I'm a business guy with an IT background, so I've worn both hats here. The key difference between you and the people you're teaching is that they are almost entirely results oriented. As IT people, we like computers. We want to know everything about them. We like tech oriented solutions to a problem that are fun and cool even if they're not that practical. Execs are different. They want to know things that will make their company run better and improve the bottom line. Understand this, and plan out the course accordingly. Focus on the key stuff they need to know, and explain why it's important they know it. If you can't explain why they need to know it, they probably don't. Also understand with regards to Open Source that they aren't interested in ideology. They want to know what the advantages are for open source, and how to make it work for them. If there are drawbacks, they want to know them too and how to get around them. Also understand that they don't want to know really low level detail. They've got developers to handle that stuff. They don't need to know how to code, just like you don't need to know how to write and analyze a cash flow statement. What they want to know is the information they need to make informed decisions.
There's two separate issues here. The first is the F-35. The other is the offhand comment that sequestration isn't such a bad thing because it'll force the Pentagon to make much needed cuts. I deal with government contractors a lot at work and am a little familiar with the sequestration process, so I can tell you that unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. With a normal defense budget cut passed by Congress it might. But if sequestration goes into effect, many of the funding cuts are across the board and automatic. The Pentagon often always get to say what is or isn't cut. This means that important stuff gets cut along with the unimportant, because sequestration isn't always based on military necessity. It also means that there will be cuts that don't even make sense. Here's an example. Say that you've got a project to build a submarine. Suddenly sequestration says that you can only do 50% of the project. How do you pull that off? It's a ship. You can't build half of a sub, unless you want to build the bottom half of the hull and row it around like a big kayak. You might try building half the sub now and putting off the rest till later. But by then your hull's gotten rusty and you have to fix it, and the workers have to be rehired, and you end up paying more than if you'd just built the whole thing in the first place. So if you want stuff like the F-35 to get canceled, the right thing to do it is to try to get it cancelled in congress. The generalized sequestration cuts won't target the waste, and will in the end actually create more expenses that we have to pay off.
Can anyone find something saying what browser versions are compatible with DevKit? That's often a sticking point with HTML5, especially with older IE versions
The chapter is closed? Nonsense. They haven't offered to change the contract, they just claim that everyone's misinterpreted it. Which gives you no more rights than you had before. If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. Their PR statements would not affect in the slightest their legal ability to use your photos.
As I see it, the real problem Microsoft has ahead of them with corporate adoption isn't dislike, but indifference. A CEO at the end of the day doesn't care whether or not employees enjoy using the computer. So even if the Metro interface is a bit annoying that isn't going to stop them from choosing Windows 8. But what will stop them is that there's no real strong selling point that makes Win 8 necessary. A corporate exec makes a decision based on what the software will do for them. And I've yet to hear anything that indicates that there's a strong enough benefit from Win8 to make the upgrade costs and time worth it. New interface? Who cares. Good for tablets? Big companies are interested in traditional PCs that people have on their desks, not tablets for watching movies. Add to that the fact that a lot of companies just finished replacing XP with Win7, and you have a recipe for low sales.
I'm an MBA (hold off on the throwing of the rotten vegetables! I'm a IT person too!) So I'd like to put my 2 cents worth on the whole thing from a business perspective.
Everyone's talking about it being a chicken and egg situation where devs aren't making games for Linux because there's no market, and there's no market because there aren't any games. This isn't really the situation. The execs at big companies often deal with situations where they have to take a leap of faith. Every time there's a new console, for example, the execs at companies like EA decide whether or not to make games for it well before the console is released, so they're making games for a market with 0 users! They make the decisions based on a few key factors, including looking at the risks, the chances of success, and the possible rewards given the market. Here are just some aspects that are probably discouraging to an exec at a big gaming company:
1. History. Linux is old. Really old. And it hasn't taken off in the consumer market yet. So it's a pretty big leap for an EA exec to think it's going to get popular now. There hasn't really been any change in the market that would point to a massive upswing in Linux gaming.
