When I finished my questionnaire (vote), the meter read 472 votes. Brief refresh (just to see if number changed) read 485! A few minutes later, over 550. Site is fine, but the slashdot effect is readily visible.
Anyone know when the site first went live (just out of curiosity)?
XP programming (especially its pair programming approach) can weed out prima donnas fast, though I think it requires good management to create an appropriately positive XP culture. XP can be soured also with poor management (at which point it's probably not really XP practices but just make pretend).
Pair programming forces people to work together and through each other for productivity. Shared knowledge and shared design are key to XP. I think one of the strongest aspects of XP is the elimination of monopoly coders who specialize their knowledge at the expense of the group or project.
This pair programming aspect is also one of (the?) most prominent caveats I have about XP programming:
When is solo (a la prima donna) programming appropriate?
In pure XP, never for production code (as I understand XP). However, XP is about getting work done and done well, so I suspect there's a way to figure out when solo programming might be OK. Hard question when considering all the tradeoffs (time, shared knowledge, teamwork, divergent skillsets, etc.).
The prima donna article is interesting, and I think XP is in some ways designed to solve that very problem (along with suggesting a few other best practices along the way).
I think opening up the s/w patents to ease innovation (and open source s/w) is a good idea and very worthwhile. I hope IBM and HP, etc., are willing to participate.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as beating around the bush. The real issue is really that s/w patents are nonsense. Bruce Lehman (US lawyer, and former USPTO head) instituted s/w patents at society's expense and despite vocal opposition. The real issue is to get rid of s/w patents altogether.
Since that's hard to do, thanks to Bruce Lehman, I'd say this Perens approach is as good a step as any. Just don't lose sight of the real disease (s/w patents) while treating the symptoms (legal red tape and blockaded innovation).
= Joe =
P.s., isn't it amazing what one stupid person can inflict on countless others? Monopolies just feed on power, and so do government appointees apparently.
This is a subject close to my heart, but I don't have all the answers. I'm not even sure there's a scientific answer since the definition of game can vary, and how you define what you're summing can vary. Presumably most games are positive sum (in some ways) or they wouldn't be played. Even zero-sum (money-wise) games should be positive sum games in some aspect(s).
For example, playing poker can be done to socialize with friends, to learn how to play the game (even if you lose $ or cents), spend time having fun, or for the challenge. I think all of these aspects are important in playing games, but there are definitely different niches for games just as there are different tastes in games.
I'll just give a (pseudo-) brief synopsis of some of the best positive-sum and positive zero-sum games I've played (and why the apparently zero-sum games are positive sum).
POSITIVE SUM GAMES
1. RPG's
The most obvious examples are role-playing games. The big daddy (and original) is Dungeons and Dragons (www.wizards.com). It's paper-based, 3rd edition, and classic, but doesn't have much inspired flavor. Other RPG's are Warhammer Fantasy (Hogshead Publishing), Deadlands (Pinnacle Entertainment Group), and Vampire: the Masquerade (temporarily forgotton publisher). There are plenty of other paper-based RPGs, but these all have unique and rich flavor.
These are all positive sum as there's no way to "win" the game. They're more like story games, where the story has no pre-defined ending. They're as complex or as simple (hack-and-slash) as the players desire and have the ability to create. Ultimately, they can be very rich and creative hobbies in character, world, and story creativity. They're also very social games. Unfortunately, by today's standards, they're very time-consuming and inefficient fun-wise (due to the heavy time demands).\
Recent years, the computer RPG has come online. This is another positive sum game with no predefined ending. People play to socialize as well as to battle and build characters. In some ways, they're more competitive as many players play to have the buffest character, but any good CRPG will have plenty of ways for players to achieve great goals and quests. Ultima Online and EverQuest are popular examples of these games. These are not my personal favorites as they (early generation) tend to be time-intensive and not very satisfying for my tastes, but I believe they're one of the best ways to play games over the internet.
2. Console games.
These games are all multi-player for best results. A few are good 1-on-1 as well (e.g., Tekken Tag Tournament, and Rush racing in arena fighting mode), but I'm concentrating specifically on the multiplayer aspect for the variety of game play, good mix of unexpected when there is more than one opponent, and the social benefits of having multiple players to laugh, smack talk, and generally whoop it up about the trials and victories of each gaming session.
These promise to get very interesting in the future as Sony, Nintendo, and Sega achieve the internet gaming model. CRPGs on these should be quite a bit of fun with the next generation games and kick-butt graphics.
My favorite games, though, are essentially zero-sum games which are a blast to play.
Positive sum aspects are their fun (!) and when you're losing badly --- their less than serious flavor and mix of luck which provides ample (even plentiful) opportunity for prolific smack talk ("You're *so* lucky!", "I can't believe that hit me.", "If you hadn't gotten that missile, you would've been toast.", "Wow, you actually won one!") You get the idea.
The best of these games (that I've found so far) is Sony Playstation's "Crash Team Racing". We keep looking for replacements and alternatives, but despite the humor and luck necessary to make the games more than zero-sum, the game play itself must be the highest integrity for the game to have a lot replay value. CTR has a unique combination of great strategic depth, high gameplay variety (lots of fun surprises), and a highest integrity game engine for very consistent and responsive game play. (Some games can be very frustrating due to inconsistencies or 'bugs' in the game engine which interrupt the immersion in the game.) CTR is both supremely fun and light-hearted but, also, very high integrity in game play. The game strategy (and maps) must also have plenty of depth and surprises to explore. We like all the racing maps, but (fyi) we really use only one of the maps for battle mode (excuse me for not knowing the name): the square-walled, split-level map with the kiosk in the middle, and the garage underneath the starting points. Despite all our attempts to upgrade to another game, we keep coming back to CTR. CTR is good for both racing and battle mode (arena fighting).
Other games are Sega's "Rush: 2049" racing which has an excellent Arena (battle) mode. This game is even good for 1-on-1. There are several maps which are strong.
For fighting games, we've really enjoyed Tekken Tag Tournament. This game was a total surprise for me as a multi-player game, but you play in pairs. I was afraid that the player tagged in would have all the fun, but the reality is that the tagged out player has to be ready to swap in at any moment. It's totally absorbing even in the 4-player tag mode. Plus, this game has the rare virtue of being a team (pairs) game. There's plenty of smack talk potential in this game. However, it can be pretty disappointing (a la zero-sum) if you suffer a losing streak. That's quite possible due to the high skill:luck factor of the game. Players need to handicap themselves if they're too skilled for the opponents. Play for fun, and it's great.
