Not a dupe, they're testing Hyshot 4, Hyshot 2 (in July 2002) was the world's first scramjet to be successfully tested. (and the one built out of bits and bobs)
True, as in this article "Crashing down to earth near us, the future of jet travel" it's run by the University of Queensland, with funding from US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and Australia's Defence, Science and Technology Organisation.
True, as in this article "Crashing down to earth near us, the future of jet travel" it's run by the University of Queensland, with funding from US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and Australia's Defence, Science and Technology Organisation.
Got to agree with you on episode 1, but I do have to point out that I watched Episode 2 twice and I fell asleep both times!
I thought the first time I watched it I was just very tired, but obviously not. I am looking forward to Episode 4 though, from reading some of the reviews GL has actually listened to some of those nay-sayers and taken on board the constructive criticism.:-)
What is it with a few of the responses from people saying here are some things I can do in IE (and I want to do), where you basically say the person is an idiot/refute their reason for wanting to do it in the first place?
Personally, I don't see any real reason for this
Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run? You can turn the scripts off if you want
An option for asking for every cookie isn't truly useful anyway
Ok, I get that firefox doesn't have some of those features, cool... I get that the developers have what are no doubt well thought out reasons for excluding those features.
But the point is, some people use those features and want them before they switch, so either:
Implement them
Show a viable alternative
Educate as to why it can't/shouldn't be done
On the concept of zones, good to see that's why it hasn't been included, but some people use it (myself in particular for my firewall), so why don't the firefox developers implement it correctly?
Basically it irkes me when you say to someone "I'd like to have x in a product." And the provider just turns around and rather than saying "sorry, that's not implemented yet" or "to do what you want x for, can be done in y way", they basically snort and say "No one in their right mind would want that!"
Out of curiousity does anyone know if that is a Metric Billion or US Billion?
The difference being: Metric Billion is 1 million, million ie: 1,000,000,000,000
Whereas US Billion is 1 thousand million ie: 1,000,000,000
A fair order of magnitude in difference! Also Metric Billion is also referred to as a Mathematic Billion. The US Billion is also referred as a European Milliard.
But reading the article, isn't it Broadcom that used Linux in the chips bought by Linksys?
So by that logic, Linksys did not knowingly use (unless informed by Broadcom) Linux to jump on the work done by someone else. I'd say that it's Broadcom that should be in the shitter...
But then again I don't know enough of the details, and the article has way to much of a slant to rely on what little facts can be gleaned.
Aside from the obvious anti-Open Source slant of the write (I mean such pearls as 'In the world of "free" open source software' WTF?!)
I did think it interesting that the writer was claiming: '... because the disputed code resides on chips that Linksys buys from Broadcom'
Which, if I'm reading it right means that because Cisco adds chips to its routers from Linksys (now owned by Cisco), and those chips are bought from Broadcom who put Linux into those chips, Cisco is now being 'asked' to conform to the GPL, when Cisco itself hasn't used any GPL? (other than indirectly by using a chip that through 2 other companies had a GPL component)
So: GPL -> used by -> Broadcom -> sold to -> Linksys -> sold to -> Cisco
If that's so, maybe the author has a point? I mean, at what point does the GPL stop? If I buy a printer that has a smart chip with some GPL'd code on it, and then I write some nice app to print out on said printer, does my whole app then come under the GPL?
Yeah I know, taken to the extreme, but you get my point! Actually not even that extreme...
I think most people on slashdot should actually read the article and not listen to the extreme slant of the poster.
Let's examine with: They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,'
To quote the article "Massachusetts... is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software" by imposing the rules "The 'Freeware Initiative' will require that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on an open-source/Linux format" (emphasis added)
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
A commodity or service so controlled.
Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
I think that "requiring all IT expenditure to be only open-source/Linux formats" satisfies "Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled".
Don't get me wrong, I actually think that goverments switching too open source is a good thing, it encourages competition and alternative ways of solving problems (not to mention all the other reasons to switch).
But I definitely agree with Tom Schatz when he says "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." by forcing every department to choose only open source/linux software is doing the exact same thing as only allowing proprietary software (be it Apple/Microsoft/whoever based). It is an unfair software practice.
