Strange thing is, that while he was at the job, - and if the license was GPL - it would have allowed him to copy and distribute this modified code, since he was effectively using it there...
The major problem here is that "the author" of that library might be hundreds of authors which all have to give you their "go". Also, the original library might be a fork of another GPL'd library, which brings you in even messier waters...
VMWare a memory hog? What? Running a blank winxp with only helper drivers installed in vmware vs virtualbox, both configured with 512mb ram: vmware: 80mb (all processes including DHCP etc counted), VirtualBox: 230mb
VirtualBox still has a long way to go... Totally unreliable in production or even development environments. It corrupts images on regular bases, crashes without any indication why, and on windows, the drivers are a total mess, bluescreening the entire os on regular bases (yes - also the latest versions). Not to mention the horror a version upgrade is, chances are that you have to uninstall everything again, reboot a few times, manually remove some files and re-install the latest version. WIth some luck, it then works. I gave up on it, and just installed VMWare server - which can be downloaded free of charge to use in the development environment. Is rocksolid and runs without a glitch...
And while it's true that Photoshop has no competition in most area's, Gimp does have a few area's where it can seriously compete with it, after all - most users only use 20% of Photoshop... Too bad Gimp decided to be a Photoshop competitor on "bad user-interface"-level too...
Tbh, I prefer to have both. A GUI for quick & easy configuration, and if needed some manual config-file tweaking for more flexibility, but both can be usefull, and both can be terribly designed.
Sam Raimi doesn't exactly have a better record than Michael Bay tbh... I think they're both B- class directors... Both spiderman movies might have been a huge success - but the movies basically sucked big time. I never understood why so many people think they're good... Same goes for transformers...
The only good 'comic book' movies I've seen were Sin City and X-Men 1&2. Ironman also surprised me. The others? Mediocre at most. I've seen them all in the theaters, but a lot of them don't deserve to spend any money on.
Anyway - both Sam Raimi's movies and WoW don't interest me - so I don't really care he would make a WoW movie:)
Would you invest millions with your company in a new technology - which will take 2 or 3 generations of your product to cover the research costs, if you know that by the second generation - your competitors will have 'copied' your product and got those millions worth of research for free? Why not wait for someone else to do the research and 'copy' it from them? That's why patents were invented in the first place. It's all about money, not control. It's encouraging companies to invest in long-term and/or expensive research and assuring them they won't lose money on it, because companies are NOT about control. Claiming that is just spreading FUD. Money is their primary concern, and if they use it to control things, the reason is easily traceable back to money.
Patents work as long as what they stand for cannot be applied without a cost for each resulting product. This means the final product cannot be given away for free, which means you will make money by selling it somehow. If a company applies for a patent, they are also forced to reveal the general idea, concept or basics of the technology - which means the information is out-there and free. Applying the information however would cost you money if the patent is not expired.
Now the problem is that software doesn't cost a thing to reproduce. Anyone can write a piece of software with very limited cost. Reproducing software doesn't cost a thing, which means you are able to offer and spread it for free. I personally think the 'software patent' is seriously tricky. Without research from labs like Fraunhofer - you would not have an MPEG standard, and audio and video compression codecs would not be where they are now.
I think the licensing of the patents is the most important part of the patent-system that has to be reformed. Having ridiculous licensing conditions or disallowing competitors using the patented technology should be forbidden. The application of a technology in a product that guaranteed to be available at no cost other than the distribution cost should not be required to get a license. Charging for a bundle which includes free products that use patented technology should be allowed without licensing costs when the bundled software van be used independantly from the bundle. Offcourse this is not the only thing that should be changed, ridiculous patents should still be forbidden offcourse. Now this idea is far from perfect, but I think this would pretty much solve most gripes the 'free software movement' has with pattents: - competition will be there for software. Free software will be able to compete with commercial software even if there is no other commercial competitor. - Freely available software in any form (freeware or OSS) is possible at no cost without any risk for patent violation claims. - Companies making money by distributing OSS software are not at risk. - Selling hardware implementing patented technology costs money. - Selling commercial software using a patented technology costs money.
Basicly: you're making money off a patented technology - you pay. Otherwise, you don't.
For android it's simple, they can pay for the royalties and include a H.264 codec. Would cost them a lot less than recoding all their video to OGG, not to mention bandwidth costs.
And you're confusing the Google freedom for idealistic bullshit you see on/. all the time. People at google are actually able to think for themselfs, unlike most of the/. audience which just blindly believes in "everything has to be free or it's evil".
Ehm Theora is not an 'open standard' by any means. H.264 actually is, but it has some serious licensing issues for 'free software' which is not a problem for Apple since they are already paying for the licenses anyway. Implementing Theora is risky for Apple, and I'm pretty surprised that Google is willing to add it to Chrome. No-one can guarantee that Theora is patent-free, having a codebase in a larger project which isn't covered by any patents at all has become almost impossible, certainly if you specialize in areas like video and audio codecs, where commercial labs such as Fraunhofer Institute operate, which live from patent royalties on technologies they researched.