Another great game (two-player only) is the new PS2 game, SSX: Snowboarding SuperCross. This game is great because the game controls are supremely responsive, the game fantastically fun, and the play explicitly blurs the line between competing and performing. The secret to the game is the incredible tracks which are a joy to race and explore, and the stunts which are wacky fun to learn. The cornerstone of the game, however, is the stunts points and the boost meter. You pump the boost meter with tricks, and you can spend the boost to speed your racer. So tricks *can* help you race faster despite the fact tricks can take time. There's plenty to this game, including the different characters you can play requiring different paths over the courses for optimal play due to varyied abilities of the character; also, the tracks have plenty of interesting shortcuts; finally, the game has a variety of modes including the typical zero-sum race (which becomes more positive sum as the stunts become half performance art/fun and half boost for racing faster) and explicit positive sum exhibition modes (stunts only). The exhibition mode is also two-player (though if you look at points, it could be considered zero-sum, but the point is the stunts more than the points). Total surprise (to me) of a great game.
In sum, these games are zero-sum in a pure points perspective, but they have qualities which lend themselves to positive sum play. Those qualities include:
short games (for lightness of play, and quick replays)
a balance of skill and luck, leaving room for smack talk and good humor.
heavy game depth for plenty of strategy and replay value
multi-player (typically) for socializing, unexpected fun and crazy surprises in game play.
3. Puzzle games.
These are not necessarily games due to their nature, but in team mode can make for great games. The classic is Myst which can take hours to solve and is great fun when solving with help of another as a team. More recently, the Abe's Oddysey series can be great fun; just play in 1-player mode and hand-off the controller to the next person when abe dies. The fun here is from the camaraderie trying to complete the puzzle. When it's smooth going, you want to show everyone how good you are, and when a particularly vexing puzzle arrives, everyone is rooting for each person to complete it so everyone can move on to the next stages of the game. Unfortunately, MS has pretty much hijacked the future of this game for their XBox (and the PC too I guess), so the next generation won't be available on PS2 as originally promised. Doh! Fortunately, all the PS1 versions are readily available and proven strong (the new one is 3D and unproven). So, puzzles are not necessarily games, but they're definitely positive sum in satisfaction. Like jigsaw puzzles, a little social interaction to an otherwise pure puzzle can create a social and positive sum game.
-=-
Well, thanks for reading this far. That's my braindump on the current state of the art in positive sum gaming as I know it. The obvious oversight is lack of board games (I'm sure there are some fun ones I should be thinking of), but I think this post is long enough already. Hmm, I've also overlooked purely educational games (definitely positive sum for society!). The games I've concentrated on are for entertainment and social fun. I hope you enjoyed the article and even the games if you choose to try them.
Rather than pontificate about child psychology, I'll just suggest the best computer book I ever read. "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (MIT Press) by Abelson, and Sussman (two of them!). The book is somewhat introductory, mind-bending, brilliant, and fascinating.
Judging from the amazon feedback, not everyone "gets it" from the book, but I'm sure your prodigy will. It uses Scheme, an elegant version of Lisp (which means its a very dynamic and good instructional language).
Good luck,
= Joe =
Glad somebody liked it. Otherwise disappointing.
on
Review: "Unbreakable"
·
· Score: 1
Well, I am glad someone liked the movie. However, I used to collect comic books many years ago and like to think I still appreciate comic books, but this movie didn't exactly thrill me.
With a more solid ending (a la Sixth Sense), it could have been a good movie, but the movie was so slow (right from the beginning with long boring facial shot of Bruce Willis in a train for no great reason) and ill-paced that I'd say it was anemic. Plus, the ending was just pain --- pure disappointment (and not just relative to Sixth Sense, relative to an average ending). I won't ruin it but the "Filthy" Man(?) review linked to in another follow-up can spoil it for you if you wish. I totally agree with the review.
When I walked out of the movie, I suggested to my friends that if the movie ending had been the halfway mark of the movie, the pace were double, and the 2nd half picked up with some serious thrills, action, suspense, it would have been an interesting movie. Instead, it just has a great (yes, comic-booky) premise that was ill-developed and goofy disappointing for a full production movie.
The software is relatively immature and doesn't tap the true potential of the hardware, but the PS2 is already best of breed in several games. I pretty much do multiplayer, so I don't have a complete list. The five games which rock (all multiplayer with the sole exception of SSX which is only 2 player) are:
EA's SSX (snowboarding/racing/freestyle)
EA's football (Madden)
EA's hockey (I'm no hockey fan but this is fun)
Tekken Tag Tournament (tag rocks for 4 players)
TimeSplitters (silky smooth FPShooter)
The first four are well known best-of-breed games. The fifth is the no-name sleeper which just rocks (so far). Smooth and fun with a variety of settings, and even the ability to make custom maps for play!!! The full package and a good step toward solid innovation on the PS2.
So, I'd say the PS2 is already kicking some butt especially considering these are all launch titles. I hope the games just keep getting better and better, and I can't wait for GT3 (here's to hoping it's 4 player!).
You're confusing opposites. Barrier to entry should be based on manufacturing costs, not whether you can create a business plan. Original patents were (a mistake) legalized monopolies to overcome barrier to entry due to manufacturing costs. Remember, they were "invented" before the industrial age (and before the internet). It was much easier then to make sense of legalizing a monopoly for the public good.
Now, there's plenty of communication to strike deals with existing manufacturers, so patents make far less sense. We have a globalized economy and communications system to grease inventor wheels for manufacture.
For software, the case is open and shut unless you have some special interests. Manufacturing costs of software are essentially zero $. Just post to the internet. There's no cost to recover and no non-artificial barrier to entry. If you can implement it, you can gain the value from it.
The biggest (artificial) barrier to entry and survival and gaining value is... the existence of software patents, the USPTO lawyers who have and continue to institutionalize s/w patents, and a legal industry (worldwide) which insists on legalizing s/w patents to grow their industry.