I'd rather the software was chosen on it's own merits rather than because it happens to conform to an arbitary format.
Re:One of the things I find annoying...
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 1
In Ultima you are correct Ultima IV?? I think introduced going into the underworld, very similar to the 3D movement of Wizardry, being a static 3d image (not nearly the same as an actual 3D FPS).
Ultima Underworld however actually allowed true 3D movement, even allowing going up/down levels (so that objects/shapes could be above/below other ones, not merely blocking a direct path).
The problem (in IT especially) is that there is a blur of the line of what is the goal vs what is the method.
To me as a programmer I see the goal as the one click purchase the actual method as how to implement that (the code used), but there is also the same argument of, it doesn't matter how you build the iron, it's that an iron is used to toast the bread.
That same argument can be extended to argue that it doesn't matter how you toast the bread, it's that the bread is toasted this is where common sense and knowledge of that industry needs to apply before granting patents!
Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.
Personally I've never liked this particular point of patenting, namely if I come up with an idea for how to do something (say toasting bread), I should be able to patent the method of toasting bread (by using an iron). But if some other smart guy see's that I'm toasting bread and says, hang on I've got a better/different way of doing it (with a pitchfork).
Then good for him!!
To me the whole point of a capitalist society is that we get improved products through competition. If you as a business can't keep ahead of your competitors, well then bad luck. You had a good idea, you brought it to market, other people took your idea improved/altered it and beat you at your own game!
If however the actual method (ironing the bread) is just re-used by the competitor, then fork up. You're not being innovative, you're just being a reseller, pay for the product you're selling.
buy food for the week, treat it as an extra income stream...
Get enough of those dividend payments, stop working the shitty job I hate, and take up a nice job that I've always wanted to do, but never been able to because of lack of money.
Shares that pay dividends are the same as rental properties, you would like some capital growth, but your main focus is on an extra income that you don't have to work for.
Having had a brief look through the patents, and IANAL. It would seem to me that all any of the browser software has to do is, have the initialization of the plugin not determinded by the hypermedia.
Because that looked like the crux of the patent: "The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects." seems to me that if you don't embed the program object in the hypermedia document and instead use other methods to allow a program to be activated, the rest of the patent looks like standard mainframe processing and communication...
That said, if the Eolas wins, this means that they can attack a lot more than just the browser, look at MSWord, you can embed objects inside documents, that you can then interact with...
Hell take this another step further and look at programming languages where you've used a library or already existing object, you've just 'embedded' a program object in your 'hypermedia' and ergo broken the patent.
Yes, I know that's stretching the limit of what this guy is claiming, but that's also a response to all these people saying that it was a novel & previously unseen way of doing things. It ain't! While he 'may' of taken the first step for hypermedia over networks (and would of done it for the web), it was just a pre-existing idea applied to this new medium.
Syphtor (who is probably not making any sense at 2:50am)
Actually I believe that the original poster was doing nothing of the kind, rather pointing out that our actual knowledge (not theories) of what's in the rest of our solar system (let alone the rest of the galaxy), is very limited.
And while it's good fun to congecture on where life might exist (intelligent or otherwise). We really don't know, we may be alone, or the universe may be teaming with life just around the corner.
My own personal 'belief' is for somewhere in the middle, but we cannot know or prove at this stage (hopefully one day we will).
Syphtor - Don't take life too seriously. You'll never survive.
This statute says that law enforcement doesn't have to get a warrant to eavesdrop on a computer tresspasser if they have the permission of the owner of the computer (very generalized).
The problem being that in internet traffic, they would only need to get the permission of the owner of a few key ISPs to be able to read all of the email, as it is data going through that machine.
That said (and not having actually read the Act), the phrasing of the Act could actually be done in such a way to aim it at deliberate trespassers and not legitimate users connected to that service, or the legitimate data being sent through the machine...
ahh.. In Australia, Alan Bond for misleading and misappropiation of funds when the Building Society he was president of went under. No-one was killed or physically injured, but because of the damage it did cause he was jailed, from memory it was a 20 year sentence...
