My wife, an American (from Michigan) has not yet heard a single Canadian say "aboot" in the three years she's lived here (Edmonton). She says so anytime she hears some dumbass on tv say "aboot" in reference to the Canadian "accent". Maybe it's some out east or butt-fuck Saskatchewan thing, but pretty much everyone around here has a very American-television accent (think: Dan Rather-ish); probably because 95% of our media is piped in from the south.
Anyhow, she did notice that many of us Canadians pronounce "process" with a long "o" instead of like "prahsess".
I was the lead technical architect/developer of the 8th IAAF World Championships in Athletics web site. The event, though considerably smaller in scale than a full blown Olympics, is still a hotbed of organizational politics. Inevitable given the nature of these sorts of events.
What you say about "design by committee" is entirely true; it was very difficult to walk the fine line of balance between wants and needs. Those with the most clout usually got their way unless you could present an extremely convincing argument. Needless to say, a lot of time was spent losing debates rather than constructing the product.
The first priority of the site, before the actual event, was to drive people to ticketmaster. Priority number two was "please our sponsors" and keep them happy. Number three was providing actual interesting content. And number four was considerations such as accessibility.
Personally, I didn't have a major problem with that. Sure, I wished that the commitee was a bit more visionary, but in the end the site accomplished exactly what it set out to do. I suspect that the Olympic site operates under a similar set of priorities and if it satisfies them, will ultimately be judged a success.
However, it is quite curious that their standards are so high. You'd think that they'd realise that the more people that could get to the site, the more opportunities they'd have to influence people to buy tickets. Oh well, that isn't my call.
To be honest, my experience was entirely worth it. It really tested my people skills, even if it didn't tax my technical skills. Fortunately, it all came up roses in the end, even if I'm very concious of the flaws in the end result.
Personally, I'd say that you might've passed up on a golden opportunity.
Re:For those interested in the Singularity
on
True Names
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "the singularity" simply refer to the point in time where something happens which changes things so fundamentally that we can't accurately predict what things will be like beyond that point? What that something is doesn't necessarily have to be AI, though at this moment it appears to be one of the most likely occurences.
It's times like these when I wish I were a moderator.
I had exactly the same sort of experience, when I was in school, with teaching my classmates to transcend "language" to get at the roots of programming/computing. I still face this problem every single day in my workplace. Language/platform zealots are everywhere.
My colleagues find it amusing that in my spare time at work I try to learn a new language/platform. When they don't have anything to do, I tell them that they should learn a new language and give the same reasons that you do. It is sad that they never take my advice.
I'm not sure about your analysis of the economics of the PS2, so I'll accept them as likely to be true. However, I don't believe in your assertion that the PS2 is garaunteed to dominate. I think you are forgetting about just how much most developers despise the PS2 (allegedly, of course).
The way I can see SONY losing its console crown is through a developer migration to the XBox and GC, two system deisgned to be developer friendly. If the majority of developers migrate to either of these platforms as their primary target, that relegates the PS2 to second fiddle status which will make it less desireable in the eyes of gamers.
The reason I can see developers migrating to the GC or Xbox is because the can maximize profits per unit sold on those platforms. If they are easier platforms to develop on, then developers will take advantage of the reduced production times which means much less expense which in turn means greater profit margins.
Sure, they can go for the high grosses of the PS2, but what if they decide to go for higher margins? Knowing that by concentrating their development efforts on the GC and XBox they will attract more gamers to those platforms. This will eventually mean high gross AND high margins. Win/win for the developers if they switch now.
I'm not saying that they'll simply abandon the PS2, because that would be insane (with it's exceptional installed base). However I can see them relegating it to the status of a porting platfom. The porting duties being handed off to other development houses.
It may be a less likely possibility than PS2 dominance, but I think that it makes the future a lot less certain than you seem to indicate.
I think the reason why these games are so addictive is that they present goals which are clearly defined, easily comprehended, and acheivable through consistent methods.
