This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

41

Discussion / Re: Free Software GM

« on: August 26, 2007, 08:19:47 pm »

I'm not really working on it anymore since I haven't had Wine in months now after the reinstall. Without Wine I can't reverse engineer the format (and yes, I did it from scratch because the specs I found were wrong and I didn't find them reliable ). I have SOME code, but I doubt it's anything new to them (it's mostly just basic RE).

Seems like someone cracked the new encrypted GMK format then, eh? Well, the worst thing right now is that I can't find the document? There's an LGM.zip attachment but I would need to register and according to the replies apparently it only includes a binary .jar, completely useless for a programmer.

Other than that I already knew about the G-Creator project (although I think it was G-Java or GM-Java or something before?). I didn't really like the project, that's why I even wrote a new version myself. I wanted to write it in standard C because at the time Java was proprietary. Probably not a huge issue today since Java is (mostly) free software. Although, I don't like how they apparently provide binary jars now... Could someone with a login please tell me the contents of the zip file in the attachment: http://forums.g-java.com/index.php?showtopic=5315
Thank you.

Having it compatible with GM7 files is not possible. Mark clearly stated against it and added encryption to the source files. G-Java was originally a gm6 to java converter, now it has to just be a java game maker.

Well, what he wants is not what we want. And encryption is about as useless as any proprietary software. And it's possible to crack it. Although it might be illegal for the cracker in some countries (mainly in the USA), when the information is out it's not really illegal in most of the world. Americans could very well receive a copy from an European, because it's only the distribution that's illegal not the receiving, AFAIK.

EDIT: Oh, and could someone also try to get the GMKrypt file mentioned in the second post in the link I provided? Thanks.

42

Other Discussion / Re: Free software list (Last update: 2/20/07)

« on: August 26, 2007, 06:37:47 pm »

"Free software" or "free software", first letter capital depending on where in a sentence it is, means either software which is free according to the definition of Free Software Foundation, or it means free as in "no price". The latter however is better described as "freeware", if it does not give any additional freedoms, to avoid confusion (in the same way often the free as in freedom software is called "libre software").

"Free Software" (with both words starting capital), refers to the movement advocating free software with the definition of free as in "freedom" (not necessarily free of price unless it does under "free as in freedom" as well).

A compromise in naming the topic could be "Gratis software list" as this will avoid all ambiguity, because gratis always means "at no price"/"for nothing". Of course we could also just remove all the freeware, or make a new topic without it, and call it "Libre software list" which would avoid ambiguity in the other way, because libre always mean "free as in freedom".

Yes, but free software should only refer to free software.

well, there's an ambiguity in the word so it refers to both libre and gratis software. However, gratis software is more often known as freeware while libre software is more often known as "free software". Free software is the term used by the Free Software movement. But you can't avoid the fact that a lot of people use the term to describe gratis software. The best thing to do in that situation is to avoid the ambiguity by using more specific words, such as "libre" and "gratis".

That's true, but most people will probably think you're "Mexican" if you use libre and gratis.

In fact, my aunt doesn't like Ubuntu because it was made in South Africa.

Well, libre and gratis comes from Latin. And Spanish comes from Latin. And AFAIK Mexican comes from Spanish. In Swedish we don't have the ambiguity either because we say "fri" and "gratis" (we CAN use "fri" for gratis as well, but we would need to say "'fri' of price", but "fri" alone doesn't mean gratis... does that makes sense?). A lot of other germanic languages is like that as well.

And your aunt has some weird logic there... o_O; WTH?

She's a little racist.
... and paranoid. >_>

Kinda ironic, because I wouldn't be surprised if Ubuntu was mostly put together by the "white" population of South Africa. Not that it matters. Racists are mostly kinda ignorant anyway >.>

43

Debates / Re: Microsoft, what do you think about them

« on: August 26, 2007, 10:19:08 am »

And profit is a bad thing? If you like a program that happens to be shareware and you can afford it, chances are you won't be bitching about shelling out x amount of money to have the full version. Your money goes to improving said program so you can continue using the latest version.

He never said profit was a bad thing. He said that making proprietary software to make MORE profit is bad. There's really only one reason to make proprietary software, and that is if you can satisfy everyone in the world, and we assume that no one wants to know how it works! BUT good luck, it can't happen, it's not practical, that's why practically all proprietary software is bad (in our opinion). You know, the good point with free software... or what you call "open source" (which is a totally different thing, see below)... is that you can pay SOMEONE ELSE to improve said program. Oh, and you can do it for yourself too, if you have the knowledge. And you know, sometimes developers of proprietary software do not want to "improve" the latest version; just look at Vista. Also, they might not "improve" it the way you want it.