Get a grip and a sense of humour, if you can't appreciate the talents of a great author and the lengths his work has inspired in other people... I feel incredibly sorry for you.
I've seen quite a lot of people quote this and state it themselves
...that what your coworkers know should not be relevant -- they should learn LISP if they don't know it already.
I'm sorry to say (I'm actually a fan of Lisp) but that is absolute HOGWASH!!! No matter how easy a language is to learn, no matter how great it is, there is still a certain amount of time/effort to learn it, play with it, make mistakes, fix your mistakes and generally become a good coder in it. So just unilaterally saying "Don't complain about how few coders know the language, they should all learn it." is a very stupid statement.
Bit of supporting stuff for that brief rant, basically most coders/analysts/it people I know hardly have enough time to complete their current tasks with their existing skillsets, whatever they may be.... On the other hand, if a company (ie: Yahoo!) purchased something that was written in a 'relatively' obscure language and they're willing to hire people who have some knowledge (or desire for) in that language and then pay for the training... kewl, where do I sign?
ok, I've finished now, you can shoot me down now...;-)
Re:Great Movie, maybe not for Americans
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
Actually it's Fosters (overseas) that is Crown Lager (here in Aus)... We get the scum at the bottom of the barrels for Fosters...
Interesting debate so far... And while I don't have any real contribution to add I do want to refute a particular claim of yours.
Similarly, if i buy a program, i should be able to modify the code to better suit my needs.
This is simply not so, you have purchased the compiled program! Not the source code and as such you can't modify the 'source code'! On that same thread I do believe that your argument still stands, as you should be able to play around in the machine code, reverse engineer it (though I'm not as comfortable with that), write add-ons that manipulate it and all that fun kind of stuff!:-)
However if you have purchased a program in all it's glory not just the executable, then quite simply it comes down to the agreement between you and the provider.
An extension of your analogy of purchasing a car would in my mind be, you're purchased the actual car, you have not purchased the plans/schematics etc to build the car yourself (doesn't stop you from figuring it out yourself though).
The biggest difference to these anologies as I see them is that to in effect reverse engineer a cars design/schematic is very time consumative and hence requires a lot of effort and time (which in itself discourages a lot of people from doing it), however with programs, there are lots of tools out there which you just run over this new app, and with virtually zero effort on your behalf you have the source (equilavent to the car schematics in this analogy).... Is this a problem? Should programs be harder to reverse-engineer? At the moment to produce a similar effect as is in with physical products there are artificial restrictions (laws), which are perhaps going to far... What is the right balance? Hell should there even be a balance?
I do think, as the person in control of Origin, he bears the greatest share of the responsibility for what happened to Origin.
Just thought I'd point out that RG wasn't in control of Origin when EA took over, EA appointed at the least a different GM, as well as high level management types... In which case, by your logic RG is absolved...;-)
if a State has a law that is in conflict with a Federal law, the Federal law overrides the State law.remember the recent mandatory sentencing debate?
Those above two statments are not correct. Federal law can override territory law not state law. The mandatory sentencing debate and the euthanasia debate was mainly NT, which is a territory and part of the debate resolved into that the federal government can easily overthrow any law voted in by the territory...
Sorry missed some other stuff to go along with this... Aparently Peroxide is (re)developing Ultima I which is interesting news in and of itself (loved the game!!), also it's going to be freeware as well as they have official permission from Richard Garriet (not Origin or EA though by appearances...)
Check out the site if you want more info on it... There's some talk on it's forums of doing a Linux version, though it's only Windoze at the mo.
What's that, you say? Isn't Origin the name of the company? Won't that be confusing?
By the time this game ships, we won't be putting the Origin (company) logo on the box. It will be our first title going out under the new EA Games logo. Keeping this new branding strategy in mind, naming the game 'Origin' is a good way to keep our name out in the community. Granted, there may be some confusion at first, but change is never easy and we feel this is the best decision for the long-term.
I think that's fairly obvious if the other actions (Getting rid of Garriet, sacking employees...) don't show it enough, that EA is really getting rid of Origin, but of course they want to still take advantage of the name Origin, and what better way to do so? Take the companies name (well known in the industry) and give it to a game that is sold by EA...