To be clear, no manufacturing costs == no need for patents. Legal industry with control over USPTO (yes, every panel member of the sham software patent hearings was a lawyer) == softwarwe patents forever until outlawed (by public, software industry watchdog group, or miracle). Unfortunately, lawyers are well-positioned, well-heeled, often unethical, and very tenacious when they smell money.
Confused posts like the one above don't help (much less being rated a "5" --- gotta love that moderation:-).
Not holding breath for s/w patents legalization to be abolished,
Blame USPTO for granting s/w patents in first place. Also blame lawyers for expanding the scope of their industry frivolously (to s/w patents), counterproductively, and (drum-roll please) selfishly. In particular, lay the blame at the feet of Bruce Lehmann, USPTO commissioner who institutionalized s/w patents after two for-show-only hearings. Finally, blame whoever appointed (elected?) B. Lehmann to his post.
God bless if the court finally recognizes that code is speech, and the consequences of that. If the courts can recognize code as speech (which I believe they should), the software industry can rid itself of the "software patent" tax that the legal industry has scammed through the USPTO into the legal system. Then the software industry can concentrate its resources ($$$, and IQ cycles) on solving problems with implementations, not documenting trivial++ concepts with so-called patent applications.
The free speech analogue for code is strong, I believe. In particular, it draws an obvious connection to the appropriateness of copyright to code and utter inappropriateness of patent law, i.e., you can't patent a sentence (even though that's exactly what Bruce Lehman gave his absurd USPTO rubberstamp to do).
Copyright w/r/t code also makes clear that plagiarism is illegal (a la copyright infringement) but that isolated authoring of like code is perfectly valid. Who'da thought?
The whole code as patentable is the morass, not code as speech. In some sense, code already is speech (copyrightable). Code as a form of expression seems spot on to me, especially as computer languages become more expressive and high-level (we hope, right;-).
2 years ago (January 1998) and while at Wizards of the Coast, I submitted a written business model to the powers that be at Wizards essentially to open source D&D. I found out that Jonathan Tweet and Skaff Elias had already suggested opening the system as well in some ways. Dancey wasn't even working for RPG's back then but did ask for a copy of my proposal. Nothing happened.
Dancey was soon put in charge of RPG's at Wizards (transferring from L5R (Legends of the 5 Rings) TCG).
Then when Sun announced their SCSL license, I realized that the business model behind the SCSL was (in part) essentially what I had recommended for the D&D line in my business model (i.e., open source the core (e.g., Java), and control the standard to maintain its quality (to a degree) and integrity). I immediately reiterated my proposal to all the powers that be at Wizards again in the context of proof of concept with what Sun was doing. Ryan suggested Java was bunk (I believe) at the time, so my third-party (Sun) logic didn't quite work (backfired you might say). [Wizards is a die-hard Microsoft house even though half the computers were (1/3 now?) Macintoshes.] Nothing happened.
I think Wizards is finally trying the suggested open licensing approach in a bastardized way with Dancey's new announcement. Fortunately, I quit Wizards last month or I'd be trying to reshape the efforts into a more clear-on-the-concept genuinely open source form!:-)
It'll be interesting what if anything comes of this effort.
For the record, I do agree with a previous poster that Dancey's comments seem problematic regarding where the property boundaries are drawn. Hopefully, those lines will improve as the concept matures in Wizards (fingers crossed for RPG diehards).
I also agree with another previous poster that Wizards is trying to grab a bigger stake in RPGaming. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (after all that was the essential attraction of my proposal, and what's good for Wizards can also be good for gamers), but I think the way Wizards tries to do that is important. As the saying goes, the devil's in the details. Unfortunately, despite having some (self-professed and otherwise:-) geniuses on staff, Wizards often gets the big picture and/or details wrong. It should be fun to watch.
On another note, I *disagree* (though I guess I could be wrong and wouldn't really know) that any nefarious Hasbro type influence on Wizards is causing something evil to happen at Wizards. Wizards is just the way Wizards is. Some of it good (some people have great experiences) and some of it bad (cough, cough). Hasbro just happens to be the owner these days, but they mostly seem hands off for now (unless their latest cash cow shows problems, I'm guessing). Wizards may have problems, but they didn't start with Hasbro.
In response to yet another poster trivializing D&D 3E, I believe that D&D 3E should be more than just a warmed over D&D/AD&D 2E. I didn't work on it, read it, or try to influence it (even though I love RPGs, I eventually realized I became disenchanted with the high politics of Wizards). However, the age old TSR mechanics have been revamped and reshaped in a way palatable to some very discerning game designers, Richard Garfield, Jonathan Tweet, and a horde of other game analytic creative types. Bottom line: great creative care has gone into the new system (not necessarily perfect, but tons of upgrades).
For a largely backward compatible system, D&D 3E should be a serious and very welcome upgrade (don't "good" versions usually come on mod 3 iterations anyway:-). Think game balance, character class balance (?), weapons balance, some sanity checks on the system as a whole, plus more seamless upgrades to the base system. Less Frankenstein, more Terminator:-).
Finally, does any of this matter anyway? The term, RPG, used to mean paper-based D&D. TSR didn't get (and it's not clear to me that Wizards gets) RPG is now a computer term. RPGs for a new generation of children are computer games. It's not clear to me D&D has enough value/time to compete with modern forms of entertainment (at least not the way Wizards bottom line thinkers will want). Who knows? Thoughts anyone?
Anway, there's a hodge-podge of random thoughts for/.
The problem is not that the USPTO (or any patent organization) gives too little time to review software patents. The problem is the choice by the USPTO to allow software patents in the first place.
Bruce Lehman.
Lehman was the USPTO head at the time, took some heat for the decision, and even held public hearings (one on each US coast) to 'discuss' whether software patents should be allowed.
What a sham.
By the time I arrived to present at the west coast hearing (one day affair), it was clear that Lehman had already made his decision to allow them (even though he supposedly was there to hear both sides of the issue). What a considerate and professional fella.
Oh, he and his fellow lawyers.
There were no non-lawyers on the panel. The audience was roughly half lawyers (left hand side of the room) and software professional (right hand side of the room). That was about the break down of the audience.
The lawyers smelled deep pockets of money (Lehman included), career mother lode as it were.
The software professionals wanted the freedom to write and think unfettered and unencumbered by software patents (and any system of governmentally institutionalized artificial monopoly). Software is about writing and thinking. If you can't patent writing (that's what copyright is for) and you certainly shouldn't be able to patent thinking (right? though that's what software patents essentially do!), then you certainly shouldn't be able to patent software.