Agreed. Making profit with good software is not a problem, but not if you try to make MORE profit using sick ways of attracting 'noobs' who never touched a computer before. To buy their overpriced software, which are also very buggy.

Difference between "free software" and "open source":
Free software about giving the user total freedom over the software they use. Concept started in the early 80s.
    *  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Open source on the other hand, started in the mid-90s. They do use free software licenses, BUT NOT (or rarely) for the reasons to give users freedom. They do it because they believe it simply makes better software than proprietary software. They see free software (or what they call "open source") a technical advantage, and not for ethical reasons. That means they accept software which is not as free as free software movements wants it to be. In some cases only a programmer can get an advantage in open source, but not a regular user. The regular user is still stuck in the program he got, but the programmer is free to see the code just for the purpose of improving it for the main developers.

General quotes with critique against proprietary software.
Open Source-ENTHUSIAST: "We make better software than you because we have 1000 of eyes that look for bugs, anyone can contribute!"
Free Software-ACTIVIST: "Our software is better because we allow the user to have freedom in using the software. That means they can do anything with the software, as long as they don't deny someone else's freedoms in the process."

See the difference?

Actually, I support Free Software more than Open Source. Open Source is really great that you can read and change their source code to fix bugs and tune up the software. But what if some people which are bad, and copy's the code and change every name and copyrights to their own, and modify it as much as possible to make their own stolen Software? Free Software is in this way better IMO. Like Venus said, they are free to use whenever you want.

But I can tell you one thing. Microsoft products are usually NOT Free. You have to buy Microsoft Windows Vista for running their free software that's for Vista-only, you have to buy Microsoft Office for getting their whole crappy set of software like Word, Exel, Outlook, Powerpoint and a lot more like these. Games like Halo 2 may sound nice, it's not free, but not that expensive? But you HAVE to buy Microsoft Windows Vista before you can run it.

I think you misunderstood. Free Software and Open Source practically means almost the same thing. They both allow commercial use, and they both require that the source is available and that you can modify it and so on. The only major difference is in for what reason the respective group advocate this. Like said, Free Software does it because they believe it's a human right to have this freedom. Open Source on the other hand see technical advantage. Free software has nothing to do with price. It's very possible to sell free software, even if you didn't develop it.

44

Entertainment / Re: My cousin's band just got signed to Epitaph Records...

« on: August 25, 2007, 02:49:32 pm »

Can't any of you people just be happy for him? o_o

I agree. The "Anything Should Be Free Squad" has hijacked a thread once more.

Ugh, I was going to say the same thing... all this " FREE IS RIGHTEOUS! " !@#$% is pissing me off...

Makes us three. His cousin's music will be spread to the masses, he will earn cash, he will most likely get tons of new fans as well.

You sound more like you have a grudge towards people with success, I hate your "GO GO FREEDOM FIGHTER SQUAD ALPHA GAMMA ULTRA MAX!!" thing you've got going. :\ Granted, I don't know a whole lot about the music industry, but I'm quite certain you're blowing it up quite a bit.

I'm not sure exactly how you can come to that conclusion since I'm actually trying to give an advice here o_O If he doesn't want to listen to it he can ignore it, right? Seriously, I don't really expect him to listen to me, but like I said, IF I'm right in the end, then at least he will try to convince his friends in the future. And here me advice takes real effect, because friends trust friends and they will hopefully listen before the damage is done next time.

Also, I don't really see it as success. -_-;; I know you can think it could just be empty words, but I swear that if I got the question to sign to a record label that I do not trust, I would NOT accept. And I would definitely not trust a label that demands the copyright to my work. The copyright laws are there to protect me, and not my publisher! I could give them rights to distribute it, but I would never give them all the rights.

How can you even bother comparing BRITNEY SPEARS to a real band? That's absurd, she certainly doesn't own her songs, she doesn't even write them D:

I used Britney Spears as an example for something totally different. Also, I didn't use her as a person as an example, I used one of her CDs (which has an owner, although, like you said; not her). It was used to explain for BlueMonkey that just because you made something it does not mean you have the rights for it. Or just because it says your name on it, it does not mean you made it or have the rights.
It's so simple that if you sell the rights (or even give them away in hope to get the money later for sales) you don't have them anymore, even if you made it. The one who now owns it (most likely the record company) has full control over it, just like if they made it.

In some countries, like in Sweden. It's not possible to transfer some rights. You can transfer rights to make money on it and so on, but you can't transfer the right to get credit for the work. So if you sign to a Swedish record label it's legally impossible to see your music distributed under some other name (at least in Sweden), even how much rights you try to give away. (you can however choose to ignore it, and it's not illegal for the distributor unless you choose to bring it up)

45

Entertainment / Re: My cousin's band just got signed to Epitaph Records...

