There are 2 benefits for Viacom doing this, the way that I see it, copy protection aside. First off, YouTube (from what I understand) is a standard Client/Server model. Sure, they have tons of bandwidth, but that can only hold out for so long. Imagine if every movie and every cable channel was on YouTube, and everyone who watches TV did it over YouTube. I don't think they could match the cost they're getting per click with the bandwidth cost that would require.
Secondly, by using Joost with P2P, over a source that they define, you at least have a way of authenticating original content and content consumers. Sure, people could hack the protocols Joost uses, and reference other servers, but then Joost/Viacom could go after these rogue servers, and hunt them down. By allowing user uploaded content, YouTube can't support this.
First off, I want to comment that I don't believe Star Trek ever achieved travel for 10.5 light years 'instantaneously', unless you consider wormholes. (I recall Voyager topped Warp 10.0 once, which would result in getting there in 1 year's time, as opposed to instantaneously, given thatn Warp 1.0 is the speed of light.)
Secondly, let's do the math, and say they can get there in 70 years with an ark. If you could come up with something that gets there in 35 years, with technology that takes 35 years to develop, they would arrive at the same time.
If technology can be developed that satisfies this:
(time to develop new tech) + (speed of new tech)*(10.5 light years) less than or equal to 70 years
Then obviously, it would be better to wait. If $ is taken into consideration, that could also be a different story. How much would the extra supplies cost for another 35 years? How much would the new technology's development cost (which, unlike the supplies, could be reused or done regardless)?
It only seems to do this if new technology will not significantly surpass the equation above.
The expansions for Baldur's Gate and NWN start you off at higher than the 'looser' level. Granted, you can import your character from previous versions, but you can just buy the Diamond/Ultra edition of BG/NWN, and start off with the expansion, and skip the 'intro' part if you want.
70% accuracy is meaningless unless you know what the sample size is. So if they only tested 10 people, they only were able to guess 2 more than just randomly guessing '+' or '-', which doesn't say alot. Why do studies release numbers like this without mentioning the sample size? Whenever they do, it makes me highly doubt the results.
I actually looked into this, and from what I could tell (at least from 1-2 years ago), the only way to get MFC library support (legally) is to purchase a non-express version of Visual C. They even have a FAQ question about it mentioning that it must be purchased for MFC support.
I did forget to mention RakNet, and it did seem to have amazing performance claims, but I never fully tried it out. (I haven't looked at it, again, in 1-2 years.)
640x0? I'd love to see that.
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 1
Am I missing something? Wouldn't 640x0 resolution be invisible? (640 columns but 0 rows)
Just thought I'd mention that grapefruit (and grapefruit juices) enhance the effectiveness of caffeine. From the article (with similar text published in many other studies):
Lastly, caffeine levels and it effects may be extended by consuming grapefruit or grapefruit juice (1,5). There is a chemical in grapefruit called naringin that extends the half-life of caffeine. Naringin, which is the substance that gives grapefruit its unique bitter taste, slows the breakdown of caffeine into its metabolite, paraxanthine, in the liver. Consuming canned grapefruit juice is the best strategy because it has much higher concentrations of naringin. The maceration of fresh grapefruit releases the active ingredient which is otherwise locked in (18). This may allow athletes to consume smaller dosages of caffeine and still get the same results and extend the effects later in a long endurance event.
I've looked at the blender environment for making games. However, it has poor network support for multiplayer games (last I checked), and is meant for smaller single person games. DirectX has had a bit better multiplayer support so far, so I imagine XNA has decent multiplayer support, or soon will. Blender is licensed under the GPL, but any scripts and artwork can be under any license you choose, and can be used commercially.
