Think of all the problems that go away when NAT is gone. Like being able to use BitTorrent or SIP or any other "push" technology without having to set up port forwarding on your router.
For many (most?) people, this is a feature. That NAT firewall keeps them safe against unwanted traffic and unexpected attacks. The minor issues with BitTorrent and the like are best dealt with by Universal PnP.
There are definite advantages to IPv6, but the general populace doesn't feel any pressure to replace their equipment and service. As long as they don't feel any pressure, they're going to do what seems easiest: Stay with the status quo.
seriously IPv6 is just futureproofing we will eventually run out of IP addresses when each vehicle will want one, each of your kitchen appliances will want one etc.
I'm just not sure that's true. It certainly seemed that way when IPv6 was invented, but since then NAT has become a regular feature on home and business networks. Add in the regular use of DHCP to autoconfigure devices to a network, and you find that there's no longer any real pressure to make the switch to IPv6. Thus it made a lot of sense when it was developed, but now it seems pointless.
The next big thing may very well end up being a space network. The problem is that a space network (likely an interplanetary network) has different requirements than either IPv4 OR IPv6. So the result is likely to be that we'll need a completely new standard to interoperate with the old standards.
I still run my own email server too. But with the advent of GMail and lousy spam-block attempts, the personal email server has become far more trouble than it's worth. I've pretty much kept it around just for application and legacy use.
1) Don't run your own Email Server. It's a pain in the rear, and it'll get blacklisted for being on a consumer subnet anyway.
2) If you have a website that you need to guarantee availability for, get a cheap webhost like LunarPages or IPowerWeb. (Note that blogs fall under this category. Don't run your own blog unless the Blogger.com service doesn't meet your needs.)
3) If you have something personal (such as vacation pictures, web scripts for testing, an experimental web app, etc.) run your own server. It's a rewarding experience and can teach you a lot.
4) DO NOT run ANYTHING on your employer's servers, unless you have explicit permission. It was one thing to make quick use of them back when bandwidth was hard to come by. But now that everyone and their dog has server-grade bandwidth, there's no reason to be making illicit use of your employer's server.
The shuttle is a more complicated design. There is a difference.
Oh no, it's quite sophisticated in its design. Just about every scrap of technology at the disposal of our engineers went into creating the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately, the budgets given to the engineers to make the Shuttle into an all-in-one-dream-machine ended up also making it a more complicated design in addition to it being sophisticated.
There were no operational failures. How's that for a quick statistical comparison?
There were also only 13 flights. The Space Shuttle also experienced zero operational failures within the first 13 flights. (It was the 25th flight, I believe, when the Challenger was lost.)
I'm not really saying that the Saturn V would have seen as much failure (it certainly wasn't as sophisticated of a design as the Space Shuttle), but it certainly wasn't flown for as long or as often. If you take the Apollo capsules into account as part of the complete space vehicle, it actually has a much poorer track record.
The truth is that the Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering. The problem is that it was supposed to be a very focused piece of equipment (a shuttle to get people up and down) and ended up having to fill the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none role. Thanks Nixon.
Q: What about the foam. A: We'll see how the changes work. Q: But what if there's more foam. A: That would be bad and we'll have to figure it out. Q: But what if the foam destroys the space program! A: I don't want to talk about it. Q: But what about THE FOAM?! A: NNNNgggghhhh.... Q: What if the foam makes another Challenger happen? A: The Challenger was a sad accident. Q: How do you think you've changed things? (Like with the foam?) A: NNNNnnnnnggghhh! Q: Do you think foam is intelligently designed?
Even with starting everyone on ground crew, there can be issues. First, and foremost, is the chicken/egg problem: if everyone's ground crew, who's the captain?
No one. You start with no real ships online. People are just magically transported to planets where they have to earn their rank. Promotions would be quick in the early days as the Admiralty (i.e. the guys running the game behind the scenes) begin bringing ships online (i.e. adding new units to the game) and handing out promotions.