Kill monster. Get reward. Rinse and repeat.
This is very much unlike real-life for many people, thus they feel a measure of control over their destiny when they are gaming. This of course is very satisfying, and so the activity is repeated over and over again. Thus the "addiction".
Another reason is that "points"/rewards bring "power" and "prestige", within the corresponding community, to the accumulators. Again, this is very much unlike real-life for many people. I mean, admit it, 90% of us as children never expected to end up living on adequate street in somewhereville.
Well, these games offer a whole new set of rules, and a blank slate social structure. There is almost a "gold-rush" aspect that is built into that scenario. A whole new ladder to climb, so people began climbing. Then realized that if they ever stopped climbing someone would surpass them. That's when it becomes apparent that many of those same rules which govern real-life social structure now govern these virtual communities, so in order to maintain their level of prestige/power within this new social structure, they have to commit to ever questing.
In summary, I think there are two forces at work here. One is that people like the structured reality where consistent rewards are gained when specific goals are attained. Two is that the social structures within these communities are fresh and there is/was plenty of room for an ambitious individual to gain prestige/power, however in order to maintain that level of prestige/power, real-life social laws still need to be obeyed and thus you need to keep working at maintaining your status.
The fact that you have to take a course to understand how to use a PC indicagtes that our current interpretation of PC'S is failing. You don't have to take a course to use your fridge, and computers need to be that integrated in our lives.
How many functions does your fridge have?
You can open or close the door
You can adjust how cold it gets and what temp to maintain
You can adjust how cold the freezer gets and what temp to maintain
You might be able to adjust the maintenanace temperature of other regions of the fridge
You can open or close the cheese and butter cabinets
You can open or close the fruit/vegetable bin(s)
You can maybe do stuff to manage the icecube maker or water dispenser depending on the fridge
You can't do much more than that! Food goes in warm. Food comes out cold. Duh!
Now think about how many functions your computer has, and can potentially have because it is almost infinitely flexible.
The problem is that people expect computers to be easy. Well, here's the news: if you never add functionality to the computer, it will eventually become easy through familiarity (just like witha fridge). If you keep adding functions, then you keep having to learn new things, even if those new functions follow a design pattern which makes them communicate their purpose in simple terms, you still have to understand what the purpose of the function is and why and when you'd use it.
People want everything easy because people are lazy. Computers, by their very nature, are not designed for lazy people. People who want to use computers must change to accept continuous learning, just as much as computers must change to make learning easier. However, complete knowledge transparency is impossible (even with a fridge).
I think he made some extremely valid points. At least with the promise of research into the extraction of materials from NEAs, you could attract far more private sector capital.
You see, the first step towards becoming an interplanetary society (don't hold your breath btw) is... [drumroll]... economics. Quite simply, we won't go into space unless space can make us money.
Sure, I agree that going to Mars would be incredibly cool. Putting a person on another planet would be an unbelievable achievement, however it is not a prudent thing to do. Face it, we are ruled by prudent capitalists not free spending humanitarians.
You say that "Space mining at this point is unrealistic" and go on to explore that statement. However I would say that "Manned Mars missions are unrealistic" for the same reasons you state about NEA exploration. The difference is that with the NEA exploration, the promise of return on investment is much higher than on a manned Mars mission.
I watched it last night on A-Channel in Edmonton. It wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that great either.
I'm not a Trek fan by any means. I don't really enjoy anything but the last few seasons of Next Generation, and I find those to be simply tolerable. However, this new incarnation didn't turn my stomach in that same way that DS9 or Voyager routinely did (when I bothered to tune in).
My big beef was with the crappy dialogue. I was surprised that the actors didn't revolt. I'd love to be able to quote some of it, but if you watch the US premier, be sure to keep it in mind.
The sets were great. They feel far more rugged and less polished. Nice changes in my opinion.
The subtle touches were also quite nice. No food replicator, but rather an actual cook and mess hall, and real steaks in the captains dining room. Archer brought along his pet dog. The engineering bay was reminiscent of a submarine (starkly mechanical).
