The current problem is mainly the cost of the raw material, plus the initial investment. From Maker-bot's website it's around $20 USD per pound, which is pretty hefty (although nowhere near where I thought it would be.) You are right: this will revolutionize the way we think of physical designs of objects.
The device itself is still pretty pricey. It'd be really cool if someone bought a nicer one and opened a store where you could send custom print jobs for the cost of materials + profit. Thats probably the first way they will become widespread. But you're quite right: not a fad, unless companies like Lego get involved in stopping it. AFAIK you can prevent they could prevent the widespread distribution of designs that copy Lego exactly, but they couldn't currently stop you from rolling your own. Watch them lobby to change that in the upcoming years. If you thought patent and copyright battles were bad, wait until companies are threatened by people able to build their own physical hardware copies of their products.
Or, they don't have double standards, but in order to succeed at business they have to do things that they know actually harm business and innovation, because that is how the system is set up and they can't change it. Which seems to be what happened in this case.
It's a bit like the two-party system in the US. Neither party may be very (any?) good, but since one of them is going to be elected, might as well vote for whomever you think is better than his opponent.
Replacement != successor. JWSB is the latter, not the former. They deal in different spectrum, and Webb will be used to investigate further interesting things Hubble first noticed but couldn't really see in infrared. So its kinda like how human missions to Mars won't replace robot probes, but will succeed them. One fills one role, the other another based on what the first saw.
That's pretty much my reaction about folks who are rabidly against Scientology. I don't get it. Pin someone down as to why they're so against it and they make vague references to someone somewhere being killed or something by a Scientologist. The same can be said about any religion.
How about work camps? Essentially labor camps for people in Scientology who break certain rules. I've heard pretty bad things about them, but admittedly they were third hand. Still, Scientology reeks of cultism. Have no idea about Falun Gong though.
That's why I pointed out how good Ars Technica was. They have published articles in the past about how they or other news sites have been pressured to release trumped-up reviews for games (generally with the threat of not receiving early review copies in the future.) Duke Nukem Forever, specifically, due to the negative reviews (since it sucked hard) resulted in many reviewers being threatened (in fact, he published a public tweet saying and I quote “Too many went too far with their reviews... we are reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn’t based on today’s venom.”) Ars Technica have explicitly stated that they don't bias their reviews because of this and call out game makes who make these kinds of threats.
Now, whether you believe them or not is up to you. I do. I have reasonable confidence that their reviews are genuine. Take how they dealt with the From Dust debacle where Ubisoft lied, telling gamers it would have only a one-time activation DRM system and then added a always-have-to-be-online to play DRM system (well, to be fair you could disconnect after you started the game unlike a certain game about assassins.) They simply straight up advised people not to buy it because of this. That and because it was a terribly port. Likely Ubisoft will retaliate against them for that. Which is fine: I don't intend to buy an Ubisoft game for the foreseeable future in any case.
It says something about game makers today when praise for a game comes more from a lack of criticism about it than from saying how good it is. Then again, being a Deus Ex game expectations are so high that a lack of criticism is one of the highest praises.
Based on this Ars review, I ended up pre-ordering it last night on Steam (to get the 10% discount and TF2 items... I love prerdering 5 hours before a game release) and am highly anticipating the end of work so I can play it tonight. I'm glad to see that it isn't only a few critics who like it, although Ars is one of the most reliable judges of PC games I've found (for that matter, one of the better new sources out there).
I'm so glad Human Revolution is good: like many others, I was expecting it to suck like so many recent games (especially sequels.) I have been looking forward to a Deus Ex game that wasn't badly crippled by the technology of the day like the original was (tons of bugs, some game ending, even to this day, poor shooting and combat, and of course lousy graphics). I assume they have fixed and improved those things in this one?
It can't possibly because Motorola is a huge manufacturer of mobile phones and Google, as they have shown many times in the past, is interested in further diversifying their product line beyond software (well, really just ads) and expanding into the more difficult to get into but also much more stable field of hardware in order to deploy their Android platform in a more consistent manner, can it? No, surely it must just be for this patent portfolio. After all, patents are the only thing of value these days. Right?
Of course the patents aren't incidental to the purchase (protecting Android makers is clearly important), but somehow I doubt Google did this just for that.
I'm curious, though, because after reading the GPLv2 your interpretation seems correct (you don't loose your rights permanently.) However, the GNU page on "Why GPLv3 is better than v2" states that, in fact, you do. I cannot see how that is a valid interpretation of the license. It only says that if you violate the license, your rights are automatically terminated. No where does it state that this is permanent (at least as far as I could see). In fact, it appears that merely grabbing a new version of the software would re-grant you license privileges. Is there some hidden implication to the "right to distribute" in the law that makes the termination permanent?
The whole bit about permanent loss of rights seems like an added interpretation to the license which just isn't there. It may be intended, but it isn't there. Does anyone know how the FSF or anyone else could claim that it is? And no, RMS saying that it does isn't enough: if it isn't it the license, the license doesn't do it. And IANAL, but it very much looks like it doesn't. Intention is irrelevant.