I'm not exactly what you can call an Apple fanboy, I do have an iPhone however, but have no mac, typing this on a HP laptop with winxp, running 3 linux vm's, and developing on a bsd and a linux server remotely. I always get confused when people talk about Apple being "evil". Sure their focus is not on 'standards' - but on user experience. I absolutely don't get the 'lock in'. Apple pushed for DRM-free tunes in the iTunes store - because it's bad for the customers, not because it conflicts with some idealistic bullshit. I don't really get how behavior like this is lock-in? This means anything that can play AAC files - which is quite a lot (AAC is standardized after all and not an Apple propriatry format). This opens the market for competition for their iPod, so explain me exactly where the lock-in is? And that's only one part. Apple clearly supports opensource software. Yes they struggled somewhat with giving back to webkit in the beginning, but now, things are looking fine on that level. They get it that they can benefit from OSS, and they do include a lot of OOS with OS/X ( like Apache etc). Some people say they are exploiting OSS projects, but in the end, Red Hat, Novell & co. are also doing that right?
Now - can someone please explain me how Apple would "lock me in" by refusing to implement a non-standardized video-codec of which the creators claim it is patent-free. They do want to implement a codec that most video-capable devices out-there can already play, and is still the standard to which Theora is being compared.
Please shut up about 'crippling' products, 'vendor lock-in', 'ignoring open standards'. It may look like I'm "pro" H.264 - but I'm actually not really. I don't care what codec will be used to be honest. Just have the video tag support all codecs supported by the main OS. I think the Mozilla foundation is acting like a bunch of morons refusing to go that way. There's no such thing as "forcing freedom" on people, which is exactly what they're trying to do.
You are clearly a technical user, used to working with computers for how long? You're not a typical "end-user" and used to cumbersome userinterfaces where you have to dig into to find out how the damn thing works.
You stating that functionality is an aspect of usability is plain wrong. User interfaces represent usability. Programs are written with a problem in mind and how to solve them. Without any form of UI - you can have all functionality implemented - it will not be useable at all. The UI is the "usability" aspect of the functionality.
Opensource mostly focuses on the technical aspect on how to solve it, implement a extremely cool sollution and think "oh well finished!" followed with "wait a minute, I need a UI" - and quickly add something so it is in a more or less usable state. Usability however will be very poor because the workflow of the user had absolutely 0 seconds of thought.
This is what Apple is very good at. Their programs are extremely simple to use on the surface. Anyone who understands how a mouse works and knows some very basic stuff is able to use them. But if you look closer - you see how much powerfull functionality is actually available. They have a very high usability for their majority of users, and at the same time offer extremely powerfull tools for their power-users who are willing to dig into more technical aspects of the system. UI's of opensource programs tend to go in extremes. Or they're too simple and dumbed down - or they're overly complicated without having given any thought to usability making it equally hard to use all functionality.
Just look at MS Word, and the 2007 revamp. Microsoft finally discovered that 99% of the users only used 20% of the features, and focussed on that. I don't say they did a good job, I don't use their office suit enough to judge on that - but they clearly made the most-used functions easier to use and put them on the foreground, while the more advanced features are a bit harder to find. Word would still be used by the majority of their users - even if they stripped most of the advanced 'functionality' - and still be usefull to them. Power-word-users however would not be very happy...
THE biggest problems companies like Apple, Nokia & co have with Theora is that is uncertain territory. The makers might claim it is patent-free - but this has never ever been proven in court, and it never will be certain that this is patent-free, even if 1 or 10 lawsuits would be won. Since writing any respectably sized piece of software without violating some patents is simply impossible - this is a very realistic problem. For GPL, there's nothing to catch for potential holders of patents applying to Theora/Ogg, there's no-one big enough worth attacking. The previously mentioned companies however are something else - they are big fish and a lot of money can be made off them if they sue them for patent infringement. H.264 is simple, they already pay royalties for this, they're relatively safe. This has nothing to do with moral or technical superiority for them, but with risks and money - which they should. They provide a job and an income for quite a lot of people, and to have this threatened by some idealistic decision would be morally wrong if you look at it that way.
I absolutely like opensource, but honestly - a major part of the GPL-fanatics are morons with their head in the clouds, who are not in touch with 'the real world' out-there. You just have to accept that the GPL is not perfect. It has noble intentions, but it is idealistic - and idealistic things never work out the way they should, they always conflict with other people's ideals and visions. Compromises on the other hand do pretty well in the real world... GPL already did a lot of good things, but this is mostly due to the "free source code if you give the changes back" principle, not the "I want everything to be free" utopia. As a developer I love how I can look at the code and see how it works. If I find a bug, I give back. As a user, I couldn't care less about the legal implications. I don't want a "free" system, I want a system that works.
