Well, it flat out says that they would have to write their own compiler.
But you're right about the framework being open enough, though I think it's more a matter of it being worth it to put in their own secret sauce, and not if they can.
A quote from the CNN article (which seems to be a bit more fleshed out) I didn't see in either of the ones listed at the top:
"We haven't found an exact solar system analog, which would have a circular orbit and a mass closer to that of Jupiter. But this shows we are getting close," said Paul Butler, another member of the planet-hunting team.
But the orbit of the Jupiter-like planet is stable enough to foster a benign, life-friendly environment in the inner solar orbit, Fischer said.
Well, they're quoted in this article on ZDNet (the quote is near the bottom) as saying that they're going to release the language base so other chip makers can write their own compilers for their products.
That was the first thing that popped into my head when I read this article, but it sounds like they're going to give open access to the standards, just not to the interface with their chips.
Except maybe make you feel better. The game will still sell more than well enough to be a smash hit in sales.
Without going into it too much, I don't put Blizzard at fault, I put WarForge at fault. It was their putting War3 support into the BNetD project that drove Blizzard to this. They had to do something, that this was about the only thing they COULD to stop it.
You have nobody to blame but those who just HAD to pirate the CLOSED beta.
Yeah, you go boycott Blizzard if it makes you feel better. I'll be over there playing War3.
If a couple years go by and the massive copying still continues while the artists see that it doesn't have a negative impact on sales -- if that turns out to be the case -- then I suspect that the level of concern will go down. They'll still talk, the record industry, but they won't be manic about it. They were concerned about audiotaping but after a while, they seemed to realize that it wasn't that bad. But it took them a long time.
Forget just sales, the artists I enjoy are getting MORE money out of me now. I never bought music to begin with (radio is cutting into sales!), but after hearing a wider range of music thanks to P2P networks, I'm going to (exponentially) more live shows than I ever did before.
I wouldn't be suprised that, if they looked and concert sales, they'd find them up. Not sure how much of that goes to the big companies, but the artists would deffinitely see an increase from that.
As a slight correction, when it comes to baud ratings, 10 Gigabit/sec = 1 Gigabyte/sec
It's 8:1 for storage, but generally 10:1 for network ratings (an example - more for serial ports, but it still applies), thanks to a header and a footer bit sent with every byte. Sometimes (rarely), throw in a parity bit for good measure.
1) A DS3 isn't that great. I worked for a local ISP that had 2 of them as BACKUP for the OC-12 rings. A cable operation would be looking at an OC line, minimum. Probably an OC-12 at least. Looking at several hundred thousand a month.
2) The backbones (generally) aren't flat-rate. They have to pay so much per Gbit transferred generally. This is why most hosting companies take the approach that DSL and Cable providers are starting to look at, with X GB included in the monthly cost, with every GB (generally) over that costing extra.
Now, having said that, your question still stands for the companies that own their own backbone, like AT&T.
This was news back in February. I think the article it links to is gone though.
I'm not suprised by this, even if I am disappointed. It's just not financially viable for the bandwidth usage that some of the file swappers are taking up.
I've forced IE to use the Sun JDK and plugins and it didn't have any problems using applets, while Mozilla (0.9 something, 1.0 wasn't out at the time) choked on several of them. Hell, it couldn't even find parts of the Sun plugin.
No, that's from the author of the rebuttal, copy & pasted from the paragraph right BEFORE he quotes Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez. It's at about the half point in the rebuttal, if you want to check. Just do a find for Nunez.
But you're right about the letter, and Dr. Nunez's proposal.
Already did, read my other replies for a good example of balance, and an interview with someone that (more or less) puts what I'm trying to say in MUCH better words.
Actually, he makes several comments that can easily and logically be interpreted (possibly misinterpreted, I'll admit that, I'm not a mind reader) as indicating that he IS advocating that.
Beyond the paragraph I quoted in my original post, here's another more blatant one.
On the contrary, it is imperative that businesses rely solely on free software for access to critical information. Only in this way can they guarantee access to their data, and not be held hostage by proprietary file formats and proprietary vendors.
