I'm not sure what nefariousness you are suggesting. Any technician with root/admin level access is expected to have a certain level of ethics when it comes to private and confidential data. As the IT Manager for my company and having easy access to the firewall logs, I knew who was using monster.com when I was browsing to solve different a different problem. This doesn't mean I felt any obligation to report this to my boss or the employee's boss. I think those hired by the Senate would only be qualified if they believed in an even a higher standard. And even if the majority party chairman does the hiring, I'm sure the minority party isn't completely out of the loop.
The true threat to games of today and tomorrow is the lack of quality in games on the market. As small game developers are swallowed up by the EAs and UBISofts at the same time the production cost of making a game rises vastly meaning fewer and fewer small companies can be successful without major backing from an EA, UBI or Microsoft. Competion won't be completely stifled but innovation will certainly be slowed.
My friend recently purchased an Xbox and went on a binge on aquiring games. I thought I'd jump in with him and help him get some good ones. I spent about 2 hours on the Xbox website purveying all released and announced games. Only one piqued my interest, and its been (wrongly) accused of racial insensativity. Every other game with some potential was part of a series and for the most part, not up to par with the original.
Even the games for PC are having the same issues. Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Counter-strike 2, Starcraft 2, GTA 5 are the only games I am looking forward to and I don't expect them to move the bar all that far. On the MMORPG front there is very little innovation even announced since Shadowbane's dismal showing. Sony's control of the MMORPG market certainly dims the future on this front.
I'm sure a few games will surprise me but I predict a dark ages period in true innovation for the next ten years or maybe even until a happy mix of movies and games can be made, which is a long way off.
And in a related story, Recording Industry executives promised to use a more "consumer friendly" lubrication the next time they try to screw you all over.
Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping.NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what.NET actually means. Or could it be that customers know what it means, but nobody wants to buy it?"
Actually its, "No one knows what.NET actually means nor do they want to buy it."
Face it. Bill has a book to sell and even if he can't mention the title or even the book, his publicist wants his name up in big bold flashy letters on/. Thus, this half-baked interview is what we get. Of course, if the questions didn't suck so bad...
ps: I hear the book is about how close we are to having Star trek technology today. May be worth flipping through.
Re:There is not a one size fits all solution
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 2
Trade secrets are not a very secure method of protection - resentful ex-employees soon can be persuaded to release them to the world.
Dare I say, so what? Government's should not be wiping the ass of corporations. There are tradesecret laws for a reason.
And so what if you get beat to a patent? You lose. Last I checked R&D is never a "sure thing." Is there some reason it should be? No. Why? Capitalism & free market. Anyway, if you get beat and can't license the patent, time to rethink your strategy. No one likes losing but this ain't communism for a reason.
Remember this is assuming the patent system has been overhauled so "frivilous" patents aren't being approved. The company that beat you to it, deserves the patent!
PS: Don't believe the hype about there only being money in "western" nations. There are millions if not billions being spent on drugs outside western nations.
Re:There is not a one size fits all solution
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 2
I disagree.
Most IP heavy companies, such as drug companies patent ideas far too early in their development. Anyway, companies ought to either keep trade secrets, secret or stop applying for patents on concepts 20 years early in development.
I'd would add one thing specific to the drug industry. I know they have FDA approval to go through (but only in the US remember, they can be selling drugs in Mexico much earlier so don't say they are floundering while waiting for FDA). While a drug waits FDA approval, for the *first* time that period doesn't count against the patent. If it fails FDA, time starts again and can't be stopped.
Drug companies, especially, have a social obligation to help people. If they are twiddling their thumbs and dragging their feet its time to open competition to other companies, and individuals who want to help people and make money as well.
There is not a one size fits all solution
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I would love there to be one, of course.
Personally, I think there should be no software patents what-so-ever. Innovation occurs fine without them. Competition is only stifled with them. Finally, software is one of the fastest changing markets and traditionally patent law seems horribly ineffective when applied.