What I didn't like is something I'll call "Vulcan ex machina". To many solutions pulled right out of her ass at the last minute to bail out the crew. Much more of that and I won't even notice when the series fades from memory.
They've also really gone the extra mile to try and recreate the triad relationship of Kirk/Spock/McCoy. In this case it's Archer/T'Pol/ and the engineering guy, not the doctor.
All in all, it's 2.5 out of 5. Hopefully it'll get better as I do see a lot of potential here, however make note of the fact that they couldn't even make it out of the series premier without reversing the polarity of something or other. Go figure.
By publishing your intellectual property to the World Wide Web, which is universally acknowledged as a publicly accessible medium, you are publishing your work directly into the public domain. If you wish to retain copyright, do not publish to the World Wide Web, or publish, but make sure that you publish your IP with the necessary access controls.
AFAIK, you only retain copyright if you fight to maintain copyright. By publishing to the web without IP protection, you are in effect giving up your rights by refusing to fight.
vtechpilot said:
Since people are going to do it, you might as well make it legal, but impose strict guidelines to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
Wow. That was fantastic reasoning. Nice.
Might as well make murder legal because, well, you know, people are going to do it anyways. Just impose strict guidelines on how it can be done.
Might as well make anticompetetive monopolies legal because, well, you know, people are going to do it anyways. Just impose strict guidelines on how it can be done.
You're right about the rough edges, but the edges as they are today, are very very rough.
1) You do not own the ebook. You own nothing when you purchase one except "the right" to read the contents. You have no physical material to prove that you own the product.
2) You do not own the right to resell your right to read the content of the book which you do not own. You cannot trasfer this right to another. You cannot legally circumvent this. In fact, in today's IP intesne climate, you are worse than murderer, child molestor, or rapist, if you do in fact transfer the ability (not the right) to read the contents of the ebook.
3) The cost of ebooks, for something with no physical component and no resale rights, is as much or more than a paperback.
4) The resolution of printed paper is still far and away superior to that of ebooks. Though this will eventually go away. However, right now, it is a compelling drawback for many (such as myself).
5) Physical book can take a lot of physical abuse. The format is very robust, and inexpensive to replace if something goes wrong.
6) If a book dies, it doesn't kill every book sitting on the same shelf. If your eBook reader dies, which is far more likely than a fire large enough to destroy all of your books, then what do you do? You have no ownership of what it contained except for a few pieces of paper claiming that you have the "rights" to such and such materials. It is not only cheap, but it is convenient to replace lost or stolen physical books. For ebooks, at the moment, I'm sure they'd require a retinal scan before deigning to speak to you.
All said and done, the highway to ebook utopia is currently a game trail through a dense jungle. A jungle of IP paranoia.
damn... that's sad. Seriously. I would've loved to have had the opportunity you did, and probably been just as disappointed when things fell apart. Great little write up.
Origin was games for me during the 80s.
I'm incredibly happy to hear that they're back together with a lot of their old team members. I truly hope that they can reclaim their leadership role in the industry.
Any chance that you might be working for Destination games?;-) -- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
If only I had mod points... and you posted with a/. account... oh well...
Exactly what I've been thinking about this whole issue. It's so bloody obvious that it's the solution.
Create a church in direct opposition... Jyhad!
Why not set up the "Church of Slashdot"? CmdTaco could be promoted to PopeTaco.
Want to distribute DeCSS? Create the "Church of DeCSS".
Napster under pressure from corporate interests? Tell them to fuck off by creating the "Church of Napster".
I've reconsidered and now hold The Church of Scientology in the highest esteem. Thanks to the precedent that they are setting, we will soon be able to overthrow everything that we don't agree with by creating "church" facades to hide behind.
Scientology rules! -- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Hmmm... as a Canadian, I seem unable to recall the last time our government ever had a problem with the exporting and/or use of encryption by the general populace.