While he makes a good point about proprietary file formats, he falls into the same trap that he accuses ADTI of using by failing to mention that closed source software doesn't HAVE to use proprietary file formats. Microsoft chooses to, but that's Microsoft. Take a look at MP3s. That's not a proprietary file format, and yet there seems to be closed source softare that makes use of it...
Well, a bit of both of what you suggested. But I should note that I never said it doesn't already exist. My comments were directed at the views expressed in the rebuttal, NOT towards the current state of software.
When I said balance is necessary, I mostly meant that there be both open source and closed source programs out there. With regards to this, my point was that the author of the rebuttal, at times, seems to be advocating 100% GPL'd software. That's NOT balance.
As for a blend of the extremes as you called them, some balance there in the form of more software being released somewhere in the middle, such as the licsencing scheme used by BitMover for BitKeeper (described in this interview) would be nice.
With this point, I think more balance would be achieved through a more co-operative existance between open and closed source. Of course, I can't expect we'll ever see Microsoft being part of such an initiative.
While the original ADTI report is blatant bias, the rebuttal isn't exactly above and beyond that either.
While I agree with most of the rebuttal, there are a few points that the author's zealotry shows through just as badly as in the Micros.... I mean ADTI report. Example being this:
There are two groups of programmers that contribute to the open source community. The first group consists of professionally hired programmers by day, who freely contribute code. The second group consists of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that are hiring open source programmers for their products. However, open source principally perpetuates itself because there is an avid pool of experts and enthusiasts willing to spend their spare time to provide fixes and modifications to open-source software. This volunteer system works well as an academic model, but not as a business one.
Who cares about business models? We have Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Gnome, KDE, Perl, Python, PHP, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and so on in spite of the supposed lack of a business model. What we see here is more whining from proprietary vendors about how free software is hurting their business model. Let's hear the refrain: "Tough. Adapt or die."
About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
Oh well, at least this one wasn't a Microsoft front.
SUMMARY:
The rebuttal is factually (much) more accurate, but just as zealous as the ADTI report.
Well, on the upside.... If it was the iPaq that burnt out and not the connection dying, he'll be able to try to fix it on his way to the hospital to get those burns he woulda got from holding it when it died!
Well, Ontario is pretty big and has a lot of school boards, and some of the computer usage poilcy tends to be set by the school, not the board or the government...
I'll still throw in my $0.02 CDN.
At my high school, we were allowed to play games - with one catch. Had to be something we (we meaning the students in general) had made.
Actually had a decent number of cool little homegrown games. Nothing commercial quality, but more entertaining than sitting there with nothing to do.
One thing about the piracy in Canada that the article fails to mention:
While the signals have been ruled public domain (and thus don't need to be payed for) since the American providers do not have a broadcast licensce in Canada, it HAS been ruled illegal to sell the equipment for those services.
Best reference to this I could find can be found here.
Can you really blame Blizzard for trying to protect what is SUPPOSED to be a PRIVATE beta test?
If it hadn't made things so easy to pirate the CLOSED beta (keep in mind, copyright law is a bit different there, since nobody has actually PAYED for the War3 beta), then this probably wouldn't have happened.
You can't really claim "fair use" when it comes to Warcraft III yet. And it's the War3 issue that's force this to happen. The CD Key issue is secondary, and just to give them a bit more legal ammunition.
No, the blame here isn't really on Blizzard (IMO), but on it's parent company (Vivendi), and the immorral programmers that added support to BNetD for a PRIVATE beta.
Note that the programmers I'm referring to aren't the people who are primarily responsible for the BNetD project, but the people behind Warforge. I could be wrong about the main BNetD people refusing to add War3 Beta support, but I can't check because the article previously posted here on/. seems to be currently inaccessible.
This technology is just cool, with some pretty serious applications.
I remember sitting around with some voice recognition program (can't remember what one) about 5 years ago, running through all of the little training things to get it to learn my speech patterns.
I find it kind of strange that it's first appearing in an MP3 player, but I suppose that's the kind of market where a lot of innovation is going to be. I just wonder how long it's going to be until we start seing this in more practical applications, instead of just being a convenience thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it flat out says that they would have to write their own compiler.
But you're right about the framework being open enough, though I think it's more a matter of it being worth it to put in their own secret sauce, and not if they can.
I guess time will tell.