If the captain is pre-seeded, then how do you remove him from such a post?
If he loses his command, he loses his rank. He can still be a ship-board officer, but he's going to be bottom rung.
The other problem is longevity. For the events to be useful and fun to the people who put the time, effort, and money into being promoted, the underlings need to follow orders. If they don't, then no one will hang around long enough to establish a well-run ship. On the other hand, most gamers I've been around don't like following orders, particularly if they have their eyes on the bridge.
Good point. However, I think you're line of thinking provides a perfect solution. Why do real people follow orders? A: Because they get promoted, demoted, or court mashalled by the guy above them in the chain. Same solution here. Your commanding officer is who decides if you get promoted or not. Perhaps the transition from planet-side to ship-board would be a more traditional points-type system, but on-ship discipline needs to be maintained. If your CO is an A*hole, then you always can always request a transfer.:-)
BTW, these are very interesting points you're bringing up. Thank you. Thinking through these issues definitely helps expand the idea.
I partly addressed your concerns here, but yeah, there's a lot of issues that need to be worked out. Crew rotations could help significantly (i.e. your team is larger than you need for a mission, allowing you to pull from who's available), but you need to make sure that everyone always has something to *do*. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, but it is possible.:-)
Why not? You don't actually have to play old whiz kid, just the guy manning the conn. I think it would be a lot of fun.:-)
Of course, bitslinger_42 makes a good point that everyone will want to be a captain. Thus the only thing I can see is:
1) Start everyone on ground-assault duty. 2) Everyone vies for Starship duty as more and more ships are added to the game. 3) Work your way up as Lieutenant on Conn or Ops, Lieutenant-Commander on Tactical, and finally Commander or Captain to run a ship or starbase. 4) If you're a Captain, you can get promoted to a better ship. 5) If you lose your ship, the fleet cashiers you and you have to start over on shipboard duty.
Don't forget that there can be elements like repelling boarding parties, commanding small attack craft, privateering, and other cool elements. The universe is REALLY big. It would just take some imagination to work it out.:-)
Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune.
More like the ol' bait and switch.
Step 1. "Buy Windows Vista! It's so much more secure, we didn't bother including a virus checker!" Step 2. Dumb consumers purchase Vista. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.) Step 3. "Having virus problems? Subscribe to Microsoft's monthly virus protection at the low, low rate of your first-born son!" Step 4. Dumb consumers fork over more dough. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.) Step 5. Profit!!!
Star Trek, Wing Commander Privateer, etc.
on
MMORPGs And Franchises
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Jon Wood: There are a number of flaws in the concept of companies developing MMORPGs based on major pre-existing franchises. I can clearly see why it is done. It creates a pre-made customer base and almost guarantees a strong launch. Unfortunately, from a gamer point of view, these games are doomed to fall short. All you have to do is look at game like "Star Wars: Galaxies", which has been on the receiving end of a never-ending barrage of criticism because the game doesn't live up to the epic expectations of either Star Wars fans, or MMORPG fans.
I still don't understand how Star Wars got the first choice as an MMORPG. While the books create an expansive universe, only the hardcore fans are familiar with it. This guy has the right idea:
Dana Massey: It is the responsibility of developers to pick IPs that has fans as excited about the worlds as the individual stories; which is to say appropriate worlds for development. Perpetual Entertainment's choice of Star Trek has that potential.
Amen. All the way back in 1996 I was contemplating the idea of Star Trek combat. Nearly all the Star Trek action games to date had failed miserably, but always because they tried to simplify the controls down to a flight simulator. What you need are actual officers sitting in each position, giving the commands, firing from tactical, flying from the conn, etc. i.e. You'd need a staff of about 4 people on each ship, linked up via the Internet, and able to hear each other speak. The idea seemed sound enough.
