You can go ahead and buy original games (Fantavision? Blix: The Time Sweeper?), I'll keep buying good games (Metroid Prime, Zelda: TWW, Yoshi's Island GBA).
I think we need to realize a couple things. First, "sequel" doesn't mean "not original". Second, "original" doesn't often mean "good".
If gravity was instantaneous, how is it that we couldn't use it to transmit information? Surely it would be difficult in practice, but it seems pretty simple in theory.
"When we're ready, I'll start moving this ball'o'mass towards and away from you."
What's impossible? Moving the mass around, detecting the mass in motion, or detecting it instantaneously?
My wife and I play a fair bit of Super Monkey Ball 2 mini-games. Some are co-operative, some are competitive - but the competition doesn't get in the way of participation.
Games like Crazy Taxi or Tony Hawk can be fun too - while I'm a lot better than my wife, the competition isn't direct so it works well.
In sort of another vein, my wife likes playing Legend of Zelda, but she has enough difficulty playing it that often she wants me there helping/watching. Being able to dip around with the Tingle Tuner makes this work pretty good.
If you've ever played Super Monkey Ball for the GC, you'll know how much better this kind of game feels with a good analog control stick.
Always feels bad to miss out on a good game like this - couldn't they have done this in Half-Life? Or in C++ (like my soon to be complete retro game, plugged below)? I'd hate to pour my time into developing something like this, knowing that I'm writing for such a small part of my potential audience.
Give me $10,000 dollars, and I'll guarantee you that VNC will work for you.
If it doesn't, and I can't help you resolve your problem (or if I can't be bothered to) then I'll give you your money back in full. That's a better deal than you'll get from any closed source vendor.
You get the software you want. I get money (or at least interest on that money). Everybody wins, guaranteed.
You think? I had no idea that's what he might be doing.
If you want to claim that it's not that hard then go and work for a volunteer org for a few months.
Volunteer work is hard - I've done my share. This isn't about some "I don't like volunteers" thing. Hell. I was just making a couple points:
1. There is not always going to be a free solution already made perfectly to solve your problem. If you can't find anything on Google, good chance it's because it's not there.
2. Often, a more generic tool makes a good solution to a problem. If I was personally advising the poster, I'd tell him to get a generic web database tool.
"I'm looking for a good pumpkin management solution for Linux - all the ones out there seem to be either targetting Windows or don't have a drop-down to choose pumpkin color. Also, none of them currently has my company logo."
Know what? Quite possibly your software isn't written yet. Why not try using some generic web database software and a bit of work?
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20.... But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
Are you suggesting that Devo isn't contributing to our musical heritage? Or were you just saying that you'd be willing to pay any sum for their new album? Or perhaps you meant that their contributions are more literary than musical. That I could understand.
I'm a speed racer and I drive real fast; I drive real fast - I'm going to last. I'm a pirate and a like to kill. I like to steal, so here's your bill.
A: Apparently, how to get loads of hoardable cash. The only hoardy thing that separates us non-hoarders from the hoarders is the hoard-load of hoardables.
Software like this is not usually installed by script, it's installed by IE's ActiveX installer. This feature is set to "prompt" on typical IE installs, and simply needs to be moved to "disabled" for most users.
This feature is actually useful - in our internal browser based apps we can install new versions of software without bothering the user (as we make ourselves a trusted publisher on their machines), but the feature was implemented poorly. It should have been disabled by default on the Internet zone.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that The Skeptical Environmentalist was rebuked and most of what the guy had to say was bogus.
No, it wasn't "rebuked". I've seen very little in the way of substantive criticism, and what little there is has been responded to in a responsible way. I'd be happy to see actual debate about this.
This issue is how bad are things going to get, how much will we loose and what can and should we be doing to stop or slow it down
This is exactly what Lomborg is talking about. He simply gives an overview of accepted work, and puts forth the idea that "it's not as bad as some people have said". That's really about it. Have you read the book? Do you know of any of his facts that are wrong? Of course you didn't, and I'm guessing you don't. You're as bad as the idiots who made the ruling - basically on the basis of "He's going against the dogma, must be wrong".