2. High potential risks. Xbox isn't that big a risk to support, since it uses similar tech to Windows. Linux? It's a bit different. Sure, it uses OpenGL, like a mac, but it's a whole different platform. This wouldn't be a deal killer by itself, but it's another nail in the coffin since it increases the risks.
3. Lack of proof of a market. As people have pointed out, the Humble Bundles sold well, but they had people giving to them because a. They wanted to support small indie developers and b. they wanted to support the charities that the Humble Bundles give to. When companies look to predict what's going to happen they look for comparability, that is, they try to find similar situations where there was a success, and there is very little evidence for this. Should they take a chance anyway, and do something new? That leads us to the last and perhaps biggest point:
4. Low first mover advantage. One of the things a business looks for is first mover advantage, that is, what kind of benefits do they get by taking the risk of being the first to do something. What they're looking for is some reason to think that going first will let them get and HOLD ON TO a chunk of the market. This isn't the case with Linux. Let's say that Carmack decides to make his latest game (Quake 7, this time it's even Quakier!) in Linux. Let's be generous and say that Q7 is released, the Linux gaming market explodes, and everyone buys Q7 for Linux. Carmack took a big risk. What did he get in return? Well, he got big profits, obviously. But he didn't do as well from this deal as you'd think: Let's say that Blizzard, after seeing Q7's success, produces a first-person Linux game called Starcraft 3D: Raynor on a Plane. Assuming it's of a similar quality to Q7, their profits are about the same. Maybe even better, since the market has now grown even more. But they didn't have to take the risks that Carmack did: they lost nothing by waiting until Linux was already a success. And unlike with a console Linux doesn't have a short life cycle, so they had all the time in the world to wait. It's true that Q7 had the advantage of being the only game in town, but that advantage won't last long. Therefore, there's nothing to be gained by being the company that takes a chance on Linux. Sad but true.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of the discussion on Linux's chances of success revolve around its worthiness as a platform, but a good platform isn't enough. There has to be a strategy to attract gaming business, and Linux doesn't really have one that works. Steam's support is nice, but in the long run it just isn't enough given the risks that an EA or iD would have to take as things are.
Judging by this article, I'm not certain that this collaboration is such a good thing. It's nice that Spielberg likes games. But if you go to any major game development forum, such as gamedev, you'll see lots newbies who think that they already know how to make games just because they know how to play them. That's not really the case. It requires a lot of study, and I'm not sure that Spielberg realizes this. Also, you have to consider that gaming and movies are different mediums, with their own strengths and weaknesses. The fact that Spielberg is good at one form of creative endeavor does not mean that he is automatically good at another. Consider the reverse: John Carmack is a good game developer. Imagine him trying to make a movie. The result probably wouldn't be too pleasant. Spielberg's in the same boat: trying to make something in a medium that he has no experience in.
I'm not sure this is going to work as well as Sony thinks. The problem is that Sony's old games don't have the nostalgia value of Nintendo's. When people see Sony's PS1 games, they are reminded that there are now newer and better versions available. When they see an old NES game, it's different. 9 out of 10 gamers, you put them in front of the original Super Mario Bros, and the minute that music starts to play, they'll crack a smile. Don't misunderstand me. Sony's games are good, and I think everyone enjoys them. But they don't have that timeless emotional appeal. When you see an old Sony game, it's a cheap older game. When you see an old Nintendo game, it's a classic.
There are a few things wrong with that features argument. For one, just because you don't need a feature now, doesn't mean that you won't need it in the future. Secondly, just because you don't need it doesn't mean that someone else won't. Picture this: You're in charge of getting a word processor. You decide to get OpenOffice instead of Word. It doesn't have feature A, but no one uses feature A, so you figure that you can go with OpenOffice. Fast forward 6 months. Your company starts a new project that requires feature A, and you don't have it. Now that purchase doesn't look so good to the boss after all. It's always risky getting something with less functionality, because you may need that functionality in the future. And making a wrong choice costs money. Open Source itself may be free, but the man-hours spent installing, configuring, and training people how to use it are not. If the product doesn't work out, all that money and time is wasted.
