? Why is this the first I've heard of it? Does MS not think this is a big deal, or am I misunderstanding? This could be -the- reason for me to install Vista, were it not for the problem at the end of this post.
Task Dialogs... Nice, but nothing major for me.
As for the reason I still can't change to Vista... Games. That's what my Windows system is for. And Vista is horribly incompatible with older games. And even if the games themselves worked, the drivers are horrid for just about all video cards, still.
Oddly enough, this was exactly the reason that I didn't completely switch to Linux. Since Linux does all the of cool stuff Vista does better than XP, plus has all the apps I like (Quanta Plus, K3B, Yakuake) and is 'free' in more than 1 sense, I don't have a lot of reason to switch still.
No seriously, he's got a point. I'm not talking about taking pictures of an actual child, though... I'm talking drawings or renderings. That's just as illegal as the real pictures in many places, and has harmed as many children as video games have murdered people. Law enforcement has been pretty effective at banning it in those places.
Without saying that child porn is worse than murder, you can't really condone one and abhor the other. They're both virtual, and nobody gets hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not usually into movie trivia like this, but that was a pretty neat article. Their single-minded devotion to creating the exact prop from the film is a bit eerie, though.
Yeah, but if they're only 3 weeks behind and a lot more stable, does it really MATTER that MS is 'leading'?
These guys are just doing to MS what MS has typically done in the past: Latch onto something successful and take the ride. It's amazingly hard to get something truly innovative into common usage. It's a lot easier to latch onto a rising star, then follow it to the top and do it just a little better.
What's 'better' in this case? How about fewer bugs and vulnerabilities, as well as working on more browsers and operating systems.
So, your anti-snob tactic is to be a superior snob? How's that working for you?
Wait, where did I say that someone, or something, else is to blame? I merely stated that there is nothing I'd rather be doing.
For some people, they'd rather be fishing, or racing, or whatever. I prefer to play video games, and I admit I spend more time and money on it than I really should. I -can- put it down any time I want, but I don't -want- to. When I don't have a good game to play, I'm not as happy, and I get 'bored.' (That's a word meaning I don't want to do anything, since there is -always- something that needs doing.)
Yes, in drug addictions, the withdrawal symptoms are much worse, and can be fatal. But withdrawal is withdrawal, and like any decent addiction, if I manage to stop for a while, and go back, I'm hooked as hard as before.
As I stated before, I don't think this addiction is severe enough to warrant government help, if based on gaming addiction. If you base it on the fact that some people do it to the detriment of themselves and others, that needs to be taken care of, whether it's drugs, gambling, or gaming.
I have obsessive-compulsive tendencies in all aspects of my life. I often find myself unable to say things unless said in a certain way, and I find myself unable to leave a job done 'well enough', when I could do it 'right'. And I tend to over-indulge in anything I enjoy, especially gaming. There's a very fine line between perfectionism and OCD, and I can see it from where I'm standing.
That's how I can call it an addiction.
Alcohol isn't addictive by itself. Not everyone who touches it get addicted.
In fact, most 'addictive' drugs can have the same thing said about them. You have to abuse them before you get 'addicted'.
Gaming can also drain someone's bank account. You talk about 'gaming addiction' as if it only applies to World of Warcraft, and the only costs are the $15/month. You completely forget the entire gaming hardware race, and the cost of consoles and other games. And it's not as if you could just drain the account once and be done, no. There are new games released constantly. More than enough to keep someone broke, especially if they've already lost their job to the addiction.
I admit it. I'm addicted to gaming. There's nothing I'd rather be doing. When I can manage to do -nothing- else but play a game, preferably a new exciting one, I'll do it. This means not showering some days, eating quick unhealthy meals, and occasionally skipping work because I just -have- to play that new game.
Do I think I need help? No. I don't even -want- it classified as a disorder that the government will help with. Normal obsessive-compulsive disorder probably covers this well enough anyhow, for those that take it far enough to warrant help.
But don't dismiss this problem simply because you don't have it yourself. And don't make fun of it, either.
According to the summary, it's the same thing as dividing by 1 on a quantum computer.
Let's try it... -universe asplodes-
If you want to treat WoW's gold as legal currency, it IS income as you are earning it, since it can be traded for real money.
If I work for room and board, instead of money, that's still income. The money just went directly towards room and board instead.