Then I considered the matter of away team missions. Why not add in an FPS mode where you could explore a planet, fight with a Gorn, or wage all-out-war with the Dominion. At the time this seemed like an unrealistic idea. But as the idea of MMORPGs started to take off, the idea seemed more and more appealing. I think the technology would now be able to make it happen. You'd need some sort of command structure, but such a game could recreate the experience of being in the Star Trek Universe. It seems so obvious, that I'm surprised that no one has picked up on it until now.
Another game that needs a chance was the failed Wing Commander: Privateer MMORPG that was being worked on. If there was ever a more perfect Universe for a SciFi MMORPG, I haven't seen it. It's got dog-fights, trading, sub-plots, factions, everything! In fact, if you add multiplayer to the original game, you've pretty much got an awesome MMORPG! Unfortunately, EA pulled the plug on it after they screwed up the Wing Commander series with their lackluster Prophecy. With the renewed interest in the Privateer Remake, you would think that EA would be chomping at the bit to get back into the market. Go figure.
I thought patents were supposed to *encourage* research and innovation, not *interfere* with it...
They are. The problem comes in when modern business execs abuse the power they're given all to ensure the best results for the next quarter. What we need is a lot more barratry suits. Once a few lawyers start losing their licenses, they'll think twice about taking nonsensical crap to court.
It will come as a surprise to some of you (and no surprise at all to others) that Garry's Mod has won the 2005 Mod of the Year award. Beginning small and rapidly working its way up, Garry's Mod isn't a game as much as a sandbox where you can make one.
With mods being so prevalent these days, you almost have to wonder. I remember when Quake came out. (No bloody, II, III, IV, or D) The game itself was actually kind of dull. But it made such an amazing platform for cool single and multiplayer mods! There was nothing quite like dueling the reaper bot or swinging into a CTF castle on your grappling hook.
Now that more and more games are moddable, one has to wonder if modding has become the game. Rather than purchasing a title which we will play until we finish it or get bored of it, are we now purchasing titles just so we can invent new games based on them? Heck, even many commercial games (Elite Forces, Half Life, etc.) are really nothing more than Total Conversion mods of the engine. While some companies take the time to modify the source code, for the most part they don't ever need to touch the engine. Just take the platform and make a fun game.
This really has been an interesting trend in gaming. My only fear is that it's been slowly erroding the PC industry's ability to produce an actual game for playing rather than a platform for playing with. I love modding just as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's kind of fun to just do some semi-mindless shooting/puzzle solving/adventure.:-)
And what's to stop the drug maker from tying up the research in court because they feel that it is a "defamation of their IP"? It doesn't matter if it the drug maker eventually loses, they can manage to delay the research for YEARS, potentially making it pointless. Thus the researchers have to negotiate a contract that says, "I won't divulge my data until the drug maker has a chance to review it."
I had something of a "what the hell?" reaction when I first read the headline, so I went and looked the original story. The problem isn't that patents are directly interfering with research (which they're not supposed to do), but that they are indirectly interfering. From the study:
The most common reason respondents reported having to change or abandon their research project was that the acquisition of the necessary technologies involved overly complex licensing negotiations.
So the problem is less of one in creating, say, a Viagra tablet for drug research, but rather purchasing bottles of Viagra to do research on other health effects.
My guess is that there's a bug in the timelock. I don't recall seeing the trial version available for a while, so my guess is that it got pulled, but I couldn't swear to that.
Nope, I'm talking about the Personal Development Edition. (I looked it up.;-)) The PDE is absolutely free for development use, and contains all the major functionality. IIRC, it has similar hardware limitations, but that's not something you really notice during development.
Because I don't know. I'm just guessing. I was hoping that someone who followed DB2 a little closer could fill in the details.
BTW, I looked it up. It used to be called "DB2 Personal Developers Edition". The homepage is here, and seems to include version 8.2. So really, I'm back to square one. How about you?:-)
Considering that I ran it for about 3 years without it "expiring", I don't think so. According to IBM's site (the details of which have probably been wiped out by this new version), they were offering DB2 to developers for free. Oracle did the same thing. Only Microsoft had one of those stupid 90 day trial things.