Nevertheless, Lehman decided in favor of the software industry subsidizing the legal profession involuntarily through software patents.
I remember some of the convoluted and conflicting remarks Lehman made while I was waiting to present (the USPTO in their consummate professionalism and organizational prowess had forgotten to schedule my presentation, so I went last). At one point Lehman suggested that the USPTO would not be weakening the software industry by taking the best and the brightest but only those from about the 90th (if I recall correctly) percentile. Therefore, according to him, the intellectual cost to the software industry would be negligible.
No kidding! Why would anyone with half a creative iota of software design work for the USPTO?
On the other hand, Lehman claimed that the USPTO would certainly understand what to patent and what not to patent as unique. However, when queried about how to check patent validity, Lehman would have no answer (unsolvable, unautomatable problem).
Everything about software patents was and is a catch-22.
The (perhaps ill-conceived) notion of patents was to provide a method for an inventor to maintain a property of his idea until finding a means to produce the idea for profit. Monopolies are illegal, but patents were supposed to provide incentive enough for innovation to outweigh the evils inherent in monopolies (that was the idea anyway).
Where's the difficulty in manufacturing (copying) software?
There is no difficulty. Software does not even approach the model where inventors don't have the means to produce their product ideas (remember, patents were invented in the 18th century, before the industrial revolution, so manufacturing capability was scarce). If you can copy a diskette (or download off the internet), you know how to manufacture software on your computer.
So, just the idea of software patents is wrong.
Lehman was told so. His lawyer panel was told so. His half lawyer (cheerleaders) were told so. He decide to bolster his legal industry's "customer base" (think: tax base) anyhow. Lehman was either phenomenally unclear on the concept (which I prefer to think) or very keen on expanding his profession's market base (which the cynic in me suspects was the case even if Lehman wasn't bright enough to know what he was doing).
The real answer should be to purge software patents from the legal and software industies.
-=-
To be clear, Lehman was in charge of the USPTO (US Patent and *Trademark* Office) at the very time when trademark domain names (i.e., squatter properties) were all the rage. Now that's an issue that the USPTO could and should have responded to immediately and with prejudice.
Instead, Lehman did nothing on the obvious (trademark violations) but created a whole new morass of patent law (software patents).
Congress did not create software patents. Lehman created software patents by rubber stamping the idea and setting precedent. He didn't do his job on trademarks (the USPTO didn't address this issue until nearly a decade later, I believe) but went out of his way to create an infinitely growing bureacracy.
The bottom line: Bruce Lehman may be bad, the new guy may be worse, but the person who hired/appointed them truly lacked leadership.
My nagging question is how does one become head of the USPTO (appointed? elected? random lottery from ladder climbing lawyers?)? The person hiring these people is unclear on the concept of making society healthy and productive. They have hired incredibly pig-headed and self-serving bureacrats. Lehman may be bad, but the person who hired him is truly a culprit as well.
The blind leading the blind.
I wish I had more good things to say about software patents, but I don't. Once they became official with Lehman's very public and official rubber stamp, they have and will only become worse.
Color is a no-brainer. With color, you get a higher resolution (in effect) screen without increased size. That's a lot more functionality just being able to display more information (in the same area) as before. No-brainer.
There is a cost: battery. I hope the software and GUI doesn't become a cost (complexity wise).
I do believe other factors could be improved, but the color screen is an obvious one which is relatively simple (people already know how to deal with color).
I actually was going to wait until color was available to get my first Palm, but I impulse bought one at JavaOne (good price) and now it's an essential organizer for me.
Not according to the Apple Store hotline. The new iMacs don't require OS9, and will ship with 8.6 until OS9 releases. One rep told me late October OS9 release. Another said unknown and the only way to be sure was to wait for OS9 release and order then.
Funny thing is... when I tried to order a new iMac, it told me 20 day wait... which would be late October!
Anyone know the real answer to whether the new iMac will immediately ship with OS9 (or must we wait)?
>The integration has two primary intended effects. >One, the card, board or CPU in question gains the >added feature that makes it more attractive to >customers. Two, the use of less chips saves on >system cost and power consumption.
I believe there's a third, even more important feature gained by system-on-a-chip integration: consumer level reliability and configuration (i.e., none).
Dramatic increases in system integration is one of Bill Joy's (of Sun, Java) favorite angles on where the computer industry is coming from and what lies in the future. (I may be missing some of his points but basically) he suggests that the incredible economic leaps in technology have occurred around the introduction of the CPU (brain on a chip) and the motherboard (computer system on a single board). He predicts the next huge gain in cost and reliability to occur with the system on a chip (think PicoJava chip references here;-).
Anyway, the integration is definitely a major factor in computing progress, but the key social impact will be from the high reliability and freedom from configuration issues due to having complete systems on a chip.
Cheers,
= Joe =
P.s., Bill Joy is a great speaker if you ever get a chance to attend one of his presentations!-)
>The integration has two primary intended effects. >One, the card, board or CPU in question gains the >added feature that makes it more attractive to >customers. Two, the use of less chips saves on >system cost and power consumption.
I believe there's a third, even more important feature gained by system-on-a-chip integration: consumer level reliability and configuration (i.e., none).
Dramatic increases in system integration is one of Bill Joy's (of Sun, Java) favorite angles on where the computer industry is coming from and what lies in the future. (I may be missing some of his points but basically) he suggests that the incredible economic leaps in technology have occurred around the introduction of the CPU (brain on a chip) and the motherboard (computer system on a single board). He predicts the next huge gain in cost and reliability to occur with the system on a chip (think PicoJava chip references here;-).
Anyway, the integration is definitely a major factor in computing progress, but the key social impact will be from the high reliability and freedom from configuration issues due to having complete systems on a chip.
Cheers,
= Joe =
P.s., Bill Joy is a great speaker if you ever get a chance to attend one of his presentations!-)
Slashdot Mirror
When I finished my questionnaire (vote), the meter read 472 votes. Brief refresh (just to see if number changed) read 485! A few minutes later, over 550. Site is fine, but the slashdot effect is readily visible.
Anyone know when the site first went live (just out of curiosity)?