In fact, check out OpenBSD, or JAWS technology. Also, check out this article which gives a pretty decent overview of the electronic information policies of various countries.
I think you mean "Americans", our southerly neighbours.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Noone cared about that it was twice as fast on 32bit code.. who writes 32bit code anyway ?;)
Funny you should mention that, and then fail to mention that the ClawHammer is a 64-bit processor. But who cares, who writes 64-bit code anyway?
The p4 truly is a "worst CPU ever" contender. Whatever the clockspeed, they're still a generation behind with it. Not even the blue man group can save their asses with this one.
Well, at least we agree that Rambus is a joke at the current prices.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Probably all of it. BFD. That's still money in the bank. In fact, it's more money in the bank than any US game developer. In fact, they make more money in software sales in a single year, than their next 4 competitors combined (if I remember the figures correctly). In the end, THEY WIN. What platform = irrelevant. -- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Quite easily actually as Square doesn't really create RPGs. They create interactive movies.
What I mean is, Ultima, and most of it's PC bretheren, are mostly non-sequential, non-scripted, "do what you will" environments in which you happen to "game".
Final Fantasy, and it's ilk, are quite a bit different. Relying mostly a strongly scripted, entirely sequential, total lack of freedom environments in which you can count yourself lucky enough to even have a say in the combats.
The only portions of an FF game that you get control over are those where you are running aroud the overland map doing "level runs" just so you can beat the next "boss" monster.
Traditionally, in Ultima, you are also responsible for the inter-character conversations as well as runnning around the overland map on "level runs". However, in many of them, you are also able to bypass entire portions of the game through sheer cleverness (anyone remember the magic carpet in U7?), which isn't likely in a console RPG that keeps things under such a tight rein.
The difference is obviously the fact that the interactive portions in the two style of games are entirely different. I believe it's the interactive aspect that differentiates the two, and what Garriot is talking about in his interview.
Though I do agree that he probably should've mentioned Square, as they are the leaders in their branch of the RPG milieu. Though maybe he's only concerned with the PC space.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
I'd really like to see MS reduce Win98 to the dustbin of history upon the release of WinXP. It, and it's older sibling Win95, still have a much higher installed base than WinME and all the flavours of Win2k added together.
Can you imagine the backlash this is going to cause?
Coupled with their cock-eyed, "big brother" registration scheme and you're going to have one huge cadre of enraged IT managers.
Furthermore, add to it the costs of upgrading hardware in order to be able to run their latest bloatware.
And don't forget their borglike insistence on moving towards a pay-per-play model.
Sure, they can do all of the above, but they'll pay a massive public relations price in the long run. I believe that the free software companies can latch on to this and really raise some hell in the next two years. I see an opportunity for massive scale conversions from MS to Free softs if the benefits of real ownership, smooth upgrade paths, and owning the source code can be marketed in the right manner during these next two years.
Big opportunity for free soft to step up to the plate and deliver the goods. Let's hope it happens.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
it's a competing technology to OLEDs called iFire. It uses something called TDEL or "thick dielectric electroluminescent" technology. The screens are created with "screen printing" process that applies the substrata using a very cheap and efficient method.
It may prove in the long run to be cheaper than OLED technology, however, it is neither as bright (right now) nor can it be made flexible like OLEDs (at least not from what I understand).
It aims to put the onus of "growing up" on the technical production staff side of things.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the technical production people tend to be the most "grown up" and are the ones who know exactly what it takes to produce perfect software. Which is why most of them are so disgruntled. Most hard-core programmers I know would love to have the sort of environment outlined in the article. In fact, I know that I've begged for it many a time myself.
Specs! Give me specs. Give me specs to the most atomic details necessary to actually write the code. Do NOT dare change a single thing without a massive change validation process. No more knee-jerk reactions.
My blame comes from poor management practices. Or rather, management practices not geared towards producing perfect software, rather, they're geared towards simply producing something to sell... we can get to those bugs later.