Yes there's a problem regarding GPL and H.264 licensing, but a perfect world does not exist - and will never exist. Fact is - getting commercial support for Theora is going to be impossible, opensource browsers who don't have a commercial backing (webkit=google+apple+nokia) will never have a 100% marketshare - there will always be commercial competitors with a relatively large piece of the pie. I personally don't have any sollutions - but if Adobe can pay H.264 licenses for it's millions of flash users - I think Mozilla foundation - which makes a shitload of money through advertising - should be able to do the same and have the H.264 'plugin' optionally downloaded if the user agrees with this. Yes this conflicts with the moral the utopia of 'everything is free' GPL stands for, but this is the real world here. I still prefer an open H.264 MPEG standard being used which commercial companies are willing to support over some completely closed propriatry WMV codec - which I imagine someone is going to push forward. Standards are good, sadly enough - video and audio encoding is quite a specialized field where patent-hungry companies are doing a lot of research in. And face it - without them we would never have had stuff like MPEG (MP3 etc) or even stuff like Theora or Ogg.
Ok sorry, you made me laugh... ABS does things which are impossible to do as a 'driver'. You cannot, for example, let your front-left wheel brake independantly from the others. A brake is used to 'slow down' as fast as possible, and it's a simple fact that with ABS you slow down a lot faster if it has to engage. I really wonder what you want to achieve by locking your wheels? When applying brakes and one of your wheel locks (they never lock at exactly the same time) - you lose control over your car. Your reaction time in extreme cases will not be enough to recover from that situation. ABS is used heavily in motorsports for a reason, and so is launch control... In fact, most of the safety features in current cars originate from motorsports - where control over the car is extremely important. So what do you claim? That you're a better driver than professional racing-pilots?
It indeed isn't a 'quake 2 mod', and it's even quite beyond Quake3 if you look at engine capabilities. It's based on QFusion, which was originally based on the Q2 sources, but which has been improved and expanded quite a bit...
Well, depends what the law in your country (or state) says. Here in Belgium, standard contracts in ICT industry include a non-compete agreement, but employment laws have a lot of protection built-in for both employer and employee. Here, there is one big catch for the (former) employer, the law here says: if they don't want ex-employees to work for a competitor, they have to pay them for not working for him.
The law doesn't allow them to stop someone from making money the best way he or she can. This means, that if your former employer chooses to enforce this, they have to pay your (new) paycheck + an additional damage fee every month for the period this non-compete agreement is valid, or until they choose to stop it. Legal notice periods for firing someone apply, which depend on how long the person worked there.
After that period is over - you can do whatever you want. For this reason, it's almost exclusively used for sales-people who can take (big) clients with them.
I've been in exactly the same situation, I also started a new company with a few collegues when we left my previous employer. We also rewrote one of their 'products' from scratch and heavily improved it. They found out but chose not to do anything.
Offcourse that's all law-related - so it's simple: ASK A LAWYER.
Promoters? The internet is the best promoter there is for a band these days... I know a few members of a band here in belgium that is getting more & more attention thanks to: - iTunes - MySpace - Last.fm and alike services: free track downloads and previews, 'simular music' recommendations,... - Free or very cheap gigs
Most of these guys still have day-time jobs, but it's getting harder and harder to combine that with being in the band - and they're making more and more money doing so. They're completely independant, revenue mainly coming from digital distribution like iTunes and gigs they do - but they all take care of it themselfs...
The internet filters out the crap. In 5 or 10 years we'll see bands and musicians pop up that 100% made it thanks to 'the internet'.
Max. Power (hp at r/min): 180 @ 4000 Max. Torque (Nm at r/min): 400 @ 1850 - 2750
And 400nm = 295lbft.
Smaller engine, more torque (but less bhp). Developed & built by Fiat Group (which means: Fiat/Alfa Romeo/Ferrari/Maserati/Lancia/Abarth), currently only used by Saab. 2.4l on the way to be introduced in january.
1) #define "small". 1.3? 1.6l? 1.9? I suppose you mean the 2.3l, but that is - to european standards - NOT a small engine. Have you ever seen the power-output of a decent Diesel engine of the same size? I don't think so:) The engine you're talking about is a brand-new last-gen engine. Alfa Romeo/Fiat group's previous gen 2.4l engine produces 210bhp and 400nm torque (295 lbft).
2) 280 what? I suppose lbft if it's the engine I think you mean (but please specify if you compare to 'european' engines)? In lbft thats a respectable figure, but still nothing to be amazed about for that engine-size. Fiat group's new 1.9 turbo-diesels easily produce 200bhp and 430nm torque - that's 320lbft out of a smaller engine. They are currently used by Saab who limits them to 180bhp/400nm (295 lbft). Your engine does produce more horsepower (263) - but make a 2.3l diesel engine with the same technology and it gets there too. Fiat Group is developing a 2.4l, and it will wipe the floor even harder with your petrol-engine regarding torque.
