While this was sorta-kinda true five years ago, a *lot* has changed since then.
The OpenGL specification has one big fundamental advantage over Direct X, namely, extensions. While extensions certainly aren't perfect, they do allow you to include new functionality in OpenGL - in DirectX, if you got a new technology, you have to wait for Microsoft to implement this.
Furthermore, OpenGL 4.4 has all features of DirectX 11 has and then some. It is about as easy if not easier to develop for, and is even faster[1] than DX11. DX11 is a good API, but it's getting outdated.
Shame that the XB One won't be able to utilize DX12...
1. This is mostly done already in either case. If you look at, for example, Unity3D, you work pretty much entirerly with scripts. Today most professional games have a scripting engine and have had it for the last 15 years, since the decoupling benefits are tremendous. Performance wise, game logic isn't heavy unless we're talking physics calculations - But even then much can be offloaded on the GPU using OpenCL or similar technologies.
2. Basicly some token encryption and maybe some proprietary DRM extensions. DRM is, however, all about delivering a crippled product to your customers while letting pirates have a complete and fully functional product.
3. Consoles: See SteamBox, OUYA. But yes, definitely - as long as no AAA games are open source, there is no incentive to develop for it. If you're a small-time developer though, chances are you won't ever get onto the console market in any case. One could of course dual-license, but yeah...
Actually, the model of Open Source Games is really solid. Atleast for Single Player games.
The reason why that model works is because you're giving away essentially the whole of the source codebase. But textures, 3D maps, specific game scripting for levels (when pressing button X, Y happens) isn't free.
The only proprietary bits, in other words, are the content itself. Think of it as releasing an Open Source e-reader but selling the books separately.
These "arm-chair engineers" are actually very smart people working with real-world networking scenarios all the time. I refuse to believe that the specs they have come up with are that much different to implement from IPv4.
The reality, here, is that the problem lies in economics of scale. The large network companies do not have the incentive to fund research to develop a carrier-grade IPv6 hardware-based router that can be produced in scale, since everyone is still IPv4.
ISPs are starting to feel the burn. CGNs are horrible and, in the long run, the biggest threat to network neutrality, yes even larger than the ISPs themselves.
I wish someone could kickstart a hardware-only IPv6 router with a software IPv4 under an open spec, let the chinese copy it tenfold and watch as fast, cheap IPv6-routers starts rolling in. But that's probably not ever going to happen...
In the short term, this is true. Including countries with lesser living standards will cost the EU as a whole.
In the mid-term (10-25 yrs), these countries will adopt some practices from EU-regulation, get an influx of highly educated workers that start to build up the country, all the while exporting cheap labor (both goods and services meaning immigrants coming to clean your house).
In the long term (25+ yrs) we will see a strong economic country with high education and living standards. Not including these countries in the EU is very shortsighted thinking IMO.
I do however agree that the EU cannot expand further until the economy is fixed - unfortunately the Euro is tanking very hard right now, but it may yet be possible to fix it, somehow. Don't blame it all on the poor countries though, that's just racist.
Ah, I remember when Microsoft did the same thing with the OpenGL ARB and more or less poisoned it, leaving OpenGL for dead once they had completed their mission. Also, W3C, Java and pretty much every other standard group they've sabotaged^H joined usually end up the same way.
So forgive me if I see this as yet another attempt at killing off open standards.
Because the open source implementations are tied to the MESA project - whatever MESA supports is possible to support, although not required to support.
Anything MESA doesn't support, well, is impossible at the moment.
Non-free AMD driver is also up there somewhere. Can't find exact version for Linux but whatever, it's probably at 4.2 or later.
The problem is more that MESA only supports 3.3 - But the free drivers (e.g. Nouveau) does NOT support 3.3 so AMD is actually better at the moment. I do believe Nouveau will get 3.3 support soon however.