= Joe =
XP programming (especially its pair programming approach) can weed out prima donnas fast, though I think it requires good management to create an appropriately positive XP culture. XP can be soured also with poor management (at which point it's probably not really XP practices but just make pretend).
Pair programming forces people to work together and through each other for productivity. Shared knowledge and shared design are key to XP. I think one of the strongest aspects of XP is the elimination of monopoly coders who specialize their knowledge at the expense of the group or project.
This pair programming aspect is also one of (the?) most prominent caveats I have about XP programming:
When is solo (a la prima donna) programming appropriate?
In pure XP, never for production code (as I understand XP). However, XP is about getting work done and done well, so I suspect there's a way to figure out when solo programming might be OK. Hard question when considering all the tradeoffs (time, shared knowledge, teamwork, divergent skillsets, etc.).
The prima donna article is interesting, and I think XP is in some ways designed to solve that very problem (along with suggesting a few other best practices along the way).
I think opening up the s/w patents to ease innovation (and open source s/w) is a good idea and very worthwhile. I hope IBM and HP, etc., are willing to participate.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as beating around the bush. The real issue is really that s/w patents are nonsense. Bruce Lehman (US lawyer, and former USPTO head) instituted s/w patents at society's expense and despite vocal opposition. The real issue is to get rid of s/w patents altogether.
Since that's hard to do, thanks to Bruce Lehman, I'd say this Perens approach is as good a step as any. Just don't lose sight of the real disease (s/w patents) while treating the symptoms (legal red tape and blockaded innovation).
= Joe =
P.s., isn't it amazing what one stupid person can inflict on countless others? Monopolies just feed on power, and so do government appointees apparently.
This is a subject close to my heart, but I don't have all the answers. I'm not even sure there's a scientific answer since the definition of game can vary, and how you define what you're summing can vary. Presumably most games are positive sum (in some ways) or they wouldn't be played. Even zero-sum (money-wise) games should be positive sum games in some aspect(s).
For example, playing poker can be done to socialize with friends, to learn how to play the game (even if you lose $ or cents), spend time having fun, or for the challenge. I think all of these aspects are important in playing games, but there are definitely different niches for games just as there are different tastes in games.
I'll just give a (pseudo-) brief synopsis of some of the best positive-sum and positive zero-sum games I've played (and why the apparently zero-sum games are positive sum).
POSITIVE SUM GAMES
1. RPG's
The most obvious examples are role-playing games. The big daddy (and original) is Dungeons and Dragons (www.wizards.com). It's paper-based, 3rd edition, and classic, but doesn't have much inspired flavor. Other RPG's are Warhammer Fantasy (Hogshead Publishing), Deadlands (Pinnacle Entertainment Group), and Vampire: the Masquerade (temporarily forgotton publisher). There are plenty of other paper-based RPGs, but these all have unique and rich flavor.
These are all positive sum as there's no way to "win" the game. They're more like story games, where the story has no pre-defined ending. They're as complex or as simple (hack-and-slash) as the players desire and have the ability to create. Ultimately, they can be very rich and creative hobbies in character, world, and story creativity. They're also very social games. Unfortunately, by today's standards, they're very time-consuming and inefficient fun-wise (due to the heavy time demands).\
Recent years, the computer RPG has come online. This is another positive sum game with no predefined ending. People play to socialize as well as to battle and build characters. In some ways, they're more competitive as many players play to have the buffest character, but any good CRPG will have plenty of ways for players to achieve great goals and quests. Ultima Online and EverQuest are popular examples of these games. These are not my personal favorites as they (early generation) tend to be time-intensive and not very satisfying for my tastes, but I believe they're one of the best ways to play games over the internet.
2. Console games.
These games are all multi-player for best results. A few are good 1-on-1 as well (e.g., Tekken Tag Tournament, and Rush racing in arena fighting mode), but I'm concentrating specifically on the multiplayer aspect for the variety of game play, good mix of unexpected when there is more than one opponent, and the social benefits of having multiple players to laugh, smack talk, and generally whoop it up about the trials and victories of each gaming session.
These promise to get very interesting in the future as Sony, Nintendo, and Sega achieve the internet gaming model. CRPGs on these should be quite a bit of fun with the next generation games and kick-butt graphics.
My favorite games, though, are essentially zero-sum games which are a blast to play.
Positive sum aspects are their fun (!) and when you're losing badly --- their less than serious flavor and mix of luck which provides ample (even plentiful) opportunity for prolific smack talk ("You're *so* lucky!", "I can't believe that hit me.", "If you hadn't gotten that missile, you would've been toast.", "Wow, you actually won one!") You get the idea.
The best of these games (that I've found so far) is Sony Playstation's "Crash Team Racing". We keep looking for replacements and alternatives, but despite the humor and luck necessary to make the games more than zero-sum, the game play itself must be the highest integrity for the game to have a lot replay value. CTR has a unique combination of great strategic depth, high gameplay variety (lots of fun surprises), and a highest integrity game engine for very consistent and responsive game play. (Some games can be very frustrating due to inconsistencies or 'bugs' in the game engine which interrupt the immersion in the game.) CTR is both supremely fun and light-hearted but, also, very high integrity in game play. The game strategy (and maps) must also have plenty of depth and surprises to explore. We like all the racing maps, but (fyi) we really use only one of the maps for battle mode (excuse me for not knowing the name): the square-walled, split-level map with the kiosk in the middle, and the garage underneath the starting points. Despite all our attempts to upgrade to another game, we keep coming back to CTR. CTR is good for both racing and battle mode (arena fighting).
Other games are Sega's "Rush: 2049" racing which has an excellent Arena (battle) mode. This game is even good for 1-on-1. There are several maps which are strong.
For fighting games, we've really enjoyed Tekken Tag Tournament. This game was a total surprise for me as a multi-player game, but you play in pairs. I was afraid that the player tagged in would have all the fun, but the reality is that the tagged out player has to be ready to swap in at any moment. It's totally absorbing even in the 4-player tag mode. Plus, this game has the rare virtue of being a team (pairs) game. There's plenty of smack talk potential in this game. However, it can be pretty disappointing (a la zero-sum) if you suffer a losing streak. That's quite possible due to the high skill:luck factor of the game. Players need to handicap themselves if they're too skilled for the opponents. Play for fun, and it's great.