Once you get out of the software patent arena it gets a lot more gray. The general trend is to expand patent laws and extend expiration of patents. It is also fairly easy, to keep a patent open and gain all the benefits of having the patent without having that time count against you. I think these two trends need to be reversed. Patents should not last longer than a decade and should count from the day of the first filing. If you can not exploit your invention in this period of time, the public should not be punished any longer.
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain.
Let me be the first to say: No, no we don't.
If you want software they wrote and they won't give it to you, find an alternative, write it yourself, anything else.. But for the love of god, don't pass silly laws like this. How tragic that would be...
The bnetd team never made a Warcraft 3 compatible version. However, bnetd is open source and the "warforge" team (whoever they are, perhaps a smaller group of bnetd people) modified the currently release of bnetd to fuction with warcraft 3.
Also, it should be pointed out that the bnetd team intentionally left out support for Warcraft 3 out of respect for Blizzard (until the official gold release of WC3).
Applications that run on Linux for Intel need to be recompiled and recertified for each new platform; thus the application portfolio to run Linux on a mainframe is small.
Then later (as a reason Sun/Solaris is better)...
Linux compatibility features of Solaris
Perhaps this is just a strawman but just because IBM certifies programs and Sun emulates (but not certify) doesn't mean Sun's solution is more l33t.
In fact, in production environment would you rather run programs certified by IBM or trust Solaris to emulate linux well enough to run the same programs. No-brainer...
Hardware: $25k (one time) Net connection: $10k (monthly) Backend+HTML: one week coding
So there it is, $35 grande (plus or minus) and one week later a website could be up and fully fuctional selling artist songs direct, no record label necessary. I would guesstimate this would easily support 100,000 unique views and the costs would be minimal to expand with popularity. Now if only someone could convince some rich musicians to fund this, turn into a non-profit and offer its services to any other artists.
Attn current musicians: Sooner or later your contact will expire. This artist-run-website idea can be used to position yourself favorably if you wish to re-negotiate your contact. Or better yet, to free yourself from the labels.
Attn future musicians: Record labels offer two things. Producing your album and distributing it. Find an alternate way to produce your album (really, not that hard) and now you are free negotiate anything with anyone.
If the artists help themselves, the labels will be at the artists' mercy (like they should be). If they don't, artists will continue to whine until they are blue in the face about their penny per album (meanwhile enriching the old guys who have a corner office). The tech community has empowered you (the musicians) to throw off the shackles of a system that (sorta) made sense in the 50s and 60s. The choice is yours. Like the matrix, we can show you the door, but you got to walk through it.
Prediction: Nothing will change. Most musicians will prove the stereotype that they are lazy can't-hold-a-real-job types willing to sell their soul to the devil to be famous. Not that I equate the music industry to the devil, but if the devil was in the music business I am sure he would have no problem signing musicians as long as the promise of fame is there.
Lets just decide if slashdot is pro-software patents or con. This wishy-washy attitude is sending the wrong signals.
Software and algorithms should simply not be patentable. Some one else can pick up the arguement from there if they care enough. My point is simply this: Being ok with certain software patents, even if conditional, is bad for the movement. There is no reason to to even go down the road, "But it this patent is more specific, than say 1-click purchases, so I am ok with it."
Uhh, no. Less evil is still evil. As long as you aren't stealing code, any code you do write should be legal, whether it is syncing your PDA to, umm, your microwave or giving your customers an easy and simple way to purchase goods.
But maybe I am just over-reacting. What do you guys think?
Because it makes umpteen more sense just to make a generic AOL client for (any) linux (distro). If anything, AOL should just ally with Redhat to get the AOL client "first class" treatment (ie. easy to install--already on the cd) on any Red Hat distro. I don't think I am the only one who has been expecting a full port of the AOL client for the last few years. It won't make AOL instant money but it will be a very good bargaining tool when dealing with Microsoft.
