Exports == The "Illegal" trading of in-game items
Imports == ($10usd * every month * Active players) + (Expansion pack price * active players)
One's time put into the game can be argued both ways, both as an import and as a "Consumer spending". I guees it is all in how you structure your definition of the economic system.
hehe Besides the Enron part, one coud say that stocks have real-world value in the partial ownership of the company that the shares are issued for. In Enron's case, if they wanted to sell or not, the shares would still be worth buck 0 one way or another.
Asherons has had No-drop items, timers before getting an item again, and rare drop of items for a long time. It works quite well in controlling the stability of the economies. The worst thing that happens to the economies are the bugs that creap in that are not put in check fast enough.
EG: One day there was a bug to pick up 100 Platinum Scarabs every few seconds for free. Platinum Scarab == 40,000 each. Basically what it came down to was that I made more in 1 night than I will ever ever ever make playing legitimately. Luckally, they actually did a role-back of the servers to reduce the damage that the bug caused.
All of these restrictions may see pretty restrictive, but all in all, it is pretty fair, and there are still tons of non-quest stuff that one can buy and sell for. It just moves the campers to places where normal adventurers wouldn't go.
Its an evaluation board, so it is bought by systems engineers to make the real products from. It is like taking half the work out of an apple or asus like company in doing their work. The infrastructure is all there, they just need to design what features they want into it.
I thought Apple had a really proprietary bios which was not licensable. Has this changed in PPC models? I don't think this is so much an Apple clone as a variant use for PPC's.
The problem is, that if you copyright a very wide field of interest, it is because the range of the patent has not been encroached upon. Sure, it is technically easy t perform one-click technology post-fact, but when the patented it, who was doing it?
If it was prior art, then too bad for the patent company for trying to control so much, but if the patent is non-overlapping, then they have created something truly original, regardless of how stupidly obvious it seems now. Hind sight is 20-20, remember.
Your comment of a lightbulb is a little contrived concidering that you must describe the process of converting electricty to light. If you can describe "every" process to convert electricity to light, then yeah, I think you should be able to copyright it.
As the poster mentions, it is just one way to perform a synchronization act. This isn't even newsworthy except to the trolls that attack everything "patent" friendly.
If I invent the next best way to turn electricity into light, or light into bytes, or bytes into a solid state, I am glad that there is an OPTION for me to be keep the process proprietary, or to open it to the world. That should be my choice and right as an individual.
Yeah, not really relevent to the main topic, but any modern PC's do have suspend support built into them, so the no-additional software thing is a pretty moot point.
Hibernation IS a software thing, and it just means that when the OS receives or generates a shudown-hibernate event, that the OS writes all available memory and state to disk and shutdown, setting a flag that the OS can know that it was hibernated to begin with.
The program is tied to the console which no longer exists, and if woken up, which process is it childed to? What if bigwasteoftime knew its parent before hibernation, and tried to modify it?
After tooling with the kernel, I have been told time and time again, if it needs to be in the kernel, then put it in. If not, make it user space.
This process hibernation deal does not need to be in the kernel simply because a program should have the option of sleeping, or what have you built into the programs construct.
To put an operating system klude to support a program's shortcomings is a microsoft mentality that I would rather not have repeated in Linux.
If at the very most, the kernel should give the process the ability to capture all of its relevent data before closing.
Reasons why to not implement "random access" process hybernation:
1. File Access:
The operating system would have to guarantee that the file descriptor is stored, and that the referencing file is not unlinked. The alternative is having the program smart enough to realize it was put inot hibernation, hence throwing away the advantage of a kernel solution.
2. Mutual Exclusion:
If you have a program that uses OS based mutual exclusion, you will run into several problems.
(a) If the OS does not yank the lock, other programs that share the lock will be stuck forever, which could break like tons of programs. Most shared libraries should use locking to keep the two processes from trouncing on one another during execution in the module, so...
(b) If the OS releases the lock, then when unhibernated, the program could run into serious problems if it thinks it has a lock, but in reality, does not, or you can run into cyclic lock dependencies and race conditions if the locking code was not writen right. This issue has the same issues involved with preemption.
3. Networking:
Pretty obvious, but if the program and the server do not know about the hibernation, the server should grumble but live on (never trust those clients..), and the client will probably become SOL and defunct. Since there is no notification that the connection was broken, the OS can either send an invalid descriptor (if it isn't stored), or it can be a little smarter and say that the foreign host closed the connection.. This one can be solved, but I think that saving the descriptor and reviving it could be interesting..
I am sure there things I have not covered, (Removable media syncs..), but this is too long already. There are a lot of technilogical factors which would make this very hard for a single kernel fix, but if we tied a unified solution into the user space, we could make a slow transition to supporting this.