« on: August 25, 2007, 10:55:53 am »

Can't any of you people just be happy for him? o_o

I agree. The "Anything Should Be Free Squad" has hijacked a thread once more.

That is "Everyone should be free", thank you. How we try to reach this goal depends on situation. You can't really make a comparison between free software and this. They are two entirely different things, but my arguments are both based on the fact that I want everyone to be free for a free society. In this case, I don't want his music to be free, I want himself to be free from the control of the label.

Solarrain, I hope your cousin enjoys some success and can make some actual money. Getting signed to a major label is not a dirty feat, despite of what Venus is trying to tell you. If you want to be big, they are a necessary evil. Releasing mp3s on some website will never get his band to establish themselves.

-_-
It's just an advice. A recommendation. I just give it because if the label would screw his cousin (not literally) later he would remember me and give the advice further. I guess you really don't see that problem with today's society. Or maybe you prefer to not see it.

And you really have no idea about the powers of the Internet Chances are he would get the music distributed to a lot more people that way, although he would probably have a lower "paid to receive"-ratio and maybe lower "known to have received"-ratio (for whatever reason one would care). But if he only cares about making some money from the music a couple of months and he doesn't mind to give away the rights to the music and have no control of it in the process then sure, any major label is for him. Oh, and if you haven't understood it yet. Giving away the rights to your own music pretty much means the label can decide whether or not to distribute it (because you are most likely not allowed to do it yourself anymore). There have been many cases where book-authors have sold their rights to a book to some publisher and then the publisher has refused to release more copies after a year or so (because it doesn't sell enough) but the author still doesn't get his rights back (and so no one can receive and read the book at all). The same happens to music, although in that case an album starts to sell a lot less after a couple of months or so (max one year), at least for new artists.

46

Other Discussion / Re: Game Maker on Mac OS X

« on: August 24, 2007, 09:14:02 am »

I'm just gonna say this:
Humans cannot evolve. If anything, lacking natural predators and dangerous environments, humanity is more likely to turn into some giant pile of goo than some higher species.

And why would we tremble in fear, you ask? Because now many Mac fans are gonna use this as 'proof' of Macs superiority, until it doesn't run the games. This they ignore because it goes against their belief, and will dismiss it.

Humanity is stupid like that, always has been. Why do you think we have such trivial things as superstition? It sure as hell doesn't come from logic.

Humans indeed can and will evolve. It is happening now as always. With technology, it could come even faster than you think, but it will be sure to upset some fundies. This should be in a new topic, since there is quite a lot to say about this.

The problem is creating paid software is ALL about profit, as is 99.99999% of everything else in everyday life. I can think of no way to release the source without loosing profit. It'd be even worse than the profit lost through Torrents etc. because it'd be another hole for the money to fall through.

As for Free software, if a person doesn't want to release it, then I still say it is their right to do so. No-one likes to see clones of their own game everywhere

Releasing the source only gives the user more control after they have bought the software. Of course selling software (actually it's selling a "license to use", not the actual software) is an ancient concept. In the future, with free software, you will make money by selling binaries compiled from monstrous amount of source code (which can take several weeks to compile!). That's selling a service rather than TRYING to sell something immaterial as it was a material thing (which is the case of the ancient method, the one STILL used by proprietary software developers today).

And actually there are people who LOVE to see clones of their games everywhere. If the clone is exact, they know people probably like their games (assuming the use it because they like it). If it's a modified version they know some developer liked their original game but wanted to change a bit on it to make it even better for THEM (you know, not everyone's definition of good and bad is the same). However the important part is not success, IMO, it's letting everyone has the same freedom as you have.

Anyway, our conflict here is a clash of two different philosophies on life. Mine being if you are not the centre of your life, it isn't a life worth living, and everything you do should be to advance yourself in some way. Not sure what yours is, but I can gather it differs from mine

You can't advance yourself with proprietary software. If you are using proprietary software right now, you are being controlled by another entity than yourself. I'm not sure how you can advance yourself that way. Also, if you release something as free software you could see it as personal advancing even if in fact you let everyone else advance as well. I mean, advancing doesn't necessarily have to mean that you get everything YOU feel is good and everything/everyone else does not get it (or that they even get what YOU think is bad). Either way, releasing free software doesn't restrict yourself, it only gives everyone the same freedom as you have, and at the same time you get that fuzzy feeling from making something good the community (a way of advancing, IMO).

I agree with you, but I doubt massive amounts of source code are a good thing, because there is a much larger chance of bugs and bloat.