The question "How bad are things?" is a valid one to ask. The person who does the research and comes back with "Not as bad as some people say" doesn't need to get shot. Engaged and debated with? Of course. But in a reasonable way.
But the "scientists" who are most mad at him are the ones that are embarrassed - the one's who he quotes making wacky predictions in the 80's that didn't come true.
I surely hope you played the original Jumpman (try it on a C64 emulator for best experience), to which Jumpman Jr. was sort of a less-inspired sequel. Amazing game.
If I have software called Linux Commander, do you really think its part of the kernel?
I don't. Likely many people would. In a not altogether similar regard, you get plenty of people who say Linux sucks because their distribution has a poor window manager (or whatever). People are dumb, and don't know who makes what for whom. And they don't know that they shouldn't blame Linux when their window isn't the right size. Or Windows when Windows Backup Wizard didn't work the night they needed it.
People associate things that don't make sense to associate. I don't know how many people would think "Windows Backup Wizard" was an MS (or MS sanctioned) product, but I'm sure there would be some.
"Windows Update," "Windows Catalog," "Windows Media Player," "Windows Messenger," "Windows Movie Maker," and "Windows Explorer"
You're right - I just couldn't think of any boxed MS products that they might see on a shelf next to "Windows Backup Wizard". Still, certainly a valid point.
I think the little guys would prevail.
Quite possibly right, and perhaps, as you say, MS would deserve the loss for choosing a generic name.
In this particular case I would have advised them not to fight, though. Even if they win, they now have an enemy that has a lot of power over their destiny (Oops, we now include backup features. Oops, with our latest security patch you can't read those files without doing something special when you install your software). When you make add-ons, do you really want to be biting this kind of hand? Certainly not an argument on principles, but it's a practical consideration I'd think.
The other consideration is that the name MS suggested would have been pretty much just as good.
Another replyer made your point much better than you did.. Go read my response there if you really want an answer.
They aren't calling it Microsoft or MS but a generic word: Windows. Calling it Solaris blablabla would be OK.
Calling it "Solaris Backup Wizard" would be OK? Is that what you meant to say, because I think Sun would have a shot at getting "Solaris Backup Wizard" shot down as confusing to consumers? Wouldn't "Backup Wizard for Solaris" be a clearer title?
If your case is instead that "Windows" is a generic word and doesn't get the same protection, then you may well be right in terms of how this case turns out. However, I think it's silly to pretend that "Windows" could have been referring to anything but the MS operating system in this case.
Just run winver and you'll see it's Microsoft (R) Windows. Every application I've seen says Microsoft blablabla
"Hmm. I'm not sure who wrote this Backup program. Was it Microsoft? I guess I could look at the box, but instead I'll buy it, take it home, and read the about box."
I don't think they're worried that "Windows Backup Wizard" is going to be confusing to people who have any idea what they're doing. However, it's certainly potentially confusing to MS's consumer base.
I'm sorry that I couldn't think of another OS that had a dictionary word as its name. I had figured my intent would be clear enough. I suppose "Macintosh File Thwicky" would maybe have been a little better example, though a little outdated in terms of what would actually be confusing.
But according to your scheme, I should still be able to write my tool for "Sun Networks". "Sun Network Management Administrator" - that's just descriptive. Similarly, I could write a tool called "Microsoft Network Admin Tool". I'm just describing what it does, not passing myself off as Microsoft. (And does it really matter how many people would refer to something as a "Sun Network"? Lots of people talk about Microsoft networks, and we're trying to be hypothetical).
I think we need a reasonable standard in terms of what's reasonable and descriptive and what is wrongly confusing to consumers. I posit that the name "Windows Backup Wizard" crosses what is at least a reasonable definition of that line. Where exactly that line is might be hard to legally define, and I certainly don't know how things will turn out in this case.
But given that there's at least a potential for this kind of confusion, why didn't this company just agree to change the name? Perhaps they benefit from this confusion? Perhaps they want free air time?
The name Windows Backup certainly gives the impression that it might be produced or sanctioned by MS (as THE Windows Backup Wizard or some such) even though MS isn't in the habit of calling things "Windows Doongle Dongle".