Does this announcement of UO2 development stopping mean a halt to this grand plan? or merely a way of loosening the link between Origin the company and Origin the game? Are they now going to have a team of EA programmers (if there are such) take over the development of Origin [the game]?
Slashdot Mirror
Not a dupe, they're testing Hyshot 4, Hyshot 2 (in July 2002) was the world's first scramjet to be successfully tested. (and the one built out of bits and bobs)
True, as in this article "Crashing down to earth near us, the future of jet travel" it's run by the University of Queensland, with funding from US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and Australia's Defence, Science and Technology Organisation.
True, as in this article "Crashing down to earth near us, the future of jet travel" it's run by the University of Queensland, with funding from US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and Australia's Defence, Science and Technology Organisation.
Got to agree with you on episode 1, but I do have to point out that I watched Episode 2 twice and I fell asleep both times!
:-)
I thought the first time I watched it I was just very tired, but obviously not. I am looking forward to Episode 4 though, from reading some of the reviews GL has actually listened to some of those nay-sayers and taken on board the constructive criticism.
Good for him if that's what he's done!
- Personally, I don't see any real reason for this
- Inability to prompt me if I want scripts to run? You can turn the scripts off if you want
- An option for asking for every cookie isn't truly useful anyway
Ok, I get that firefox doesn't have some of those features, cool... I get that the developers have what are no doubt well thought out reasons for excluding those features. But the point is, some people use those features and want them before they switch, so either:- Implement them
- Show a viable alternative
- Educate as to why it can't/shouldn't be done
On the concept of zones, good to see that's why it hasn't been included, but some people use it (myself in particular for my firewall), so why don't the firefox developers implement it correctly?Basically it irkes me when you say to someone "I'd like to have x in a product." And the provider just turns around and rather than saying "sorry, that's not implemented yet" or "to do what you want x for, can be done in y way", they basically snort and say "No one in their right mind would want that!"
Out of curiousity does anyone know if that is a Metric Billion or US Billion?
The difference being:
Metric Billion is 1 million, million ie:
1,000,000,000,000
Whereas US Billion is 1 thousand million ie:
1,000,000,000
A fair order of magnitude in difference! Also Metric Billion is also referred to as a Mathematic Billion. The US Billion is also referred as a European Milliard.
But reading the article, isn't it Broadcom that used Linux in the chips bought by Linksys?
So by that logic, Linksys did not knowingly use (unless informed by Broadcom) Linux to jump on the work done by someone else. I'd say that it's Broadcom that should be in the shitter...
But then again I don't know enough of the details, and the article has way to much of a slant to rely on what little facts can be gleaned.
Aside from the obvious anti-Open Source slant of the write (I mean such pearls as 'In the world of "free" open source software' WTF?!)
I did think it interesting that the writer was claiming: '... because the disputed code resides on chips that Linksys buys from Broadcom'
Which, if I'm reading it right means that because Cisco adds chips to its routers from Linksys (now owned by Cisco), and those chips are bought from Broadcom who put Linux into those chips, Cisco is now being 'asked' to conform to the GPL, when Cisco itself hasn't used any GPL? (other than indirectly by using a chip that through 2 other companies had a GPL component)
So: GPL -> used by -> Broadcom -> sold to -> Linksys -> sold to -> Cisco
If that's so, maybe the author has a point? I mean, at what point does the GPL stop? If I buy a printer that has a smart chip with some GPL'd code on it, and then I write some nice app to print out on said printer, does my whole app then come under the GPL?
Yeah I know, taken to the extreme, but you get my point! Actually not even that extreme...
Let's examine with:
They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,'
To quote the article "Massachusetts
Definition of monopoly
I think that "requiring all IT expenditure to be only open-source/Linux formats" satisfies "Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled".
Don't get me wrong, I actually think that goverments switching too open source is a good thing, it encourages competition and alternative ways of solving problems (not to mention all the other reasons to switch).
But I definitely agree with Tom Schatz when he says "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." by forcing every department to choose only open source/linux software is doing the exact same thing as only allowing proprietary software (be it Apple/Microsoft/whoever based). It is an unfair software practice.
