The investors invest, hoping that the worth of the company over time will convince other people to put their money into it, and thus, subsequently, they can cash out.
This is called 'making your money make you more money', and it yes, it is a form of stealing. Where did that 'worth' actually come from?
... I simply don't know how to. It has nothing to do with RIAA.
What app can I run - on a unix box - that allows me to allocate x gigs of disk/x amount of b/w to sharing on a globally searchable/accessible network, from my 'flat rate' DSL line, easily?
Tell me the app name, and how it works, and I'll run it. I'm a fairly competent unix guy, I just don't have time to 'search' for the best options in the p2p/new network protocols arena these days.
I'm sick of being left out of the creation of a massive, globally connected, well-maintained and administered p2p-based network of content nodes. As a hobbyist musician, I also have need of cheap (as in free) bandwidth for my works, so if I can do that by being a good node, then hell yeah, bring on the true net revolution.
So, tell me what to run.
Re:I'm as stumped as my girlfriend usually is
on
Telstar 4 is Down
·
· Score: 2, Funny
For this, subscribing to slashdot might almost be worthwhile.
Why bother? He published the source to the first version, we'll just fork it:
He sat in stunned silence for a few seconds, then the shockwave hit...... his pants fom the egg-salad sandwich he'd forgotten he'd scoffed on the toilet the afternoon before. A typical Thursday (or Tuesday, for that matter).
Looking around the room, satellite losses and alien invasion fantasies suddenly violently forgotten, McWassename spied the only possible option for the diversion of his...
Now you can make the argument if you like that Microsoft was negligent. Just remember, that if you follow that logic, then Linux could find itself liable down the road. Some jackass comes up with an exploit, it causes trouble, and the Linux community is punished for it. Do you really want that?
Yes.
That would be fair. And, nevertheless, it would at least level the playing field in the new marketing dominion for the 21st century: responsibility.
People are sick and tired of things working 'just becase of a bug', and fundamentally - at least at the level of applications that are being written today - there's no really good reason for it. The technology and mindset required to prevent these sorts of wastes of computing resources existed in the 70's.
What the 'personal computer revolution' camp- you know, the one around the big Microsoft circus tents, crammed full of dopes- often seem to forget is that this 'virus' situation is truly a problem of the *Design* of the system. In other words, Windows allows and *provides a loyal service for* anyone who wants to create an environment in which processes can be run, globally, on everyones computer, unchecked.
Its not like they couldn't have done per-user application security at the filesystem level, say, in Windows95. Hell, Linux/*BSD/*etc. had it then. They could have done it, and enforced it by making it *default* setup. Hell, they could even have done ACL in Win95, for network services... thus preventing a legion of Visual Basic worms that used to make the rounds from shareware bonanza bbs's in the days before ftp... but... noooo... they chanted the 'developer' mantra and used that as a justification to not... quite... make... so... much progress out of the Windows 3.1/9x/NT/2000/XP/Me/LH upgrade cashcow...
In my opinion, it can be demonstrated fairly clearly that through negligence on Microsofts' part - and their boneheaded desire to 'control^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hservice the entire market at all costs' - they have managed to deliver a product so faulty that it regularly, frequently, is a source of massive productivity loss.
Computer Viruses are so 80's. By now, 2003, we should not be having these problems with our computers.
(Some of us, actually, don't. I haven't had a single problem with a virus infection on my personal computing systems since, I guess it was the early days of DOS 3.1... which was the last time I ever attempted to use a Microsoft product in a production scenario.)
Well. Say that hunk of junk was worth, in reality, $50 to some scrap-metal dealer. Any attempt to make it more valuable by 'restoring it into a working-condition automobile' would be an attempt to make the lump of metal 'worth' more to someone else by making it serve a different function.
And, I wouldn't say he 'stole' money from the person he sold it too - after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to give it to you or not...
Investors don't always "lose" money - but, when they make a profit, they do always 'steal' it... if they make money on selling stock which is 'worth' $30 on the 'open market', then them selling it is only passing on the true liability of the value of the stock to the next guy, who has to sell it before he gets his share, to the next guy, who then has to sell it to get anything out of it, etc.
So, the 'value' of the stock gets passed on and on, ad infinitum, down to the little guy, and this is exactly *how* wealth re-distribution to 'those who can afford to be wealthy' occurs...
There, I said it. It is arbitrary. That Bill Gates is worth $55billion is *ONLY* a 'fact' because enough people got together and agreed that is how much he is worth to society, as represented by the one symbol everyone in society knows the meaning for: $
It is sort of stupid to get involved in whether its 'right' or whether its 'wrong' to consider someone so valuable. All money is arbitrary, anyway, and you can't say 'he isnt worth $1,000,000' because in fact, its true. He isn't. Money is just a symbol.