First off, this isn't a generic use of the word "Windows" and saying so is really stupid. Similarly, I surely hope I wouldn't be able to call my new product "Sun Network Management Administrator" (even though sun is a dictionary word). I would expect to be able to sell "Sun Dishwasher Liquid" (although that would be a poor name for a network management system) or to make a movie called "Solaris".
They may not be able to win, as (as other's have pointed out) I don't know that they have a trademark on the word "Windows". Either way, in the "spirit of the law", this is a reasonable request. The suggested alternate name is a perfectly reasonable compromise (it's clearer, too), and I'd suggest that they don't want to switch to it specifically because they want to continue getting goodwill off of their current name and/or get free press.
And don't bother telling me MS is evil - in this case that would be a real strong signal of a dull, well-rutted mind.
They have to turn everything in life into a business.
Who knows what Ballmer is like on his days off. Probably he's still a dork. Probably business is still on his mind. But at the moment of this speech, he was talking about business. You might as well say, "To Microsoft, it's like making and selling software is all some kind of business.".
"In a way they started out bankrupt"
In the context of the speech, this makes sense - and I think it's clear what he was getting at.
Put through my idiot translator, it reads "We cannot eliminate this competition by depriving them of money from their business, as there never was any money in their business."
Eventually MS will fall - I think that's clear. Until then, I fully expect them to continue to try to compete. I'll still hassle them when they try to do so unfairly, but it seems a little immature to criticize them generally for talking about the competition and laying out strategies.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go ahead and buy original games (Fantavision? Blix: The Time Sweeper?), I'll keep buying good games (Metroid Prime, Zelda: TWW, Yoshi's Island GBA).
I think we need to realize a couple things. First, "sequel" doesn't mean "not original". Second, "original" doesn't often mean "good".
you may not realize how many people use file sharing. ...simply because a bunch of computer nerds have gotten busted.
Fairly recently, Kazaa had 17.4 million users. Napster had, by some estimates, 3 times that many. It's certainly not just a nerd thing.
In any case, the nerds are often going to be in the least danger. Nerds are often going to disable sharing and/or use software that's less traceable.
I think almost all those snared here are going to be more casual computer users.
If gravity was instantaneous, how is it that we couldn't use it to transmit information? Surely it would be difficult in practice, but it seems pretty simple in theory.
"When we're ready, I'll start moving this ball'o'mass towards and away from you."
What's impossible? Moving the mass around, detecting the mass in motion, or detecting it instantaneously?
My wife and I play a fair bit of Super Monkey Ball 2 mini-games. Some are co-operative, some are competitive - but the competition doesn't get in the way of participation.
Games like Crazy Taxi or Tony Hawk can be fun too - while I'm a lot better than my wife, the competition isn't direct so it works well.
In sort of another vein, my wife likes playing Legend of Zelda, but she has enough difficulty playing it that often she wants me there helping/watching. Being able to dip around with the Tingle Tuner makes this work pretty good.
And if that's right, it's a pretty mellow game to be worried about.
If you've ever played Super Monkey Ball for the GC, you'll know how much better this kind of game feels with a good analog control stick.
Always feels bad to miss out on a good game like this - couldn't they have done this in Half-Life? Or in C++ (like my soon to be complete retro game, plugged below)? I'd hate to pour my time into developing something like this, knowing that I'm writing for such a small part of my potential audience.
Give me $10,000 dollars, and I'll guarantee you that VNC will work for you.
If it doesn't, and I can't help you resolve your problem (or if I can't be bothered to) then I'll give you your money back in full. That's a better deal than you'll get from any closed source vendor.
You get the software you want. I get money (or at least interest on that money). Everybody wins, guaranteed.
Who would have thought there were that many Star Wars fans out there who were also into computer games?
Jumpman Zero is currently in testing. Sure it's a free game. And sure you'll have to bring your own test equipment....
But at least you're not stuck play-testing "Elevator Tycoon: The Revenge" for 8 hour stretches.
Get off your high horse.
No. Screw off. I like my horse.