Another great game (two-player only) is the new PS2 game, SSX: Snowboarding SuperCross. This game is great because the game controls are supremely responsive, the game fantastically fun, and the play explicitly blurs the line between competing and performing. The secret to the game is the incredible tracks which are a joy to race and explore, and the stunts which are wacky fun to learn. The cornerstone of the game, however, is the stunts points and the boost meter. You pump the boost meter with tricks, and you can spend the boost to speed your racer. So tricks *can* help you race faster despite the fact tricks can take time. There's plenty to this game, including the different characters you can play requiring different paths over the courses for optimal play due to varyied abilities of the character; also, the tracks have plenty of interesting shortcuts; finally, the game has a variety of modes including the typical zero-sum race (which becomes more positive sum as the stunts become half performance art/fun and half boost for racing faster) and explicit positive sum exhibition modes (stunts only). The exhibition mode is also two-player (though if you look at points, it could be considered zero-sum, but the point is the stunts more than the points). Total surprise (to me) of a great game.
In sum, these games are zero-sum in a pure points perspective, but they have qualities which lend themselves to positive sum play. Those qualities include:
short games (for lightness of play, and quick replays)
a balance of skill and luck, leaving room for smack talk and good humor.
heavy game depth for plenty of strategy and replay value
multi-player (typically) for socializing, unexpected fun and crazy surprises in game play.
3. Puzzle games.
These are not necessarily games due to their nature, but in team mode can make for great games. The classic is Myst which can take hours to solve and is great fun when solving with help of another as a team. More recently, the Abe's Oddysey series can be great fun; just play in 1-player mode and hand-off the controller to the next person when abe dies. The fun here is from the camaraderie trying to complete the puzzle. When it's smooth going, you want to show everyone how good you are, and when a particularly vexing puzzle arrives, everyone is rooting for each person to complete it so everyone can move on to the next stages of the game. Unfortunately, MS has pretty much hijacked the future of this game for their XBox (and the PC too I guess), so the next generation won't be available on PS2 as originally promised. Doh! Fortunately, all the PS1 versions are readily available and proven strong (the new one is 3D and unproven). So, puzzles are not necessarily games, but they're definitely positive sum in satisfaction. Like jigsaw puzzles, a little social interaction to an otherwise pure puzzle can create a social and positive sum game.
-=-
Well, thanks for reading this far. That's my braindump on the current state of the art in positive sum gaming as I know it. The obvious oversight is lack of board games (I'm sure there are some fun ones I should be thinking of), but I think this post is long enough already. Hmm, I've also overlooked purely educational games (definitely positive sum for society!). The games I've concentrated on are for entertainment and social fun. I hope you enjoyed the article and even the games if you choose to try them.
= Joe =
Rather than pontificate about child psychology, I'll just suggest the best computer book I ever read. "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (MIT Press) by Abelson, and Sussman (two of them!). The book is somewhat introductory, mind-bending, brilliant, and fascinating.
3 0/ o/qid=977108299/sr=2-3/106-2112916-8034810
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/02620115
Judging from the amazon feedback, not everyone "gets it" from the book, but I'm sure your prodigy will. It uses Scheme, an elegant version of Lisp (which means its a very dynamic and good instructional language).
Good luck,
= Joe =
Well, I am glad someone liked the movie. However, I used to collect comic books many years ago and like to think I still appreciate comic books, but this movie didn't exactly thrill me.
With a more solid ending (a la Sixth Sense), it could have been a good movie, but the movie was so slow (right from the beginning with long boring facial shot of Bruce Willis in a train for no great reason) and ill-paced that I'd say it was anemic. Plus, the ending was just pain --- pure disappointment (and not just relative to Sixth Sense, relative to an average ending). I won't ruin it but the "Filthy" Man(?) review linked to in another follow-up can spoil it for you if you wish. I totally agree with the review.
When I walked out of the movie, I suggested to my friends that if the movie ending had been the halfway mark of the movie, the pace were double, and the 2nd half picked up with some serious thrills, action, suspense, it would have been an interesting movie. Instead, it just has a great (yes, comic-booky) premise that was ill-developed and goofy disappointing for a full production movie.
O well.
= Joe =
The software is relatively immature and doesn't tap the true potential of the hardware, but the PS2 is already best of breed in several games. I pretty much do multiplayer, so I don't have a complete list. The five games which rock (all multiplayer with the sole exception of SSX which is only 2 player) are:
EA's SSX (snowboarding/racing/freestyle)
EA's football (Madden)
EA's hockey (I'm no hockey fan but this is fun)
Tekken Tag Tournament (tag rocks for 4 players)
TimeSplitters (silky smooth FPShooter)
The first four are well known best-of-breed games. The fifth is the no-name sleeper which just rocks (so far). Smooth and fun with a variety of settings, and even the ability to make custom maps for play!!! The full package and a good step toward solid innovation on the PS2.
So, I'd say the PS2 is already kicking some butt especially considering these are all launch titles. I hope the games just keep getting better and better, and I can't wait for GT3 (here's to hoping it's 4 player!).
= Joe =
You're confusing opposites. Barrier to entry should be based on manufacturing costs, not whether you can create a business plan. Original patents were (a mistake) legalized monopolies to overcome barrier to entry due to manufacturing costs. Remember, they were "invented" before the industrial age (and before the internet). It was much easier then to make sense of legalizing a monopoly for the public good.
:-).
Now, there's plenty of communication to strike deals with existing manufacturers, so patents make far less sense. We have a globalized economy and communications system to grease inventor wheels for manufacture.
For software, the case is open and shut unless you have some special interests. Manufacturing costs of software are essentially zero $. Just post to the internet. There's no cost to recover and no non-artificial barrier to entry. If you can implement it, you can gain the value from it.
The biggest (artificial) barrier to entry and survival and gaining value is... the existence of software patents, the USPTO lawyers who have and continue to institutionalize s/w patents, and a legal industry (worldwide) which insists on legalizing s/w patents to grow their industry.
To be clear, no manufacturing costs == no need for patents. Legal industry with control over USPTO (yes, every panel member of the sham software patent hearings was a lawyer) == softwarwe patents forever until outlawed (by public, software industry watchdog group, or miracle). Unfortunately, lawyers are well-positioned, well-heeled, often unethical, and very tenacious when they smell money.