I, personally, think that Bill Gates is worth a 5 minute conversation and a cup of coffee, and not much else, but then again, I'm not playing any stock markets lately... and I don't know how to 'represent' what I think he's worth to someone else in a way that could be nearly as 'easy' to the average moron than $$$...
You've got services running on your box, and if you issue a shutdown to those services it gives them a chance to handle any pending transactions within their own system that may be waiting, and cleanly exit.
This is important for, say, database systems which may still have client connections in active use, or web servers that want to complete any last transactions, or send redirect headers to end-clients.
What makes you that they *specifically* are not supporting linux 'because its more trouble than its worth'?
Is it 'obvious' that they're not doing a Linux port because of the trouble, or because of something else? Because, fact is, there's no compelling *technological* reason not to do a full, 3-platform (Linux/OSX/WIN32) game engine from the gate. Technologically, there's no hitch.
I admire bittorrent, but I have such a very difficult time ever *finding* anything on that network.
How do you handle this? Surely a 'google of torrent' application would be *The* next killer Internet thing?
Also - I'm a DSL user, can I become a bit-torrent node easily enough? I'll run whatever OS I need to be able to serve my own bittorrent stuff... as an artist, nothing could be better or more worth the effort!
In fact, yes I have worked on a large, commercial multi-platform product, or I wouldn't have this point of view.
Platform-testing? Big deal. What do you think Internet beta's are for? Support staff? Last I heard, most of the big-game companies *shopped their support services* to 3rd parties... again, big deal.
No, you're just not getting the point. The point is, a 'port' is not expensive if you don't do it last. If you do multi-platform development concurrently, and have a technical strategy in place to accomodate it, then it doesn't cost any more than to just do one-platform...
Games companies are in business to make money. They're not charities, and even if they were, even charities need money to operate. Valve is simply making what it believes to be the best decision based on its reading of the market.
It has nothing to do with anyone asking a game company to be a charity.
A Linux port - as has been proven by Valve's competitors - of a high-performance, seriously kick ass 3D gaming engine, is not that difficult to do. In fact, some would say that developing under Linux and porting to the other platforms is a sure-fire win-strategy for covering both platforms.
There isn't a Linux port from Valve, not because its 'hard', or because 'there is no market'. It's because they didn't accomodate *porting* the codebase in their strategy.
So many other games, really, really good games, are cross-platform coded.
If HL2 can be ported from Win32->OSX, it can run under Linux... so why isn't it?
P2P, as a technology and as an infrastructure design, is not new. There have been p2p apps in use and around the 'net since before UUCP.
The press treatment of 'p2p technology as fad', though, is something which has been extremely useful to the RIAA propagandists. True p2p users, however, know that there will *ALWAYS* be p2p apps out there, for as long as it is legal to write your own network protocol implementation, anyway.
As long as people continue to believe that there is 'always something new around the corner that might be cooler', then there is fluidity, and Big Media can start to introduce the 'consolidated applications' (AOL 9.0, anyone?) which... surprisingly... contain P2P technology themselves.
Capitalism is based on scarcity, manufactured and otherwise. Making something seem 'risky' is a good way to make it scarce, and thus sell whatever supply you have of it for a lot of money.
This system was brought to you by the same people who gave you the 'war is the only way' doctrine, the 'social systems are all flawed' righteousness of right-wing religion, and the cookie jar.
The parent poster must never have seen *rain* in LA either, then. I lived there for 15 years, and could count on the ducts running through Hollywood flowing brown water every winter. I've seen water in those ducts ever year.
Parent-poster must also never have seen any of the annual news reports about 'homeless people' being swept away during the start of winter, from their aquaduct-villages...
I think that the 40's and 50's era predictions of food pills match the current reality in sports nutrition supplements and whatnot currently available in your average American grunt-head mall.
Come to think of it, since 'food-in-a-pill' is a simpler form of 'a-pill-for-everything' I'm afraid this concept has been well and truly delivered.
Slashdot Mirror
The investors invest, hoping that the worth of the company over time will convince other people to put their money into it, and thus, subsequently, they can cash out.
This is called 'making your money make you more money', and it yes, it is a form of stealing. Where did that 'worth' actually come from?
... I simply don't know how to. It has nothing to do with RIAA.
What app can I run - on a unix box - that allows me to allocate x gigs of disk/x amount of b/w to sharing on a globally searchable/accessible network, from my 'flat rate' DSL line, easily?
Tell me the app name, and how it works, and I'll run it. I'm a fairly competent unix guy, I just don't have time to 'search' for the best options in the p2p/new network protocols arena these days.