All I can think of was that the free developer versions went away with version 8.0, and haven't been replaced until now.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of all the problems that go away when NAT is gone. Like being able to use BitTorrent or SIP or any other "push" technology without having to set up port forwarding on your router.
For many (most?) people, this is a feature. That NAT firewall keeps them safe against unwanted traffic and unexpected attacks. The minor issues with BitTorrent and the like are best dealt with by Universal PnP.
There are definite advantages to IPv6, but the general populace doesn't feel any pressure to replace their equipment and service. As long as they don't feel any pressure, they're going to do what seems easiest: Stay with the status quo.
seriously IPv6 is just futureproofing we will eventually run out of IP addresses when each vehicle will want one, each of your kitchen appliances will want one etc.
I'm just not sure that's true. It certainly seemed that way when IPv6 was invented, but since then NAT has become a regular feature on home and business networks. Add in the regular use of DHCP to autoconfigure devices to a network, and you find that there's no longer any real pressure to make the switch to IPv6. Thus it made a lot of sense when it was developed, but now it seems pointless.
The next big thing may very well end up being a space network. The problem is that a space network (likely an interplanetary network) has different requirements than either IPv4 OR IPv6. So the result is likely to be that we'll need a completely new standard to interoperate with the old standards.
I still run my own email server too. But with the advent of GMail and lousy spam-block attempts, the personal email server has become far more trouble than it's worth. I've pretty much kept it around just for application and legacy use.
1) Don't run your own Email Server. It's a pain in the rear, and it'll get blacklisted for being on a consumer subnet anyway.
2) If you have a website that you need to guarantee availability for, get a cheap webhost like LunarPages or IPowerWeb. (Note that blogs fall under this category. Don't run your own blog unless the Blogger.com service doesn't meet your needs.)
3) If you have something personal (such as vacation pictures, web scripts for testing, an experimental web app, etc.) run your own server. It's a rewarding experience and can teach you a lot.
4) DO NOT run ANYTHING on your employer's servers, unless you have explicit permission. It was one thing to make quick use of them back when bandwidth was hard to come by. But now that everyone and their dog has server-grade bandwidth, there's no reason to be making illicit use of your employer's server.
RTFA. First he's stuck on the foam, then he unhelpfully kicks off on the Challenger anniversary.
BTW, look out for that...
*WHUMP*
foam.
Never mind.
The shuttle is a more complicated design. There is a difference.
Oh no, it's quite sophisticated in its design. Just about every scrap of technology at the disposal of our engineers went into creating the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately, the budgets given to the engineers to make the Shuttle into an all-in-one-dream-machine ended up also making it a more complicated design in addition to it being sophisticated.
There were no operational failures. How's that for a quick statistical comparison?
There were also only 13 flights. The Space Shuttle also experienced zero operational failures within the first 13 flights. (It was the 25th flight, I believe, when the Challenger was lost.)
I'm not really saying that the Saturn V would have seen as much failure (it certainly wasn't as sophisticated of a design as the Space Shuttle), but it certainly wasn't flown for as long or as often. If you take the Apollo capsules into account as part of the complete space vehicle, it actually has a much poorer track record.
The truth is that the Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering. The problem is that it was supposed to be a very focused piece of equipment (a shuttle to get people up and down) and ended up having to fill the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none role. Thanks Nixon.
Hold still, I think you've got a little foam on you...
Q: What about the foam.
A: We'll see how the changes work.
Q: But what if there's more foam.
A: That would be bad and we'll have to figure it out.
Q: But what if the foam destroys the space program!
A: I don't want to talk about it.
Q: But what about THE FOAM?!
A: NNNNgggghhhh....
Q: What if the foam makes another Challenger happen?