Confused posts like the one above don't help (much less being rated a "5" --- gotta love that moderation
Not holding breath for s/w patents legalization to be abolished,
= Joe =
Blame USPTO for granting s/w patents in first place. Also blame lawyers for expanding the scope of their industry frivolously (to s/w patents), counterproductively, and (drum-roll please) selfishly. In particular, lay the blame at the feet of Bruce Lehmann, USPTO commissioner who institutionalized s/w patents after two for-show-only hearings. Finally, blame whoever appointed (elected?) B. Lehmann to his post.
Bleah.
= Joe =
God bless if the court finally recognizes that code is speech, and the consequences of that. If the courts can recognize code as speech (which I believe they should), the software industry can rid itself of the "software patent" tax that the legal industry has scammed through the USPTO into the legal system. Then the software industry can concentrate its resources ($$$, and IQ cycles) on solving problems with implementations, not documenting trivial++ concepts with so-called patent applications.
= Joe =
The free speech analogue for code is strong, I believe. In particular, it draws an obvious connection to the appropriateness of copyright to code and utter inappropriateness of patent law, i.e., you can't patent a sentence (even though that's exactly what Bruce Lehman gave his absurd USPTO rubberstamp to do).
;-).
Copyright w/r/t code also makes clear that plagiarism is illegal (a la copyright infringement) but that isolated authoring of like code is perfectly valid. Who'da thought?
The whole code as patentable is the morass, not code as speech. In some sense, code already is speech (copyrightable). Code as a form of expression seems spot on to me, especially as computer languages become more expressive and high-level (we hope, right
= Joe =
= Joe =
Weird.
:-)
:-) geniuses on staff, Wizards often gets the big picture and/or details wrong. It should be fun to watch.
:-). Think game balance, character class balance (?), weapons balance, some sanity checks on the system as a whole, plus more seamless upgrades to the base system. Less Frankenstein, more Terminator :-).
/.
2 years ago (January 1998) and while at Wizards of the Coast, I submitted a written business model to the powers that be at Wizards essentially to open source D&D. I found out that Jonathan Tweet and Skaff Elias had already suggested opening the system as well in some ways. Dancey wasn't even working for RPG's back then but did ask for a copy of my proposal. Nothing happened.
Dancey was soon put in charge of RPG's at Wizards (transferring from L5R (Legends of the 5 Rings) TCG).
Then when Sun announced their SCSL license, I realized that the business model behind the SCSL was (in part) essentially what I had recommended for the D&D line in my business model (i.e., open source the core (e.g., Java), and control the standard to maintain its quality (to a degree) and integrity). I immediately reiterated my proposal to all the powers that be at Wizards again in the context of proof of concept with what Sun was doing. Ryan suggested Java was bunk (I believe) at the time, so my third-party (Sun) logic didn't quite work (backfired you might say). [Wizards is a die-hard Microsoft house even though half the computers were (1/3 now?) Macintoshes.] Nothing happened.
I think Wizards is finally trying the suggested open licensing approach in a bastardized way with Dancey's new announcement. Fortunately, I quit Wizards last month or I'd be trying to reshape the efforts into a more clear-on-the-concept genuinely open source form!
It'll be interesting what if anything comes of this effort.
For the record, I do agree with a previous poster that Dancey's comments seem problematic regarding where the property boundaries are drawn. Hopefully, those lines will improve as the concept matures in Wizards (fingers crossed for RPG diehards).
I also agree with another previous poster that Wizards is trying to grab a bigger stake in RPGaming. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (after all that was the essential attraction of my proposal, and what's good for Wizards can also be good for gamers), but I think the way Wizards tries to do that is important. As the saying goes, the devil's in the details. Unfortunately, despite having some (self-professed and otherwise
On another note, I *disagree* (though I guess I could be wrong and wouldn't really know) that any nefarious Hasbro type influence on Wizards is causing something evil to happen at Wizards. Wizards is just the way Wizards is. Some of it good (some people have great experiences) and some of it bad (cough, cough). Hasbro just happens to be the owner these days, but they mostly seem hands off for now (unless their latest cash cow shows problems, I'm guessing). Wizards may have problems, but they didn't start with Hasbro.
In response to yet another poster trivializing D&D 3E, I believe that D&D 3E should be more than just a warmed over D&D/AD&D 2E. I didn't work on it, read it, or try to influence it (even though I love RPGs, I eventually realized I became disenchanted with the high politics of Wizards). However, the age old TSR mechanics have been revamped and reshaped in a way palatable to some very discerning game designers, Richard Garfield, Jonathan Tweet, and a horde of other game analytic creative types. Bottom line: great creative care has gone into the new system (not necessarily perfect, but tons of upgrades).
For a largely backward compatible system, D&D 3E should be a serious and very welcome upgrade (don't "good" versions usually come on mod 3 iterations anyway
Finally, does any of this matter anyway? The term, RPG, used to mean paper-based D&D. TSR didn't get (and it's not clear to me that Wizards gets) RPG is now a computer term. RPGs for a new generation of children are computer games. It's not clear to me D&D has enough value/time to compete with modern forms of entertainment (at least not the way Wizards bottom line thinkers will want). Who knows? Thoughts anyone?
Anway, there's a hodge-podge of random thoughts for
Cheers,
= Joe =
Wizards 1997-2000
The problem is not that the USPTO (or any patent organization) gives too little time to review software patents. The problem is the choice by the USPTO to allow software patents in the first place.
Bruce Lehman.
Lehman was the USPTO head at the time, took some heat for the decision, and even held public hearings (one on each US coast) to 'discuss' whether software patents should be allowed.
What a sham.
By the time I arrived to present at the west coast hearing (one day affair), it was clear that Lehman had already made his decision to allow them (even though he supposedly was there to hear both sides of the issue). What a considerate and professional fella.
Oh, he and his fellow lawyers.
There were no non-lawyers on the panel. The audience was roughly half lawyers (left hand side of the room) and software professional (right hand side of the room). That was about the break down of the audience.
The lawyers smelled deep pockets of money (Lehman included), career mother lode as it were.
The software professionals wanted the freedom to write and think unfettered and unencumbered by software patents (and any system of governmentally institutionalized artificial monopoly). Software is about writing and thinking. If you can't patent writing (that's what copyright is for) and you certainly shouldn't be able to patent thinking (right? though that's what software patents essentially do!), then you certainly shouldn't be able to patent software.