Secondly, this is the worst of all possible strategies. When someone says "I won't get your product because it doesn't have A", the solution is not to say that the customer really doesn't need A. Believe it or not, the customer usually knows what he needs better than you do. If the customer wants A, give it to him. That's the problem with a lot of Open Source software. There's an attitude that the developer is always right rather than that the customer is always right.
Not to flamebait, but it always astonishes me how Apple manages to get away with this stuff. Whenever any other company does this sort of thing, they get a lot of grief. When Apple does it, people get mad, but Apple somehow manages to keep an entirely undeserved reputation as nice people. Apple may make a nifty OS and a nice mp3 player, but they do all the bad stuff that Microsoft and company likes to do, but somehow people still think they're heros. Someday people are going to catch on that having less market share doesn't mean you're more ethical.
I like big budget games as much as the next guy. And I'm sure that DS2 is a nice hack'nslash game. But does anyone wonder why slashdot's game coverage is pretty much oriented towards the big studios instead of the small indies that are acutally doing creative and new things? Slashdot's editors are the sort that bemoan the lack of creativity in gaming, but when that creativity shows up, they don't give it any press. What about great old school RPG's like Spiderweb software's Geneforge series, with real plots and dialog? What about great physics-based platformers like Gish? Instead, we get the same EA Games/Microsoft/Vivendi stuff that all the big publishers cover. When is Slashdot going to move beyond asking for creativity to rewarding that creativity with reviews and coverage? I just wish that Slashdot would put their money where their mouth is regarding coverage beyond the shovelware studio system.
This seems like it might be a smarter move for MS than one might think. Consider this:
At the moment, Nintendo is the leader in the portable market. The road is littered with machines made by Nintendo's competitors that failed. Microsoft, at the moment, knows nothing about portable consoles, and has no experience. If they were to try right now to produce a handheld X-Box, the attempt might be successful, but it would more likely end in miserable failure. By working with Nintendo, they are gaining experience regarding how running a portable console works. And they're making a profit while they're doing it. In 2-3 years, they'll know quite a bit about how and why GameBoy and the DS are successful. Then, if they feel like it, they can use their knowledge to produce their own handheld. Combine the knowledge they'll have gained with Microsoft's resources and ability to tie into the X-Box and PC market, and they stand a good chance of succeeding where Sega, Atari, and many others have failed.
She was considered a swing vote because her opinions could often go either to the left or to the right. Therefore, it would often happen that there would be 2 sides of 4 judges each, all of whom were fairly predictable, making O'Connor's vote critical.
Definitely, in fact it's briefly mentioned in the article. In case anyone hasn't read the book (no, seeing the movie doesn't count), in the society described in 451, the population is kept docile partly through television programs that are designed to distract from real life problems. The main character's wife watches a soap opera where the characters interact in an artificial manner with her, making her feel that she is a part of the show's television "family". This seems like a similar type of thing: give people the illusion that they're involved, without giving them any real choices to make or issues to think about.
I think this could work, depending on how well it's done. Everyone here seems to be assuming that Google will do a total desktop replacement. I agree that this would probably be a failure. But I don't think that that's what Google's going for. If they follow their usual design pattern, rather than having a monolithic OS, they'll have a bunch of web applications that you can use that use a common system and interface. So rather than having a google desktop, you'd have tools like word processing available on the google front page, with some kind of behind the scenes common data storage. This could prove very successful, both with business travelers, and with users that only use their PCs for a few simple things. Even if it doesn't do everything you want, you can still use a mix of desktop apps and google web apps. I also suspect that google will release their framework so that third parties can make apps for google...
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people". The problem is that this model ignores, and in fact, discourages the small businesses that are already getting crushed by big business. Here's an example: Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
For my money, I like the LGPL. Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
In answer to the questions about why 2D matters, 2D is used a lot now for indie games, which is Garagegames's focus. 2D gaming is growing because indie gaming is growing. You may never see a game in your local CompUSA that uses 2D, but there are a lot of new 2D games being produced and sold over the Internet. Furthermore, by using 3D acceleration technology for 2D, you can make much better 2D games than used to be possible. Rotating sprites, per-pixel alpha blending, and additive blending are all now easy and fast. Search the indie gaming sites and you'll see that there's some great stuff out there.