The real news here, though, is that performance of the free drivers are catching up to the proprietary drivers. That means AMD can ditch the proprietary drivers completely within a couple of years - which, if they can stay afloat that long, means great news for us Linux desktopers!:)
I do not believe in a total abolishment of copyright. It does three things well:
1. Protect the authors' right to recognition by making it illegal to claim another persons work as your own. 2. Protect the authors' reputation by allowing the author to veto any use of his work that may damage his or her reputation. 3. Protect the author from unwanted commercial exploitation by granting every author a monopoly over each and every copy of their work, for a limited time.
However, the means it does to accomplish these protections - by granting every author a monopoly - is simply outdated. One cannot have that kind of control anymore, if ever. Everyone on the internet is their own printing press, but also their own authors nowadays.
If, instead, an author may have the right to all profit-driven earnings derived from his work for a limited time, as well as the right to recognition and reputation for life + 25 years, then we still preserve the original purpose of copyright - but all of a sudden we get rid of the unwanted side effects of the law that makes millions of people into criminal scum ready for jail as soon as the government gets around to prosecuting you. I find that a much better solution.
And clearly by making an illegal copy you are enriching yourself.
Yes, making. Not taking.
If it's illegal to create something in order to enrich yourself, then by gods, ban home cooking - who knows how many restaurants are getting robbed from their rightful income by all those families having the gall to create their own food, and cheaper than the restaurant food?
Or what about those growing their own spices in the garden? Clearly, they do not need to buy spices then, so they enrich themselves. Off with their heads!
The film in question wasn't a shitty 25-year old horror movie, but "Beck: Buried Alive" which was released 2011. It was released on the internet 2 days before it's DVD release.
Ah, but you are missing one important detail about BTC/LTC etc.
While we can move to an alternate currency, that currency in and of itself will need some valuation at some point. How are you going to evaluate this new currency?
Everyone might move to WTFCoin, FooCoin or WhateverCoin tomorrow. But moving to these currencies would be equally useful as, say, monopoly money.
A currency is not valued in some arbitrary number but rather the (perceived) value of that currencys financial backbone. The US Dollar is based on the oil, the Yuan is based on China's economy, and the Euro is based on the European economy (or rather, the countries involved in the EMU union). What is WhateverCoin based upon?
So far it seems that BTC is a "digital gold standard" while LTC is "The silver to BitCoins gold" and therefore directly dependent on BTC. See?
So you agree, then, that Hollywood loves the piracy all the while condemning it? That the most important thing is not getting paid for every copy, but getting those copies as widespread as possible?
Diaspora seems sorta-kinda dead though, Status.net or BuddyCloud seems to me to be a much better solution.
MediaGoblin is based on Status.Net btw, and yes, the only thing left on that project is a paywall module and end-user polish, then it seems to meet most of my concerns. Might invite a friend or two and have a hackathon on it some future weekend, but we shall see...:)
Invent decentralised Facebook with away to distribute your own creations. I'm thinking something like a blog, but with an option to insert a paywall, integrated on top of say, status.net or buddycloud. Make the software as easy to set up as a home router, or why not Wordpress?:)
That ought to create the infrastructure neccessary to beat Hollywood. Would write it myself if I weren't buried knee-deep in work...:P
No, just come to the conclusion that the absolutely fastest way to put Hollywood out of it's misery would be to stop pirating (and thus promoting) their content.
If even 20% of everyone pirating "hollywood" would instead promote free movies, songs and software, Hollywood would be in serious trouble. As it stands however, not even 0.01% do that...
So, we all know that these sites basicly ammounts to free advertising for their counterparts, right?
The industry believes (publicly atleast) that less piracy means more sales.
Numerous studies however have shown that less piracy means less sales.
So, by pirating we're actually supporting these bastards hell-bent on suing the crap out of us, the consumers.
Therefore, here is my idea; let's stop pirating. Let's stop enjoying mainstream media. Let's stop reccomending it, talking about it - unless it's free to download, of course. Then see how long Hollywood can keep it up.