A quote from the CNN article (which seems to be a bit more fleshed out) I didn't see in either of the ones listed at the top:
"We haven't found an exact solar system analog, which would have a circular orbit and a mass closer to that of Jupiter. But this shows we are getting close," said Paul Butler, another member of the planet-hunting team.
But the orbit of the Jupiter-like planet is stable enough to foster a benign, life-friendly environment in the inner solar orbit, Fischer said.
Okay, so the planet 3-3.5 times the size of Jupiter, at NEAR the same orbit as Jupiter....
But that planet right near the star that's just a bit smaller than Jupiter is a BIG difference.
But hey, it's a start, and doesn't mean that there AREN'T planets geologically similar to Earth there.
Guess we might find out soon.
Well, they're quoted in this article on ZDNet (the quote is near the bottom) as saying that they're going to release the language base so other chip makers can write their own compilers for their products.
That was the first thing that popped into my head when I read this article, but it sounds like they're going to give open access to the standards, just not to the interface with their chips.
Except maybe make you feel better. The game will still sell more than well enough to be a smash hit in sales.
Without going into it too much, I don't put Blizzard at fault, I put WarForge at fault. It was their putting War3 support into the BNetD project that drove Blizzard to this. They had to do something, that this was about the only thing they COULD to stop it.
You have nobody to blame but those who just HAD to pirate the CLOSED beta.
Yeah, you go boycott Blizzard if it makes you feel better. I'll be over there playing War3.
If a couple years go by and the massive copying still continues while the artists see that it doesn't have a negative impact on sales -- if that turns out to be the case -- then I suspect that the level of concern will go down. They'll still talk, the record industry, but they won't be manic about it. They were concerned about audiotaping but after a while, they seemed to realize that it wasn't that bad. But it took them a long time.
Forget just sales, the artists I enjoy are getting MORE money out of me now. I never bought music to begin with (radio is cutting into sales!), but after hearing a wider range of music thanks to P2P networks, I'm going to (exponentially) more live shows than I ever did before.
I wouldn't be suprised that, if they looked and concert sales, they'd find them up. Not sure how much of that goes to the big companies, but the artists would deffinitely see an increase from that.
As a slight correction, when it comes to baud ratings, 10 Gigabit/sec = 1 Gigabyte/sec
It's 8:1 for storage, but generally 10:1 for network ratings (an example - more for serial ports, but it still applies), thanks to a header and a footer bit sent with every byte. Sometimes (rarely), throw in a parity bit for good measure.
Mind you, that's still only 2.78 hours.
1) A DS3 isn't that great. I worked for a local ISP that had 2 of them as BACKUP for the OC-12 rings. A cable operation would be looking at an OC line, minimum. Probably an OC-12 at least. Looking at several hundred thousand a month.
2) The backbones (generally) aren't flat-rate. They have to pay so much per Gbit transferred generally. This is why most hosting companies take the approach that DSL and Cable providers are starting to look at, with X GB included in the monthly cost, with every GB (generally) over that costing extra.
Now, having said that, your question still stands for the companies that own their own backbone, like AT&T.
This was news back in February. I think the article it links to is gone though.
I'm not suprised by this, even if I am disappointed. It's just not financially viable for the bandwidth usage that some of the file swappers are taking up.
Not really....
I've forced IE to use the Sun JDK and plugins and it didn't have any problems using applets, while Mozilla (0.9 something, 1.0 wasn't out at the time) choked on several of them. Hell, it couldn't even find parts of the Sun plugin.
Except for one thing, the comments are referring to business models in general.
No, that's from the author of the rebuttal, copy & pasted from the paragraph right BEFORE he quotes Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez. It's at about the half point in the rebuttal, if you want to check. Just do a find for Nunez.
But you're right about the letter, and Dr. Nunez's proposal.
Already did, read my other replies for a good example of balance, and an interview with someone that (more or less) puts what I'm trying to say in MUCH better words.
Beyond the paragraph I quoted in my original post, here's another more blatant one.
While he makes a good point about proprietary file formats, he falls into the same trap that he accuses ADTI of using by failing to mention that closed source software doesn't HAVE to use proprietary file formats. Microsoft chooses to, but that's Microsoft. Take a look at MP3s. That's not a proprietary file format, and yet there seems to be closed source softare that makes use of it...