Sometimes it can't be avoided. For example OpenOffice.org is huuuuuuge (for obvious reasons). Took me 6 hours to compile that !@#$% (on a 1.7 Ghz Celeron). And Gnome with all applications and X together took like 9 hours on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 (I didn't time that one though, so I don't know exactly, but I DO know it took like the whole day to install and configure it all, a lot of the time being compilation). Yes, I compile all software myself <_<;;

lol gentoo

I personally like apt-get much more.

The only thing I don't like with the standard gentoo portage is that I can't filter by acceptable licenses. On a few occasions it has tried to install non-free software in form of dependencies D: But that problem is in apt-get as well. The only way to filter there is by using a free repository (I think), such as the one gNewSense provides.

Good thing that Ubuntu already does that.

If you mean filtering away non-free software, no it doesn't. It allows you to deactivate SOME non-free drivers though.

It has different repositories for non-free software.

They must've changed that in some later version then because I don't remember it so D:

47

Other Discussion / Re: Game Maker on Mac OS X

« on: August 22, 2007, 07:11:53 pm »

I'm just gonna say this:
Humans cannot evolve. If anything, lacking natural predators and dangerous environments, humanity is more likely to turn into some giant pile of goo than some higher species.

And why would we tremble in fear, you ask? Because now many Mac fans are gonna use this as 'proof' of Macs superiority, until it doesn't run the games. This they ignore because it goes against their belief, and will dismiss it.

Humanity is stupid like that, always has been. Why do you think we have such trivial things as superstition? It sure as hell doesn't come from logic.

Humans indeed can and will evolve. It is happening now as always. With technology, it could come even faster than you think, but it will be sure to upset some fundies. This should be in a new topic, since there is quite a lot to say about this.

The problem is creating paid software is ALL about profit, as is 99.99999% of everything else in everyday life. I can think of no way to release the source without loosing profit. It'd be even worse than the profit lost through Torrents etc. because it'd be another hole for the money to fall through.

As for Free software, if a person doesn't want to release it, then I still say it is their right to do so. No-one likes to see clones of their own game everywhere

Releasing the source only gives the user more control after they have bought the software. Of course selling software (actually it's selling a "license to use", not the actual software) is an ancient concept. In the future, with free software, you will make money by selling binaries compiled from monstrous amount of source code (which can take several weeks to compile!). That's selling a service rather than TRYING to sell something immaterial as it was a material thing (which is the case of the ancient method, the one STILL used by proprietary software developers today).

And actually there are people who LOVE to see clones of their games everywhere. If the clone is exact, they know people probably like their games (assuming the use it because they like it). If it's a modified version they know some developer liked their original game but wanted to change a bit on it to make it even better for THEM (you know, not everyone's definition of good and bad is the same). However the important part is not success, IMO, it's letting everyone has the same freedom as you have.

Anyway, our conflict here is a clash of two different philosophies on life. Mine being if you are not the centre of your life, it isn't a life worth living, and everything you do should be to advance yourself in some way. Not sure what yours is, but I can gather it differs from mine

You can't advance yourself with proprietary software. If you are using proprietary software right now, you are being controlled by another entity than yourself. I'm not sure how you can advance yourself that way. Also, if you release something as free software you could see it as personal advancing even if in fact you let everyone else advance as well. I mean, advancing doesn't necessarily have to mean that you get everything YOU feel is good and everything/everyone else does not get it (or that they even get what YOU think is bad). Either way, releasing free software doesn't restrict yourself, it only gives everyone the same freedom as you have, and at the same time you get that fuzzy feeling from making something good the community (a way of advancing, IMO).

I agree with you, but I doubt massive amounts of source code are a good thing, because there is a much larger chance of bugs and bloat.

Sometimes it can't be avoided. For example OpenOffice.org is huuuuuuge (for obvious reasons). Took me 6 hours to compile that !@#$% (on a 1.7 Ghz Celeron). And Gnome with all applications and X together took like 9 hours on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 (I didn't time that one though, so I don't know exactly, but I DO know it took like the whole day to install and configure it all, a lot of the time being compilation). Yes, I compile all software myself <_<;;

lol gentoo

I personally like apt-get much more.

The only thing I don't like with the standard gentoo portage is that I can't filter by acceptable licenses. On a few occasions it has tried to install non-free software in form of dependencies D: But that problem is in apt-get as well. The only way to filter there is by using a free repository (I think), such as the one gNewSense provides.

Good thing that Ubuntu already does that.

If you mean filtering away non-free software, no it doesn't. It allows you to deactivate SOME non-free drivers though.

