No, you stupid fuck. Clinton was "questioned" (the word you are looking for is "impearched") for lying in a sworn deposition. It had nothing to do with free speech--it had to do with lying.
I was referring more to the anti-copyright tardcrowd who thinks that such games would magically appear out of nothing, not you specifically. They glorify the "indie" and the "amateur" and sneer at the big business crowd who actually make the majority of worthwhile (non-music) entertainment.
As for Second Life--if you've ever tried it...well, I wouldn't want that either.
The whole concept of copyright law was built, for centuries, that copying something had an implied labor cost, it took some measure of effort to copy.
What the fuck are you smoking? It's built on the fact that creative works take effort to create. Copying has never been the difficult part of distributing a creative work.
And that creation cost still exists, and people who hurp-durp over "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE! I DON'T BELIEVE IN IMAGINARY PROPERTY! WAAAGH WAAGH!" never, ever, ever offer a real answer as to how to address that creation cost. Donations aren't it. Patronage isn't it. It's not like people will pay for tiered content when they could just steal that too. So what's the answer?
I'm not sure that with Web 2.0 another alternative, the return of the amateur, isn't the direction we are heading in instead.
It shocks me that people think that this is a good direction to be heading, too. It'd be a good way to kill the video game industry: you aren't going to make a Fallout or a Half-Life 2 or a on an "amateur" budget of zero; you just don't have the technology and manpower. Hell, the best indie RPG series I can think of (Avernum and/or Exile, by Spiderweb Software) is still pretty piddling in comparison to Baldur's Gate 2 or whatever, and I'm saying that as somebody who genuinely likes those indie games.
Do you honestly think that people in significant numbers are going to buy DRM-free content no matter what, at any price? These claims always seem bogus. If a company dropped DRM, I doubt that the number of people pirating it wouldn't change a bit.
Patronage is funny. The "people will pay ahead of time to fund something they want!" argument (the "modern patronage" system, if you will) is even funnier. It hinges on the idea that people are actually willing to invest in their entertainment before they get it--which, I think most people will agree, is not a characteristic of the people around us at all.
Neither group actually grasps how much money it takes to make an AAA video game or a modern movie--and realize, but don't acknowledge because it would defeat their silly ideas, that they aren't going to get that many "donations," nor will they get enough to fund the kind of entertainment that people actually want. You aren't going to see people want to play something like an older fixed-function-pipeline 3D game like Unreal Tournament or Deus Ex, no matter how good they are, because they aren't shiny. In their mythical donations-run-everything world, you wouldn't see the high-quality modern game engines, for example.
(Just go look at the open-source world. There are a few 3D engines out there, but they're all based off originally-closed-source iD Software code or are more than a little hackish; most are still in fixed-function land.)
Because what they want isn't a viable business model either. "Give us everything we want and don't make us pay for it" isn't going to be keeping people employed.
Make a framework that makes DEVELOPMENT easy and solid, THEN make it fast.
Maybe you should tell the Rails people this. Right now, they do neither.
If the goal of Rails was to be the fastest web framework then it probably WOULD BE.
Erm...no. For reasons so often repeated that it shocks me that you'd try to trot out this crap. Rails will never even be close to the "fastest" because its architecture is mouthbreathingly stupid and it is based on a comparatively slow language.
Well, quite frankly, because the FSF is a scary bunch of loons. Nevertheless, it's your right to use whatever you like, and I salute you for your convictions.:-)
The dislike of the GFDL is well justified. It's a badly written license (as is the GPL; every lawyer I know who's ever read either has laughed at how bad they are), it has incredibly stupid and awkward provisions (invariant sections, bad definitions of terms, the retitling requirements, and by a strict reading of the license having to include the entire fucking license when you print it off) and little merit.
What value is there to the GFDL that CC-by-sa does not provide?
OS Name: Microsoftr Windows VistaT Home Premium OS Version: 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1 Build 6001 OS Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation OS Configuration: Standalone Workstation OS Build Type: Multiprocessor Free Original Install Date: 2/27/2009, 6:47:00 PM System Boot Time: 2/29/2009, 2:00:08 PM
Hmm. Looks OK to me. Certainly good enough for any normal desktop (which the machines in question are/will be). Thanks for playing.