Petrol engines will NEVER beat diesels regarding torque. Horsepower? That could be done easily, but wouldn't always be fuel-economical:) Petrol's main advantage is that the engine doesn't have to be that strong, so it will be lighter and it will rev a lot higher - but they also need it. 5000rpm is the absolute limit for diesel. Petrol engines can easily go up to 15000rpm and higher, but that's rarely done, most of the turbo-charged petrol-engines go up to 8500rpm max to save the turbo's. But still, petrol engines get their push out of horsepower and higher RPM, diesels out of torque. That won't change...:)
> I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
I drive an Alfa Romeo diesel, which gets about 35/40mpg (1.9JTDm, 150bhp/340nm torque) in normal conditions, about 30 when pushing her. While it drives very well, diesel is a bit of a love/hate relationship for me. While cheaper to run and more relaxed in day-to-day traffic (mainly due to the huge amount of low-end torque), a decent petrol engine is a lot more 'fun', mainly because you can rev it higher (at least if you drive stick - like most of us Europeans do). Offcourse 'fun' isn't very ecological/economical:P
But diesel also has other downsides. Offcourse at the moment, the USA is flooded with CO2 by a petrol-dominated market. Diesel is more CO2-friendly but has a dirty smoke particles problem. This has improved drasticly in the last few years, just as engine perfomance has, but still is in no way cleaner than petrol if you look at the overall picture, then they probably pollute about the same (for comparable engines offc)
And forget about the BioDiesel, most oil-companies are downsizing their 'bio' effords because of the impact it has on the international food-market and the critic it gets for that. Even when they only used mixes of 10% bio and 90% 'real' diesel it had pretty bad consequences - and the biggest victims there are - as usual - the poorest countries. On top of that, producing bio-diesel is not energy-efficient at all...
Also, both Fiat group and VW have proven that you can also get (to American standards) good mileage out of turbocharged petrol engines, but for the US market there's still the perception that 'size matters' - and a 1.4l petrol engine will not be easily accepted, even if it produces 230nm torque starting from 1800rpm all the way up to 5500rpm, 155bhp and 33mpg for a performance optimized engine. Sad truth I'm afraid...
Sadly, a lot of the "IT Professionals" I encounter are plain idiots. Even in-depth interviews can't guarantee that you have someone capable in front of you, but it does filter out those idiots.
I work for a small (5 ppl) IT-only company and when we hire someone, while he will get some basic training, he is supposed to work pretty independantly. But once in such a position you can pretend doing a lot while doing almost nothing, and still make things appear to 'work'. You'd be amazed what an incompetent guy can pretend to be and produce results that on the first glance seem to be OK. And then when his software goes into production you suddenly notice that he didn't use an XML parser, but expected certain data on certain lines and filtered it out using regular expressions - and NO, not using the standard regular expression library - but doing something like this in C:
You get the picture. He btw didn't even write a function to do this, but copy-pasted stuff like this a few 100 times... Software worked in test, client changed 1 insignificant thing in their XML generation (added a tag we didn't use), and our entire system went down. I ended up rewriting this guy's stuff after he was fired.
And that's the main problem with IT jobs, you only notice they're incompetent when things start to go wrong. And then it's too late. So if I have to interview someone for an IT position, I want to be as sure as possible we don't end up in such a situation again. Masking incompetence in an IT position is just too easy.
"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."
This is one of the things that exactly causes piracy. I will not 'rent' a game. A pirated copy is 10x easier to install, no activation bullshit... Yes I would be perfectly willing to buy the game - I have original copies of almost every 'westwood' and C&C game. I was tempted to buy Spore when I saw it in the shop, but the DRM shit stopped me from taking it. I think we should make the message more clear.
Why don't they have a good look at DRM licensing schemes that actually worked and still work (mainly iTunes and Steam). They exist and are virtually no hassle to the customer, I can perfectly live with them because I have control over them. I can install my Steam games on as much PC's as I want. iTunes does have DRM, but is pretty easy to manage - and much of it's content is moving to the "iTunes+" without DRM anyway. The DRM which is used in iTunes can be perfectly managed by me - the user.
When they would finally realise that ppl are willing to pay for something as long as it's easier than pirating (buying on iTunes has to be THE perfect example), gives significant benefits (log in on Steam, install&play anywhere with your account) and/or wouldn't have such serious drawbacks - they wouldn't have all this trouble.
But well, EA's top still is a bunch of idiots that doesn't understand the concept of 'customers'... The fact that you don't get one of your 'install rights' back when uninstalling is I think the biggest problem. While still not perfect, I would probably have bought Spore on-the-spot if it simply did this. But it doesn't - so I'll gladly be a pirate.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple never signed a contract saying they agreed not to do that. Palm in this case did and violated this contract AND a standard by doing so.
Strange thing is, that while he was at the job, - and if the license was GPL - it would have allowed him to copy and distribute this modified code, since he was effectively using it there...
Good luck if you're planning a crusade against the trends in modern society. All it's about these days is looks and image... :)
The major problem here is that "the author" of that library might be hundreds of authors which all have to give you their "go". Also, the original library might be a fork of another GPL'd library, which brings you in even messier waters...