I'd rather the software was chosen on it's own merits rather than because it happens to conform to an arbitary format.
In Ultima you are correct Ultima IV?? I think introduced going into the underworld, very similar to the 3D movement of Wizardry, being a static 3d image (not nearly the same as an actual 3D FPS).
Ultima Underworld however actually allowed true 3D movement, even allowing going up/down levels (so that objects/shapes could be above/below other ones, not merely blocking a direct path).
The problem (in IT especially) is that there is a blur of the line of what is the goal vs what is the method.
To me as a programmer I see the goal as the one click purchase the actual method as how to implement that (the code used), but there is also the same argument of, it doesn't matter how you build the iron, it's that an iron is used to toast the bread.
That same argument can be extended to argue that it doesn't matter how you toast the bread, it's that the bread is toasted this is where common sense and knowledge of that industry needs to apply before granting patents!
Ok, I've finished my small rant now
Therefore he doesn't need to see the source code to determine whether or not infringement occurred. He simply needs to see a program which implements (via any source code) a technique that he's patented.
Personally I've never liked this particular point of patenting, namely if I come up with an idea for how to do something (say toasting bread), I should be able to patent the method of toasting bread (by using an iron). But if some other smart guy see's that I'm toasting bread and says, hang on I've got a better/different way of doing it (with a pitchfork).
Then good for him!!
To me the whole point of a capitalist society is that we get improved products through competition. If you as a business can't keep ahead of your competitors, well then bad luck. You had a good idea, you brought it to market, other people took your idea improved/altered it and beat you at your own game!
If however the actual method (ironing the bread) is just re-used by the competitor, then fork up. You're not being innovative, you're just being a reseller, pay for the product you're selling.
buy food for the week, treat it as an extra income stream... Get enough of those dividend payments, stop working the shitty job I hate, and take up a nice job that I've always wanted to do, but never been able to because of lack of money. Shares that pay dividends are the same as rental properties, you would like some capital growth, but your main focus is on an extra income that you don't have to work for.
Having had a brief look through the patents, and IANAL. It would seem to me that all any of the browser software has to do is, have the initialization of the plugin not determinded by the hypermedia.
Because that looked like the crux of the patent:
"The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects." seems to me that if you don't embed the program object in the hypermedia document and instead use other methods to allow a program to be activated, the rest of the patent looks like standard mainframe processing and communication...
That said, if the Eolas wins, this means that they can attack a lot more than just the browser, look at MSWord, you can embed objects inside documents, that you can then interact with...
Hell take this another step further and look at programming languages where you've used a library or already existing object, you've just 'embedded' a program object in your 'hypermedia' and ergo broken the patent.
Yes, I know that's stretching the limit of what this guy is claiming, but that's also a response to all these people saying that it was a novel & previously unseen way of doing things. It ain't! While he 'may' of taken the first step for hypermedia over networks (and would of done it for the web), it was just a pre-existing idea applied to this new medium.
Syphtor
(who is probably not making any sense at 2:50am)
Actually I believe that the original poster was doing nothing of the kind, rather pointing out that our actual knowledge (not theories) of what's in the rest of our solar system (let alone the rest of the galaxy), is very limited.
And while it's good fun to congecture on where life might exist (intelligent or otherwise). We really don't know, we may be alone, or the universe may be teaming with life just around the corner.
My own personal 'belief' is for somewhere in the middle, but we cannot know or prove at this stage (hopefully one day we will).
Syphtor
- Don't take life too seriously. You'll never survive.
This statute says that law enforcement doesn't have to get a warrant to eavesdrop on a computer tresspasser if they have the permission of the owner of the computer (very generalized).
The problem being that in internet traffic, they would only need to get the permission of the owner of a few key ISPs to be able to read all of the email, as it is data going through that machine.
That said (and not having actually read the Act), the phrasing of the Act could actually be done in such a way to aim it at deliberate trespassers and not legitimate users connected to that service, or the legitimate data being sent through the machine...
ahh.. In Australia, Alan Bond for misleading and misappropiation of funds when the Building Society he was president of went under. No-one was killed or physically injured, but because of the damage it did cause he was jailed, from memory it was a 20 year sentence...