48

Debates / Re: OCCC (Oklahoma City Community College) supports Game Maker! THE DEBATE

« on: August 22, 2007, 07:06:43 pm »

Best kick in the teeth for yoyo games would be to make a fan game with it and do your best.
If they want rights to it, let em'. Then they will be the ones dealing with the copyright infringement charge.

No, in that case they would probably sue you because the EULA says you can't do that as well (making fan games using copyright restricted resources).

49

Debates / Re: OCCC (Oklahoma City Community College) supports Game Maker! THE DEBATE

« on: August 20, 2007, 06:35:11 am »

Venus, this is ridiculous, what in God's name are you rambling about?  How does a company owning the software prevent you from learning?  By that logic, 3DS Max can't be educational to an art student because a company owns it.  wtf. 

Also, why the hell would you want to modify Game Maker's source code?  That doesn't make sense.  The point of an introductory programming class is to introduce students to basic level programming, which Game Maker just so happens to provide.

Also, i'm moving this to debates.

edit: lol, beaten to it.

Exactly, 3DS Max shouldn't be used in education. If it was free software, then yes, it could be used.

It's a question about right. Even if you're not even going to touch the source code files or even bother to get them, it's still something you should have the right to do, just in case you or someone else that you redistribute to might want it. It's an essential part for free software in a free society. This because without the source code it's not possible to modify the software or almost more importantly: learn from it.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
http://www.gnu.org/education/

There's some good links I found that described about software and owners. The last link is about software in education. I recommend reading it for those interested.

50

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 20, 2007, 06:20:55 am »

@Venus: Yes. To compose you either have to know the theory or have good hearing ability. The theory helps you so that you can express an emotion more clearly, but many people compose without realising the theory. But Beethoven, who was deaf, could only use the theory to compose, or the song wouldn't sound the way he wanted.

I think everyone has good hearing ability (unless they are, deaf of course). I think most people creating music know when something sounds like they want it to whether they care about any hearing ability or not

51

Entertainment / Re: My cousin's band just got signed to Epitaph Records...

« on: August 20, 2007, 06:18:52 am »

How would the record label do that? I'm not really following you, Bert. If his name is on the stuff, it's still his. I mean, that "fat guy with top hat" sure as hell didn't sing them.

If you take a CD with Britney Spears and put your name on it, is it yours? No it isn't. In the same way if you give your record label the rights to the music you don't own it anymore and they can do whatever they want (unless you have a contract). The name they put on it could even be part of the contract. If you leave the label you break the contract and unless you have made sure the contract says otherwise, you will not get back the rights to the music you made. It's quite complex stuff.

52

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 19, 2007, 10:38:33 pm »

Basically every single piece of music ever that has been vaguely listenable, has been based on SOME kind of musical theory. It might not be always the same musical theory but there's always something in it that fits to some kind of order, not just some random rubbish - whether that was intended or not.

I'm not exactly sure if you agree or disagreed with me. But I think I agree with what you wrote there. Except "random rubbish".

Basically every single piece of music ever that has been vaguely listenable, has been based on SOME kind of musical theory. It might not be always the same musical theory but there's always something in it that fits to some kind of order, not just some random rubbish - whether that was intended or not.

That's it.

@Venus: Please don't overuse capitals, it makes it seem we are arguing about this. But anyway, do you really know what is music theory? It's a study of what patterns composers use on their music and what feelings they represent. For instance: the most used combinations are Minor and Major, which usually represent, respectively, sad and happy feelings. For instance, the song "Happy Birthday to you" uses melody and harmony in Major tones. But if you transfer it to Minor, it becomes something more similar to funeral music (yes, it sounds really creepy). And if you manage to combine major and minor correctly in the same music you can express various different emotions. Similarly, music theory also studies rhythms of music. You can have 4/4, 3/4, 6/8, etc. 4/4 is by far the most used rhythm, because it's easy to manipulate (all the intervals of time in the music are multiples of 2, so that you can balance it well). 3/4 is the second most used rhythm, it's usually used in waltz and ballet, because it fits the rhythm of this sort of dance. However, 5/4, 7/4 and 9/8 sound unusual to our ears, and it takes some time until we get used to the rhythm of the song. It's not considered a bad pattern, it's only unusual. These rhythms are also much more difficult to compose in, because you have to use notes in intervals that sum 5, 7 and 9. But I'm sure that I've learned a beautiful Beethoven sonata in 5/4. Though I've only seen one 7/8 track so far, it was a horror theme. I've composed a 9/8 music once, because it wouldn't fit the 4/4 key, but it really isn't common. It's also possible to compose part of a song in one rhythm and the other part in another, but you would have to add a pause so that it doesn't become a too sudden change and sound difficult for the hearer to assimilate.