Nevertheless, Lehman decided in favor of the software industry subsidizing the legal profession involuntarily through software patents.
I remember some of the convoluted and conflicting remarks Lehman made while I was waiting to present (the USPTO in their consummate professionalism and organizational prowess had forgotten to schedule my presentation, so I went last). At one point Lehman suggested that the USPTO would not be weakening the software industry by taking the best and the brightest but only those from about the 90th (if I recall correctly) percentile. Therefore, according to him, the intellectual cost to the software industry would be negligible.
No kidding! Why would anyone with half a creative iota of software design work for the USPTO?
On the other hand, Lehman claimed that the USPTO would certainly understand what to patent and what not to patent as unique. However, when queried about how to check patent validity, Lehman would have no answer (unsolvable, unautomatable problem).
Everything about software patents was and is a catch-22.
The (perhaps ill-conceived) notion of patents was to provide a method for an inventor to maintain a property of his idea until finding a means to produce the idea for profit. Monopolies are illegal, but patents were supposed to provide incentive enough for innovation to outweigh the evils inherent in monopolies (that was the idea anyway).
Where's the difficulty in manufacturing (copying) software?
There is no difficulty. Software does not even approach the model where inventors don't have the means to produce their product ideas (remember, patents were invented in the 18th century, before the industrial revolution, so manufacturing capability was scarce). If you can copy a diskette (or download off the internet), you know how to manufacture software on your computer.
So, just the idea of software patents is wrong.
Lehman was told so. His lawyer panel was told so. His half lawyer (cheerleaders) were told so. He decide to bolster his legal industry's "customer base" (think: tax base) anyhow. Lehman was either phenomenally unclear on the concept (which I prefer to think) or very keen on expanding his profession's market base (which the cynic in me suspects was the case even if Lehman wasn't bright enough to know what he was doing).
The real answer should be to purge software patents from the legal and software industies.
-=-
To be clear, Lehman was in charge of the USPTO (US Patent and *Trademark* Office) at the very time when trademark domain names (i.e., squatter properties) were all the rage. Now that's an issue that the USPTO could and should have responded to immediately and with prejudice.
Instead, Lehman did nothing on the obvious (trademark violations) but created a whole new morass of patent law (software patents).
Congress did not create software patents. Lehman created software patents by rubber stamping the idea and setting precedent. He didn't do his job on trademarks (the USPTO didn't address this issue until nearly a decade later, I believe) but went out of his way to create an infinitely growing bureacracy.
The bottom line: Bruce Lehman may be bad, the new guy may be worse, but the person who hired/appointed them truly lacked leadership.
My nagging question is how does one become head of the USPTO (appointed? elected? random lottery from ladder climbing lawyers?)? The person hiring these people is unclear on the concept of making society healthy and productive. They have hired incredibly pig-headed and self-serving bureacrats. Lehman may be bad, but the person who hired him is truly a culprit as well.
The blind leading the blind.
I wish I had more good things to say about software patents, but I don't. Once they became official with Lehman's very public and official rubber stamp, they have and will only become worse.
Caveat emptor.
The sooner they're purged, the better.
= Joe =
Color is a no-brainer. With color, you get a higher resolution (in effect) screen without increased size. That's a lot more functionality just being able to display more information (in the same area) as before. No-brainer.
There is a cost: battery. I hope the software and GUI doesn't become a cost (complexity wise).
I do believe other factors could be improved, but the color screen is an obvious one which is relatively simple (people already know how to deal with color).
I actually was going to wait until color was available to get my first Palm, but I impulse bought one at JavaOne (good price) and now it's an essential organizer for me.
A color palm will be my first palm upgrade.
= Joe =
Perl is more expressive, but Python is legible.
Not according to the Apple Store hotline. The new iMacs don't require OS9, and will ship with 8.6 until OS9 releases. One rep told me late October OS9 release. Another said unknown and the only way to be sure was to wait for OS9 release and order then.
Funny thing is... when I tried to order a new iMac, it told me 20 day wait... which would be late October!
Anyone know the real answer to whether the new iMac will immediately ship with OS9 (or must we wait)?
FYI, here's a Bill Joy talk in which he references
o y.html
"Systems on a Chip":
http://www.javasoft.com/features/1999/07/bill.j
Cheers,
= Joe =
>The integration has two primary intended effects.
;-).
>One, the card, board or CPU in question gains the
>added feature that makes it more attractive to
>customers. Two, the use of less chips saves on
>system cost and power consumption.
I believe there's a third, even more important feature gained by system-on-a-chip integration: consumer level reliability and configuration (i.e., none).
Dramatic increases in system integration is one of Bill Joy's (of Sun, Java) favorite angles on where the computer industry is coming from and what lies in the future. (I may be missing some of his points but basically) he suggests that the incredible economic leaps in technology have occurred around the introduction of the CPU (brain on a chip) and the motherboard (computer system on a single board). He predicts the next huge gain in cost and reliability to occur with the system on a chip (think PicoJava chip references here
Anyway, the integration is definitely a major factor in computing progress, but the key social impact will be from the high reliability and freedom from configuration issues due to having complete systems on a chip.
Cheers,
= Joe =
P.s., Bill Joy is a great speaker if you ever get a chance to attend one of his presentations!-)
>The integration has two primary intended effects.
;-).
>One, the card, board or CPU in question gains the
>added feature that makes it more attractive to >customers. Two, the use of less chips saves on >system cost and power consumption.
I believe there's a third, even more important feature gained by system-on-a-chip integration: consumer level reliability and configuration (i.e., none).
Dramatic increases in system integration is one of Bill Joy's (of Sun, Java) favorite angles on where the computer industry is coming from and what lies in the future. (I may be missing some of his points but basically) he suggests that the incredible economic leaps in technology have occurred around the introduction of the CPU (brain on a chip) and the motherboard (computer system on a single board). He predicts the next huge gain in cost and reliability to occur with the system on a chip (think PicoJava chip references here
Anyway, the integration is definitely a major factor in computing progress, but the key social impact will be from the high reliability and freedom from configuration issues due to having complete systems on a chip.
Cheers,
= Joe =
P.s., Bill Joy is a great speaker if you ever get a chance to attend one of his presentations!-)