VMWare a memory hog? What? Running a blank winxp with only helper drivers installed in vmware vs virtualbox, both configured with 512mb ram: vmware: 80mb (all processes including DHCP etc counted), VirtualBox: 230mb
VirtualBox still has a long way to go... Totally unreliable in production or even development environments. It corrupts images on regular bases, crashes without any indication why, and on windows, the drivers are a total mess, bluescreening the entire os on regular bases (yes - also the latest versions). Not to mention the horror a version upgrade is, chances are that you have to uninstall everything again, reboot a few times, manually remove some files and re-install the latest version. WIth some luck, it then works. I gave up on it, and just installed VMWare server - which can be downloaded free of charge to use in the development environment. Is rocksolid and runs without a glitch...
And while it's true that Photoshop has no competition in most area's, Gimp does have a few area's where it can seriously compete with it, after all - most users only use 20% of Photoshop... Too bad Gimp decided to be a Photoshop competitor on "bad user-interface"-level too...
Tbh, I prefer to have both. A GUI for quick & easy configuration, and if needed some manual config-file tweaking for more flexibility, but both can be usefull, and both can be terribly designed.
Sam Raimi doesn't exactly have a better record than Michael Bay tbh... I think they're both B- class directors... Both spiderman movies might have been a huge success - but the movies basically sucked big time. I never understood why so many people think they're good... Same goes for transformers...
The only good 'comic book' movies I've seen were Sin City and X-Men 1&2. Ironman also surprised me. The others? Mediocre at most. I've seen them all in the theaters, but a lot of them don't deserve to spend any money on.
Anyway - both Sam Raimi's movies and WoW don't interest me - so I don't really care he would make a WoW movie :)
Selling those chinese or whatever products in the US however would not be allowed unless they pay their license fees...
Would you invest millions with your company in a new technology - which will take 2 or 3 generations of your product to cover the research costs, if you know that by the second generation - your competitors will have 'copied' your product and got those millions worth of research for free? Why not wait for someone else to do the research and 'copy' it from them? That's why patents were invented in the first place. It's all about money, not control. It's encouraging companies to invest in long-term and/or expensive research and assuring them they won't lose money on it, because companies are NOT about control. Claiming that is just spreading FUD. Money is their primary concern, and if they use it to control things, the reason is easily traceable back to money.
Patents work as long as what they stand for cannot be applied without a cost for each resulting product. This means the final product cannot be given away for free, which means you will make money by selling it somehow. If a company applies for a patent, they are also forced to reveal the general idea, concept or basics of the technology - which means the information is out-there and free. Applying the information however would cost you money if the patent is not expired.
Now the problem is that software doesn't cost a thing to reproduce. Anyone can write a piece of software with very limited cost. Reproducing software doesn't cost a thing, which means you are able to offer and spread it for free. I personally think the 'software patent' is seriously tricky. Without research from labs like Fraunhofer - you would not have an MPEG standard, and audio and video compression codecs would not be where they are now.
I think the licensing of the patents is the most important part of the patent-system that has to be reformed. Having ridiculous licensing conditions or disallowing competitors using the patented technology should be forbidden. The application of a technology in a product that guaranteed to be available at no cost other than the distribution cost should not be required to get a license. Charging for a bundle which includes free products that use patented technology should be allowed without licensing costs when the bundled software van be used independantly from the bundle. Offcourse this is not the only thing that should be changed, ridiculous patents should still be forbidden offcourse. Now this idea is far from perfect, but I think this would pretty much solve most gripes the 'free software movement' has with pattents:
- competition will be there for software. Free software will be able to compete with commercial software even if there is no other commercial competitor.
- Freely available software in any form (freeware or OSS) is possible at no cost without any risk for patent violation claims.
- Companies making money by distributing OSS software are not at risk.
- Selling hardware implementing patented technology costs money.
- Selling commercial software using a patented technology costs money.
Basicly: you're making money off a patented technology - you pay. Otherwise, you don't.
For android it's simple, they can pay for the royalties and include a H.264 codec. Would cost them a lot less than recoding all their video to OGG, not to mention bandwidth costs. And you're confusing the Google freedom for idealistic bullshit you see on /. all the time. People at google are actually able to think for themselfs, unlike most of the /. audience which just blindly believes in "everything has to be free or it's evil".
