Re:The World Trade Center apparently never existed
on
History of Video Games
·
· Score: 1
Why the hell is the world trade center being removed from old movies, video games, advertisements and just about anything else. Isn't this rewriting history?
Care to specify what "old movies, video games" the WTC is being removed from? Vanilla Sky? Nope, still there. Spider Man 2? Yup, because SM2 wasn't released until after the WTC was gone. The same with the movie; it's supposed to be taking place in the present day, and presently the towers aren't there.
As for Flight Simulator 2002, umm, notice the year in the name "2002"? Tell me now, is the WTC on the New York skyline in 2002? No? Then why should they put it there? How about the Larkin building or the Georgia Medical Dental building? Those building were demolished before 2002 and aren't in Spider Man or Flight Simulator 2002 either. Are you going to be outraged about their absence?
As well as misunderstanding resource forks, he also repeats the misconception that Mac OS "creator codes" are some kind of nefarious control mechanism that takes over your documents against your wishes and which you can never ever change.
He then goes on to propose a "preferred-application" metadata type that allows individual users to specify which applications they prefer to open a document with on a file-by-file basis. He proposes the OS use this preferred application, if it is available, but fall back on standard applications if the preferred one is not available.
The problem is that this is exactly how creator codes work, and is what they are for. His mock-up of a wonderous "application file type selector" is similar to the Quicktime translator dialog that has been available for about 10 years.
The "trailer" on theForce.net is a fake that's been around for months. It's a bunch of clips from episode I, other movies with the stars, and fan-produced material.
As the article point out, there are two organizations that do this already, CoSource and SourceXchange.
What the article does not point out is that SourceXchange has closed shop, and CoSource development is economically unsustainable. The problem in both cases is that people will not pay for open source development.
SourceXchange allowed programmers to negotiate the price of the software, with the result that no one was willing to meet these development costs. I am not aware of a single project that was sucessfully negotiated through SourceXchange.
CoSource is even worse, it allows people to request whatever projects for whatever amount of money they wish. The result is that most requests have zero dollars and zero cents committed. That's right, they expect someone to develop software for them without ever receiving a cent. Other projects have commitments of up to $300. There is no way you can develop a full-featured application for a total cost of $300.
Closed-source works because people are willing to fund closed-source shops with millions in investment cash. Until the same thing happens to open-source development, it will be playing catch-up to closed source applications.
I can see another way to solve the problem of not having the "latest and greatest" games on Linux: buy the Linux games that are out there. When it is profitable to sell Linux games then publishers will write them.
You are right, game publishers do not see much of a demand for Linux games and they do need to see interest. Interest in the form of cash money for games purchased. Game publishers are not Open Source developers and need revenue, not petitions, to pay for development. The only signatures that will help commercial Linux game publishers are the Treasury Secretary's signature on legal tender.
Interesting that you pull one sentence out of context in order to give the impression the writer is talking about IPv6, when in fact they are actually talking about exactly what you propose. Just before the line you quote the writer said:
Several approaches have been made to solve the problem. A very popular approach is to not assign a worldwide unique address to every user's machine, but rather to assign them "private" addresses...
When the article says "It has problems..." the writer is talking about what you suggest, not about IPv4. The only "misleading" thing here it your attempt to spin the article.
An interesting proposal I remember from David Gelertner, I can't remember the book, was to store data in "tuple spaces". Every time you create data the computer tags it with everything it knows about the data; the contents, the time you created it, what other data you were using, and so on.
You request data through abstract queries like "what was that cartoon I was looking at one evening about Windows 95?", or "get me everything about the Wilson project".
Unfortunately it would require strong AI to achieve.
Slashdot Mirror
As for Flight Simulator 2002, umm, notice the year in the name "2002"? Tell me now, is the WTC on the New York skyline in 2002? No? Then why should they put it there? How about the Larkin building or the Georgia Medical Dental building? Those building were demolished before 2002 and aren't in Spider Man or Flight Simulator 2002 either. Are you going to be outraged about their absence?
As well as misunderstanding resource forks, he also repeats the misconception that Mac OS "creator codes" are some kind of nefarious control mechanism that takes over your documents against your wishes and which you can never ever change.
He then goes on to propose a "preferred-application" metadata type that allows individual users to specify which applications they prefer to open a document with on a file-by-file basis. He proposes the OS use this preferred application, if it is available, but fall back on standard applications if the preferred one is not available.
The problem is that this is exactly how creator codes work, and is what they are for. His mock-up of a wonderous "application file type selector" is similar to the Quicktime translator dialog that has been available for about 10 years.
So the proposal is Microsoft be allowed to flood their main competitor's market with free products?
Stands to reason; this is what they did to Netscape.
It is also not even remotely similar to the teaser on http://starwars.apple.com.
What the article does not point out is that SourceXchange has closed shop, and CoSource development is economically unsustainable. The problem in both cases is that people will not pay for open source development.
SourceXchange allowed programmers to negotiate the price of the software, with the result that no one was willing to meet these development costs. I am not aware of a single project that was sucessfully negotiated through SourceXchange.
CoSource is even worse, it allows people to request whatever projects for whatever amount of money they wish. The result is that most requests have zero dollars and zero cents committed. That's right, they expect someone to develop software for them without ever receiving a cent. Other projects have commitments of up to $300. There is no way you can develop a full-featured application for a total cost of $300.
Closed-source works because people are willing to fund closed-source shops with millions in investment cash. Until the same thing happens to open-source development, it will be playing catch-up to closed source applications.
You are right, game publishers do not see much of a demand for Linux games and they do need to see interest. Interest in the form of cash money for games purchased. Game publishers are not Open Source developers and need revenue, not petitions, to pay for development. The only signatures that will help commercial Linux game publishers are the Treasury Secretary's signature on legal tender.
You request data through abstract queries like "what was that cartoon I was looking at one evening about Windows 95?", or "get me everything about the Wilson project".
Unfortunately it would require strong AI to achieve.