If I play WoW and earn 1000 gold, then sell it for $100, that's $100 worth of income. If I don't see it, it's still worth the same $100, even if I don't do the currency conversion.
If instead, you treat WoW gold as an object (the way real gold is treated, even though it -could- be treated as currency), the tax would be done on the sale of the goods, instead of the acquisition. No taxes would be applicable until real money is obtained.
Your newly created Hippo bucks probably are worthless. But 'gold' in WoW is not. The proof is that businesses exist only to sell it for real money. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wow%20gold&bt nG=Google+Search
According to the sites I just went to, 1000 gold is worth $60-100. So it does indeed have value.
The problem is not taxing someone's income, it's trying to tax it before it becomes income. If the person sells that gold on EBay (or otherwise for real USD), it -should- be taxed. If they merely hold it on their character and do nothing, there should be no tax. Oddly enough, the current tax laws -should- cover this already. If people aren't paying the tax, that's the government's fault for not cracking down on tax evasion.
Blizzard has a very real problem if the government starts to tax the virtual goods directly. That means that the characters, items, and gold on their servers have real value, and if they take that value from someone, or deprive them of access to it, they can be sued. That means that if someone cancels their account, they have to either continue to provide access to it, or pay them out. And if there's a data failure, they have to reimburse everyone. (Luckily, they could do so in WoW Gold, which they can make freely.)
Blizzard does have one ace up their sleeve for this fight, though. They have already made it clear that selling gold for real USD is against the TOS and is not allowed. This is quite clearly saying that it has no real value.
At any rate, the summary is deliberately starting a ruckus. They have said they are looking into it finally, not that they favor taxing it or any such thing. At -some- point they had to meet, even if only to say 'not taxable' and lay it to rest.
Actually, most of them won't care about your grades your first year, either. I got a 2 yr degree with a 4.0 average (Yes, never made a B) and was (of course) valedictorian, and it didn't matter jack. Nobody was impressed. (Not even me, cuz I know it was easy, since I was taking classes I already knew how to do, just to get the paper. I had no real experience.)
That's a good point, but I'm not convinced that their plan was to create a violent game, get shunned, and have the minority of people who think an AO rating is censorship come save the day.
It's not a solid business plan, and even as a defense plan, it sucks. There's only a few wackos screaming 'censorship' (because it's not) and only a few of those will actually buy the game in protest, most of which would probably have bought the game anyhow.
As for the 'it's art' statement... Well, they -would- feel that way, as they created the game. Personally, I don't find it as such, but then... I feel most 'art' is crap anyhow, and it's at least as artsy as random lines on a canvas, painted by an elephant.
At this point, it's not even the stores that are a problem. It's the console companies. And they -are- preventing it from existing... on those consoles.
There's nothing to stop Take Two from releasing it on PC (and possibly 360, if MS will agree) at this point. They simply won't be able to be on the consoles they had planned to.
What surprises me is that this appears to come as a shock to Take Two. Did they NEVER think about what would happen if they published an extremely violent game and ended up with an AO rating? A few years back, that wouldn't have been a likely thing, but these days, they are under HEAVY fire from all sides. I find it amazing that they have not done any defensive preparations before this.
I was initially like 'Why do I care?' but once I finally realized that it could help prevent people from using my domain name to spam -with- (rather than -to-), I was all for it. Especially since, as you note, it costs me nothing but a bit of time to set up. (And not much, since I use Google's mail servers, and they practically push the information on you.)
It may not have a huge effect, but as a domain owner, I have had my domain 'used' a few times as the return address. It hasn't happened since I set up the SPF record. (Likely spammers don't think I'm as nice a target now.)
Not long ago, I did this. I didn't set out to 'join an open source project', but that's what ended up happening.
I found a piece of software I was -very- interested in, felt I could help the team, and started talking to them. It wasn't long before I felt I had something to contribute, and they gave me SVN access. I did, they really liked it, and I was part of the team.
The key is that you have to -really- want to be a part of -that project-. If the goal is simply 'join any project' then you are going to hate it and the team will probably get quite upset with you for either contributing crap or not contributing much at all, and simply causing ruckus on the forums.
Again, don't join a project unless you really care about the project itself.