Also looks like he is a renter... His promary email is for diyhousesales.com (online house retailer), and there is a link in google for http://www.cygo.ie/chambers/ which lists him as renting out the places.. The email address is also for ireland, so the guy is in the right place...
Basically all companies make you buy a seperate book for references, hey some companies have two books just to cover the core API's. Usually how-to's are set for the total newbie in a given area, and the references for the day-to-day coder. You can maybe get by with the reference if you have the right mindset to learn that way, and there is usually a decent bit of how-to in references anyway.
I think you are too hard on wrox. I thought they really sucked to, until I actually started using them. The vast array of topics ina given field make it totally worth the money, IF you need the information. I have good eye sight, so the small print is actually more comfortable for me to read than other books.
What industry are you in?? Nobody assumes a flawless product anymore. I know that it can be frustrating being mislead by what a book or document is saying, but if you are reading this particular book, you should have the empirical insight by this point to figure out what is wrong.
Re:The lack of localization of the net
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that people use the net in a localized form, simply because they are too used to other forms of communication, like getting off that warm chair and meet people in person.
The net took off not because of the enhanced services that were available, but in the things that people couldn't do, or were very difficult to do in normal day life. It has changed somewhat, but not enough to shift the paradigms of our society.
The United States chooses its supportees not as a matter of course, but as a tactical manuver to gain advantage in the world markets(Naturally).
You don't see total boycotts on China to end the "terror of communism" because China a too important of a trade partner to lean SOL like they did to Cuba.
They attacked Kuwait to save their oil, south amarica for war on communism then war on drugs, middle east peace because it is good on paper to help in an age old war, plus keeping peace in israel / lebanon / etc, keeps radical factions from rising up and attacking religious citidels of the other religions.. Can you name one?
Plus, since "normal" computer users don't know how long it takes to compile a kernel, the configurator can build everything into modules, who cares if they never use the drivers from 20 year old hardware;-)
He was talking about an API replacement for OpenGL, not the implementation of it..
If it has near to exactly the same feature set, that means that the patents trasnfered may be used to block some functionality, if microsoft deams that they Mesa3-D library uses their patented software.
Even on their site, Mesa states that they did have permission to produce an OpenGL clone despite the fact that it is not an officially licensed OpenGL impolementation. Will microsoft make the same concessions?
Come on, don't even start with this one. On a sysadmin level, it took me 10 minutes to adjust from win2000 to winXP. Try telling me again, how a windows sysadmin, or even a normal user can get into linux anywhere near the same amout of time, minding the fact that all the applications will have to be taught first.
Teacher: Open, your terminal.
Student: Terminal?
Teacher: The button with a window on it, there on the bottom of your screen.
Student: Ok, great.
Teacher: Now open your text editor
#text editor
text: command or file not found
Student: It doesn't work:-(
Teacher: No no, you have to type in the name of a text editor. See, like this.
#vi
~
~
:
Student: Wow, but where are the tool bars, and why can't I click here...
hehe Sorry about that, but even the most user-friendly Linux apps may be straight-forward-stupid to you, but may not be to the less astute.
Because the license only covers the one case, and not the other. If you want guarantees, only buy from people who can give it to you. See the Linux community guarantee an operating system that it produces with real money behind it.
Company Money = MS Office
MS Office = MS Windows
MS Windows = MS Hardware
Microsoft currently has driver signing, which menas they will soon if not already, decide which hardware will, and which hardware will not run on your system. By them controlling which hardware can run on the OS, Microsoft can influence the decisions of hardware manufacturers on what to produce.
Lets say there is the CD Bruners from the Ukraine that does not stamp id's on them. Ok, microsoft could see this driver as not allowed. Any driver installed that supports this directly or as a surrogate will need it to be verified before being installed.
How does this effect you? The same reason why Compaq is selling the Alpha off; If it doesn't supprot windows, how can we make money off it?
1. Business money has only taken Micorosoft so far. Without the consumer markets, they would just be like another *NIX shop, cruft into a limited market with little room to grow into new markets. When you capture the consumer market, that is when things start to open up. With having the consumer market, companies don't have to worry about training their staff. It is expected of the day one to know how windows works.
2. Never give into the they support everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach. They eventually weed out the stragglers and force the populace to use the rest. They did it with the NT architecure support, Windows CE, and don't be fooled into thinking they will kepp CLR around on most platforms with most languages a second longer than they need to dominate and control the masses.
Why not keep X11 the way it is, but have X11R7, or X12, which has all those dangling extensions internally as a requirement.