Let's give them the nightmare they deserve, shall we?
economy - not more than a fire or earthquake would. travel - only as far as we let them. Flight is as (in)secure as it has always been. They can't catch everyone. Therefore increased security do little but annoy regular people. Geopolitics - It depends. School shootings, the Washington sniper etc. are to be considered acts of terror just as much as plane hijackings and suicide bombers. Political careers - Unfortunately you are right about this one, but it is easy to refute any criticisms with cold hard facts. Wish there was a politician with enough balls to do this, but sadly there is not.
So no, there are no good reasons for the fear-mongering. Either cops are smarter than the terrorists or terrorists are smarter than the cops, in the former case mass surveillance is unneccessary, in the latter case mass surveillance is useless.
So are bathtubs, so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.
Any death other than the one of old age is terrible. Accidents happen that cause people to suffer for quite a while before dying. Some people have lost their lives in earthquakes - literally buried alive, waiting days for a rescue that never come. Other people die in house fires in the most horrible agony you might imagine. Therefore, Terrorists do not frighten me any more than an earthquake would.
Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city. Does that thought scare me? Yes, a bit. But does it make me cower in fear under my bed? No sir. I'm not afraid of these terrorists, because I know that if I'm afraid of them, then I'll always be afraid. The Terrorists have won.
I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists, as well as protect my liberties as best can. Unfortunately this paralyzing fear of terrorists have made the state erode my liberties without actually protecting me from terrorists. Therefore, I oppose those changes.
It's not about being stupid or brave. It's about not letting a bunch of jackasses control my life. And as long as I draw breath, they won't.
Slashdot Mirror
While this was sorta-kinda true five years ago, a *lot* has changed since then.
The OpenGL specification has one big fundamental advantage over Direct X, namely, extensions. While extensions certainly aren't perfect, they do allow you to include new functionality in OpenGL - in DirectX, if you got a new technology, you have to wait for Microsoft to implement this.
Furthermore, OpenGL 4.4 has all features of DirectX 11 has and then some. It is about as easy if not easier to develop for, and is even faster[1] than DX11. DX11 is a good API, but it's getting outdated.
Shame that the XB One won't be able to utilize DX12...
Further reading: http://wccftech.com/open-gl-di...
[1] http://www.extremetech.com/gam...
You do know it's possible to embed binary formats in XML, right?
Someone obviously didn't do their homework...
1. This is mostly done already in either case. If you look at, for example, Unity3D, you work pretty much entirerly with scripts. Today most professional games have a scripting engine and have had it for the last 15 years, since the decoupling benefits are tremendous. Performance wise, game logic isn't heavy unless we're talking physics calculations - But even then much can be offloaded on the GPU using OpenCL or similar technologies.
2. Basicly some token encryption and maybe some proprietary DRM extensions. DRM is, however, all about delivering a crippled product to your customers while letting pirates have a complete and fully functional product.
3. Consoles: See SteamBox, OUYA. But yes, definitely - as long as no AAA games are open source, there is no incentive to develop for it. If you're a small-time developer though, chances are you won't ever get onto the console market in any case. One could of course dual-license, but yeah...
Actually, for any given router hop you need, at the very least, four addresses.
Provided your network looks like this:
{ } ---> [A] <---> [B] <---- { }
The network AB is called 192.168.0.252 and contains four public addresses:
Interface A (192.168.0.253/30)
Interface B (192.168.0.254/30)
Network name (192.168.0.252/30)
Network broadcast (192.168.0.255/30)
So, you would be wrong. :)
Actually, the model of Open Source Games is really solid. Atleast for Single Player games.
The reason why that model works is because you're giving away essentially the whole of the source codebase. But textures, 3D maps, specific game scripting for levels (when pressing button X, Y happens) isn't free.
The only proprietary bits, in other words, are the content itself. Think of it as releasing an Open Source e-reader but selling the books separately.
These "arm-chair engineers" are actually very smart people working with real-world networking scenarios all the time. I refuse to believe that the specs they have come up with are that much different to implement from IPv4.
The reality, here, is that the problem lies in economics of scale. The large network companies do not have the incentive to fund research to develop a carrier-grade IPv6 hardware-based router that can be produced in scale, since everyone is still IPv4.