Erm, how does this help PA? They make money by people looking at the ads on their site when they some to view the comics. If they stay on Slashdot, doesn't that mean that Gabe and Tycho lose ad views to Slashdot? So, isn't this pretty much hurting PA's bottom line?
This reminds me of the old Gerry Anderson puppet-based TV show Terrahawks. The bad guys had evil cube shaped robots, that could stack on each other to make big laser cannons, and the like.
When our data bricks start to kill people, we'll know IBM's up to something:)
Increased resolution would be nice, as would stereo photos. But I wonder if one thing that might help photos seem more real is to have them backlit in a realistic way. Look at a sunset in real life, then look at a photo. It's not the same, and I suspect that part of the reason is that the amount of light pouring into your eyes and spilling into the surrounding colors is very different than looking at dots of pigment, however fine. It may be that the best photographs may be produced on digital paper, where we can do some kind of backlighting to simulate the light we see in the real world.
I used to shop at the College Park location that these guys ran, and I have to say that if there was ever a poster boy for the copyright-free movement, these guys were definitely not it. These weren't folks who just modded a few playstations. They sold lots of blatently pirated games and videos, at outragous prices. They pulled all kinds of tricks to pull a fast buck at their customers' expense. As an example, one time they went to an Anime convention, grabbed up all the free samples of a particularly coveted product that another vendor was giving away, then promptly resold them at the same convention. These guys would pirate anything for a quick buck. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Um, this isn't "flourishing". Read the article. The ship in question hasn't been built yet, and the Russian government has not yet agreed to give the program the budget required. If Energia were to actually build this ship, then you would have a point. As it is, this is nothing more than a really good idea that will probably never be realized.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, folks, if you're getting on an ice train with Tilda Swinton, pay for first class.
I'm a business guy with an IT background, so I've worn both hats here. The key difference between you and the people you're teaching is that they are almost entirely results oriented. As IT people, we like computers. We want to know everything about them. We like tech oriented solutions to a problem that are fun and cool even if they're not that practical. Execs are different. They want to know things that will make their company run better and improve the bottom line. Understand this, and plan out the course accordingly. Focus on the key stuff they need to know, and explain why it's important they know it. If you can't explain why they need to know it, they probably don't. Also understand with regards to Open Source that they aren't interested in ideology. They want to know what the advantages are for open source, and how to make it work for them. If there are drawbacks, they want to know them too and how to get around them. Also understand that they don't want to know really low level detail. They've got developers to handle that stuff. They don't need to know how to code, just like you don't need to know how to write and analyze a cash flow statement. What they want to know is the information they need to make informed decisions.
There's two separate issues here. The first is the F-35. The other is the offhand comment that sequestration isn't such a bad thing because it'll force the Pentagon to make much needed cuts. I deal with government contractors a lot at work and am a little familiar with the sequestration process, so I can tell you that unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. With a normal defense budget cut passed by Congress it might. But if sequestration goes into effect, many of the funding cuts are across the board and automatic. The Pentagon often always get to say what is or isn't cut. This means that important stuff gets cut along with the unimportant, because sequestration isn't always based on military necessity. It also means that there will be cuts that don't even make sense. Here's an example. Say that you've got a project to build a submarine. Suddenly sequestration says that you can only do 50% of the project. How do you pull that off? It's a ship. You can't build half of a sub, unless you want to build the bottom half of the hull and row it around like a big kayak. You might try building half the sub now and putting off the rest till later. But by then your hull's gotten rusty and you have to fix it, and the workers have to be rehired, and you end up paying more than if you'd just built the whole thing in the first place. So if you want stuff like the F-35 to get canceled, the right thing to do it is to try to get it cancelled in congress. The generalized sequestration cuts won't target the waste, and will in the end actually create more expenses that we have to pay off.