It could keep almost 100% compatibility while making a "better" GUI system.
The problem with that though is that you are forcing the user of the GUI to be a fat system. Right now, you can run X11 on an Ipaq with problem. If you start throwing the kitchen sink in as a requirement(the only way to enforce the standard), you are also abandoning a potentially large share of your market. The beauty of X11 as it is today, is that you have the choice in what you want to use, and what you don't. XFree86 does not make the pluggable nature of X11 as clear as it should be, but none the less, I like the flexability and scalability that the current system offers.
There is not a lot of information beyond some of the linux toolkit developers or Xfree / X Group, simply because this is not a very large arena, and there just isn't enough interest in creating another interface for user applications(flamebait).
The problem is that when a user needs to write a program they have to be "aware" of your toolkit, or be unable to run on your machine.
The result of all this has become a very constrained community of developers creating tiny visual enhancements and having the community feed off their ideas. This has been going on for > 10 years, at least. Mac's are probably the most original designers of UI system, since most company's products mimmic their styles and design elements.
... What the user does not say is that they are 99% trying to do msword FROM Linux. Obviously this is a WINE problem, not a MSWord Fault.
Regarding users never do things wrong, that cannot be assumed; Otherwise, microsoft explorer would have to be twice as abstractive just to stop users from erasing important things on their system. The user must have a basic level of comprehension before using any software product. Each product has a different level of difficulty.
Being on Linux, almost every program has a higher "difficulty" rating, not just because it isn't Windows, but also because most linux programs are writen with systemic perfection as the goal, everything must fit into its perfect mold. Whereas in Mac or Windows, there more of a slant toward usability, and simplicity, even if it means making breaking the old mold every single time around, to get it to work.
UNIX: Everything is a file (1970's)
Microsoft: Everything is.NET (2000)
Slashdot Mirror
The 100:1 is a floating number depending on supply and demand. If means the same as GNP if the same as GDP does, then imports / exports do equate.
Consumer Spending + Investments + Gov Spending + (Exports - Imports)
Exports == The "Illegal" trading of in-game items
Imports == ($10usd * every month * Active players) + (Expansion pack price * active players)
One's time put into the game can be argued both ways, both as an import and as a "Consumer spending". I guees it is all in how you structure your definition of the economic system.
hehe Besides the Enron part, one coud say that stocks have real-world value in the partial ownership of the company that the shares are issued for. In Enron's case, if they wanted to sell or not, the shares would still be worth buck 0 one way or another.
Asherons has had No-drop items, timers before getting an item again, and rare drop of items for a long time. It works quite well in controlling the stability of the economies. The worst thing that happens to the economies are the bugs that creap in that are not put in check fast enough.
EG: One day there was a bug to pick up 100 Platinum Scarabs every few seconds for free. Platinum Scarab == 40,000 each. Basically what it came down to was that I made more in 1 night than I will ever ever ever make playing legitimately. Luckally, they actually did a role-back of the servers to reduce the damage that the bug caused.
All of these restrictions may see pretty restrictive, but all in all, it is pretty fair, and there are still tons of non-quest stuff that one can buy and sell for. It just moves the campers to places where normal adventurers wouldn't go.
"Verant get's paid for their work to create/run the game, why not also get paid for all the work I put into playing it? "
Because they are doing their jobs and YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME!
Its an evaluation board, so it is bought by systems engineers to make the real products from. It is like taking half the work out of an apple or asus like company in doing their work. The infrastructure is all there, they just need to design what features they want into it.
I thought Apple had a really proprietary bios which was not licensable. Has this changed in PPC models? I don't think this is so much an Apple clone as a variant use for PPC's.
The problem is, that if you copyright a very wide field of interest, it is because the range of the patent has not been encroached upon. Sure, it is technically easy t perform one-click technology post-fact, but when the patented it, who was doing it?
If it was prior art, then too bad for the patent company for trying to control so much, but if the patent is non-overlapping, then they have created something truly original, regardless of how stupidly obvious it seems now. Hind sight is 20-20, remember.
Your comment of a lightbulb is a little contrived concidering that you must describe the process of converting electricty to light. If you can describe "every" process to convert electricity to light, then yeah, I think you should be able to copyright it.
As the poster mentions, it is just one way to perform a synchronization act. This isn't even newsworthy except to the trolls that attack everything "patent" friendly.
If I invent the next best way to turn electricity into light, or light into bytes, or bytes into a solid state, I am glad that there is an OPTION for me to be keep the process proprietary, or to open it to the world. That should be my choice and right as an individual.
Yeah, not really relevent to the main topic, but any modern PC's do have suspend support built into them, so the no-additional software thing is a pretty moot point.