It's one thing to breach the private emails and documents of an individual, even if he is an exec with a major defense contractor. Breaching an individual's computer is fairly easy, and it very much looks like that is what they did. It is totally another thing to breach the company itself. Assuming the company is somewhat competent, the exec might have a few sensitive but not classified documents. All classified material will be on company computers. Again, that looks from TFA like exactly what they got.
So no, Anonymous didn't breach another defense contractor. They breached an individual who helped run a defense contractor. The two are very, very different. Looks like the highest thing they got was a few documents marked "law enforcement sensitive." An embarrassment for the exec and somewhat his company, but not as bad as a breach of the company itself. Not to say the company couldn't be breached, of course, just that that isn't what seems to have happened.
Yes, but his ignorance shows pretty clearly. He didn't explicitly state what he thought Aristotle said, but he seems to think Aristotle said that god created the universe. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal, not that it had been created or brought into existence by some god. In fact he argues that neither time nor motion can have a beginning because of what they are. His arguments for the existence of god were, in fact, based on this premise. It would really be nice if people who brought up ancient philosophers actually bothered reading and understanding them for once.
I for one am not going to buy any Ubisoft games for the foreseeable future. Its that simple. Lie to your customers, don't get my business. Not that they have very many games worth buying, for that matter.
VirtualBox is GPL (extensions aren't, but those aren't needed for core functionality), so really not much control is handed over at all (if Oracle refuses to offer support, the project can be forked.)
A momentary irritation to a pirate and a massive headache for non-pirates. It's how software business is run nowadays: make your product less usable than the pirated version in order to stop piracy. Only a CEO could think of something that brilliant! Looks like someone will be getting a nice end-of-year bonus for an "innovative solution."
Yeah, but the point was you knew right away 3.6 was nearly identical to 3.6.1 (well, should be anyways) and was probably pretty similar to 3.5, but not to 4.0. Now, you have no clue if 7 represents a major change or just a bugfix without actually testing it. Hence, frustration for developers. Mozilla is basically giving them less information about what the release cycles contain, and for no good reason whatsoever. And that is why people complain.
Slashdot Mirror
One word: telepresence.
The current problem is mainly the cost of the raw material, plus the initial investment. From Maker-bot's website it's around $20 USD per pound, which is pretty hefty (although nowhere near where I thought it would be.) You are right: this will revolutionize the way we think of physical designs of objects.
The device itself is still pretty pricey. It'd be really cool if someone bought a nicer one and opened a store where you could send custom print jobs for the cost of materials + profit. Thats probably the first way they will become widespread. But you're quite right: not a fad, unless companies like Lego get involved in stopping it. AFAIK you can prevent they could prevent the widespread distribution of designs that copy Lego exactly, but they couldn't currently stop you from rolling your own. Watch them lobby to change that in the upcoming years. If you thought patent and copyright battles were bad, wait until companies are threatened by people able to build their own physical hardware copies of their products.
Or, they don't have double standards, but in order to succeed at business they have to do things that they know actually harm business and innovation, because that is how the system is set up and they can't change it. Which seems to be what happened in this case.
It's a bit like the two-party system in the US. Neither party may be very (any?) good, but since one of them is going to be elected, might as well vote for whomever you think is better than his opponent.
Replacement != successor. JWSB is the latter, not the former. They deal in different spectrum, and Webb will be used to investigate further interesting things Hubble first noticed but couldn't really see in infrared. So its kinda like how human missions to Mars won't replace robot probes, but will succeed them. One fills one role, the other another based on what the first saw.
Yeah. They barely even bothered to change the name.
Nah, thats not for a few weeks yet. I think.
That's pretty much my reaction about folks who are rabidly against Scientology. I don't get it. Pin someone down as to why they're so against it and they make vague references to someone somewhere being killed or something by a Scientologist. The same can be said about any religion.
How about work camps? Essentially labor camps for people in Scientology who break certain rules. I've heard pretty bad things about them, but admittedly they were third hand. Still, Scientology reeks of cultism. Have no idea about Falun Gong though.
That's why I pointed out how good Ars Technica was. They have published articles in the past about how they or other news sites have been pressured to release trumped-up reviews for games (generally with the threat of not receiving early review copies in the future.) Duke Nukem Forever, specifically, due to the negative reviews (since it sucked hard) resulted in many reviewers being threatened (in fact, he published a public tweet saying and I quote “Too many went too far with their reviews... we are reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn’t based on today’s venom.”) Ars Technica have explicitly stated that they don't bias their reviews because of this and call out game makes who make these kinds of threats.
Now, whether you believe them or not is up to you. I do. I have reasonable confidence that their reviews are genuine. Take how they dealt with the From Dust debacle where Ubisoft lied, telling gamers it would have only a one-time activation DRM system and then added a always-have-to-be-online to play DRM system (well, to be fair you could disconnect after you started the game unlike a certain game about assassins.) They simply straight up advised people not to buy it because of this. That and because it was a terribly port. Likely Ubisoft will retaliate against them for that. Which is fine: I don't intend to buy an Ubisoft game for the foreseeable future in any case.
It says something about game makers today when praise for a game comes more from a lack of criticism about it than from saying how good it is. Then again, being a Deus Ex game expectations are so high that a lack of criticism is one of the highest praises.