Sorry for the capitals. I use them rather than formating my text because it's what is often used in "non-formattable" enviroment (such as plain text). You are not supposed to read it like I raise my voice, only putting emphasize on the word

I still don't agree. I could make a song without caring if it was in 4/4, 3/4, 5/4 or even 125/66 but of course it could probably be measured to be something, but that doesn't change the fact that I made up the song without caring So in that way I mean you can create it without knowing anything about music theory. It's not essential to create music, it might however be essential to describe music. You don't need to be able to describe music to create it, just like you don't need to be able to describe an emotion to feel it. Am I making sense now? I'm sorry if I am not.. D:

53

Debates / Re: OCCC (Oklahoma City Community College) supports Game Maker!

« on: August 19, 2007, 10:25:14 pm »

But don't you realize what effects it has on society? Universities will become commercial organizations with the goal of using students to produce proprietary software used only for commercial interest and not for academic interest? Universities and schools are supposed to have the goal of teaching and research information. It's there to make new information (both for mankind and the individual) made available for the good of the society. GameMaker simply isn't made to help reach that goal. Since it's proprietary software and owned by a central organization such as YoYo Games it's really anti-academic. Either the university/school would have to develop it's own free alt., or they would have to use a free alt. made by someone else. Free software has no owners, it's decentralized and it allows you learn. For example, it lets you see the source code and modify it for your needs or help your neighbor. That's something an IT-student should expect to be able to do, if he or she wants. Using GameMaker for education effectively denies the students' rights to do this. GameMaker might be really useful and sexy for some, but that's really only what it is. That's only what it gives you and it's not enough! You shouldn't just accept that, and definitely a school shouldn't make that decision for the students and force them to accept it!

54

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 19, 2007, 09:51:11 pm »

IMO, if it's you first instrument (including voice as instrument), you usually don't have as much "hearing ability" (I mean, the ability to identify the notes and the combinations) as someone who has learned more instruments or has experience in music. If you do that, it's probable that when you play a music you think that you're playing the correct notes, but people who have a better "hearing ability" will notice that there are wrong notes in the context. Also, if you know musical theory, you are able to know if a combination of notes sounds good without hearing it, so if you don't have much hearing ability, but you know musical theory, you're still able to identify the wrong notes of a song when you analyze the musical notation.

IMO, there's no "right" and "wrong". There are tons of musicians that play out of tune and what you call "wrong" because they find it much more artistic and enjoyable. Of course they seldom do this "just because", but they don't want to put up boundaries for themselves, they want artistic freedom, they want to be able to do anything even if it's breaking conventional music "rules".

Music theory are not conventions. The names they give to the combinations, the symbols used in musical notation yes, are conventions. But music theory is taught so that you learn what notes match and what feeling they transmit to the ones are listening the music. Musical theory tells you if the notes match or not, and when the notes don't match they usually sound very disturbing. In soundtracks for horror movies they sometimes break these rules to provoke fear and suspense, because the notes sound disturbing and uncommon. But you're taught that these uncommon combinations transmit this feeling, and they are not used in songs, because people don't like to sing or hear these combinations.

So when you're playing a song by heart, if you forget some notes, you can apply music theory in the song to discover what notes are missing. But if you apply it in the wrong way, the notes won't match and the song will sound disturbing.

If you don't know how to read musical notation, and you don't know musical theory, and you're self-teaching yourself; it is very difficult for you to learn a song by heart, unless you have an excellent hearing ability to analyse the harmony and the melody of the song.

No, I don't believe a word of what you say. I think you should be able to play however you want. You basically say that if you don't follow music theory the music will sound bad, disturbing or unappealing. But that's not true at all! You forget one thing; what is good and bad is NOT the same for everyone. I enjoy a lot of music where the musicians just sat down and forgot everything about notes, music theory and so on and just EXPERIMENTED. In the end they have improvised a good piece without even thinking of what they did. They might have followed music theory without thinking about it, but a lot of it is probably breaking it. Either way, it still sounds good. At least for those who like it (duh). Oh, and there ARE people who like it.

I'm not saying following music theory is BAD (I enjoy a lot of music based on it as well). But I AM saying that not following it doesn't necessarily make it bad.

55

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 19, 2007, 07:27:51 pm »

IMO, if it's you first instrument (including voice as instrument), you usually don't have as much "hearing ability" (I mean, the ability to identify the notes and the combinations) as someone who has learned more instruments or has experience in music. If you do that, it's probable that when you play a music you think that you're playing the correct notes, but people who have a better "hearing ability" will notice that there are wrong notes in the context. Also, if you know musical theory, you are able to know if a combination of notes sounds good without hearing it, so if you don't have much hearing ability, but you know musical theory, you're still able to identify the wrong notes of a song when you analyze the musical notation.

