xbattle is an abstract (ie, early) highly customizible multi-player real-time strategy game. Each player has blobs of troops on a hex grid, and can direct them to flow from hex to hex and attack the enemy. Options allow terrains and paratroops and ranged fire, and different speeds and growth and death rates and grid types a dozen other things.
No, it doesn't have 3-D graphics or sound or blood or explosions. But that lets the players focus on tactics: probing for weaknesses, cutting off bases, making diversionary attacks, drawing enemy troops into a trap. It sucked up more of my time in graduate school than all other computer games combined.
The caveat is that it's only partially supported. A branch adding a computer player was started recently, but the client-server version (as opposed to the old X-networking version) has languished.
The terms "restrictive" and "liberal" themselves are judgemental, and skew the debate, at least from a business point of view. They imply that the anti-patent side is in favor of tight regulation, while the pro-patent side is in favor of free markets (using "liberal" in the European, rather than American, sense).
Nothing could be less true. Patents are about the government regulating and limiting the use of technology for the benefit of one person or company. Yes, they provide an incentive to innovate and share infomation, but (taking the pro-business argument) such drastic government regulation of the market should be weighed carefully against the costs.
Businesses, with only a few special-purpose exceptions, should be our friend on this one. They shouldn't want the government enforcing (seemingly) arbitrary monopolies any more than we do.
The argument that "if all software is free, then who pays programmers?" is common (I've seen FSF apologize for it) but flawed. Programs sold on the open market are the exception. The vast majority of programming is either in-house or customized for one or a few clients. If all software were free, companies would still need to develop software for their specific needs.
Having coming from a science backgroud, I occasionally worry that many computer scientists, while intelligent people, have a poor understanding of science and the world around them.
I'm relieved to be contridicted by the posters and moderators of slashdot.
Sure, the slashdot editors shouldn't be giving him a forum. The guy is claiming anecdotes are proof, and yet pretends to be a scientist. But the questions asked, and the responses so far, expose this guy pretty thoroughly. Most people reading them will think less of Alex Chiu and other such quacks. Shining a little light on an idiot isn't such a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't have 3-D graphics or sound or blood or explosions. But that lets the players focus on tactics: probing for weaknesses, cutting off bases, making diversionary attacks, drawing enemy troops into a trap. It sucked up more of my time in graduate school than all other computer games combined.
The caveat is that it's only partially supported. A branch adding a computer player was started recently, but the client-server version (as opposed to the old X-networking version) has languished.
The terms "restrictive" and "liberal" themselves are judgemental, and skew the debate, at least from a business point of view. They imply that the anti-patent side is in favor of tight regulation, while the pro-patent side is in favor of free markets (using "liberal" in the European, rather than American, sense).
Nothing could be less true. Patents are about the government regulating and limiting the use of technology for the benefit of one person or company. Yes, they provide an incentive to innovate and share infomation, but (taking the pro-business argument) such drastic government regulation of the market should be weighed carefully against the costs.
Businesses, with only a few special-purpose exceptions, should be our friend on this one. They shouldn't want the government enforcing (seemingly) arbitrary monopolies any more than we do.
The argument that "if all software is free, then who pays programmers?" is common (I've seen FSF apologize for it) but flawed. Programs sold on the open market are the exception. The vast majority of programming is either in-house or customized for one or a few clients. If all software were free, companies would still need to develop software for their specific needs.
Having coming from a science backgroud, I occasionally worry that many computer scientists, while intelligent people, have a poor understanding of science and the world around them.
I'm relieved to be contridicted by the posters and moderators of slashdot.
Sure, the slashdot editors shouldn't be giving him a forum. The guy is claiming anecdotes are proof, and yet pretends to be a scientist. But the questions asked, and the responses so far, expose this guy pretty thoroughly. Most people reading them will think less of Alex Chiu and other such quacks. Shining a little light on an idiot isn't such a bad thing.