There's also OGRE3D. Although, I've had my share of tracing memory leaks and seg faults enough to know that as a development team of 1, there are much more interesting things I'd rather be doing (like adding content). Given I have been using Java a bit more lately, I've been leaning towards trying to use ogre4j, although progress with this has been relatively slow over the years. (Although their automated conversion of C++ hooks to Java seems interesting.) Also of note, OGRE3D is a graphic engine, not a game framework. However, other gamerelatedcomponents exist based on this engine, although each has their own bit of requirements. For example, Yake will not compile without the latest and greatest Visual Studio. (The free Express version won't cut it, because it has dependencies on MFC, which the express version doesn't include.) This solution is the most attractive to me, nonetheless, because games can be made with minimal publishing/license constraints (most are licensed under LGPL).
There are other solutions, such as Garage Games, but they take a huge cut out of any money your game makes (used to be upwards of 80%). They also have mediocre network support, placing them as a poor choice in my opinion. Their claim is that they will, however, handle all of the marketing for your game and get others to play (& pay) for your game. Alternatively, you could pay a $15,000 license per game to remove royalty restrictions. There are also several OpenGL game frameworks, but they require all game releases to be under the GPL.
Does anyone else know of a similar solution that does not require a GPL license for the game, has good multiplayer (or massively multiplayer) network support, and a decent (or active) game development framework?
At 4000km, even over 6 days, that's 4000km *( 1 mi / 1.6km ) / 6 days / 24 hours = 17 mph. Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to get impressed about something going as fast as I can on a bicycle, even if I can't bike for 6 days straight.
Lets say each AI robot has a right to vote. Let's say you can create millions of clones of the same artificially intelligent robot (each a few millimeters in size), with slight programmed differences, that each get a vote, but are 'inclined' to vote one way. Not quite as easy to do with humans.
Even if the robot has some sentience, damage to that robot could be repaired by modifying what the robot 'remembers'. Granted, this could be more complex, depending on the complexity of the AI used for the robot. Suppose it has a self learning neural network, with no 'backup' from before the incident. Suppose after the robot is tortured, it constantly thinks all humans will harm it, and becomes 'shy'. The only alternative is to restore the neural network of the robot to some earlier state, which loses all of the 'progress', memories, etc., that may have occurred since then. It's a true 'clean' reboot, it's akin to something of "I shot your dog, so here's a brand new puppy! Enjoy!", which might not quite be the same to the 'owner'.
Or suppose that they just want to rip off the BSD code without giving anything back, like Wine.
Giving the cool kids your toys won't make them like you. They'll just take them and laugh.
Or suppose they keep their changes private because that gives them far greater competitive advantage in the marketplace (in the conventional view of things, despite the fact that they lose any other value they'd gain) and don't want to give away all their hard work to a bunch of fanboys for a few dollars.
The point here is that suppose you, as Company X, has some software advantage over your competitor, in one area. As time progresses, your competitors are likely going to try and mimic that advantage (unless it's patent worthy, etc., but that's another can of worms). Instead of letting them mimic that advantage, where they spent money developing exactly what you developed, wouldn't it be cheaper to sell them this advantage, and use that money to create another advantage? If company Y dedicates their efforts in mimicing this advantage, now all of a sudden instead of Company X selling it to Company Y for cash, they lose out on income they could have earned. However, I agree, identifying exactly what point you should sell, vs. which point in selling is too early, making you lose more money than it's worth, can be a toss up. That's why theoretically, Company X would only sell software components that have been around for a while, but noone has found a suitable solution for yet.
Theoretically, if you hit the right spot, you could become a combination of a service developer and a service provider (using services you develop, and selling them to other service providers). There are many large companies out there that host services, and sell server software so that others can host their services. Something very similar already happens in large corporations.
The point of this model isn't to BSD the code and hope people contribute. It's to sell the code to the few that want it to make it 'free' for everyone. It can be profitable from a standpoint of those wishing to pay for it (especially if they are given the option of buying BSD code they can change, or buying a proprietary plugin for more money), beneficial for anyone attempting to start up from scratch, but the biggest question is how profitable is it from the seller's standpoint. However, also consider that the seller can sell support to individual companies wishing to use the software as fast as possible. That provides even more potential income for the seller, and is how MySQL, Red Hat, and many others make money.
I already commented at length within the Ryzom forums that I believe a better license would be a BSD license. Unfortunately, everything, including the artwork, will be under the GPL.