Yup, still wrong. As noted above by someone else, slashdot is removing the underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'. Probably because it's technically invalid and shouldn't be there anyhow.
u rl
DeviantArt allowed it for a long time as well, and some browsers (firefox was one, at the time) didn't work with those addresses. They don't allow it any more. (DA uses the username as part of the URL.)
Google finds many issues with apps and underscores in URLs: http://www.google.com/search?q=underscore%20in%20
Unfortunately, I don't have any stats to back up my claim, but I was talking accidents, not fatalities. It's quite possible to have the same percentage of fatalities but many fewer accidents. (They DO drive like maniacs, so any accidents they have are not likely to be fender-bumpers.)
I have been unable to find any statistics at all (for or against my statements), after quite a bit of searching. It's apparently more useful to report deaths than accidents. I have to wonder if that statistic would make things look very bad indeed for the USA.
Have you ever been to Jamaica? I doubt it, because you didn't use them as another example for your theory.
On most of those islands, there are indeeds traffic lights and whatnot, but only where absolutely necessary. In most places where roads meet, they rely on courtesy to know goes when. You'll be in a taxi and he'll just stop at a crossing with no sign to do so, simply because it's courteous and they do it that way there.
On top of that, they drive like madmen. There are no speed limits and they cut in and out like crazy. And yet they have very very few accidents. Why? The same reason as your parking lot theory: They have to be more aware of what's going on.
I would bet that most of the time you're called a troll is because of how you state the information, instead of what information you state. Using a lot of insults is the most common, but presenting things as totally one-sided will do it also.
As for 'lazy spelling'... It's not. It's an additional deliberate insult. 'boi' is used to mean 'gay boy', so they are insulting your fanatical one-sidedness as well as calling you 'gay'. 'Fanboys' are simply fanatically one-sided.
If you're giving 'PhD quality' information, you are probably also talking over their heads. If you sound like you are just spewing 'big words', they are going to think you are only trying to confuse them with made-up information. (It's a self protection mechanism. If they knew how stupid they were, they couldn't deal with life.) High-level logic is totally pointless with these people, and dumbing the logic down to a sufficient level is rarely going to be worth your time.
Personally, I've just accepted the fact that there are more idiots than geniuses, and I've quit responding -at all- to the idiots. They really do just go away if you ignore them.
My old boss (who owns a computer shop) is convinced that having a RAID in a system makes webpages come up faster. Every time he exclaims about how fast the pages come up because it's got hyperthreading and RAID (whether or not it really has hyperthreading or not!) I just stare at him.
At least when he says it has a RAID it really DOES have a RAID... Albeit just a RAID 0.
I'm all for standardizing the strict definition of 'open source' (within reason), and I'm all for encouraging people to use some of the more common licenses rather than invent their own. But when comes to 'it's not open source unless I say it's open source' then I draw the line. It has ceased to be a 'brand' and is now simply a term.
When you first hear the term, it's obvious that it means the source is available to modify. That infers that the source can also be compiled and used, because you can't modify it if you can't test it.
The term itself has no immediately meanings like 'no legal issues' or 'has to have an OSI approved license.' To find out that, you'd have to know to go to OSI's site to learn about it, and you wouldn't know that unless you had already been to OSI's site.
If they want to fight this fight, they've going to need to be more specific in their term. OSI-approved open source, or some such. Of course, that's unwieldy and nobody will use it.
Just the other day, and artist was releasing some of his 3d work for use for free games. (Non-commercial.) He used his own license he created that basically said 'do whatever, but not commercial.' Nicely permissive, and all that, but there's less hassle for everyone if he picks an existing license that says basically the same thing. After explaining why, he agreed that it was better and didn't harm him or his aims, and chose a Creative Commons - NC license.
People don't need to be bludgeoned over the head with a legal stick to see the light. It just has to be explained to them nicely.
Wow, check that out. GPLv3-licensed software is not 'Open Source'. Since it doesn't allow the use on devices with DRM/etc, it creates a legal burden every bit as much as 'badgeware' does.
The news not-so-long-ago was that they could now create stem cells without going anywhere NEAR an embryo.
0 6/1924232
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/
The summary says they can't be safely used for transplant, but then, the day before they discovered that, they thought it couldn't be done at all. Given time, we'll we creating stem cells as-needed from patients in surgery, and in a short time later, use them to replace the damaged area. Skin grafts will become amazingly easy, and replacing a dead organ will be just a matter of waiting for it to mature, instead of waiting for a compatible donor. (Except in extreme emergencies, of course.)