Can anyone find something saying what browser versions are compatible with DevKit? That's often a sticking point with HTML5, especially with older IE versions
The chapter is closed? Nonsense. They haven't offered to change the contract, they just claim that everyone's misinterpreted it. Which gives you no more rights than you had before. If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. Their PR statements would not affect in the slightest their legal ability to use your photos.
As I see it, the real problem Microsoft has ahead of them with corporate adoption isn't dislike, but indifference. A CEO at the end of the day doesn't care whether or not employees enjoy using the computer. So even if the Metro interface is a bit annoying that isn't going to stop them from choosing Windows 8. But what will stop them is that there's no real strong selling point that makes Win 8 necessary. A corporate exec makes a decision based on what the software will do for them. And I've yet to hear anything that indicates that there's a strong enough benefit from Win8 to make the upgrade costs and time worth it. New interface? Who cares. Good for tablets? Big companies are interested in traditional PCs that people have on their desks, not tablets for watching movies. Add to that the fact that a lot of companies just finished replacing XP with Win7, and you have a recipe for low sales.
I'm an MBA (hold off on the throwing of the rotten vegetables! I'm a IT person too!) So I'd like to put my 2 cents worth on the whole thing from a business perspective.
Everyone's talking about it being a chicken and egg situation where devs aren't making games for Linux because there's no market, and there's no market because there aren't any games. This isn't really the situation. The execs at big companies often deal with situations where they have to take a leap of faith. Every time there's a new console, for example, the execs at companies like EA decide whether or not to make games for it well before the console is released, so they're making games for a market with 0 users! They make the decisions based on a few key factors, including looking at the risks, the chances of success, and the possible rewards given the market. Here are just some aspects that are probably discouraging to an exec at a big gaming company:
1. History. Linux is old. Really old. And it hasn't taken off in the consumer market yet. So it's a pretty big leap for an EA exec to think it's going to get popular now. There hasn't really been any change in the market that would point to a massive upswing in Linux gaming.
2. High potential risks. Xbox isn't that big a risk to support, since it uses similar tech to Windows. Linux? It's a bit different. Sure, it uses OpenGL, like a mac, but it's a whole different platform. This wouldn't be a deal killer by itself, but it's another nail in the coffin since it increases the risks.
3. Lack of proof of a market. As people have pointed out, the Humble Bundles sold well, but they had people giving to them because a. They wanted to support small indie developers and b. they wanted to support the charities that the Humble Bundles give to. When companies look to predict what's going to happen they look for comparability, that is, they try to find similar situations where there was a success, and there is very little evidence for this. Should they take a chance anyway, and do something new? That leads us to the last and perhaps biggest point:
4. Low first mover advantage. One of the things a business looks for is first mover advantage, that is, what kind of benefits do they get by taking the risk of being the first to do something. What they're looking for is some reason to think that going first will let them get and HOLD ON TO a chunk of the market. This isn't the case with Linux. Let's say that Carmack decides to make his latest game (Quake 7, this time it's even Quakier!) in Linux. Let's be generous and say that Q7 is released, the Linux gaming market explodes, and everyone buys Q7 for Linux. Carmack took a big risk. What did he get in return? Well, he got big profits, obviously. But he didn't do as well from this deal as you'd think: Let's say that Blizzard, after seeing Q7's success, produces a first-person Linux game called Starcraft 3D: Raynor on a Plane. Assuming it's of a similar quality to Q7, their profits are about the same. Maybe even better, since the market has now grown even more. But they didn't have to take the risks that Carmack did: they lost nothing by waiting until Linux was already a success. And unlike with a console Linux doesn't have a short life cycle, so they had all the time in the world to wait. It's true that Q7 had the advantage of being the only game in town, but that advantage won't last long. Therefore, there's nothing to be gained by being the company that takes a chance on Linux. Sad but true.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of the discussion on Linux's chances of success revolve around its worthiness as a platform, but a good platform isn't enough. There has to be a strategy to attract gaming business, and Linux doesn't really have one that works. Steam's support is nice, but in the long run it just isn't enough given the risks that an EA or iD would have to take as things are.