A: The Challenger was a sad accident.
Q: How do you think you've changed things? (Like with the foam?)
A: NNNNnnnnnggghhh!
Q: Do you think foam is intelligently designed?
That pretty much sums it up.
Even with starting everyone on ground crew, there can be issues. First, and foremost, is the chicken/egg problem: if everyone's ground crew, who's the captain?
:-)
No one. You start with no real ships online. People are just magically transported to planets where they have to earn their rank. Promotions would be quick in the early days as the Admiralty (i.e. the guys running the game behind the scenes) begin bringing ships online (i.e. adding new units to the game) and handing out promotions.
If the captain is pre-seeded, then how do you remove him from such a post?
If he loses his command, he loses his rank. He can still be a ship-board officer, but he's going to be bottom rung.
The other problem is longevity. For the events to be useful and fun to the people who put the time, effort, and money into being promoted, the underlings need to follow orders. If they don't, then no one will hang around long enough to establish a well-run ship. On the other hand, most gamers I've been around don't like following orders, particularly if they have their eyes on the bridge.
Good point. However, I think you're line of thinking provides a perfect solution. Why do real people follow orders? A: Because they get promoted, demoted, or court mashalled by the guy above them in the chain. Same solution here. Your commanding officer is who decides if you get promoted or not. Perhaps the transition from planet-side to ship-board would be a more traditional points-type system, but on-ship discipline needs to be maintained. If your CO is an A*hole, then you always can always request a transfer.
BTW, these are very interesting points you're bringing up. Thank you. Thinking through these issues definitely helps expand the idea.
I partly addressed your concerns here, but yeah, there's a lot of issues that need to be worked out. Crew rotations could help significantly (i.e. your team is larger than you need for a mission, allowing you to pull from who's available), but you need to make sure that everyone always has something to *do*. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, but it is possible. :-)
Why not? You don't actually have to play old whiz kid, just the guy manning the conn. I think it would be a lot of fun. :-)
:-)
Of course, bitslinger_42 makes a good point that everyone will want to be a captain. Thus the only thing I can see is:
1) Start everyone on ground-assault duty.
2) Everyone vies for Starship duty as more and more ships are added to the game.
3) Work your way up as Lieutenant on Conn or Ops, Lieutenant-Commander on Tactical, and finally Commander or Captain to run a ship or starbase.
4) If you're a Captain, you can get promoted to a better ship.
5) If you lose your ship, the fleet cashiers you and you have to start over on shipboard duty.
Don't forget that there can be elements like repelling boarding parties, commanding small attack craft, privateering, and other cool elements. The universe is REALLY big. It would just take some imagination to work it out.
Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune.
More like the ol' bait and switch.
Step 1. "Buy Windows Vista! It's so much more secure, we didn't bother including a virus checker!"
Step 2. Dumb consumers purchase Vista. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 3. "Having virus problems? Subscribe to Microsoft's monthly virus protection at the low, low rate of your first-born son!"
Step 4. Dumb consumers fork over more dough. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 5. Profit!!!
I still don't understand how Star Wars got the first choice as an MMORPG. While the books create an expansive universe, only the hardcore fans are familiar with it. This guy has the right idea:
Amen. All the way back in 1996 I was contemplating the idea of Star Trek combat. Nearly all the Star Trek action games to date had failed miserably, but always because they tried to simplify the controls down to a flight simulator. What you need are actual officers sitting in each position, giving the commands, firing from tactical, flying from the conn, etc. i.e. You'd need a staff of about 4 people on each ship, linked up via the Internet, and able to hear each other speak. The idea seemed sound enough.
Then I considered the matter of away team missions. Why not add in an FPS mode where you could explore a planet, fight with a Gorn, or wage all-out-war with the Dominion. At the time this seemed like an unrealistic idea. But as the idea of MMORPGs started to take off, the idea seemed more and more appealing. I think the technology would now be able to make it happen. You'd need some sort of command structure, but such a game could recreate the experience of being in the Star Trek Universe. It seems so obvious, that I'm surprised that no one has picked up on it until now.