ISPs are starting to feel the burn. CGNs are horrible and, in the long run, the biggest threat to network neutrality, yes even larger than the ISPs themselves.
I wish someone could kickstart a hardware-only IPv6 router with a software IPv4 under an open spec, let the chinese copy it tenfold and watch as fast, cheap IPv6-routers starts rolling in. But that's probably not ever going to happen...
In the short term, this is true. Including countries with lesser living standards will cost the EU as a whole.
In the mid-term (10-25 yrs), these countries will adopt some practices from EU-regulation, get an influx of highly educated workers that start to build up the country, all the while exporting cheap labor (both goods and services meaning immigrants coming to clean your house).
In the long term (25+ yrs) we will see a strong economic country with high education and living standards. Not including these countries in the EU is very shortsighted thinking IMO.
I do however agree that the EU cannot expand further until the economy is fixed - unfortunately the Euro is tanking very hard right now, but it may yet be possible to fix it, somehow. Don't blame it all on the poor countries though, that's just racist.
Ah, I remember when Microsoft did the same thing with the OpenGL ARB and more or less poisoned it, leaving OpenGL for dead once they had completed their mission. Also, W3C, Java and pretty much every other standard group they've sabotaged^H joined usually end up the same way.
So forgive me if I see this as yet another attempt at killing off open standards.
More reading
Because the open source implementations are tied to the MESA project - whatever MESA supports is possible to support, although not required to support.
Anything MESA doesn't support, well, is impossible at the moment.
Non-free AMD driver is also up there somewhere. Can't find exact version for Linux but whatever, it's probably at 4.2 or later.
The problem is more that MESA only supports 3.3 - But the free drivers (e.g. Nouveau) does NOT support 3.3 so AMD is actually better at the moment. I do believe Nouveau will get 3.3 support soon however.
The real news here, though, is that performance of the free drivers are catching up to the proprietary drivers. That means AMD can ditch the proprietary drivers completely within a couple of years - which, if they can stay afloat that long, means great news for us Linux desktopers! :)
SteamOS won't ever become the app-store for Linux. Reason being, an app-store is only a glorified package repository.
I do believe we will see less centralised package repositories though, not more.
I do not believe in a total abolishment of copyright. It does three things well:
1. Protect the authors' right to recognition by making it illegal to claim another persons work as your own.
2. Protect the authors' reputation by allowing the author to veto any use of his work that may damage his or her reputation.
3. Protect the author from unwanted commercial exploitation by granting every author a monopoly over each and every copy of their work, for a limited time.
However, the means it does to accomplish these protections - by granting every author a monopoly - is simply outdated. One cannot have that kind of control anymore, if ever. Everyone on the internet is their own printing press, but also their own authors nowadays.
If, instead, an author may have the right to all profit-driven earnings derived from his work for a limited time, as well as the right to recognition and reputation for life + 25 years, then we still preserve the original purpose of copyright - but all of a sudden we get rid of the unwanted side effects of the law that makes millions of people into criminal scum ready for jail as soon as the government gets around to prosecuting you. I find that a much better solution.
It's not that it's hard to do - it's that it requires manual intervention. I can do it, my grandma can't.
Also, in CGNs (Carrier Grade NATs) the ISP controls the NAT, not the home user.
Yes, making. Not taking.
If it's illegal to create something in order to enrich yourself, then by gods, ban home cooking - who knows how many restaurants are getting robbed from their rightful income by all those families having the gall to create their own food, and cheaper than the restaurant food?
Or what about those growing their own spices in the garden? Clearly, they do not need to buy spices then, so they enrich themselves. Off with their heads!
I could go on, but I think my point is made...
The film in question wasn't a shitty 25-year old horror movie, but "Beck: Buried Alive" which was released 2011. It was released on the internet 2 days before it's DVD release.
I do agree the damages are insane however...
Ah, but you are missing one important detail about BTC/LTC etc.
While we can move to an alternate currency, that currency in and of itself will need some valuation at some point. How are you going to evaluate this new currency?