Well, a bit of both of what you suggested. But I should note that I never said it doesn't already exist. My comments were directed at the views expressed in the rebuttal, NOT towards the current state of software.
When I said balance is necessary, I mostly meant that there be both open source and closed source programs out there. With regards to this, my point was that the author of the rebuttal, at times, seems to be advocating 100% GPL'd software. That's NOT balance.
As for a blend of the extremes as you called them, some balance there in the form of more software being released somewhere in the middle, such as the licsencing scheme used by BitMover for BitKeeper (described in this interview) would be nice.
With this point, I think more balance would be achieved through a more co-operative existance between open and closed source. Of course, I can't expect we'll ever see Microsoft being part of such an initiative.
Ahh.... Very true.
Also reads a bit less biased if you consider it directed at Microsoft, and not the entirity of closed source software developpers.
Which is probably the case.
While I agree with most of the rebuttal, there are a few points that the author's zealotry shows through just as badly as in the Micros.... I mean ADTI report. Example being this:
About the only thing that I find arguable about that small section of the ADTI report is the part about Open Source not working for a business model. First thing that David Skoll indicates is that he doesn't care about business models.
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
Oh well, at least this one wasn't a Microsoft front.
SUMMARY:
The rebuttal is factually (much) more accurate, but just as zealous as the ADTI report.
I hit it at 359.
Refresh and it was dead.
Well, on the upside.... If it was the iPaq that burnt out and not the connection dying, he'll be able to try to fix it on his way to the hospital to get those burns he woulda got from holding it when it died!
That it did. Was a great thing to pass the time with after doing the day's work in computer class.
Even got to the the point where one guy wrote a basic 3D engine in Turing (a Pascal variant for the many who haven't heard of it).
Of course, you still got in trouble if you were supposed to be doing work.
Well, Ontario is pretty big and has a lot of school boards, and some of the computer usage poilcy tends to be set by the school, not the board or the government...
I'll still throw in my $0.02 CDN.
At my high school, we were allowed to play games - with one catch. Had to be something we (we meaning the students in general) had made.
Actually had a decent number of cool little homegrown games. Nothing commercial quality, but more entertaining than sitting there with nothing to do.
I can see it now... "Hacker saves museum database, is charged under DCMA"
Of course, then the RIAA would sue them, just because they can.
Well..
After digging a bit more, I've hit some conflicting information on usage - from saying it's OK, to it's illegal, to not mentioning it at all.
But it has been made illegal to buy/sell the equipment in Canada.
Well, for now. They're still in court.
One thing about the piracy in Canada that the article fails to mention:
While the signals have been ruled public domain (and thus don't need to be payed for) since the American providers do not have a broadcast licensce in Canada, it HAS been ruled illegal to sell the equipment for those services.
Best reference to this I could find can be found here.
Short version:
Illegal to buy, but legal to use.
Can you really blame Blizzard for trying to protect what is SUPPOSED to be a PRIVATE beta test?
/. seems to be currently inaccessible.
If it hadn't made things so easy to pirate the CLOSED beta (keep in mind, copyright law is a bit different there, since nobody has actually PAYED for the War3 beta), then this probably wouldn't have happened.
You can't really claim "fair use" when it comes to Warcraft III yet. And it's the War3 issue that's force this to happen. The CD Key issue is secondary, and just to give them a bit more legal ammunition.
No, the blame here isn't really on Blizzard (IMO), but on it's parent company (Vivendi), and the immorral programmers that added support to BNetD for a PRIVATE beta.
Note that the programmers I'm referring to aren't the people who are primarily responsible for the BNetD project, but the people behind Warforge. I could be wrong about the main BNetD people refusing to add War3 Beta support, but I can't check because the article previously posted here on
This technology is just cool, with some pretty serious applications.
I remember sitting around with some voice recognition program (can't remember what one) about 5 years ago, running through all of the little training things to get it to learn my speech patterns.
I find it kind of strange that it's first appearing in an MP3 player, but I suppose that's the kind of market where a lot of innovation is going to be. I just wonder how long it's going to be until we start seing this in more practical applications, instead of just being a convenience thing.