Hibernation IS a software thing, and it just means that when the OS receives or generates a shudown-hibernate event, that the OS writes all available memory and state to disk and shutdown, setting a flag that the OS can know that it was hibernated to begin with.
You forget that the kernel has created a sandbox for this core to live in. If the sandbox wakes up with a different environment, byebye process.
./bigwasteoftime &
Simple example
#
./bigwasteoftime[1]
# hibernate bigwasteoftime
# exit
The program is tied to the console which no longer exists, and if woken up, which process is it childed to? What if bigwasteoftime knew its parent before hibernation, and tried to modify it?
As it stands, you cannot guarantee its stability.
After tooling with the kernel, I have been told time and time again, if it needs to be in the kernel, then put it in. If not, make it user space.
This process hibernation deal does not need to be in the kernel simply because a program should have the option of sleeping, or what have you built into the programs construct.
To put an operating system klude to support a program's shortcomings is a microsoft mentality that I would rather not have repeated in Linux.
If at the very most, the kernel should give the process the ability to capture all of its relevent data before closing.
Reasons why to not implement "random access" process hybernation:
1. File Access:
The operating system would have to guarantee that the file descriptor is stored, and that the referencing file is not unlinked. The alternative is having the program smart enough to realize it was put inot hibernation, hence throwing away the advantage of a kernel solution.
2. Mutual Exclusion:
If you have a program that uses OS based mutual exclusion, you will run into several problems.
(a) If the OS does not yank the lock, other programs that share the lock will be stuck forever, which could break like tons of programs. Most shared libraries should use locking to keep the two processes from trouncing on one another during execution in the module, so...
(b) If the OS releases the lock, then when unhibernated, the program could run into serious problems if it thinks it has a lock, but in reality, does not, or you can run into cyclic lock dependencies and race conditions if the locking code was not writen right. This issue has the same issues involved with preemption.
3. Networking:
Pretty obvious, but if the program and the server do not know about the hibernation, the server should grumble but live on (never trust those clients..), and the client will probably become SOL and defunct. Since there is no notification that the connection was broken, the OS can either send an invalid descriptor (if it isn't stored), or it can be a little smarter and say that the foreign host closed the connection.. This one can be solved, but I think that saving the descriptor and reviving it could be interesting..
I am sure there things I have not covered, (Removable media syncs..), but this is too long already. There are a lot of technilogical factors which would make this very hard for a single kernel fix, but if we tied a unified solution into the user space, we could make a slow transition to supporting this.
Also looks like he is a renter... His promary email is for diyhousesales.com (online house retailer), and there is a link in google for http://www.cygo.ie/chambers/ which lists him as renting out the places.. The email address is also for ireland, so the guy is in the right place...
Basically all companies make you buy a seperate book for references, hey some companies have two books just to cover the core API's. Usually how-to's are set for the total newbie in a given area, and the references for the day-to-day coder. You can maybe get by with the reference if you have the right mindset to learn that way, and there is usually a decent bit of how-to in references anyway.
I think you are too hard on wrox. I thought they really sucked to, until I actually started using them. The vast array of topics ina given field make it totally worth the money, IF you need the information. I have good eye sight, so the small print is actually more comfortable for me to read than other books.
What industry are you in?? Nobody assumes a flawless product anymore. I know that it can be frustrating being mislead by what a book or document is saying, but if you are reading this particular book, you should have the empirical insight by this point to figure out what is wrong.
I don't think that people use the net in a localized form, simply because they are too used to other forms of communication, like getting off that warm chair and meet people in person.
The net took off not because of the enhanced services that were available, but in the things that people couldn't do, or were very difficult to do in normal day life. It has changed somewhat, but not enough to shift the paradigms of our society.
I fully agree with the last statement.
The United States chooses its supportees not as a matter of course, but as a tactical manuver to gain advantage in the world markets(Naturally).
You don't see total boycotts on China to end the "terror of communism" because China a too important of a trade partner to lean SOL like they did to Cuba.
They attacked Kuwait to save their oil, south amarica for war on communism then war on drugs, middle east peace because it is good on paper to help in an age old war, plus keeping peace in israel / lebanon / etc, keeps radical factions from rising up and attacking religious citidels of the other religions.. Can you name one?
Plus, since "normal" computer users don't know how long it takes to compile a kernel, the configurator can build everything into modules, who cares if they never use the drivers from 20 year old hardware ;-)
He was talking about an API replacement for OpenGL, not the implementation of it..
If it has near to exactly the same feature set, that means that the patents trasnfered may be used to block some functionality, if microsoft deams that they Mesa3-D library uses their patented software.