Judging by this article, I'm not certain that this collaboration is such a good thing. It's nice that Spielberg likes games. But if you go to any major game development forum, such as gamedev, you'll see lots newbies who think that they already know how to make games just because they know how to play them. That's not really the case. It requires a lot of study, and I'm not sure that Spielberg realizes this. Also, you have to consider that gaming and movies are different mediums, with their own strengths and weaknesses. The fact that Spielberg is good at one form of creative endeavor does not mean that he is automatically good at another. Consider the reverse: John Carmack is a good game developer. Imagine him trying to make a movie. The result probably wouldn't be too pleasant. Spielberg's in the same boat: trying to make something in a medium that he has no experience in.
I'm not sure this is going to work as well as Sony thinks. The problem is that Sony's old games don't have the nostalgia value of Nintendo's. When people see Sony's PS1 games, they are reminded that there are now newer and better versions available. When they see an old NES game, it's different. 9 out of 10 gamers, you put them in front of the original Super Mario Bros, and the minute that music starts to play, they'll crack a smile. Don't misunderstand me. Sony's games are good, and I think everyone enjoys them. But they don't have that timeless emotional appeal. When you see an old Sony game, it's a cheap older game. When you see an old Nintendo game, it's a classic.
There are a few things wrong with that features argument. For one, just because you don't need a feature now, doesn't mean that you won't need it in the future. Secondly, just because you don't need it doesn't mean that someone else won't. Picture this: You're in charge of getting a word processor. You decide to get OpenOffice instead of Word. It doesn't have feature A, but no one uses feature A, so you figure that you can go with OpenOffice. Fast forward 6 months. Your company starts a new project that requires feature A, and you don't have it. Now that purchase doesn't look so good to the boss after all. It's always risky getting something with less functionality, because you may need that functionality in the future. And making a wrong choice costs money. Open Source itself may be free, but the man-hours spent installing, configuring, and training people how to use it are not. If the product doesn't work out, all that money and time is wasted.
Secondly, this is the worst of all possible strategies. When someone says "I won't get your product because it doesn't have A", the solution is not to say that the customer really doesn't need A. Believe it or not, the customer usually knows what he needs better than you do. If the customer wants A, give it to him. That's the problem with a lot of Open Source software. There's an attitude that the developer is always right rather than that the customer is always right.
Not to flamebait, but it always astonishes me how Apple manages to get away with this stuff. Whenever any other company does this sort of thing, they get a lot of grief. When Apple does it, people get mad, but Apple somehow manages to keep an entirely undeserved reputation as nice people. Apple may make a nifty OS and a nice mp3 player, but they do all the bad stuff that Microsoft and company likes to do, but somehow people still think they're heros. Someday people are going to catch on that having less market share doesn't mean you're more ethical.
I like big budget games as much as the next guy. And I'm sure that DS2 is a nice hack'nslash game. But does anyone wonder why slashdot's game coverage is pretty much oriented towards the big studios instead of the small indies that are acutally doing creative and new things? Slashdot's editors are the sort that bemoan the lack of creativity in gaming, but when that creativity shows up, they don't give it any press. What about great old school RPG's like Spiderweb software's Geneforge series, with real plots and dialog? What about great physics-based platformers like Gish? Instead, we get the same EA Games/Microsoft/Vivendi stuff that all the big publishers cover. When is Slashdot going to move beyond asking for creativity to rewarding that creativity with reviews and coverage? I just wish that Slashdot would put their money where their mouth is regarding coverage beyond the shovelware studio system.
This seems like it might be a smarter move for MS than one might think. Consider this:
At the moment, Nintendo is the leader in the portable market. The road is littered with machines made by Nintendo's competitors that failed. Microsoft, at the moment, knows nothing about portable consoles, and has no experience. If they were to try right now to produce a handheld X-Box, the attempt might be successful, but it would more likely end in miserable failure. By working with Nintendo, they are gaining experience regarding how running a portable console works. And they're making a profit while they're doing it. In 2-3 years, they'll know quite a bit about how and why GameBoy and the DS are successful. Then, if they feel like it, they can use their knowledge to produce their own handheld. Combine the knowledge they'll have gained with Microsoft's resources and ability to tie into the X-Box and PC market, and they stand a good chance of succeeding where Sega, Atari, and many others have failed.