The poster is looking for an existing solution
You think? I had no idea that's what he might be doing.
If you want to claim that it's not that hard then go and work for a volunteer org for a few months.
Volunteer work is hard - I've done my share. This isn't about some "I don't like volunteers" thing. Hell. I was just making a couple points:
1. There is not always going to be a free solution already made perfectly to solve your problem. If you can't find anything on Google, good chance it's because it's not there.
2. Often, a more generic tool makes a good solution to a problem. If I was personally advising the poster, I'd tell him to get a generic web database tool.
"I'm looking for a good pumpkin management solution for Linux - all the ones out there seem to be either targetting Windows or don't have a drop-down to choose pumpkin color. Also, none of them currently has my company logo."
Know what? Quite possibly your software isn't written yet. Why not try using some generic web database software and a bit of work?
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20.... But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
Are you suggesting that Devo isn't contributing to our musical heritage? Or were you just saying that you'd be willing to pay any sum for their new album? Or perhaps you meant that their contributions are more literary than musical. That I could understand.
I'm a speed racer and I drive real fast;
I drive real fast - I'm going to last.
I'm a pirate and a like to kill.
I like to steal, so here's your bill.
A: Apparently, how to get loads of hoardable cash. The only hoardy thing that separates us non-hoarders from the hoarders is the hoard-load of hoardables.
Software like this is not usually installed by script, it's installed by IE's ActiveX installer. This feature is set to "prompt" on typical IE installs, and simply needs to be moved to "disabled" for most users.
This feature is actually useful - in our internal browser based apps we can install new versions of software without bothering the user (as we make ourselves a trusted publisher on their machines), but the feature was implemented poorly. It should have been disabled by default on the Internet zone.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that The Skeptical Environmentalist was rebuked and most of what the guy had to say was bogus.
No, it wasn't "rebuked". I've seen very little in the way of substantive criticism, and what little there is has been responded to in a responsible way. I'd be happy to see actual debate about this.
This issue is how bad are things going to get, how much will we loose and what can and should we be doing to stop or slow it down
This is exactly what Lomborg is talking about. He simply gives an overview of accepted work, and puts forth the idea that "it's not as bad as some people have said". That's really about it. Have you read the book? Do you know of any of his facts that are wrong? Of course you didn't, and I'm guessing you don't. You're as bad as the idiots who made the ruling - basically on the basis of "He's going against the dogma, must be wrong".
The question "How bad are things?" is a valid one to ask. The person who does the research and comes back with "Not as bad as some people say" doesn't need to get shot. Engaged and debated with? Of course. But in a reasonable way.
But the "scientists" who are most mad at him are the ones that are embarrassed - the one's who he quotes making wacky predictions in the 80's that didn't come true.
7:300 - and we do all our own development (which can be a blessing, really)
I surely hope you played the original Jumpman (try it on a C64 emulator for best experience), to which Jumpman Jr. was sort of a less-inspired sequel. Amazing game.
If I have software called Linux Commander, do you really think its part of the kernel?
I don't. Likely many people would. In a not altogether similar regard, you get plenty of people who say Linux sucks because their distribution has a poor window manager (or whatever). People are dumb, and don't know who makes what for whom. And they don't know that they shouldn't blame Linux when their window isn't the right size. Or Windows when Windows Backup Wizard didn't work the night they needed it.
People associate things that don't make sense to associate. I don't know how many people would think "Windows Backup Wizard" was an MS (or MS sanctioned) product, but I'm sure there would be some.
"Windows Update," "Windows Catalog," "Windows Media Player," "Windows Messenger," "Windows Movie Maker," and "Windows Explorer"
You're right - I just couldn't think of any boxed MS products that they might see on a shelf next to "Windows Backup Wizard". Still, certainly a valid point.
I think the little guys would prevail.
Quite possibly right, and perhaps, as you say, MS would deserve the loss for choosing a generic name.
In this particular case I would have advised them not to fight, though. Even if they win, they now have an enemy that has a lot of power over their destiny (Oops, we now include backup features. Oops, with our latest security patch you can't read those files without doing something special when you install your software). When you make add-ons, do you really want to be biting this kind of hand? Certainly not an argument on principles, but it's a practical consideration I'd think.