Everyone might move to WTFCoin, FooCoin or WhateverCoin tomorrow. But moving to these currencies would be equally useful as, say, monopoly money.
A currency is not valued in some arbitrary number but rather the (perceived) value of that currencys financial backbone. The US Dollar is based on the oil, the Yuan is based on China's economy, and the Euro is based on the European economy (or rather, the countries involved in the EMU union). What is WhateverCoin based upon?
So far it seems that BTC is a "digital gold standard" while LTC is "The silver to BitCoins gold" and therefore directly dependent on BTC. See?
Linux as in GNU/Linux still doesn't dominate any end-user products. Android/Linux do though.
So you agree, then, that Hollywood loves the piracy all the while condemning it? That the most important thing is not getting paid for every copy, but getting those copies as widespread as possible?
Diaspora seems sorta-kinda dead though, Status.net or BuddyCloud seems to me to be a much better solution.
MediaGoblin is based on Status.Net btw, and yes, the only thing left on that project is a paywall module and end-user polish, then it seems to meet most of my concerns. Might invite a friend or two and have a hackathon on it some future weekend, but we shall see... :)
Got an even better idea in mind.
Invent decentralised Facebook with away to distribute your own creations. I'm thinking something like a blog, but with an option to insert a paywall, integrated on top of say, status.net or buddycloud. Make the software as easy to set up as a home router, or why not Wordpress? :)
That ought to create the infrastructure neccessary to beat Hollywood. Would write it myself if I weren't buried knee-deep in work... :P
No, just come to the conclusion that the absolutely fastest way to put Hollywood out of it's misery would be to stop pirating (and thus promoting) their content.
If even 20% of everyone pirating "hollywood" would instead promote free movies, songs and software, Hollywood would be in serious trouble. As it stands however, not even 0.01% do that...
Oh well.
So, we all know that these sites basicly ammounts to free advertising for their counterparts, right?
The industry believes (publicly atleast) that less piracy means more sales.
Numerous studies however have shown that less piracy means less sales.
So, by pirating we're actually supporting these bastards hell-bent on suing the crap out of us, the consumers.
Therefore, here is my idea; let's stop pirating. Let's stop enjoying mainstream media. Let's stop reccomending it, talking about it - unless it's free to download, of course. Then see how long Hollywood can keep it up.
Let's give them the nightmare they deserve, shall we?
One thing I wonder about - so you have a gun that is made out of plastic. But conventional ammunition is not. Right?
So who are you going to shoot when you don't have any bullets?
economy - not more than a fire or earthquake would.
travel - only as far as we let them. Flight is as (in)secure as it has always been. They can't catch everyone. Therefore increased security do little but annoy regular people.
Geopolitics - It depends. School shootings, the Washington sniper etc. are to be considered acts of terror just as much as plane hijackings and suicide bombers.
Political careers - Unfortunately you are right about this one, but it is easy to refute any criticisms with cold hard facts. Wish there was a politician with enough balls to do this, but sadly there is not.
So no, there are no good reasons for the fear-mongering. Either cops are smarter than the terrorists or terrorists are smarter than the cops, in the former case mass surveillance is unneccessary, in the latter case mass surveillance is useless.
Terrorists are real.
So are bathtubs, so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.
Any death other than the one of old age is terrible. Accidents happen that cause people to suffer for quite a while before dying. Some people have lost their lives in earthquakes - literally buried alive, waiting days for a rescue that never come. Other people die in house fires in the most horrible agony you might imagine. Therefore, Terrorists do not frighten me any more than an earthquake would.
Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city. Does that thought scare me? Yes, a bit. But does it make me cower in fear under my bed? No sir. I'm not afraid of these terrorists, because I know that if I'm afraid of them, then I'll always be afraid. The Terrorists have won.
I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists, as well as protect my liberties as best can. Unfortunately this paralyzing fear of terrorists have made the state erode my liberties without actually protecting me from terrorists. Therefore, I oppose those changes.
It's not about being stupid or brave. It's about not letting a bunch of jackasses control my life. And as long as I draw breath, they won't.