The fact that you punish people for saying something, anything, is basically a problem, in that it prevents free speech (speech IS with an 'e', in english ) rather than advocate it.

I don't care if people are muslims, christians, black, yellow, green, white or blue. If they are nazis or freedom fighters - as long as all they do is speak, I believe my ability to filter what is said will "protect" me... No law can ever do that.

Which brings me back to my point: The problem is not what's beeing said, the problem is peoples inability to interpret and evaluate. Yes, people, in general, are deaf dumb and blind, and yes, they fall prey to false rumors and lies. But no law can protect a fool from beeing run over by a train he didn't care to look for.

Han: I've noticed that you know your definitions. Ever considered the possibility that they are wrong? A definition, by definition, is not a law !

/Niels

If your just testing something out, you may want to use D3DRM, but I dont reccomend it. What would it really show you? It wouldnt be the same in IM. The speed would be different, and the implementation would be different.

I dont know the real reason D3DRM was stopped being updated, but I'm guessing because it was so slow. Nothing commerical could use something as slow as it and get away with it, not even with the new 700mhz processors. It'll show, and you'll wish you would of took the extra few hours to use IM instead.

If you want to do fast 3D development, use D3DX. I've found it to be quite good, and its quite fast, as fast as D3DIM to my knowledge. And it doesnt limit what you do. Its part of the DirectX 7 SDK, by the way.

Many people think D3DRM is all that, but its been shown that it is much slower then the other API's.

Oh well, its the actual programmers choice in the end. I'd reccomend D3DIM or D3DX. Just make sure your sure your really sure the API you choose is a good choice before you deploy it into a large project that would add alot of time to its development to change it to a fast 3D API.

Anyway, there is a huge difference between stealing and saying something. Namely, that the lies people spread won't affect me unless I choose to listen to them (Or someone else does, which brings me back to the point about not believing everything people tell you). However, if someone steal my wallet, that WILL affect me no matter if I try to ignore it or not.

Bottom line is, if you want absolute freedom of speech, you have to accept that people can say whatever they feel like, regardless of the truth value of it. As soon as you start defining "truth" you're on a sidetrack that leads one way: to oppression (And then you can really start talking conspiracy ).

Interresting discussion BTW, odd forum though ...

/Niels