Growing up has nothing to do with dressing conservatively. Raising a family. Being a sober, white-bread, accountant-like programmer. No, it has to do with software being treated as more than just a simple product by the ones controlling the money used to finance it's development.
In all other respects, that article is spot on.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
You're right, it is dependent on certain factors. However, what you outline is a rare case in terms of all of computerdom. A situation such as this does not arise for probably any more than 1% of the population of users with x86 based hardware.
Furtermore, a RAM upgrade does not mean that you are forced to use RDRAM. It just means a RAM upgrade vs. a processor upgrade. Your confusing your statement.
PS. aren't per processor license scheme's frighteningly evil? <shudder>
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Slashdot Mirror
Because they control the flow of information to the public. The public only hears about, and eventualy cares about, what the media wants them to.
The power that they wield is hugely dispraportionate to their economic power.
I'm with you there.
My wife, an American (from Michigan) has not yet heard a single Canadian say "aboot" in the three years she's lived here (Edmonton). She says so anytime she hears some dumbass on tv say "aboot" in reference to the Canadian "accent". Maybe it's some out east or butt-fuck Saskatchewan thing, but pretty much everyone around here has a very American-television accent (think: Dan Rather-ish); probably because 95% of our media is piped in from the south.
Anyhow, she did notice that many of us Canadians pronounce "process" with a long "o" instead of like "prahsess".
Yeah, yeah, yeah... totally off-topic. I know.
What you say about "design by committee" is entirely true; it was very difficult to walk the fine line of balance between wants and needs. Those with the most clout usually got their way unless you could present an extremely convincing argument. Needless to say, a lot of time was spent losing debates rather than constructing the product.
The first priority of the site, before the actual event, was to drive people to ticketmaster. Priority number two was "please our sponsors" and keep them happy. Number three was providing actual interesting content. And number four was considerations such as accessibility.
Personally, I didn't have a major problem with that. Sure, I wished that the commitee was a bit more visionary, but in the end the site accomplished exactly what it set out to do. I suspect that the Olympic site operates under a similar set of priorities and if it satisfies them, will ultimately be judged a success.
However, it is quite curious that their standards are so high. You'd think that they'd realise that the more people that could get to the site, the more opportunities they'd have to influence people to buy tickets. Oh well, that isn't my call.
To be honest, my experience was entirely worth it. It really tested my people skills, even if it didn't tax my technical skills. Fortunately, it all came up roses in the end, even if I'm very concious of the flaws in the end result.
Personally, I'd say that you might've passed up on a golden opportunity.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "the singularity" simply refer to the point in time where something happens which changes things so fundamentally that we can't accurately predict what things will be like beyond that point? What that something is doesn't necessarily have to be AI, though at this moment it appears to be one of the most likely occurences.
It's times like these when I wish I were a moderator.
I had exactly the same sort of experience, when I was in school, with teaching my classmates to transcend "language" to get at the roots of programming/computing. I still face this problem every single day in my workplace. Language/platform zealots are everywhere.
My colleagues find it amusing that in my spare time at work I try to learn a new language/platform. When they don't have anything to do, I tell them that they should learn a new language and give the same reasons that you do. It is sad that they never take my advice.
Oh well...
I'm not sure about your analysis of the economics of the PS2, so I'll accept them as likely to be true. However, I don't believe in your assertion that the PS2 is garaunteed to dominate. I think you are forgetting about just how much most developers despise the PS2 (allegedly, of course).
The way I can see SONY losing its console crown is through a developer migration to the XBox and GC, two system deisgned to be developer friendly. If the majority of developers migrate to either of these platforms as their primary target, that relegates the PS2 to second fiddle status which will make it less desireable in the eyes of gamers.
The reason I can see developers migrating to the GC or Xbox is because the can maximize profits per unit sold on those platforms. If they are easier platforms to develop on, then developers will take advantage of the reduced production times which means much less expense which in turn means greater profit margins.