I don't buy the rumors that hypothesize AOL wants to get the AOL client ported to some embedded system. If this was the case, 1. They don't need Red Hat. 2. They don't need Linux.
I am no kernel hacker, just a lowly information technology worker who wants to keep up-to-date on the comings and goings with Linux development. Ok, I admit it, I am just a bit of a gawker when it comes to free software development theory. I religiously read the abridged kernel traffic every Monday. That is good stuff (all nice and technical) to start the day off with. I recommend it to anyone who wants to stay hip and with it (and hey, you get to see the real Alan and real Linus every now and then).
It reminds me of the line from the movie Fight Club. Paraphrased:
"We are selling rich women their own fat asses." In reference to breaking into a liposuction clinique, stealing the bags of fat and making soap from it and selling the soap to designer stores.
Certain Saudis get their money from the oil we buy and send it right back to us in the forms of bombs and bullets.
Where is cold fusion and hydrogen power engines when you need them?
This seems silly. They seem to think this will assure whoever is handing you the drivers license is in fact the person who is on the license. Exactly how is this done? You could just steal someone else's card who looks like you or possibly just have someone people in the inside create a fake record for you (lets not pretend this isn't already done).
Furthermore, whenever I don't want to be tracked (they use monica's books bought a credit card as an example) I just don't use a credit card. I pay in cash. Are we going to have to swipe our driver license for cash transactions? Or do we just continue to pay in cash and not get tracked?
End result: this fails in the same way the patriot act fails to deal with terrorists. It addresses the symptons, not the problem. If a terrorist is going to kill himself, I doubt he gives a crap if you can track down who he is after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what nefariousness you are suggesting. Any technician with root/admin level access is expected to have a certain level of ethics when it comes to private and confidential data. As the IT Manager for my company and having easy access to the firewall logs, I knew who was using monster.com when I was browsing to solve different a different problem. This doesn't mean I felt any obligation to report this to my boss or the employee's boss. I think those hired by the Senate would only be qualified if they believed in an even a higher standard. And even if the majority party chairman does the hiring, I'm sure the minority party isn't completely out of the loop.
The true threat to games of today and tomorrow is the lack of quality in games on the market. As small game developers are swallowed up by the EAs and UBISofts at the same time the production cost of making a game rises vastly meaning fewer and fewer small companies can be successful without major backing from an EA, UBI or Microsoft. Competion won't be completely stifled but innovation will certainly be slowed.
My friend recently purchased an Xbox and went on a binge on aquiring games. I thought I'd jump in with him and help him get some good ones. I spent about 2 hours on the Xbox website purveying all released and announced games. Only one piqued my interest, and its been (wrongly) accused of racial insensativity. Every other game with some potential was part of a series and for the most part, not up to par with the original.
Even the games for PC are having the same issues. Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Counter-strike 2, Starcraft 2, GTA 5 are the only games I am looking forward to and I don't expect them to move the bar all that far. On the MMORPG front there is very little innovation even announced since Shadowbane's dismal showing. Sony's control of the MMORPG market certainly dims the future on this front.
I'm sure a few games will surprise me but I predict a dark ages period in true innovation for the next ten years or maybe even until a happy mix of movies and games can be made, which is a long way off.
I literally just patched to get the icon off my systray..
And in a related story, Recording Industry executives promised to use a more "consumer friendly" lubrication the next time they try to screw you all over.
I guess the courts still aren't as anti-consumer as the slashdot crowd wants to believe, yet.
Analysts are being quoted as saying that slapping .NET on so many Microsoft products has confused people as to what .NET actually means. Or could it be that customers know what it means, but nobody wants to buy it?"
.NET actually means nor do they want to buy it."
Actually its, "No one knows what
Face it. Bill has a book to sell and even if he can't mention the title or even the book, his publicist wants his name up in big bold flashy letters on /. Thus, this half-baked interview is what we get. Of course, if the questions didn't suck so bad...
ps: I hear the book is about how close we are to having Star trek technology today. May be worth flipping through.