I'm sick of being left out of the creation of a massive, globally connected, well-maintained and administered p2p-based network of content nodes. As a hobbyist musician, I also have need of cheap (as in free) bandwidth for my works, so if I can do that by being a good node, then hell yeah, bring on the true net revolution.
So, tell me what to run.
For this, subscribing to slashdot might almost be worthwhile.
... his pants fom the egg-salad sandwich he'd forgotten he'd scoffed on the toilet the afternoon before. A typical Thursday (or Tuesday, for that matter).
...
Why bother? He published the source to the first version, we'll just fork it:
He sat in stunned silence for a few seconds, then the shockwave hit...
Looking around the room, satellite losses and alien invasion fantasies suddenly violently forgotten, McWassename spied the only possible option for the diversion of his
ah, whatever. You get the point...
etc.
...
Apologies for my recently germanified english
Now you can make the argument if you like that Microsoft was negligent. Just remember, that if you follow that logic, then Linux could find itself liable down the road. Some jackass comes up with an exploit, it causes trouble, and the Linux community is punished for it. Do you really want that?
... but ... noooo ... they chanted the 'developer' mantra and used that as a justification to not ... quite ... make ... so ... much progress out of the Windows 3.1/9x/NT/2000/XP/Me/LH upgrade cashcow...
... which was the last time I ever attempted to use a Microsoft product in a production scenario.)
Yes.
That would be fair. And, nevertheless, it would at least level the playing field in the new marketing dominion for the 21st century: responsibility.
People are sick and tired of things working 'just becase of a bug', and fundamentally - at least at the level of applications that are being written today - there's no really good reason for it. The technology and mindset required to prevent these sorts of wastes of computing resources existed in the 70's.
What the 'personal computer revolution' camp- you know, the one around the big Microsoft circus tents, crammed full of dopes- often seem to forget is that this 'virus' situation is truly a problem of the *Design* of the system. In other words, Windows allows and *provides a loyal service for* anyone who wants to create an environment in which processes can be run, globally, on everyones computer, unchecked.
Its not like they couldn't have done per-user application security at the filesystem level, say, in Windows95. Hell, Linux/*BSD/*etc. had it then. They could have done it, and enforced it by making it *default* setup. Hell, they could even have done ACL in Win95, for network services... thus preventing a legion of Visual Basic worms that used to make the rounds from shareware bonanza bbs's in the days before ftp
In my opinion, it can be demonstrated fairly clearly that through negligence on Microsofts' part - and their boneheaded desire to 'control^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hservice the entire market at all costs' - they have managed to deliver a product so faulty that it regularly, frequently, is a source of massive productivity loss.
Computer Viruses are so 80's. By now, 2003, we should not be having these problems with our computers.
(Some of us, actually, don't. I haven't had a single problem with a virus infection on my personal computing systems since, I guess it was the early days of DOS 3.1
Well. Say that hunk of junk was worth, in reality, $50 to some scrap-metal dealer. Any attempt to make it more valuable by 'restoring it into a working-condition automobile' would be an attempt to make the lump of metal 'worth' more to someone else by making it serve a different function.
And, I wouldn't say he 'stole' money from the person he sold it too - after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to give it to you or not...
No, you don't get it.
...
Investors don't always "lose" money - but, when they make a profit, they do always 'steal' it... if they make money on selling stock which is 'worth' $30 on the 'open market', then them selling it is only passing on the true liability of the value of the stock to the next guy, who has to sell it before he gets his share, to the next guy, who then has to sell it to get anything out of it, etc.
So, the 'value' of the stock gets passed on and on, ad infinitum, down to the little guy, and this is exactly *how* wealth re-distribution to 'those who can afford to be wealthy' occurs
It is a scam. But, its a legal one.
Ummm... kid. Let me put this to you nicely:
... and I don't know how to 'represent' what I think he's worth to someone else in a way that could be nearly as 'easy' to the average moron than $$$...
ALL MONEY IS ARBITRARY.
There, I said it. It is arbitrary. That Bill Gates is worth $55billion is *ONLY* a 'fact' because enough people got together and agreed that is how much he is worth to society, as represented by the one symbol everyone in society knows the meaning for: $
It is sort of stupid to get involved in whether its 'right' or whether its 'wrong' to consider someone so valuable. All money is arbitrary, anyway, and you can't say 'he isnt worth $1,000,000' because in fact, its true. He isn't. Money is just a symbol.
I, personally, think that Bill Gates is worth a 5 minute conversation and a cup of coffee, and not much else, but then again, I'm not playing any stock markets lately
Sorry to say this, but selling software is dead. There is no money to be made in it. ;)
You've got services running on your box, and if you issue a shutdown to those services it gives them a chance to handle any pending transactions within their own system that may be waiting, and cleanly exit.