Sure, they can go for the high grosses of the PS2, but what if they decide to go for higher margins? Knowing that by concentrating their development efforts on the GC and XBox they will attract more gamers to those platforms. This will eventually mean high gross AND high margins. Win/win for the developers if they switch now.
I'm not saying that they'll simply abandon the PS2, because that would be insane (with it's exceptional installed base). However I can see them relegating it to the status of a porting platfom. The porting duties being handed off to other development houses.
It may be a less likely possibility than PS2 dominance, but I think that it makes the future a lot less certain than you seem to indicate.
I think the reason why these games are so addictive is that they present goals which are clearly defined, easily comprehended, and acheivable through consistent methods.
Kill monster. Get reward. Rinse and repeat.
This is very much unlike real-life for many people, thus they feel a measure of control over their destiny when they are gaming. This of course is very satisfying, and so the activity is repeated over and over again. Thus the "addiction".
Another reason is that "points"/rewards bring "power" and "prestige", within the corresponding community, to the accumulators. Again, this is very much unlike real-life for many people. I mean, admit it, 90% of us as children never expected to end up living on adequate street in somewhereville.
Well, these games offer a whole new set of rules, and a blank slate social structure. There is almost a "gold-rush" aspect that is built into that scenario. A whole new ladder to climb, so people began climbing. Then realized that if they ever stopped climbing someone would surpass them. That's when it becomes apparent that many of those same rules which govern real-life social structure now govern these virtual communities, so in order to maintain their level of prestige/power within this new social structure, they have to commit to ever questing.
In summary, I think there are two forces at work here. One is that people like the structured reality where consistent rewards are gained when specific goals are attained. Two is that the social structures within these communities are fresh and there is/was plenty of room for an ambitious individual to gain prestige/power, however in order to maintain that level of prestige/power, real-life social laws still need to be obeyed and thus you need to keep working at maintaining your status.
Is this completely out to lunch?
- You can open or close the door
- You can adjust how cold it gets and what temp to maintain
- You can adjust how cold the freezer gets and what temp to maintain
- You might be able to adjust the maintenanace temperature of other regions of the fridge
- You can open or close the cheese and butter cabinets
- You can open or close the fruit/vegetable bin(s)
- You can maybe do stuff to manage the icecube maker or water dispenser depending on the fridge
You can't do much more than that! Food goes in warm. Food comes out cold. Duh!Now think about how many functions your computer has, and can potentially have because it is almost infinitely flexible.
The problem is that people expect computers to be easy. Well, here's the news: if you never add functionality to the computer, it will eventually become easy through familiarity (just like witha fridge). If you keep adding functions, then you keep having to learn new things, even if those new functions follow a design pattern which makes them communicate their purpose in simple terms, you still have to understand what the purpose of the function is and why and when you'd use it.
People want everything easy because people are lazy. Computers, by their very nature, are not designed for lazy people. People who want to use computers must change to accept continuous learning, just as much as computers must change to make learning easier. However, complete knowledge transparency is impossible (even with a fridge).
I think he made some extremely valid points. At least with the promise of research into the extraction of materials from NEAs, you could attract far more private sector capital.
... [drumroll] ... economics. Quite simply, we won't go into space unless space can make us money.
You see, the first step towards becoming an interplanetary society (don't hold your breath btw) is
Sure, I agree that going to Mars would be incredibly cool. Putting a person on another planet would be an unbelievable achievement, however it is not a prudent thing to do. Face it, we are ruled by prudent capitalists not free spending humanitarians.
You say that "Space mining at this point is unrealistic" and go on to explore that statement. However I would say that "Manned Mars missions are unrealistic" for the same reasons you state about NEA exploration. The difference is that with the NEA exploration, the promise of return on investment is much higher than on a manned Mars mission.
I watched it last night on A-Channel in Edmonton. It wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that great either.
I'm not a Trek fan by any means. I don't really enjoy anything but the last few seasons of Next Generation, and I find those to be simply tolerable. However, this new incarnation didn't turn my stomach in that same way that DS9 or Voyager routinely did (when I bothered to tune in).