Does anybody get the impression the parent is exactly what an astroturfer wants you to believe?
Because version 6 got such bad press (and perhaps rightfully so!)
I submit to you, timezone differences.
April Fool's Day was two days ago.
Trade secrets are not a very secure method of protection - resentful ex-employees soon can be persuaded to release them to the world.
Dare I say, so what? Government's should not be wiping the ass of corporations. There are tradesecret laws for a reason.
And so what if you get beat to a patent? You lose. Last I checked R&D is never a "sure thing." Is there some reason it should be? No. Why? Capitalism & free market. Anyway, if you get beat and can't license the patent, time to rethink your strategy. No one likes losing but this ain't communism for a reason.
Remember this is assuming the patent system has been overhauled so "frivilous" patents aren't being approved. The company that beat you to it, deserves the patent!
PS: Don't believe the hype about there only being money in "western" nations. There are millions if not billions being spent on drugs outside western nations.
I disagree.
Most IP heavy companies, such as drug companies patent ideas far too early in their development. Anyway, companies ought to either keep trade secrets, secret or stop applying for patents on concepts 20 years early in development.
I'd would add one thing specific to the drug industry. I know they have FDA approval to go through (but only in the US remember, they can be selling drugs in Mexico much earlier so don't say they are floundering while waiting for FDA). While a drug waits FDA approval, for the *first* time that period doesn't count against the patent. If it fails FDA, time starts again and can't be stopped.
Drug companies, especially, have a social obligation to help people. If they are twiddling their thumbs and dragging their feet its time to open competition to other companies, and individuals who want to help people and make money as well.
I would love there to be one, of course.
Personally, I think there should be no software patents what-so-ever. Innovation occurs fine without them. Competition is only stifled with them. Finally, software is one of the fastest changing markets and traditionally patent law seems horribly ineffective when applied.
Once you get out of the software patent arena it gets a lot more gray. The general trend is to expand patent laws and extend expiration of patents. It is also fairly easy, to keep a patent open and gain all the benefits of having the patent without having that time count against you. I think these two trends need to be reversed. Patents should not last longer than a decade and should count from the day of the first filing. If you can not exploit your invention in this period of time, the public should not be punished any longer.
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain.
Let me be the first to say: No, no we don't.
If you want software they wrote and they won't give it to you, find an alternative, write it yourself, anything else.. But for the love of god, don't pass silly laws like this. How tragic that would be...
The bnetd team never made a Warcraft 3 compatible version. However, bnetd is open source and the "warforge" team (whoever they are, perhaps a smaller group of bnetd people) modified the currently release of bnetd to fuction with warcraft 3.
Also, it should be pointed out that the bnetd team intentionally left out support for Warcraft 3 out of respect for Blizzard (until the official gold release of WC3).
I don't see how they plan to compete with wired broadband in areas like Southern CA...which, AFAIK, are quite wired already.
You wouldn't say that if you were like many of us and went through the covand and rythmes madness...and haven't been able to get dsl since.
Applications that run on Linux for Intel need to be recompiled and recertified for each new platform; thus the application portfolio to run Linux on a mainframe is small.
Then later (as a reason Sun/Solaris is better)...
Linux compatibility features of Solaris
Perhaps this is just a strawman but just because IBM certifies programs and Sun emulates (but not certify) doesn't mean Sun's solution is more l33t.
In fact, in production environment would you rather run programs certified by IBM or trust Solaris to emulate linux well enough to run the same programs. No-brainer...
Hardware: $25k (one time)
Net connection: $10k (monthly)
Backend+HTML: one week coding
So there it is, $35 grande (plus or minus) and one week later a website could be up and fully fuctional selling artist songs direct, no record label necessary. I would guesstimate this would easily support 100,000 unique views and the costs would be minimal to expand with popularity.