The other consideration is that the name MS suggested would have been pretty much just as good.
Another replyer made your point much better than you did.. Go read my response there if you really want an answer.
They aren't calling it Microsoft or MS but a generic word: Windows. Calling it Solaris blablabla would be OK.
Calling it "Solaris Backup Wizard" would be OK? Is that what you meant to say, because I think Sun would have a shot at getting "Solaris Backup Wizard" shot down as confusing to consumers? Wouldn't "Backup Wizard for Solaris" be a clearer title?
If your case is instead that "Windows" is a generic word and doesn't get the same protection, then you may well be right in terms of how this case turns out. However, I think it's silly to pretend that "Windows" could have been referring to anything but the MS operating system in this case.
Just run winver and you'll see it's Microsoft (R) Windows. Every application I've seen says Microsoft blablabla
"Hmm. I'm not sure who wrote this Backup program. Was it Microsoft? I guess I could look at the box, but instead I'll buy it, take it home, and read the about box."
I don't think they're worried that "Windows Backup Wizard" is going to be confusing to people who have any idea what they're doing. However, it's certainly potentially confusing to MS's consumer base.
I'm sorry that I couldn't think of another OS that had a dictionary word as its name. I had figured my intent would be clear enough. I suppose "Macintosh File Thwicky" would maybe have been a little better example, though a little outdated in terms of what would actually be confusing.
But according to your scheme, I should still be able to write my tool for "Sun Networks". "Sun Network Management Administrator" - that's just descriptive. Similarly, I could write a tool called "Microsoft Network Admin Tool". I'm just describing what it does, not passing myself off as Microsoft. (And does it really matter how many people would refer to something as a "Sun Network"? Lots of people talk about Microsoft networks, and we're trying to be hypothetical).
I think we need a reasonable standard in terms of what's reasonable and descriptive and what is wrongly confusing to consumers. I posit that the name "Windows Backup Wizard" crosses what is at least a reasonable definition of that line. Where exactly that line is might be hard to legally define, and I certainly don't know how things will turn out in this case.
But given that there's at least a potential for this kind of confusion, why didn't this company just agree to change the name? Perhaps they benefit from this confusion? Perhaps they want free air time?
The name Windows Backup certainly gives the impression that it might be produced or sanctioned by MS (as THE Windows Backup Wizard or some such) even though MS isn't in the habit of calling things "Windows Doongle Dongle".
First off, this isn't a generic use of the word "Windows" and saying so is really stupid. Similarly, I surely hope I wouldn't be able to call my new product "Sun Network Management Administrator" (even though sun is a dictionary word). I would expect to be able to sell "Sun Dishwasher Liquid" (although that would be a poor name for a network management system) or to make a movie called "Solaris".
They may not be able to win, as (as other's have pointed out) I don't know that they have a trademark on the word "Windows". Either way, in the "spirit of the law", this is a reasonable request. The suggested alternate name is a perfectly reasonable compromise (it's clearer, too), and I'd suggest that they don't want to switch to it specifically because they want to continue getting goodwill off of their current name and/or get free press.
And don't bother telling me MS is evil - in this case that would be a real strong signal of a dull, well-rutted mind.
When the first versions were written they didn't really plan for the future. As a result, their API is a pile of kludges. Avoid.
You just hold it upside down and shake it.
They have to turn everything in life into a business.
Who knows what Ballmer is like on his days off. Probably he's still a dork. Probably business is still on his mind. But at the moment of this speech, he was talking about business. You might as well say, "To Microsoft, it's like making and selling software is all some kind of business.".
"In a way they started out bankrupt"
In the context of the speech, this makes sense - and I think it's clear what he was getting at.
Put through my idiot translator, it reads "We cannot eliminate this competition by depriving them of money from their business, as there never was any money in their business."
Eventually MS will fall - I think that's clear. Until then, I fully expect them to continue to try to compete. I'll still hassle them when they try to do so unfairly, but it seems a little immature to criticize them generally for talking about the competition and laying out strategies.