This is the big thing about why WINE is a crappy solution. I think you hit on something pretty big--it's a problem with Linux in general, really. Could I get everything working on Linux? Sure, but it'd take a lot longer than it's worth, except in relatively rare cases. (Web server/dev machine? Sure, install Ubuntu Server and check off a few boxes in the installer. General desktop? Get back to me when audio doesn't completely suck.)
now I think standard way of video streaming (based on Theora) is *definetly* needed
You clearly don't think very well. Theora is shit. (Vorbis, on the other hand, is very nice.) When you have an alternative that is actually competitive, then you can talk about what standards are "definetly" needed.
The point is though that a fork of the GFDL is essentially what has happened here, but that the Creative Commons governing board is now in control rather than the Free Software Foundation
I can identify a PE executable without trouble, and I'm not a systems programmer at all. I'd be shocked if they couldn't chuck that into GNOME or something.
What would help IMHO is for linux to have advocacy, a marketing department, and general user friendliness polishes.
What would help Linux is to run games without WINE. Or, if you have to use WINE, make the use of it completely seamless. Somebody clicks on a game installer from a CD they put in the drive--"This is a Windows application, but Ubuntu can run this if you install a compatibility layer [don't name WINE by name, nobody cares]. Would you like to install the compatibility layer?" They click yes, you automatically apt-get WINE, launch the app. That alone would help with the grandma cases.
I'd probably use Word for the first draft. It's a word processor with a spell checker, that's enough for me (I used to use it for fiction, though I've gravitated toward stuff like yWriter as of late for that). For typesetting, though? Of course not. That's not what Word is for. But it's fine for long documents, at least in Word 2007. Heck, even Word 2003 was passable at dealing with documents up to about 300 pages on a reasonably new machine (though after using Word 2007, I'd never go back--it's just so damn nice). I have a hard time seeing the real value of TeX for writing such a long document, though, as opposed to typesetting it. What's the appeal? Every time I've ever had to use TeX has been under duress, so I don't claim to be unbiased, but it seems like a pain in the ass...
Slashdot Mirror
No, you stupid fuck. Clinton was "questioned" (the word you are looking for is "impearched") for lying in a sworn deposition. It had nothing to do with free speech--it had to do with lying.
Anybody in the US who wants to be able to listen to a baseball game without paying through the nose for shitty streaming audio cares.
I was referring more to the anti-copyright tardcrowd who thinks that such games would magically appear out of nothing, not you specifically. They glorify the "indie" and the "amateur" and sneer at the big business crowd who actually make the majority of worthwhile (non-music) entertainment.
As for Second Life--if you've ever tried it...well, I wouldn't want that either.
The whole concept of copyright law was built, for centuries, that copying something had an implied labor cost, it took some measure of effort to copy.
What the fuck are you smoking? It's built on the fact that creative works take effort to create. Copying has never been the difficult part of distributing a creative work.
And that creation cost still exists, and people who hurp-durp over "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE! I DON'T BELIEVE IN IMAGINARY PROPERTY! WAAAGH WAAGH!" never, ever, ever offer a real answer as to how to address that creation cost. Donations aren't it. Patronage isn't it. It's not like people will pay for tiered content when they could just steal that too. So what's the answer?
Heinlein supported copyright. Fuck off.
I'm not sure that with Web 2.0 another alternative, the return of the amateur, isn't the direction we are heading in instead.
It shocks me that people think that this is a good direction to be heading, too. It'd be a good way to kill the video game industry: you aren't going to make a Fallout or a Half-Life 2 or a on an "amateur" budget of zero; you just don't have the technology and manpower. Hell, the best indie RPG series I can think of (Avernum and/or Exile, by Spiderweb Software) is still pretty piddling in comparison to Baldur's Gate 2 or whatever, and I'm saying that as somebody who genuinely likes those indie games.
Do you honestly think that people in significant numbers are going to buy DRM-free content no matter what, at any price? These claims always seem bogus. If a company dropped DRM, I doubt that the number of people pirating it wouldn't change a bit.
Patronage is funny. The "people will pay ahead of time to fund something they want!" argument (the "modern patronage" system, if you will) is even funnier. It hinges on the idea that people are actually willing to invest in their entertainment before they get it--which, I think most people will agree, is not a characteristic of the people around us at all.
Neither group actually grasps how much money it takes to make an AAA video game or a modern movie--and realize, but don't acknowledge because it would defeat their silly ideas, that they aren't going to get that many "donations," nor will they get enough to fund the kind of entertainment that people actually want. You aren't going to see people want to play something like an older fixed-function-pipeline 3D game like Unreal Tournament or Deus Ex, no matter how good they are, because they aren't shiny. In their mythical donations-run-everything world, you wouldn't see the high-quality modern game engines, for example.
