Way too much for you. But hey, that's the great thing about competition, Anarchy Online can take care of everyone who refused to be gouged, and people like me can pay $15 a month until Warner Bros think they are missing out on too much market share and lower their prices. Thanks for the URL!
Does anyone actually know what the subscription fee for The Matrix Online is going to be? Feels kind of strange to spend $50 on an MxO box and not actually know how much a month I'm gunna get hit with when they start billing.
As for advertisements in-game, sure, go for it, I don't care.. it just looks like more uban sprawl. In fact, I'd have trouble beleiving The Matrix world without advertisement.
When the KDE debate was alive and well someone did ask a lawyer. RMS asked Eben Moglen who said "duh! that's the whole point of that clause." So no, "coming clean" after you've violated the license on GPL software is not enough, you have to ask for forgiveness too.
You're both right. If you're making a game you always have the choice: invent or license. You can invent a new engine and rely on the novelty of your gameplay to see your through, or you can license and engine and rely on the quality of your content to see you through. Now there's a third option, use an open source engine instead of licensing an engine. Considering that there's a lot of open source engines that are almost as good as commercial offerings it makes good economical sense to look at open source offerings before settling on licensing. As for whether you would contribute back to the open source engine, well, that's really a case of whether you ever want to make a game again. If you do you'll see that you need to support the open source engine now if you want to use it again in a year's time, otherwise it will fall behind and when you go to make your next game you'll find that you have no choice but to license.
heh. I'm just as surprised as you that my quick quip is modded up so high. I believe the appeal is that everyone has their own definition of soon when talking about the space program. Saying things like "within our lifetime" instead of "soon" is much more appropriate. Or in the case of going back to the moon "within the next 30 years". Which I think is a fair amount of time to wait. After all, we've waited 30 years already.
Actually, when I said users should support the fork they like the best I ment they should pay the developers money. So I agree with his post more than yours.
I hear what you're saying and agree with you. But that last crack about the full-time, professional development team.. it's not an entirely accurate metaphore. I mean, when programmers get paid fulltime they're not very productive. They're MUCH more productive when they get paid by the hour, and they're significantly more productive when they're coding on something they're passionate about. Also, theoretically, popular open source projects like The GIMP have 10 times more people working on it than could be justified to work on a commercial project. So even if they are only working part time, there's 10x as many people working part time and they're more productive cause they're working on things they're passionate about.
I had this idea once. Basically you have a bugzilla which is for members only. You have to pay $10/month to be a member and for that you get 10 votes every month. You can file a feature request (or a bug) and that costs 1 vote. You can vote for feature requests that other people have filed (costs as many votes as you want). The money goes to a team of developers who work on whichever feature request has the most votes. You can also buy more votes for $1 each (so 10 votes a month is like the minimum).
It's hard to write plugins for Photoshop (or any proprietary app) because often all the other plugins are proprietary (so you don't have anything to work from) and the interface that is actually exposed to plugin writers is not sufficient. You do make a good point though, thank you.
Well obviously because it can't. A blimp big enough to float in the upper atmosphere would be broken apart by the winds in the lower atmosphere. So you need to stop and change blimps.. and that means you need to have stations along the way to keep and maintain the blimps (not to mention the possibility of assembling or at least inflating them there in the first place). And yeah, an ion drive that is either powered by solar power or by beamed energy is definitely a good idea for getting a blimp up to orbital velocity.
I know students who do tutoring for $20/hr cause it's the only work they can find. They'd much rather be doing programming. That's 30 hours of development. Now multiply that by all the people who would like to switch to GimpShop but want all the features of Photoshop. Get organised people!
The problem is this feature of open source projects that everything has to go through some dictator before it goes to the users. The users should be decided which features and good and which features are bad. By that I mean that forks like this should be encouraged and users should actually support the software they choose so the best software has more resources.
And what if you need some feature that Photoshop doesn't have? You have to beg Adobe to code it for you or use a non-integrated third party tool. If all the Photoshop users would stop paying Adobe, pool their money and hire developers to make GimpShop do everything they want, it would be a better image manipulation program than Photoshop within a year. But people would rather be slaves to a proprietary software company than co-operate with each other. It's like unionisation. People would rather keep how much they earn secret in the hope that they're getting paid more than their neighbour than join together and demand better conditions for everyone.
GimpShop is cool. General themability of GIMP is even better. Of course, now that we've started down the path of making GimpShop people are going to whinge (don't they always) that GIMP doesn't have all the features of Photoshop. For those people I have two suggestions: code them, or pay someone to code them.
Stratalites are damn cool. You can use them like train stations to space. Get in your ground blimp, fly up to station 1. Get in your high altitude blimp, fly up to station 2. Get in your supermassive low pressure blimp and fly up to station 3. Get in your rocket and launch your ass into space.
Look, light hits the retina, travels down the optic nerve and is processed by the visual cortex. Now, if you've blind from birth your visual cortex does what? Let's say it does nothing. If you put data on the optic nerve that data will just hit an uncomprehending wall of neurons that should be the visual cortex. So what would happen if you put data on the optic nerve that was already processed? The data would hit those uncomprehending neurons that should be the visual cortex, by harmlessly passed on and enter all the other systems of the brain that have developed normally.
Slashdot Mirror
Way too much for you. But hey, that's the great thing about competition, Anarchy Online can take care of everyone who refused to be gouged, and people like me can pay $15 a month until Warner Bros think they are missing out on too much market share and lower their prices. Thanks for the URL!
Does anyone actually know what the subscription fee for The Matrix Online is going to be? Feels kind of strange to spend $50 on an MxO box and not actually know how much a month I'm gunna get hit with when they start billing.