IMO, there's no "right" and "wrong". There are tons of musicians that play out of tune and what you call "wrong" because they find it much more artistic and enjoyable. Of course they seldom do this "just because", but they don't want to put up boundaries for themselves, they want artistic freedom, they want to be able to do anything even if it's breaking conventional music "rules".

56

Debates / Re: OCCC (Oklahoma City Community College) supports Game Maker! PLZ READ

« on: August 19, 2007, 07:12:55 pm »

This is !@#$% insane!!


Seriously, this is probably the worst mistake of decision someone has ever made since Bush and his friends decided to declare war on Iraq. Well, pretty close at least.

Where the hell is the world getting to? Tomorrow we will have driving schools only teaching you to drive a certain brand. !@#$%.

Not everyone can be pro C++  programmers

This is not a question about language. See below.

This is !@#$% insane!!


Seriously, this is probably the worst mistake of decision someone has ever made since Bush and his friends decided to declare war on Iraq. Well, pretty close at least.

Where the hell is the world getting to? Tomorrow we will have driving schools only teaching you to drive a certain brand. !@#$%.

Lol, it's hardly like they're only teaching Game Maker. They're just making the software available freely to students and making sure people know how to use it.

"Freely available?" HEEEEEELL NO. Have you read the copyright license for Game Maker? It more or less says that if you make a good game YoYo Games can demand the rights to it. Where the hell is the education going if students can't make something without getting it stolen by some !@#$% commercial-driven organization who happens to sponsor the !@#$%? It's !@#$% insane. Academic and educational institution should use REAL freely available and neutral tools. Otherwise they will lose their primary goal; to teach and let people learn. You can't learn with Game Maker; it restricts you too much (and I don't mean that in a technical way; I mean it restricts what rights you have, and among them is the right to learn!)

I'm sure yoyo games will never ty to get the rights for your game, they probably just put it in there for whatever.

O_O;; That was the worst excuse EVER. Seriously. And either way, there are tons of other problems with the license. For example they don't provide you with the source code to the program. That's like giving an edu-book to students and forbid them to read the actual text. Such things shouldn't be used on an on a school. There are tons of better and more free alternatives to Game Maker, just as good and dare I say even better?

It's not an excuse.

some people don't want you looking at their source code >.>

And then at least such programs don't belong in a school or university.

Venus, stop being paranoid and get off those damn drugs. A college uses Gamemaker. AWNAWS THE WORLD ENDS.. -.-

It's a very serious thing. Of course, if you prefer a world where you have no freedom, where you can't learn, where you can't teach, and so on, sure then it's not so serious. However I don't prefer that kind of world and every sign I see of that world coming closer I must make sure people see it from another perspective which they might never have seen it before.

For example. A lot of people here might object to the decision because GameMaker is inferior technically and while I do agree with them for objecting, they might forget that there are much more important things than what's powerful enough to teach. In fact, if GameMaker was ethical (for example by being free software) I would love to see it being used by interested new students to learn the basics.

At the same time, the people who swallow and accept these decisions without thinking twice, I give them the opportunity to know more what's behind these decisions and how they might affect the society. Of course in the end they can choose what they think and what they will be doing about it, if anything at all.

I'm sorry, but I can't really see the world getting to this, and I do have the right to inform, so stop being an ass. If you don't agree with me then ignore me. I'm only asking you to listen to me if you want to listen to me.

You're acting like Game Maker is being run by communists, you're going way overboard man.

Communism in any of its forms really has nothing to do with this. You're the one going overboard by even accusing me of something so silly and trying to make a point at the same time. >_>
If you want to criticize me, please do it in a better way (hey, at least so I can actually understand your criticism!), or otherwise you'll be ignored. Thank you.

57

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 19, 2007, 02:09:03 pm »

Btw, are you teaching yourself? I am- it's so much more worth it, imo. Guitar lessons are a waste of money nowadays.

You'll never learn a lot of important stuff, if you teach yourself. I've always, always, sworn by learning from a good teacher. That's half the reason why I'm so much better at guitar than anything else - I'm self-taught on everything else. I'm not bad, but not brilliant either.

Yeah, self-teaching in music is quite difficult. Specially for your first instrument, because you wouldn't have theorical knowledge on music. But I know a few people who learned how to play the guitar alone, though.

I'm not even talking about just theory; especially for guitar, there's a lot of technique and things like fretboard patterns that most people will never learn on their own, because it either never occurs to them, or they never bother to look into it.