Even on their site, Mesa states that they did have permission to produce an OpenGL clone despite the fact that it is not an officially licensed OpenGL impolementation. Will microsoft make the same concessions?
Come on, don't even start with this one. On a sysadmin level, it took me 10 minutes to adjust from win2000 to winXP. Try telling me again, how a windows sysadmin, or even a normal user can get into linux anywhere near the same amout of time, minding the fact that all the applications will have to be taught first.
:-(
Teacher: Open, your terminal.
Student: Terminal?
Teacher: The button with a window on it, there on the bottom of your screen.
Student: Ok, great.
Teacher: Now open your text editor
#text editor
text: command or file not found
Student: It doesn't work
Teacher: No no, you have to type in the name of a text editor. See, like this.
#vi
~
~
:
Student: Wow, but where are the tool bars, and why can't I click here...
hehe Sorry about that, but even the most user-friendly Linux apps may be straight-forward-stupid to you, but may not be to the less astute.
Because the license only covers the one case, and not the other. If you want guarantees, only buy from people who can give it to you. See the Linux community guarantee an operating system that it produces with real money behind it.
Company Money = MS Office
MS Office = MS Windows
MS Windows = MS Hardware
Microsoft currently has driver signing, which menas they will soon if not already, decide which hardware will, and which hardware will not run on your system. By them controlling which hardware can run on the OS, Microsoft can influence the decisions of hardware manufacturers on what to produce.
Lets say there is the CD Bruners from the Ukraine that does not stamp id's on them. Ok, microsoft could see this driver as not allowed. Any driver installed that supports this directly or as a surrogate will need it to be verified before being installed.
How does this effect you? The same reason why Compaq is selling the Alpha off; If it doesn't supprot windows, how can we make money off it?
1. Business money has only taken Micorosoft so far. Without the consumer markets, they would just be like another *NIX shop, cruft into a limited market with little room to grow into new markets. When you capture the consumer market, that is when things start to open up. With having the consumer market, companies don't have to worry about training their staff. It is expected of the day one to know how windows works.
2. Never give into the they support everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach. They eventually weed out the stragglers and force the populace to use the rest. They did it with the NT architecure support, Windows CE, and don't be fooled into thinking they will kepp CLR around on most platforms with most languages a second longer than they need to dominate and control the masses.
3. There are no rich slaves for a reason.
That was only for the OS. The code was still tied to the architecture it was compiled for.
Back in the NT 4.0 days, you would always see differente downloads for every architectiure that program / driver / patch decided to support.
Why not keep X11 the way it is, but have X11R7, or X12, which has all those dangling extensions internally as a requirement.
It could keep almost 100% compatibility while making a "better" GUI system.
The problem with that though is that you are forcing the user of the GUI to be a fat system. Right now, you can run X11 on an Ipaq with problem. If you start throwing the kitchen sink in as a requirement(the only way to enforce the standard), you are also abandoning a potentially large share of your market. The beauty of X11 as it is today, is that you have the choice in what you want to use, and what you don't. XFree86 does not make the pluggable nature of X11 as clear as it should be, but none the less, I like the flexability and scalability that the current system offers.
I found this after a few minutes on google. Seems to have a good understanding of the Objectives that UI's produce.
s ig n.html
http://www.sylvantech.com/~talin/projects/ui_de
There is not a lot of information beyond some of the linux toolkit developers or Xfree / X Group, simply because this is not a very large arena, and there just isn't enough interest in creating another interface for user applications(flamebait).
The problem is that when a user needs to write a program they have to be "aware" of your toolkit, or be unable to run on your machine.
The result of all this has become a very constrained community of developers creating tiny visual enhancements and having the community feed off their ideas. This has been going on for > 10 years, at least. Mac's are probably the most original designers of UI system, since most company's products mimmic their styles and design elements.
... What the user does not say is that they are 99% trying to do msword FROM Linux. Obviously this is a WINE problem, not a MSWord Fault.
.NET (2000)
Regarding users never do things wrong, that cannot be assumed; Otherwise, microsoft explorer would have to be twice as abstractive just to stop users from erasing important things on their system. The user must have a basic level of comprehension before using any software product. Each product has a different level of difficulty.
Being on Linux, almost every program has a higher "difficulty" rating, not just because it isn't Windows, but also because most linux programs are writen with systemic perfection as the goal, everything must fit into its perfect mold. Whereas in Mac or Windows, there more of a slant toward usability, and simplicity, even if it means making breaking the old mold every single time around, to get it to work.
UNIX: Everything is a file (1970's)
Microsoft: Everything is