Now if only someone could convince some rich musicians to fund this, turn into a non-profit and offer its services to any other artists.
Attn current musicians: Sooner or later your contact will expire. This artist-run-website idea can be used to position yourself favorably if you wish to re-negotiate your contact. Or better yet, to free yourself from the labels.
Attn future musicians: Record labels offer two things. Producing your album and distributing it. Find an alternate way to produce your album (really, not that hard) and now you are free negotiate anything with anyone.
If the artists help themselves, the labels will be at the artists' mercy (like they should be). If they don't, artists will continue to whine until they are blue in the face about their penny per album (meanwhile enriching the old guys who have a corner office). The tech community has empowered you (the musicians) to throw off the shackles of a system that (sorta) made sense in the 50s and 60s. The choice is yours. Like the matrix, we can show you the door, but you got to walk through it.
Prediction: Nothing will change. Most musicians will prove the stereotype that they are lazy can't-hold-a-real-job types willing to sell their soul to the devil to be famous. Not that I equate the music industry to the devil, but if the devil was in the music business I am sure he would have no problem signing musicians as long as the promise of fame is there.
What a brilliant and obvious idea!! Kudos!
The only thing that could stop this no-brainer idea is religious zealotry.
Doh.
Lets just decide if slashdot is pro-software patents or con. This wishy-washy attitude is sending the wrong signals.
Software and algorithms should simply not be patentable. Some one else can pick up the arguement from there if they care enough. My point is simply this: Being ok with certain software patents, even if conditional, is bad for the movement. There is no reason to to even go down the road, "But it this patent is more specific, than say 1-click purchases, so I am ok with it."
Uhh, no. Less evil is still evil. As long as you aren't stealing code, any code you do write should be legal, whether it is syncing your PDA to, umm, your microwave or giving your customers an easy and simple way to purchase goods.
But maybe I am just over-reacting. What do you guys think?
Because it makes umpteen more sense just to make a generic AOL client for (any) linux (distro). If anything, AOL should just ally with Redhat to get the AOL client "first class" treatment (ie. easy to install--already on the cd) on any Red Hat distro. I don't think I am the only one who has been expecting a full port of the AOL client for the last few years. It won't make AOL instant money but it will be a very good bargaining tool when dealing with Microsoft.
I don't buy the rumors that hypothesize AOL wants to get the AOL client ported to some embedded system. If this was the case, 1. They don't need Red Hat. 2. They don't need Linux.
I am no kernel hacker, just a lowly information technology worker who wants to keep up-to-date on the comings and goings with Linux development. Ok, I admit it, I am just a bit of a gawker when it comes to free software development theory. I religiously read the abridged kernel traffic every Monday. That is good stuff (all nice and technical) to start the day off with. I recommend it to anyone who wants to stay hip and with it (and hey, you get to see the real Alan and real Linus every now and then).
Keep it up guys!
It reminds me of the line from the movie Fight Club. Paraphrased:
"We are selling rich women their own fat asses." In reference to breaking into a liposuction clinique, stealing the bags of fat and making soap from it and selling the soap to designer stores.
Certain Saudis get their money from the oil we buy and send it right back to us in the forms of bombs and bullets.
Where is cold fusion and hydrogen power engines when you need them?
This seems silly. They seem to think this will assure whoever is handing you the drivers license is in fact the person who is on the license. Exactly how is this done? You could just steal someone else's card who looks like you or possibly just have someone people in the inside create a fake record for you (lets not pretend this isn't already done).
Furthermore, whenever I don't want to be tracked (they use monica's books bought a credit card as an example) I just don't use a credit card. I pay in cash. Are we going to have to swipe our driver license for cash transactions? Or do we just continue to pay in cash and not get tracked?
End result: this fails in the same way the patriot act fails to deal with terrorists. It addresses the symptons, not the problem. If a terrorist is going to kill himself, I doubt he gives a crap if you can track down who he is after the fact.