The future is here. We can actually see the path to safe organ replacement. I expect major medical breakthroughs soon, now that research can continue without religion screaming "you're killing babies!" Oddly enough, for once the fanatics they were right. We -don't- need to sacrifice morals to advance science. We can do so with a clear conscience. Of course, those who still believe medicine -at all- is wrong are still shit out of luck.
I disagree about the memory/video bottlenecks. Have you played Dynasty Warriors? Even on a PS2, it manages an impressive number of on-screen characters, all doing their own thing. NNN on the 360 already has hundreds onscreen. 1000 on a PC is easily do-able right now. The network is the only bottleneck for that on the PC.
I agree with your idea for a network model, though. I've been thinking about a P2P-based MMO and how well it would work. I've been thinking a step further, though, where the main server was only needed for logon/update/coordinating communication between people, and not have to do the actual communication itself. There would be no massive server needed to simulate everything and keep everyone coordinated.
It does leave the system open to cheaters, though, as the clients have to trust each other, instead of trusting the server. That's true with your model as well, though.
I think that quote only applies to someone who is somewhat involved with the problem. As in, works for the company. Why should consumers feel required to solve problems for a mega-corporation, instead of just complaining about it?
Even assuming they SHOULD follow that advice... When has Microsoft ever listened to an idea and implemented it, instead of letting the competition prove it was worthwhile first?
Now, for your solutions... MS created that API already. It's in Windows XP even. It's so DRM-ridden that nobody wants to use it, and they've have to rework their device to do so. Any API would require reworking, as well.
Digital Cameras... You can just plug it into the USB and poof, there's your pics. There's no need for an API to complicate things for developers, when they can simply use it as the file system. Explorer itself can already view the directory as if it were a photo album. Scanners didn't have anything as simple as this, and so TWAIN was necessary. Windows has already gone a LONG way to standardizing different devices, through USB, because if the developers use the existing driver, they don't have to write and install a new one. I'm sure Microsoft isn't solely responsible for this, but as the major desktop OS, just encouraging it a little was enough.
Unfortunately, whenever MS -does- try to improve their operating system in meaningful ways, people get in an uproar. Remember the security thing? Where certain companies tried to sue MS for tightening secure so much their products couldn't do anything? And of course, shipping a full-fledged web browser has been 'evil' for years. I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue them for including a useful calculator and Wordpad with it, let alone the file manager.
I've been trying to find a reason to upgrade, and so far, you're the only person to suggest anything I might find useful... Unfortunately, it's just the first 2 and last 2 things on your list.
I haven't noticed redraw lag in years, with the exception of some really shitty apps.
Per-app volume... nice. Some just don't play nice, but most do, so not a huge thing here.
Launching an app via that method isn't so different than hitting windows-R and typing the name. Linux has an app called 'catapult' that does more like Vista, where I hit ctrl-space and start typing, and it'll suggest the first name that matches. Be nice to have that on Windows, but not killer.
Sorting... I just don't have much use for that complex of a sort.
Renaming... If I'm renaming that much, I'll find a utility to simplify it, or write one myself.
Windows XP search sucks. But then, I hardly use it, so no big deal.
Versioning NTFS? Why is this the first I've heard of it? Does MS not think this is a big deal, or am I misunderstanding? This could be -the- reason for me to install Vista, were it not for the problem at the end of this post.
Task Dialogs... Nice, but nothing major for me.
As for the reason I still can't change to Vista... Games. That's what my Windows system is for. And Vista is horribly incompatible with older games. And even if the games themselves worked, the drivers are horrid for just about all video cards, still.
Oddly enough, this was exactly the reason that I didn't completely switch to Linux. Since Linux does all the of cool stuff Vista does better than XP, plus has all the apps I like (Quanta Plus, K3B, Yakuake) and is 'free' in more than 1 sense, I don't have a lot of reason to switch still.
No seriously, he's got a point. I'm not talking about taking pictures of an actual child, though... I'm talking drawings or renderings. That's just as illegal as the real pictures in many places, and has harmed as many children as video games have murdered people. Law enforcement has been pretty effective at banning it in those places.
Without saying that child porn is worse than murder, you can't really condone one and abhor the other. They're both virtual, and nobody gets hurt.