Ehm Theora is not an 'open standard' by any means. H.264 actually is, but it has some serious licensing issues for 'free software' which is not a problem for Apple since they are already paying for the licenses anyway. Implementing Theora is risky for Apple, and I'm pretty surprised that Google is willing to add it to Chrome. No-one can guarantee that Theora is patent-free, having a codebase in a larger project which isn't covered by any patents at all has become almost impossible, certainly if you specialize in areas like video and audio codecs, where commercial labs such as Fraunhofer Institute operate, which live from patent royalties on technologies they researched. I'm not exactly what you can call an Apple fanboy, I do have an iPhone however, but have no mac, typing this on a HP laptop with winxp, running 3 linux vm's, and developing on a bsd and a linux server remotely. I always get confused when people talk about Apple being "evil". Sure their focus is not on 'standards' - but on user experience. I absolutely don't get the 'lock in'. Apple pushed for DRM-free tunes in the iTunes store - because it's bad for the customers, not because it conflicts with some idealistic bullshit. I don't really get how behavior like this is lock-in? This means anything that can play AAC files - which is quite a lot (AAC is standardized after all and not an Apple propriatry format). This opens the market for competition for their iPod, so explain me exactly where the lock-in is? And that's only one part. Apple clearly supports opensource software. Yes they struggled somewhat with giving back to webkit in the beginning, but now, things are looking fine on that level. They get it that they can benefit from OSS, and they do include a lot of OOS with OS/X ( like Apache etc). Some people say they are exploiting OSS projects, but in the end, Red Hat, Novell & co. are also doing that right? Now - can someone please explain me how Apple would "lock me in" by refusing to implement a non-standardized video-codec of which the creators claim it is patent-free. They do want to implement a codec that most video-capable devices out-there can already play, and is still the standard to which Theora is being compared. Please shut up about 'crippling' products, 'vendor lock-in', 'ignoring open standards'. It may look like I'm "pro" H.264 - but I'm actually not really. I don't care what codec will be used to be honest. Just have the video tag support all codecs supported by the main OS. I think the Mozilla foundation is acting like a bunch of morons refusing to go that way. There's no such thing as "forcing freedom" on people, which is exactly what they're trying to do.
You are clearly a technical user, used to working with computers for how long? You're not a typical "end-user" and used to cumbersome userinterfaces where you have to dig into to find out how the damn thing works. You stating that functionality is an aspect of usability is plain wrong. User interfaces represent usability. Programs are written with a problem in mind and how to solve them. Without any form of UI - you can have all functionality implemented - it will not be useable at all. The UI is the "usability" aspect of the functionality. Opensource mostly focuses on the technical aspect on how to solve it, implement a extremely cool sollution and think "oh well finished!" followed with "wait a minute, I need a UI" - and quickly add something so it is in a more or less usable state. Usability however will be very poor because the workflow of the user had absolutely 0 seconds of thought. This is what Apple is very good at. Their programs are extremely simple to use on the surface. Anyone who understands how a mouse works and knows some very basic stuff is able to use them. But if you look closer - you see how much powerfull functionality is actually available. They have a very high usability for their majority of users, and at the same time offer extremely powerfull tools for their power-users who are willing to dig into more technical aspects of the system. UI's of opensource programs tend to go in extremes. Or they're too simple and dumbed down - or they're overly complicated without having given any thought to usability making it equally hard to use all functionality. Just look at MS Word, and the 2007 revamp. Microsoft finally discovered that 99% of the users only used 20% of the features, and focussed on that. I don't say they did a good job, I don't use their office suit enough to judge on that - but they clearly made the most-used functions easier to use and put them on the foreground, while the more advanced features are a bit harder to find. Word would still be used by the majority of their users - even if they stripped most of the advanced 'functionality' - and still be usefull to them. Power-word-users however would not be very happy...
THE biggest problems companies like Apple, Nokia & co have with Theora is that is uncertain territory. The makers might claim it is patent-free - but this has never ever been proven in court, and it never will be certain that this is patent-free, even if 1 or 10 lawsuits would be won. Since writing any respectably sized piece of software without violating some patents is simply impossible - this is a very realistic problem. For GPL, there's nothing to catch for potential holders of patents applying to Theora/Ogg, there's no-one big enough worth attacking. The previously mentioned companies however are something else - they are big fish and a lot of money can be made off them if they sue them for patent infringement. H.264 is simple, they already pay royalties for this, they're relatively safe. This has nothing to do with moral or technical superiority for them, but with risks and money - which they should. They provide a job and an income for quite a lot of people, and to have this threatened by some idealistic decision would be morally wrong if you look at it that way.
I absolutely like opensource, but honestly - a major part of the GPL-fanatics are morons with their head in the clouds, who are not in touch with 'the real world' out-there. You just have to accept that the GPL is not perfect. It has noble intentions, but it is idealistic - and idealistic things never work out the way they should, they always conflict with other people's ideals and visions. Compromises on the other hand do pretty well in the real world... GPL already did a lot of good things, but this is mostly due to the "free source code if you give the changes back" principle, not the "I want everything to be free" utopia. As a developer I love how I can look at the code and see how it works. If I find a bug, I give back. As a user, I couldn't care less about the legal implications. I don't want a "free" system, I want a system that works.