My big beef was with the crappy dialogue. I was surprised that the actors didn't revolt. I'd love to be able to quote some of it, but if you watch the US premier, be sure to keep it in mind.
The sets were great. They feel far more rugged and less polished. Nice changes in my opinion.
The subtle touches were also quite nice. No food replicator, but rather an actual cook and mess hall, and real steaks in the captains dining room. Archer brought along his pet dog. The engineering bay was reminiscent of a submarine (starkly mechanical).
What I didn't like is something I'll call "Vulcan ex machina". To many solutions pulled right out of her ass at the last minute to bail out the crew. Much more of that and I won't even notice when the series fades from memory.
They've also really gone the extra mile to try and recreate the triad relationship of Kirk/Spock/McCoy. In this case it's Archer/T'Pol/ and the engineering guy, not the doctor.
All in all, it's 2.5 out of 5. Hopefully it'll get better as I do see a lot of potential here, however make note of the fact that they couldn't even make it out of the series premier without reversing the polarity of something or other. Go figure.
There is an even simpler answer:
By publishing your intellectual property to the World Wide Web, which is universally acknowledged as a publicly accessible medium, you are publishing your work directly into the public domain. If you wish to retain copyright, do not publish to the World Wide Web, or publish, but make sure that you publish your IP with the necessary access controls.
AFAIK, you only retain copyright if you fight to maintain copyright. By publishing to the web without IP protection, you are in effect giving up your rights by refusing to fight.
Wow. That was fantastic reasoning. Nice.
Might as well make murder legal because, well, you know, people are going to do it anyways. Just impose strict guidelines on how it can be done.
Might as well make anticompetetive monopolies legal because, well, you know, people are going to do it anyways. Just impose strict guidelines on how it can be done.
1) You do not own the ebook. You own nothing when you purchase one except "the right" to read the contents. You have no physical material to prove that you own the product.
2) You do not own the right to resell your right to read the content of the book which you do not own. You cannot trasfer this right to another. You cannot legally circumvent this. In fact, in today's IP intesne climate, you are worse than murderer, child molestor, or rapist, if you do in fact transfer the ability (not the right) to read the contents of the ebook.
3) The cost of ebooks, for something with no physical component and no resale rights, is as much or more than a paperback.
4) The resolution of printed paper is still far and away superior to that of ebooks. Though this will eventually go away. However, right now, it is a compelling drawback for many (such as myself).
5) Physical book can take a lot of physical abuse. The format is very robust, and inexpensive to replace if something goes wrong.
6) If a book dies, it doesn't kill every book sitting on the same shelf. If your eBook reader dies, which is far more likely than a fire large enough to destroy all of your books, then what do you do? You have no ownership of what it contained except for a few pieces of paper claiming that you have the "rights" to such and such materials. It is not only cheap, but it is convenient to replace lost or stolen physical books. For ebooks, at the moment, I'm sure they'd require a retinal scan before deigning to speak to you.
All said and done, the highway to ebook utopia is currently a game trail through a dense jungle. A jungle of IP paranoia.
Origin was games for me during the 80s.
I'm incredibly happy to hear that they're back together with a lot of their old team members. I truly hope that they can reclaim their leadership role in the industry.
Any chance that you might be working for Destination games? ;-)
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Exactly what I've been thinking about this whole issue. It's so bloody obvious that it's the solution.
Create a church in direct opposition... Jyhad!
Why not set up the "Church of Slashdot"? CmdTaco could be promoted to PopeTaco.
Want to distribute DeCSS? Create the "Church of DeCSS".
Napster under pressure from corporate interests? Tell them to fuck off by creating the "Church of Napster".
I've reconsidered and now hold The Church of Scientology in the highest esteem. Thanks to the precedent that they are setting, we will soon be able to overthrow everything that we don't agree with by creating "church" facades to hide behind.
Scientology rules!