Not sure on that though...
Get a grip and a sense of humour, if you can't appreciate the talents of a great author and the lengths his work has inspired in other people... I feel incredibly sorry for you.
I've seen quite a lot of people quote this and state it themselves
I'm sorry to say (I'm actually a fan of Lisp) but that is absolute HOGWASH!!! No matter how easy a language is to learn, no matter how great it is, there is still a certain amount of time/effort to learn it, play with it, make mistakes, fix your mistakes and generally become a good coder in it. So just unilaterally saying "Don't complain about how few coders know the language, they should all learn it." is a very stupid statement.
Bit of supporting stuff for that brief rant, basically most coders/analysts/it people I know hardly have enough time to complete their current tasks with their existing skillsets, whatever they may be.... On the other hand, if a company (ie: Yahoo!) purchased something that was written in a 'relatively' obscure language and they're willing to hire people who have some knowledge (or desire for) in that language and then pay for the training... kewl, where do I sign?
ok, I've finished now, you can shoot me down now...Actually it's Fosters (overseas) that is Crown Lager (here in Aus)... We get the scum at the bottom of the barrels for Fosters...
Interesting debate so far... And while I don't have any real contribution to add I do want to refute a particular claim of yours.
Similarly, if i buy a program, i should be able to modify the code to better suit my needs.This is simply not so, you have purchased the compiled program! Not the source code and as such you can't modify the 'source code'! On that same thread I do believe that your argument still stands, as you should be able to play around in the machine code, reverse engineer it (though I'm not as comfortable with that), write add-ons that manipulate it and all that fun kind of stuff! :-)
However if you have purchased a program in all it's glory not just the executable, then quite simply it comes down to the agreement between you and the provider.
An extension of your analogy of purchasing a car would in my mind be, you're purchased the actual car, you have not purchased the plans/schematics etc to build the car yourself (doesn't stop you from figuring it out yourself though).
The biggest difference to these anologies as I see them is that to in effect reverse engineer a cars design/schematic is very time consumative and hence requires a lot of effort and time (which in itself discourages a lot of people from doing it), however with programs, there are lots of tools out there which you just run over this new app, and with virtually zero effort on your behalf you have the source (equilavent to the car schematics in this analogy).... Is this a problem? Should programs be harder to reverse-engineer? At the moment to produce a similar effect as is in with physical products there are artificial restrictions (laws), which are perhaps going to far... What is the right balance? Hell should there even be a balance?
Just my two cents...Just thought I'd point out that RG wasn't in control of Origin when EA took over, EA appointed at the least a different GM, as well as high level management types... In which case, by your logic RG is absolved... ;-)
Those above two statments are not correct. Federal law can override territory law not state law. The mandatory sentencing debate and the euthanasia debate was mainly NT, which is a territory and part of the debate resolved into that the federal government can easily overthrow any law voted in by the territory...
Sorry missed some other stuff to go along with this... Aparently Peroxide is (re)developing Ultima I which is interesting news in and of itself (loved the game!!), also it's going to be freeware as well as they have official permission from Richard Garriet (not Origin or EA though by appearances...)
Check out the site if you want more info on it... There's some talk on it's forums of doing a Linux version, though it's only Windoze at the mo.
Taken from their UO2 faq
What's that, you say? Isn't Origin the name of the company? Won't that be confusing?By the time this game ships, we won't be putting the Origin (company) logo on the box. It will be our first title going out under the new EA Games logo. Keeping this new branding strategy in mind, naming the game 'Origin' is a good way to keep our name out in the community. Granted, there may be some confusion at first, but change is never easy and we feel this is the best decision for the long-term.
I think that's fairly obvious if the other actions (Getting rid of Garriet, sacking employees...) don't show it enough, that EA is really getting rid of Origin, but of course they want to still take advantage of the name Origin, and what better way to do so? Take the companies name (well known in the industry) and give it to a game that is sold by EA...
Does this announcement of UO2 development stopping mean a halt to this grand plan? or merely a way of loosening the link between Origin the company and Origin the game? Are they now going to have a team of EA programmers (if there are such) take over the development of Origin [the game]?