Another game that needs a chance was the failed Wing Commander: Privateer MMORPG that was being worked on. If there was ever a more perfect Universe for a SciFi MMORPG, I haven't seen it. It's got dog-fights, trading, sub-plots, factions, everything! In fact, if you add multiplayer to the original game, you've pretty much got an awesome MMORPG! Unfortunately, EA pulled the plug on it after they screwed up the Wing Commander series with their lackluster Prophecy. With the renewed interest in the Privateer Remake, you would think that EA would be chomping at the bit to get back into the market. Go figure.
I thought patents were supposed to *encourage* research and innovation, not *interfere* with it...
They are. The problem comes in when modern business execs abuse the power they're given all to ensure the best results for the next quarter. What we need is a lot more barratry suits. Once a few lawyers start losing their licenses, they'll think twice about taking nonsensical crap to court.
With mods being so prevalent these days, you almost have to wonder. I remember when Quake came out. (No bloody, II, III, IV, or D) The game itself was actually kind of dull. But it made such an amazing platform for cool single and multiplayer mods! There was nothing quite like dueling the reaper bot or swinging into a CTF castle on your grappling hook.
:-)
Now that more and more games are moddable, one has to wonder if modding has become the game. Rather than purchasing a title which we will play until we finish it or get bored of it, are we now purchasing titles just so we can invent new games based on them? Heck, even many commercial games (Elite Forces, Half Life, etc.) are really nothing more than Total Conversion mods of the engine. While some companies take the time to modify the source code, for the most part they don't ever need to touch the engine. Just take the platform and make a fun game.
This really has been an interesting trend in gaming. My only fear is that it's been slowly erroding the PC industry's ability to produce an actual game for playing rather than a platform for playing with. I love modding just as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's kind of fun to just do some semi-mindless shooting/puzzle solving/adventure.
Shame on you. I can't believe you would turn down such an opportunity. Especially when the first step is, "Find a girl!" :-P
If someone patched KDevelop to support DB/2, would that make it an IDE for KDE for PDE?
Ouch. That makes my head hurt.
And what's to stop the drug maker from tying up the research in court because they feel that it is a "defamation of their IP"? It doesn't matter if it the drug maker eventually loses, they can manage to delay the research for YEARS, potentially making it pointless. Thus the researchers have to negotiate a contract that says, "I won't divulge my data until the drug maker has a chance to review it."
So the problem is less of one in creating, say, a Viagra tablet for drug research, but rather purchasing bottles of Viagra to do research on other health effects.
My guess is that there's a bug in the timelock. I don't recall seeing the trial version available for a while, so my guess is that it got pulled, but I couldn't swear to that.
;-)) The PDE is absolutely free for development use, and contains all the major functionality. IIRC, it has similar hardware limitations, but that's not something you really notice during development.
Nope, I'm talking about the Personal Development Edition. (I looked it up.
Because I don't know. I'm just guessing. I was hoping that someone who followed DB2 a little closer could fill in the details.
:-)
BTW, I looked it up. It used to be called "DB2 Personal Developers Edition". The homepage is here, and seems to include version 8.2. So really, I'm back to square one. How about you?
Besides the obvious "cost" reasons, what would DB2 give me that PostgreSQL doesn't?
:-P
Plenty of headaches? Bragging rights? Optional corporate (un)support? Good karma? Ability to "fight the man" by "being the man"? (You 'da man?)
See? Lots of reasons!
Considering that I ran it for about 3 years without it "expiring", I don't think so. According to IBM's site (the details of which have probably been wiped out by this new version), they were offering DB2 to developers for free. Oracle did the same thing. Only Microsoft had one of those stupid 90 day trial things.
All I can think of was that the free developer versions went away with version 8.0, and haven't been replaced until now.