Good question. I think the problem is that an open source project has to be self starting to the point where it'll gain a critical mass of developers.
For an original game, that means you'll need a good idea (pretty rare in itself), a rudimentary (or better) engine -- that you'll have to code yourself, plus sufficiently well designed graphics and sound to get people interested.
That basically requires four separate skill sets, whereas writing a web server etc, needs at most two of those, and probably only one. And if you can't get your critical mass of developers, you're just another semi-abandoned sourceforge page.
Oh no, they won alright. It's just that they didn't win in a way that would have any precedent for further cases (e.g. if I used a version of "I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke" to parody -- oooh, President Bush's youthful indiscretions with recreational pharmaceuticals)
This stat comes up all the time. I still haven't seen their methodology
You can find the methodologht at Sophos's Spam Site. Its determined by physical location of the last relay (the only thing trustworthy in a spam header), so yes, a large number of those are probably trojaned zombie machines. The rest are the known "pink slip" ISPs in league with Floridian spammers The data set is from a "global network of honeypots". They do no filtering.
PS : "It's all from trojaned machines" is *not* an acceptable excuse. ISPs have the power to block trojaned machines SMTP engines. The largestof them (comcast, attbi) simply can't be bothered.
If you drop solar and other forms off the face of the earth, then your argument is valid.
errr. No.
Power sockets are a standard for power distribution. Solar, coal powered, etc are methods of power generation. Even the solar panels on my roof supply me with power through standard power sockets.
If their patent becomes a standard, it's just more profit for them.
Sure, but for inclusion in a standard they'd have to accept a "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing clause. If they can make more money with Unreasonable and Discriminatory licensing, why would they bother?
working on universal standards for OS interopolbility because that is a buisness killing move and against the very reason buisness competition even exists in the first place.
Nonsense. You can have interoperability and standards. Consider, say, the power sockets in your house. In every country there is a well defined standard for plugs (sure, we'd like it to be the same for each, but thats not important) and everyone's plugs fit that socket.
There's still competition. Some make robust, expensive plugs for important equipment that can't afford to fail. Some make cheap plugs for budget consumer kit. Some make plugs with groovy features like circuit breakers and easy fuse access. They compete with one another, and yet none feel the need to breach the standard for how a plug should interact with the socket.
Anti software-patent groups in the EU should seize on this, and note how Microsoft's use of its patent portfolio is so demonstrably at odds with the public interest.
What could be more in the public interest than the commoditisation of web services?
Riiiiggghhhhhhht. It would be, shall we say, "surprising" if that number were a feature of their software rather than, say, the specification of the machine its running on.
The implication of that is that other atoms that are not aluminium are involved.
Thats an inference, not an implication.
He could easily be showing a revolutionary new lattice structure into which aluminium atoms could be arranged, or showing how doping aluminium with trace amounts of other atoms produce a lattice with the desired properties.
Well, alumina has almost none of the same properties as aluminium (since you're from the UK too, I'll spell that word correctly from now on). It's extremely tough (used in drilling bits), non-conductive and non-reactive. One would expect something described as "Transparent Aluminium" to behave a bit like Aluminium. Alumina doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
For an original game, that means you'll need a good idea (pretty rare in itself), a rudimentary (or better) engine -- that you'll have to code yourself, plus sufficiently well designed graphics and sound to get people interested.
That basically requires four separate skill sets, whereas writing a web server etc, needs at most two of those, and probably only one. And if you can't get your critical mass of developers, you're just another semi-abandoned sourceforge page.
Well, thank you for your insight.
Oh, wait...
Well, thats only paradoxical if you conflate technological "primitiveness" with moral, spiritual and intellectual "primitiveness".
Oh no, they won alright. It's just that they didn't win in a way that would have any precedent for further cases (e.g. if I used a version of "I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke" to parody -- oooh, President Bush's youthful indiscretions with recreational pharmaceuticals)
PS : "It's all from trojaned machines" is *not* an acceptable excuse. ISPs have the power to block trojaned machines SMTP engines. The largestof them (comcast, attbi) simply can't be bothered.
The US is still the biggest source of spam on the net, pumping out nearly 3 times as much as its closest competitor.
Power sockets are a standard for power distribution. Solar, coal powered, etc are methods of power generation. Even the solar panels on my roof supply me with power through standard power sockets.
There's still competition. Some make robust, expensive plugs for important equipment that can't afford to fail. Some make cheap plugs for budget consumer kit. Some make plugs with groovy features like circuit breakers and easy fuse access. They compete with one another, and yet none feel the need to breach the standard for how a plug should interact with the socket.
Anti software-patent groups in the EU should seize on this, and note how Microsoft's use of its patent portfolio is so demonstrably at odds with the public interest.
What could be more in the public interest than the commoditisation of web services?
( Read More... | 2 of 1274 comments | it.slashdot.org )
You missed
5) MS should stop using the USPTO to landgrab as much basic / obvious OS and browser functionality as physically possible.
Aye, but he cannae change the Laws of Physics, Jim!
He could easily be showing a revolutionary new lattice structure into which aluminium atoms could be arranged, or showing how doping aluminium with trace amounts of other atoms produce a lattice with the desired properties.
Well, alumina has almost none of the same properties as aluminium (since you're from the UK too, I'll spell that word correctly from now on). It's extremely tough (used in drilling bits), non-conductive and non-reactive. One would expect something described as "Transparent Aluminium" to behave a bit like Aluminium. Alumina doesn't.
Transparent Hydrogen: now there's a breakthrough we could all benefit from...
who doesn't know the difference between Alumina and Aluminum.
What next, suggesting people use the silicon in their computers as a breast implant?