(Just go look at the open-source world. There are a few 3D engines out there, but they're all based off originally-closed-source iD Software code or are more than a little hackish; most are still in fixed-function land.)
Because what they want isn't a viable business model either. "Give us everything we want and don't make us pay for it" isn't going to be keeping people employed.
Make a framework that makes DEVELOPMENT easy and solid, THEN make it fast.
Maybe you should tell the Rails people this. Right now, they do neither.
If the goal of Rails was to be the fastest web framework then it probably WOULD BE.
Erm...no. For reasons so often repeated that it shocks me that you'd try to trot out this crap. Rails will never even be close to the "fastest" because its architecture is mouthbreathingly stupid and it is based on a comparatively slow language.
Well, quite frankly, because the FSF is a scary bunch of loons. Nevertheless, it's your right to use whatever you like, and I salute you for your convictions. :-)
Huh. Learn something new every day. Thanks!
The dislike of the GFDL is well justified. It's a badly written license (as is the GPL; every lawyer I know who's ever read either has laughed at how bad they are), it has incredibly stupid and awkward provisions (invariant sections, bad definitions of terms, the retitling requirements, and by a strict reading of the license having to include the entire fucking license when you print it off) and little merit.
What value is there to the GFDL that CC-by-sa does not provide?
Oh, please. Even that summary acknowledges that PSNR has always been overly generous toward Theora and that they tested a grand total of one clip.
Theora is big, relatively ugly, and has a habit of introducing artifacting. No, thank you.
As I recall, Windows 98 wouldn't have been able to do that. Something about the tick timer overflowing or something that wasn't fixed until NT.
>systeminfo
OS Name: Microsoftr Windows VistaT Home Premium
OS Version: 6.0.6001 Service Pack 1 Build 6001
OS Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
OS Configuration: Standalone Workstation
OS Build Type: Multiprocessor Free
Original Install Date: 2/27/2009, 6:47:00 PM
System Boot Time: 2/29/2009, 2:00:08 PM
Hmm. Looks OK to me. Certainly good enough for any normal desktop (which the machines in question are/will be). Thanks for playing.
This is the big thing about why WINE is a crappy solution. I think you hit on something pretty big--it's a problem with Linux in general, really. Could I get everything working on Linux? Sure, but it'd take a lot longer than it's worth, except in relatively rare cases. (Web server/dev machine? Sure, install Ubuntu Server and check off a few boxes in the installer. General desktop? Get back to me when audio doesn't completely suck.)
now I think standard way of video streaming (based on Theora) is *definetly* needed
You clearly don't think very well. Theora is shit. (Vorbis, on the other hand, is very nice.) When you have an alternative that is actually competitive, then you can talk about what standards are "definetly" needed.
Yeah, but at that point you're starting to break out of the form factor.
The point is though that a fork of the GFDL is essentially what has happened here, but that the Creative Commons governing board is now in control rather than the Free Software Foundation
You make this sound like a bad thing.
I can identify a PE executable without trouble, and I'm not a systems programmer at all. I'd be shocked if they couldn't chuck that into GNOME or something.
I tried it before I posted in 9.04 with Deus Ex, and got nowhere.
What would help IMHO is for linux to have advocacy, a marketing department, and general user friendliness polishes.
What would help Linux is to run games without WINE. Or, if you have to use WINE, make the use of it completely seamless. Somebody clicks on a game installer from a CD they put in the drive--"This is a Windows application, but Ubuntu can run this if you install a compatibility layer [don't name WINE by name, nobody cares]. Would you like to install the compatibility layer?" They click yes, you automatically apt-get WINE, launch the app. That alone would help with the grandma cases.
I'd probably use Word for the first draft. It's a word processor with a spell checker, that's enough for me (I used to use it for fiction, though I've gravitated toward stuff like yWriter as of late for that). For typesetting, though? Of course not. That's not what Word is for. But it's fine for long documents, at least in Word 2007. Heck, even Word 2003 was passable at dealing with documents up to about 300 pages on a reasonably new machine (though after using Word 2007, I'd never go back--it's just so damn nice). I have a hard time seeing the real value of TeX for writing such a long document, though, as opposed to typesetting it. What's the appeal? Every time I've ever had to use TeX has been under duress, so I don't claim to be unbiased, but it seems like a pain in the ass...
If I were to write a book, I'd be using FrameMaker, not TeX.