This is important for, say, database systems which may still have client connections in active use, or web servers that want to complete any last transactions, or send redirect headers to end-clients.
What makes you that they *specifically* are not supporting linux 'because its more trouble than its worth'?
Is it 'obvious' that they're not doing a Linux port because of the trouble, or because of something else? Because, fact is, there's no compelling *technological* reason not to do a full, 3-platform (Linux/OSX/WIN32) game engine from the gate. Technologically, there's no hitch.
I admire bittorrent, but I have such a very difficult time ever *finding* anything on that network.
... as an artist, nothing could be better or more worth the effort!
How do you handle this? Surely a 'google of torrent' application would be *The* next killer Internet thing?
Also - I'm a DSL user, can I become a bit-torrent node easily enough? I'll run whatever OS I need to be able to serve my own bittorrent stuff
In fact, yes I have worked on a large, commercial multi-platform product, or I wouldn't have this point of view.
... again, big deal.
Platform-testing? Big deal. What do you think Internet beta's are for? Support staff? Last I heard, most of the big-game companies *shopped their support services* to 3rd parties
No, you're just not getting the point. The point is, a 'port' is not expensive if you don't do it last. If you do multi-platform development concurrently, and have a technical strategy in place to accomodate it, then it doesn't cost any more than to just do one-platform...
Obviously, because the company believes it can recoup the cost of porting via OSX sales, but that it could not recoup the cost via Linux sales.
WHAT COST?
If they plan for it, there is no 'port' required. The project can be multi-platform without requiring weeks and weeks of man-hours to do a 'port'.
The point is: THEY DIDN'T PLAN TO SUPPORT ANY PLATFORM BUT WINDOWS.
Games companies are in business to make money. They're not charities, and even if they were, even charities need money to operate. Valve is simply making what it believes to be the best decision based on its reading of the market.
... so why isn't it?
It has nothing to do with anyone asking a game company to be a charity.
A Linux port - as has been proven by Valve's competitors - of a high-performance, seriously kick ass 3D gaming engine, is not that difficult to do. In fact, some would say that developing under Linux and porting to the other platforms is a sure-fire win-strategy for covering both platforms.
There isn't a Linux port from Valve, not because its 'hard', or because 'there is no market'. It's because they didn't accomodate *porting* the codebase in their strategy.
So many other games, really, really good games, are cross-platform coded.
If HL2 can be ported from Win32->OSX, it can run under Linux
The costs involved are chiefly ecological.
Chip-manufacturing is bad voodoo in the chemicals and pollutants department.
P2P, as a technology and as an infrastructure design, is not new. There have been p2p apps in use and around the 'net since before UUCP.
The press treatment of 'p2p technology as fad', though, is something which has been extremely useful to the RIAA propagandists. True p2p users, however, know that there will *ALWAYS* be p2p apps out there, for as long as it is legal to write your own network protocol implementation, anyway.
As long as people continue to believe that there is 'always something new around the corner that might be cooler', then there is fluidity, and Big Media can start to introduce the 'consolidated applications' (AOL 9.0, anyone?) which
Capitalism is based on scarcity, manufactured and otherwise. Making something seem 'risky' is a good way to make it scarce, and thus sell whatever supply you have of it for a lot of money.
This system was brought to you by the same people who gave you the 'war is the only way' doctrine, the 'social systems are all flawed' righteousness of right-wing religion, and the cookie jar.
The parent poster must never have seen *rain* in LA either, then. I lived there for 15 years, and could count on the ducts running through Hollywood flowing brown water every winter. I've seen water in those ducts ever year.
...
Parent-poster must also never have seen any of the annual news reports about 'homeless people' being swept away during the start of winter, from their aquaduct-villages
Too bad there's no vlc client for PalmOS yet, because VideoLAN rocks ass.
You mean, roam from anywhere else in the world, into the US ... not just specifically Europe.
US is the only place that isn't capable. Not many other countries are going to have as hard a time going to 3G as the good ol' US of A.
I think that the 40's and 50's era predictions of food pills match the current reality in sports nutrition supplements and whatnot currently available in your average American grunt-head mall.
Come to think of it, since 'food-in-a-pill' is a simpler form of 'a-pill-for-everything' I'm afraid this concept has been well and truly delivered.
Dude you do not want Cowboy Neal and Liv Tyler in the same room.
...
Your little 'armaggeddon-survival' plan would last about 30 seconds before you fatally try to get the door back open and throw him out
So move.
Ah really. So we're going to be cashing in on Microsoft and their viruses when now, exactly?