She was considered a swing vote because her opinions could often go either to the left or to the right. Therefore, it would often happen that there would be 2 sides of 4 judges each, all of whom were fairly predictable, making O'Connor's vote critical.
Definitely, in fact it's briefly mentioned in the article. In case anyone hasn't read the book (no, seeing the movie doesn't count), in the society described in 451, the population is kept docile partly through television programs that are designed to distract from real life problems. The main character's wife watches a soap opera where the characters interact in an artificial manner with her, making her feel that she is a part of the show's television "family". This seems like a similar type of thing: give people the illusion that they're involved, without giving them any real choices to make or issues to think about.
I think this could work, depending on how well it's done. Everyone here seems to be assuming that Google will do a total desktop replacement. I agree that this would probably be a failure. But I don't think that that's what Google's going for. If they follow their usual design pattern, rather than having a monolithic OS, they'll have a bunch of web applications that you can use that use a common system and interface. So rather than having a google desktop, you'd have tools like word processing available on the google front page, with some kind of behind the scenes common data storage. This could prove very successful, both with business travelers, and with users that only use their PCs for a few simple things. Even if it doesn't do everything you want, you can still use a mix of desktop apps and google web apps. I also suspect that google will release their framework so that third parties can make apps for google...
This'll probably get me flamed, but oh well.
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people". The problem is that this model ignores, and in fact, discourages the small businesses that are already getting crushed by big business. Here's an example: Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
For my money, I like the LGPL. Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
In answer to the questions about why 2D matters, 2D is used a lot now for indie games, which is Garagegames's focus. 2D gaming is growing because indie gaming is growing. You may never see a game in your local CompUSA that uses 2D, but there are a lot of new 2D games being produced and sold over the Internet. Furthermore, by using 3D acceleration technology for 2D, you can make much better 2D games than used to be possible. Rotating sprites, per-pixel alpha blending, and additive blending are all now easy and fast. Search the indie gaming sites and you'll see that there's some great stuff out there.
Huh? Half of us will be dead? Is there supposed to be an alien mutant robot invasion in 2014, or something?
Erm, how does this help PA? They make money by people looking at the ads on their site when they some to view the comics. If they stay on Slashdot, doesn't that mean that Gabe and Tycho lose ad views to Slashdot? So, isn't this pretty much hurting PA's bottom line?
This reminds me of the old Gerry Anderson puppet-based TV show Terrahawks. The bad guys had evil cube shaped robots, that could stack on each other to make big laser cannons, and the like.
:)
When our data bricks start to kill people, we'll know IBM's up to something
Increased resolution would be nice, as would stereo photos. But I wonder if one thing that might help photos seem more real is to have them backlit in a realistic way. Look at a sunset in real life, then look at a photo. It's not the same, and I suspect that part of the reason is that the amount of light pouring into your eyes and spilling into the surrounding colors is very different than looking at dots of pigment, however fine. It may be that the best photographs may be produced on digital paper, where we can do some kind of backlighting to simulate the light we see in the real world.
I used to shop at the College Park location that these guys ran, and I have to say that if there was ever a poster boy for the copyright-free movement, these guys were definitely not it. These weren't folks who just modded a few playstations. They sold lots of blatently pirated games and videos, at outragous prices. They pulled all kinds of tricks to pull a fast buck at their customers' expense. As an example, one time they went to an Anime convention, grabbed up all the free samples of a particularly coveted product that another vendor was giving away, then promptly resold them at the same convention. These guys would pirate anything for a quick buck. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Um, this isn't "flourishing". Read the article. The ship in question hasn't been built yet, and the Russian government has not yet agreed to give the program the budget required. If Energia were to actually build this ship, then you would have a point. As it is, this is nothing more than a really good idea that will probably never be realized.
The studio probably doesn't want it to get crushed by Star Wars the way Logan's Run was.