Quoting: Doc AngeloDidn't know about the Linux version! Very nice! I'll take a look at this.

They're really supportive there and maybe now they have time to look into my patches for their first Edna and Harvey installment to maks it run on Linux natively (they told me they had something "big" to release first) :p

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: LeonardKOh, I also found a Type 5 online and would like to buy it, but the converters I found where either shady or self-built but old and with many dead links. Can you point me to a good resource for buying one or building your own?

I'm using this one: http://www.networktechinc.com/cgi-bin/keemux/usb-sun.html [External Link]

It works, but on Linux it has a minor issue - extra Sun keys (like Stop / Again on the left) aren't recognized, and brightness / volume ones aren't working either. But other than that it works well. With illumos, those keys are recognized.

I also saw this one: http://store.ultraspec.us/5168.html [External Link]

But I have never used it, so no idea if it's any better.

Thanks, kind of weird to see adapters of such simplicity actually to be so expensive, but it's a niche market I guess. Maybe I try the other one and report back!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlInteresting. Do they have full keyboards like that? I don't like minified keyboards without function keys and numpad. I'm currently using Sun Type 5 keyboard with USB converter, but I'd prefer something a bit more ergonomic but also using Unix layout.

Oh, I also found a Type 5 online and would like to buy it, but the converters I found where either shady or self-built but old and with many dead links. Can you point me to a good resource for buying one or building your own?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlYeah, swapping Caps Lock and Control is easy. But placing Escape in the second from the top row and Backspace in the third from the top is already hard. Especially Backspace, since it has a different shape.

The HHKBs do exactly that but are expensive.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI believe what Eike is getting at is that there are cases in which free speech creates actual harm. There are always edge cases--the main point of free speech is to protect expression of political opinions in disagreement with either the authorities or the majority of the citizens.
But stray from politics and there are always necessary limits; a naive extension of free speech absolutism about political expression to other realms just doesn't work. Examples of speech that nobody ever worries about criminalizing: Speech intended to seduce minors, speech in the service of fraud (eg phishing), false advertising . . . speech rights can come into conflict with other rights. The question is always just where to draw the lines, not whether there are any. Personally, I've found for instance that well moderated discussion lists which draw some lines are way better than "anything goes" lists because while in theory "anything goes" allows more freedom of speech, in practice what it allows is intimidation and the tactical use of offensiveness to drive away people who aren't megacombative. Given that, it could be argued that in largely declining to draw any lines, Valve are copping out, failing to protect other things, as much as they are protecting speech.

Exactly, some call "anything goes" als "positive freedom" in the sense as looking from the pov of the individual, there are no boundaries to their specific free speech.

But there's also negative freedom: How does the freedom of others impact (and limit) your freedom.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeKarl Popper about the problem ( "paradox of tolerance" ):
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Hooray, seeing Mr Popper cited outside of my philosophy class in school is cool!

It's important to understand that he is not saying anything about tolerating the extreme, it's about tolerating *intolerance*. Ie. accept (or at least don't reject them on this basis) even extreme positions if they aren't *intolerant*. This could be eg. "extreme capitalism" or "extreme communism" as they (per se) are not intolerant. However "extreme fascism" is intolerant, as is often enough "extreme anti-fascism".

But there are more facets to it than even this. And this is where I just cannot agree with Valve's decision, just looking away ain't good. "Leaving it to the educated adults on steam"? That's a lot of trust you put into those... "educated" "adults".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rkfgThis is really good. That's what real freedom of speech means.

No, not really. Freedom of Speech means that you cannot be taken by law or whatever for creating the content. It does not mean that we need to give such content a platform. It does not mean that the media have to cover something. That's *not* freedom of speech.

Freedom of speach/expression also means that people are allowed to attack you somewhat for distributing the content. It also means that people are allowed their own judgement and act after it. The same goes for Valve.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdaweThere's always a downside in having a more open store, with that I agree, but what we saw from Valve's previous policy is legitimate games getting reviewed by actual humans and being sent notices of removal.

But just because it was really bad before shouldn't mean we should congratulate them for doing something that *might* not be much better. It's the most primitive solution they chose, and it's perhaps a too easy way to really solve the problem.

Before sucked, but it's not "naturally the best thing to get rid of it" as often claimed, even in articles.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Smoke39

Quoting: LeonardKAlso many people criticized Valve for their Greenlight project because it had not enough curation. This is another restriction gone, which will mean many low-quality games might try get on there and make it difficult to find anything.

Content standards and quality standards are two completely different things. Banning anime tits isn't gonna do anything to stop asset flips.

It's just one additional point, also, while this is true, it makes managing a store like this much more difficult. Yes, they're different kinds of content, but if more content of some sorts is released, usually the barriers for others go down too, even if not intended so.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: noxWouldn't a company deciding what is good and bad for you also be troubling from a morale POV?

No, not per se. Eg., if they decide for themselves that they think content X is immoral and thus ban it from their store anr thus decide not to amke money with it, is not really immoral.

Personally I'd rather be disgusted by something, rather than knowing that someone got censored.

I think the impact of not-censoring is played too lightly here. Not-censoring does not just mean that some people feel disgusted. It can also mean, in the case of hate-crime related content or similar, that the discriminated against group feels even stronger oppressed because the oppression by some people gets a bigger platform. This will segregate the group even more from the non-oppressed. Additionally it somehow plays down such content, making it socially more acceptable to be immoral, and thus shapes our society, perhaps for the worse.

The impact of content we (even involuntarily) consume should not underestimated!

And, just like this discussion - people have different points of view. Different ideas, opinions. Censoring (more than required by law) would just be morally correct for the person deciding what's good and bad.

Well, kinda. But we can and should demand people to behave morally correct. This gives them a free-way to just ignore any morale-related issues.

View this comment - View article - View full comments