As for advertisements in-game, sure, go for it, I don't care.. it just looks like more uban sprawl. In fact, I'd have trouble beleiving The Matrix world without advertisement.
Will you please STFU. You really don't know what you are talking about.
When the KDE debate was alive and well someone did ask a lawyer. RMS asked Eben Moglen who said "duh! that's the whole point of that clause." So no, "coming clean" after you've violated the license on GPL software is not enough, you have to ask for forgiveness too.
I elect Connery as the first brain-in-a-jar celebrity.
bah.. it's 19th century technology.
You're both right. If you're making a game you always have the choice: invent or license. You can invent a new engine and rely on the novelty of your gameplay to see your through, or you can license and engine and rely on the quality of your content to see you through. Now there's a third option, use an open source engine instead of licensing an engine. Considering that there's a lot of open source engines that are almost as good as commercial offerings it makes good economical sense to look at open source offerings before settling on licensing. As for whether you would contribute back to the open source engine, well, that's really a case of whether you ever want to make a game again. If you do you'll see that you need to support the open source engine now if you want to use it again in a year's time, otherwise it will fall behind and when you go to make your next game you'll find that you have no choice but to license.
Maybe Business Week should go back to reporting business.
heh. I'm just as surprised as you that my quick quip is modded up so high. I believe the appeal is that everyone has their own definition of soon when talking about the space program. Saying things like "within our lifetime" instead of "soon" is much more appropriate. Or in the case of going back to the moon "within the next 30 years". Which I think is a fair amount of time to wait. After all, we've waited 30 years already.
Actually, when I said users should support the fork they like the best I ment they should pay the developers money. So I agree with his post more than yours.
1995 just called, they want their argument back.
I hear what you're saying and agree with you. But that last crack about the full-time, professional development team.. it's not an entirely accurate metaphore. I mean, when programmers get paid fulltime they're not very productive. They're MUCH more productive when they get paid by the hour, and they're significantly more productive when they're coding on something they're passionate about. Also, theoretically, popular open source projects like The GIMP have 10 times more people working on it than could be justified to work on a commercial project. So even if they are only working part time, there's 10x as many people working part time and they're more productive cause they're working on things they're passionate about.
I had this idea once. Basically you have a bugzilla which is for members only. You have to pay $10/month to be a member and for that you get 10 votes every month. You can file a feature request (or a bug) and that costs 1 vote. You can vote for feature requests that other people have filed (costs as many votes as you want). The money goes to a team of developers who work on whichever feature request has the most votes. You can also buy more votes for $1 each (so 10 votes a month is like the minimum).
Yep, that's JP Aerospace. Havn't heard much from them lately.
It's hard to write plugins for Photoshop (or any proprietary app) because often all the other plugins are proprietary (so you don't have anything to work from) and the interface that is actually exposed to plugin writers is not sufficient. You do make a good point though, thank you.
Well obviously because it can't. A blimp big enough to float in the upper atmosphere would be broken apart by the winds in the lower atmosphere. So you need to stop and change blimps.. and that means you need to have stations along the way to keep and maintain the blimps (not to mention the possibility of assembling or at least inflating them there in the first place). And yeah, an ion drive that is either powered by solar power or by beamed energy is definitely a good idea for getting a blimp up to orbital velocity.
I know students who do tutoring for $20/hr cause it's the only work they can find. They'd much rather be doing programming. That's 30 hours of development. Now multiply that by all the people who would like to switch to GimpShop but want all the features of Photoshop. Get organised people!
The problem is this feature of open source projects that everything has to go through some dictator before it goes to the users. The users should be decided which features and good and which features are bad. By that I mean that forks like this should be encouraged and users should actually support the software they choose so the best software has more resources.
And what if you need some feature that Photoshop doesn't have? You have to beg Adobe to code it for you or use a non-integrated third party tool. If all the Photoshop users would stop paying Adobe, pool their money and hire developers to make GimpShop do everything they want, it would be a better image manipulation program than Photoshop within a year. But people would rather be slaves to a proprietary software company than co-operate with each other. It's like unionisation. People would rather keep how much they earn secret in the hope that they're getting paid more than their neighbour than join together and demand better conditions for everyone.
This is what open source is about. Please don't let people's egos get in the way of making great software.
GimpShop is cool. General themability of GIMP is even better. Of course, now that we've started down the path of making GimpShop people are going to whinge (don't they always) that GIMP doesn't have all the features of Photoshop. For those people I have two suggestions: code them, or pay someone to code them.
Stratalites are damn cool. You can use them like train stations to space. Get in your ground blimp, fly up to station 1. Get in your high altitude blimp, fly up to station 2. Get in your supermassive low pressure blimp and fly up to station 3. Get in your rocket and launch your ass into space.
No, IBM just doesn't allow their COO to go blabbermouthing to the press every chance he gets.
No, a more sane approach is to extract moonbase air from frozen ice or the regolith.. not truck it up from earth and be stingy with it.
Look, light hits the retina, travels down the optic nerve and is processed by the visual cortex. Now, if you've blind from birth your visual cortex does what? Let's say it does nothing. If you put data on the optic nerve that data will just hit an uncomprehending wall of neurons that should be the visual cortex. So what would happen if you put data on the optic nerve that was already processed? The data would hit those uncomprehending neurons that should be the visual cortex, by harmlessly passed on and enter all the other systems of the brain that have developed normally.
Wow, how small do you think this habitate is going to be? Personally I'd be going for the cap-a-crater-and-shovel-in-top-soil approach myself.