It's not really a problem though. No one is forcing you to play for example the guitar like you are "supposed to". No one is even forcing you to play with music theory in mind. If it sounds good to yourself, why bother play conventional?

You can better take lessons AND teaching yourself. So you'll play better than the rest of your music class, just what I did

Sure if it works for you, why not? You shouldn't expect everyone to do it the same way as you do though.

58

Feedback / FFS Fix the newsbox D:

« on: August 19, 2007, 12:47:23 pm »

Seriously, almost every time you make an edit in it you make the mistake of having them non-equal height. The main-page keeps bouncing up and down, it's annoying D:

Plx fix kthxbai.

59

Entertainment / Re: Who plays music here?

« on: August 19, 2007, 12:07:28 pm »

Btw, are you teaching yourself? I am- it's so much more worth it, imo. Guitar lessons are a waste of money nowadays.

You'll never learn a lot of important stuff, if you teach yourself. I've always, always, sworn by learning from a good teacher. That's half the reason why I'm so much better at guitar than anything else - I'm self-taught on everything else. I'm not bad, but not brilliant either.

Yeah, self-teaching in music is quite difficult. Specially for your first instrument, because you wouldn't have theorical knowledge on music. But I know a few people who learned how to play the guitar alone, though.

I'm not even talking about just theory; especially for guitar, there's a lot of technique and things like fretboard patterns that most people will never learn on their own, because it either never occurs to them, or they never bother to look into it.

It's not really a problem though. No one is forcing you to play for example the guitar like you are "supposed to". No one is even forcing you to play with music theory in mind. If it sounds good to yourself, why bother play conventional?

60

Debates / Re: OCCC (Oklahoma City Community College) supports Game Maker! PLZ READ

« on: August 19, 2007, 11:59:00 am »

This is !@#$% insane!!


Seriously, this is probably the worst mistake of decision someone has ever made since Bush and his friends decided to declare war on Iraq. Well, pretty close at least.

Where the hell is the world getting to? Tomorrow we will have driving schools only teaching you to drive a certain brand. !@#$%.

Not everyone can be pro C++  programmers

This is not a question about language. See below.

This is !@#$% insane!!


Seriously, this is probably the worst mistake of decision someone has ever made since Bush and his friends decided to declare war on Iraq. Well, pretty close at least.

Where the hell is the world getting to? Tomorrow we will have driving schools only teaching you to drive a certain brand. !@#$%.

Lol, it's hardly like they're only teaching Game Maker. They're just making the software available freely to students and making sure people know how to use it.

"Freely available?" HEEEEEELL NO. Have you read the copyright license for Game Maker? It more or less says that if you make a good game YoYo Games can demand the rights to it. Where the hell is the education going if students can't make something without getting it stolen by some !@#$% commercial-driven organization who happens to sponsor the !@#$%? It's !@#$% insane. Academic and educational institution should use REAL freely available and neutral tools. Otherwise they will lose their primary goal; to teach and let people learn. You can't learn with Game Maker; it restricts you too much (and I don't mean that in a technical way; I mean it restricts what rights you have, and among them is the right to learn!)

I'm sure yoyo games will never ty to get the rights for your game, they probably just put it in there for whatever.

O_O;; That was the worst excuse EVER. Seriously. And either way, there are tons of other problems with the license. For example they don't provide you with the source code to the program. That's like giving an edu-book to students and forbid them to read the actual text. Such things shouldn't be used on an on a school. There are tons of better and more free alternatives to Game Maker, just as good and dare I say even better?

It's not an excuse.

some people don't want you looking at their source code >.>

And then at least such programs don't belong in a school or university.

Venus, stop being paranoid and get off those damn drugs. A college uses Gamemaker. AWNAWS THE WORLD ENDS.. -.-

It's a very serious thing. Of course, if you prefer a world where you have no freedom, where you can't learn, where you can't teach, and so on, sure then it's not so serious. However I don't prefer that kind of world and every sign I see of that world coming closer I must make sure people see it from another perspective which they might never have seen it before.

For example. A lot of people here might object to the decision because GameMaker is inferior technically and while I do agree with them for objecting, they might forget that there are much more important things than what's powerful enough to teach. In fact, if GameMaker was ethical (for example by being free software) I would love to see it being used by interested new students to learn the basics.

At the same time, the people who swallow and accept these decisions without thinking twice, I give them the opportunity to know more what's behind these decisions and how they might affect the society. Of course in the end they can choose what they think and what they will be doing about it, if anything at all.

I'm sorry, but I can't really see the world getting to this, and I do have the right to inform, so stop being an ass. If you don't agree with me then ignore me. I'm only asking you to listen to me if you want to listen to me.