Based on this Ars review, I ended up pre-ordering it last night on Steam (to get the 10% discount and TF2 items... I love prerdering 5 hours before a game release) and am highly anticipating the end of work so I can play it tonight. I'm glad to see that it isn't only a few critics who like it, although Ars is one of the most reliable judges of PC games I've found (for that matter, one of the better new sources out there).
I'm so glad Human Revolution is good: like many others, I was expecting it to suck like so many recent games (especially sequels.) I have been looking forward to a Deus Ex game that wasn't badly crippled by the technology of the day like the original was (tons of bugs, some game ending, even to this day, poor shooting and combat, and of course lousy graphics). I assume they have fixed and improved those things in this one?
It can't possibly because Motorola is a huge manufacturer of mobile phones and Google, as they have shown many times in the past, is interested in further diversifying their product line beyond software (well, really just ads) and expanding into the more difficult to get into but also much more stable field of hardware in order to deploy their Android platform in a more consistent manner, can it? No, surely it must just be for this patent portfolio. After all, patents are the only thing of value these days. Right?
Of course the patents aren't incidental to the purchase (protecting Android makers is clearly important), but somehow I doubt Google did this just for that.
In this case, it looks like he really is projecting. Projecting a giant "WHOOOOOOSH!" right past you.
I'm curious, though, because after reading the GPLv2 your interpretation seems correct (you don't loose your rights permanently.) However, the GNU page on "Why GPLv3 is better than v2" states that, in fact, you do. I cannot see how that is a valid interpretation of the license. It only says that if you violate the license, your rights are automatically terminated. No where does it state that this is permanent (at least as far as I could see). In fact, it appears that merely grabbing a new version of the software would re-grant you license privileges. Is there some hidden implication to the "right to distribute" in the law that makes the termination permanent?
The whole bit about permanent loss of rights seems like an added interpretation to the license which just isn't there. It may be intended, but it isn't there. Does anyone know how the FSF or anyone else could claim that it is? And no, RMS saying that it does isn't enough: if it isn't it the license, the license doesn't do it. And IANAL, but it very much looks like it doesn't. Intention is irrelevant.
Lets fill a probe with biological stuff we think might work there and seed the thing ourselves!
There is definitely a joke in there somewhere...
It's one thing to breach the private emails and documents of an individual, even if he is an exec with a major defense contractor. Breaching an individual's computer is fairly easy, and it very much looks like that is what they did. It is totally another thing to breach the company itself. Assuming the company is somewhat competent, the exec might have a few sensitive but not classified documents. All classified material will be on company computers. Again, that looks from TFA like exactly what they got.
So no, Anonymous didn't breach another defense contractor. They breached an individual who helped run a defense contractor. The two are very, very different. Looks like the highest thing they got was a few documents marked "law enforcement sensitive." An embarrassment for the exec and somewhat his company, but not as bad as a breach of the company itself. Not to say the company couldn't be breached, of course, just that that isn't what seems to have happened.
Parsing fail. He said it was $200-$300 too expensive, and should be priced more like $200-$300 dollars absolutely (not $500-$600). I agree with him.
Yes, but his ignorance shows pretty clearly. He didn't explicitly state what he thought Aristotle said, but he seems to think Aristotle said that god created the universe. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal, not that it had been created or brought into existence by some god. In fact he argues that neither time nor motion can have a beginning because of what they are. His arguments for the existence of god were, in fact, based on this premise. It would really be nice if people who brought up ancient philosophers actually bothered reading and understanding them for once.
I for one am not going to buy any Ubisoft games for the foreseeable future. Its that simple. Lie to your customers, don't get my business. Not that they have very many games worth buying, for that matter.
Nice winding roads and an unlimited speed limit would get rid of much of that monotony.
That is a very good idea. Not, of course, for reducing car crashes, but for accelerating the process of natural selection.
Riiiiiight. Just bought it. So they have no control over Motorola ATM. Maybe they actually want to stop the worst offender?
VirtualBox is GPL (extensions aren't, but those aren't needed for core functionality), so really not much control is handed over at all (if Oracle refuses to offer support, the project can be forked.)
A momentary irritation to a pirate and a massive headache for non-pirates. It's how software business is run nowadays: make your product less usable than the pirated version in order to stop piracy. Only a CEO could think of something that brilliant! Looks like someone will be getting a nice end-of-year bonus for an "innovative solution."
Don't worry. ~80% of Windows 8 users (the other 19.9% are business users) won't be using this "feature", as TPB edition won't have it...
Programs like AA certainly aren't perfect,
Might wanna rethink the use of that acronym. I mean, I figured out what you meant, but that isn't how 'AA' is usually used.
Yeah, but the point was you knew right away 3.6 was nearly identical to 3.6.1 (well, should be anyways) and was probably pretty similar to 3.5, but not to 4.0. Now, you have no clue if 7 represents a major change or just a bugfix without actually testing it. Hence, frustration for developers. Mozilla is basically giving them less information about what the release cycles contain, and for no good reason whatsoever. And that is why people complain.
Only one question: can I "check out" hot girls?