Yes there's a problem regarding GPL and H.264 licensing, but a perfect world does not exist - and will never exist. Fact is - getting commercial support for Theora is going to be impossible, opensource browsers who don't have a commercial backing (webkit=google+apple+nokia) will never have a 100% marketshare - there will always be commercial competitors with a relatively large piece of the pie. I personally don't have any sollutions - but if Adobe can pay H.264 licenses for it's millions of flash users - I think Mozilla foundation - which makes a shitload of money through advertising - should be able to do the same and have the H.264 'plugin' optionally downloaded if the user agrees with this. Yes this conflicts with the moral the utopia of 'everything is free' GPL stands for, but this is the real world here. I still prefer an open H.264 MPEG standard being used which commercial companies are willing to support over some completely closed propriatry WMV codec - which I imagine someone is going to push forward. Standards are good, sadly enough - video and audio encoding is quite a specialized field where patent-hungry companies are doing a lot of research in. And face it - without them we would never have had stuff like MPEG (MP3 etc) or even stuff like Theora or Ogg.
Ok sorry, you made me laugh... ABS does things which are impossible to do as a 'driver'. You cannot, for example, let your front-left wheel brake independantly from the others. A brake is used to 'slow down' as fast as possible, and it's a simple fact that with ABS you slow down a lot faster if it has to engage. I really wonder what you want to achieve by locking your wheels? When applying brakes and one of your wheel locks (they never lock at exactly the same time) - you lose control over your car. Your reaction time in extreme cases will not be enough to recover from that situation. ABS is used heavily in motorsports for a reason, and so is launch control... In fact, most of the safety features in current cars originate from motorsports - where control over the car is extremely important. So what do you claim? That you're a better driver than professional racing-pilots?
Warsow code is released under GPL...
It indeed isn't a 'quake 2 mod', and it's even quite beyond Quake3 if you look at engine capabilities. It's based on QFusion, which was originally based on the Q2 sources, but which has been improved and expanded quite a bit...
Well, depends what the law in your country (or state) says. Here in Belgium, standard contracts in ICT industry include a non-compete agreement, but employment laws have a lot of protection built-in for both employer and employee. Here, there is one big catch for the (former) employer, the law here says: if they don't want ex-employees to work for a competitor, they have to pay them for not working for him.
The law doesn't allow them to stop someone from making money the best way he or she can. This means, that if your former employer chooses to enforce this, they have to pay your (new) paycheck + an additional damage fee every month for the period this non-compete agreement is valid, or until they choose to stop it. Legal notice periods for firing someone apply, which depend on how long the person worked there.
After that period is over - you can do whatever you want. For this reason, it's almost exclusively used for sales-people who can take (big) clients with them.
I've been in exactly the same situation, I also started a new company with a few collegues when we left my previous employer. We also rewrote one of their 'products' from scratch and heavily improved it. They found out but chose not to do anything.
Offcourse that's all law-related - so it's simple: ASK A LAWYER.
Promoters? The internet is the best promoter there is for a band these days... I know a few members of a band here in belgium that is getting more & more attention thanks to: ...
- iTunes
- MySpace
- Last.fm and alike services: free track downloads and previews, 'simular music' recommendations,
- Free or very cheap gigs
Most of these guys still have day-time jobs, but it's getting harder and harder to combine that with being in the band - and they're making more and more money doing so. They're completely independant, revenue mainly coming from digital distribution like iTunes and gigs they do - but they all take care of it themselfs...
The internet filters out the crap. In 5 or 10 years we'll see bands and musicians pop up that 100% made it thanks to 'the internet'.
Absolutely, 24 gears is better than 5.
NOT
Check the 1.9TTiD 180 ps (yes that's a diesel):
http://dyc.saab-web.com/main/GB/en/model/93_S/techspecs.shtml
Max. Power (hp at r/min): 180 @ 4000
Max. Torque (Nm at r/min): 400 @ 1850 - 2750
And 400nm = 295lbft.
Smaller engine, more torque (but less bhp). Developed & built by Fiat Group (which means: Fiat/Alfa Romeo/Ferrari/Maserati/Lancia/Abarth), currently only used by Saab. 2.4l on the way to be introduced in january.
@stewbacca:
1) #define "small". 1.3? 1.6l? 1.9? I suppose you mean the 2.3l, but that is - to european standards - NOT a small engine. Have you ever seen the power-output of a decent Diesel engine of the same size? I don't think so :) The engine you're talking about is a brand-new last-gen engine. Alfa Romeo/Fiat group's previous gen 2.4l engine produces 210bhp and 400nm torque (295 lbft).
2) 280 what? I suppose lbft if it's the engine I think you mean (but please specify if you compare to 'european' engines)? In lbft thats a respectable figure, but still nothing to be amazed about for that engine-size. Fiat group's new 1.9 turbo-diesels easily produce 200bhp and 430nm torque - that's 320lbft out of a smaller engine. They are currently used by Saab who limits them to 180bhp/400nm (295 lbft). Your engine does produce more horsepower (263) - but make a 2.3l diesel engine with the same technology and it gets there too. Fiat Group is developing a 2.4l, and it will wipe the floor even harder with your petrol-engine regarding torque.