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
PING is not broken.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Correct... I did overgeneralize. My appologies.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Hmmm... as a Canadian, I seem unable to recall the last time our government ever had a problem with the exporting and/or use of encryption by the general populace.
In fact, check out OpenBSD, or JAWS technology. Also, check out this article which gives a pretty decent overview of the electronic information policies of various countries.
I think you mean "Americans", our southerly neighbours.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
The p4 truly is a "worst CPU ever" contender. Whatever the clockspeed, they're still a generation behind with it. Not even the blue man group can save their asses with this one.
Well, at least we agree that Rambus is a joke at the current prices.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Probably all of it. BFD. That's still money in the bank. In fact, it's more money in the bank than any US game developer. In fact, they make more money in software sales in a single year, than their next 4 competitors combined (if I remember the figures correctly). In the end, THEY WIN. What platform = irrelevant.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
What I mean is, Ultima, and most of it's PC bretheren, are mostly non-sequential, non-scripted, "do what you will" environments in which you happen to "game".
Final Fantasy, and it's ilk, are quite a bit different. Relying mostly a strongly scripted, entirely sequential, total lack of freedom environments in which you can count yourself lucky enough to even have a say in the combats.
The only portions of an FF game that you get control over are those where you are running aroud the overland map doing "level runs" just so you can beat the next "boss" monster.
Traditionally, in Ultima, you are also responsible for the inter-character conversations as well as runnning around the overland map on "level runs". However, in many of them, you are also able to bypass entire portions of the game through sheer cleverness (anyone remember the magic carpet in U7?), which isn't likely in a console RPG that keeps things under such a tight rein.
The difference is obviously the fact that the interactive portions in the two style of games are entirely different. I believe it's the interactive aspect that differentiates the two, and what Garriot is talking about in his interview.
Though I do agree that he probably should've mentioned Square, as they are the leaders in their branch of the RPG milieu. Though maybe he's only concerned with the PC space.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Can you imagine the backlash this is going to cause?
Coupled with their cock-eyed, "big brother" registration scheme and you're going to have one huge cadre of enraged IT managers.
Furthermore, add to it the costs of upgrading hardware in order to be able to run their latest bloatware.
And don't forget their borglike insistence on moving towards a pay-per-play model.
Sure, they can do all of the above, but they'll pay a massive public relations price in the long run. I believe that the free software companies can latch on to this and really raise some hell in the next two years. I see an opportunity for massive scale conversions from MS to Free softs if the benefits of real ownership, smooth upgrade paths, and owning the source code can be marketed in the right manner during these next two years.
Big opportunity for free soft to step up to the plate and deliver the goods. Let's hope it happens.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
It may prove in the long run to be cheaper than OLED technology, however, it is neither as bright (right now) nor can it be made flexible like OLEDs (at least not from what I understand).
Check it out
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
It aims to put the onus of "growing up" on the technical production staff side of things.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the technical production people tend to be the most "grown up" and are the ones who know exactly what it takes to produce perfect software. Which is why most of them are so disgruntled. Most hard-core programmers I know would love to have the sort of environment outlined in the article. In fact, I know that I've begged for it many a time myself.
Specs! Give me specs. Give me specs to the most atomic details necessary to actually write the code. Do NOT dare change a single thing without a massive change validation process. No more knee-jerk reactions.
My blame comes from poor management practices. Or rather, management practices not geared towards producing perfect software, rather, they're geared towards simply producing something to sell... we can get to those bugs later.
Growing up has nothing to do with dressing conservatively. Raising a family. Being a sober, white-bread, accountant-like programmer. No, it has to do with software being treated as more than just a simple product by the ones controlling the money used to finance it's development.
In all other respects, that article is spot on.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Furtermore, a RAM upgrade does not mean that you are forced to use RDRAM. It just means a RAM upgrade vs. a processor upgrade. Your confusing your statement.
PS. aren't per processor license scheme's frighteningly evil? <shudder>
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with