Petrol engines will NEVER beat diesels regarding torque. Horsepower? That could be done easily, but wouldn't always be fuel-economical :) Petrol's main advantage is that the engine doesn't have to be that strong, so it will be lighter and it will rev a lot higher - but they also need it. 5000rpm is the absolute limit for diesel. Petrol engines can easily go up to 15000rpm and higher, but that's rarely done, most of the turbo-charged petrol-engines go up to 8500rpm max to save the turbo's. But still, petrol engines get their push out of horsepower and higher RPM, diesels out of torque. That won't change... :)
> I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
I drive an Alfa Romeo diesel, which gets about 35/40mpg (1.9JTDm, 150bhp/340nm torque) in normal conditions, about 30 when pushing her. While it drives very well, diesel is a bit of a love/hate relationship for me. While cheaper to run and more relaxed in day-to-day traffic (mainly due to the huge amount of low-end torque), a decent petrol engine is a lot more 'fun', mainly because you can rev it higher (at least if you drive stick - like most of us Europeans do). Offcourse 'fun' isn't very ecological/economical :P
But diesel also has other downsides. Offcourse at the moment, the USA is flooded with CO2 by a petrol-dominated market. Diesel is more CO2-friendly but has a dirty smoke particles problem. This has improved drasticly in the last few years, just as engine perfomance has, but still is in no way cleaner than petrol if you look at the overall picture, then they probably pollute about the same (for comparable engines offc)
And forget about the BioDiesel, most oil-companies are downsizing their 'bio' effords because of the impact it has on the international food-market and the critic it gets for that. Even when they only used mixes of 10% bio and 90% 'real' diesel it had pretty bad consequences - and the biggest victims there are - as usual - the poorest countries. On top of that, producing bio-diesel is not energy-efficient at all...
Also, both Fiat group and VW have proven that you can also get (to American standards) good mileage out of turbocharged petrol engines, but for the US market there's still the perception that 'size matters' - and a 1.4l petrol engine will not be easily accepted, even if it produces 230nm torque starting from 1800rpm all the way up to 5500rpm, 155bhp and 33mpg for a performance optimized engine. Sad truth I'm afraid...
Sadly, a lot of the "IT Professionals" I encounter are plain idiots. Even in-depth interviews can't guarantee that you have someone capable in front of you, but it does filter out those idiots.
I work for a small (5 ppl) IT-only company and when we hire someone, while he will get some basic training, he is supposed to work pretty independantly. But once in such a position you can pretend doing a lot while doing almost nothing, and still make things appear to 'work'. You'd be amazed what an incompetent guy can pretend to be and produce results that on the first glance seem to be OK. And then when his software goes into production you suddenly notice that he didn't use an XML parser, but expected certain data on certain lines and filtered it out using regular expressions - and NO, not using the standard regular expression library - but doing something like this in C:
sprintf(cmdbuf, "/usr/bash /bin/sed -e \"s/%s//\" > /tmp/filename", inputbuffer); ...
system(cmdbuf);
fp = fopen("/tmp/filename", "r");
You get the picture. He btw didn't even write a function to do this, but copy-pasted stuff like this a few 100 times... Software worked in test, client changed 1 insignificant thing in their XML generation (added a tag we didn't use), and our entire system went down. I ended up rewriting this guy's stuff after he was fired.
And that's the main problem with IT jobs, you only notice they're incompetent when things start to go wrong. And then it's too late. So if I have to interview someone for an IT position, I want to be as sure as possible we don't end up in such a situation again. Masking incompetence in an IT position is just too easy.
"Hopefully, if the piracy rate for the game is low, perhaps EA will get comfortable enough to ship with even less DRM in the future."
This is one of the things that exactly causes piracy. I will not 'rent' a game. A pirated copy is 10x easier to install, no activation bullshit... Yes I would be perfectly willing to buy the game - I have original copies of almost every 'westwood' and C&C game. I was tempted to buy Spore when I saw it in the shop, but the DRM shit stopped me from taking it. I think we should make the message more clear.
Why don't they have a good look at DRM licensing schemes that actually worked and still work (mainly iTunes and Steam). They exist and are virtually no hassle to the customer, I can perfectly live with them because I have control over them. I can install my Steam games on as much PC's as I want. iTunes does have DRM, but is pretty easy to manage - and much of it's content is moving to the "iTunes+" without DRM anyway. The DRM which is used in iTunes can be perfectly managed by me - the user.
When they would finally realise that ppl are willing to pay for something as long as it's easier than pirating (buying on iTunes has to be THE perfect example), gives significant benefits (log in on Steam, install&play anywhere with your account) and/or wouldn't have such serious drawbacks - they wouldn't have all this trouble.
But well, EA's top still is a bunch of idiots that doesn't understand the concept of 'customers'... The fact that you don't get one of your 'install rights' back when uninstalling is I think the biggest problem. While still not perfect, I would probably have bought Spore on-the-spot if it simply did this. But it doesn't - so I'll gladly be a pirate.