First off, this doesn't make it impossible to make money from. You can keep the server code proprietary for your version, since you don't distribute the server code, although you would have to make the client code available to the public, since you distribute it for your game. Not a horrible thing, since you could get user communities interested in customizing their client/UI, leaving you to better develop the server and core code.
Secondly, you can add BSD modules to the game, if you wanted, that operate with the GPL core engine. This could handle physics engines, etc., that you may not want under a GPL.
My recommendation in the forums envisioned having a BSD cycle with something like an MMORPG, where the investors would primarily be a community of MMORPG developers. Suppose an MMORPG company has a choice of buying a physics engine for $50k, or donating $10k to make the same engine open sourced under a BSD license, where multiple MMORPG companies 'chip in'. They all get the raw code of the engine they are using, to customize as they wish, and they pay less than they paid before. In return, when they made sufficient changes and feel they have enough differences to still put them ahead of the competition, but would like to make a bit of change, they could 'sell' their changes where the others in the community chip in.
Here's an example. Let's say I release a raw physics engine, similar to that in Oblivion, City of Heroes, etc, that includes base ragdoll physics. Everyone chips in $1-10k, and buys out the BSD license so anyone can use it, including themselves. One company doesn't like how some animations end up 'stuck' on certain parts, so they fix almost all of the 'stuck' conditions, and auction up their changes in a few years, after they notice noone else has quite gotten it right. Others chip in for the fix, and more changes progress.
It'd be very interesting (to me) if things worked like this, although I'm betting there are business reasons against it. But as a huge plus, anyone getting into the MMORPG market would have all of the code the other communities have invested in and bought out, which gives them a great start. Although those MMOGs that have been using it would probably be more familiar with the code, and would need less 'up to speed' time.
I used to use tracfone too. If you prepay for a year during a promotion, you can usually get about 250 minutes for 1 year worth of service, with no extra 'use' fees that you desribe. The only downside is that almost everywhere is roaming, which doubles the minutes that are ticked off. This didn't bother me, since at the time I only used it for emergencies (e.g., car breaks down) and when travelling, which was quite rare.
According to the provided Wikipedia link in the article, the world requires 13 terawatts of electricity. With an installation cost of $3 per watt, that would require a 13,000,000,000,000 * $3 or $39,000,000,000,000 ($39 trillion) upfront cost to install. Somehow, I don't see this happening overnight.
Splashpower seems like another solution that may work for you. Wirelessly powers devices that you just sit on a tray. Since the recent article about wireless power that also mentioned this solution, I've thought about giving this a shot (as it seems more realistic).
The people with the ability to make massive changes are in politics. You tell me, who people will remember, vote for, or value. If politicians made changes that increased taxes, but helped avert this crisis, would the average person even know? Would they care?
Now look on the opposite side of the coin. Let's say a crisis or huge situation happens, and the politician is there to propose a radical fix to the problem. People remember the catastrophes, and the politicians eagerness to help solve problems that existed.
In short, people remember (and consciously or subconsciously value) reactive politicians much moreso than proactive.
It's been around for a while, but not stable as far as I've known. Beta v3 has crashed on me several times (where 1.5 is still rock solid for me). And these are fun crashes where you have to manually kill the 'hidden' gaim.exe from the Task Manager before restarting it. Instead of new features, I'd appreciate more stability than feature enhancements to 2.0. If 2.0 is released with the same bugs, I'll have to end up switching to something else.
I find it interesting that a topic discussing the useless bouncing of email messages results in another case of useless email messages...
One would hope these email addresses weren't real:
rodolfo.borges@gmail.com
albert@users.sf.net
Under the newer patent laws (first to file over first to invent), this would mean the person with the crappiest prototype gets the patent. If that's the case, why prototype?
Get an adware supported version of Windows to run as a server. Get the latest DirectX, since 10.0 will only be supported by Vista. Install and run your game server on an adware Windows server. The only time you'd see the ads would be when you had to reboot/debug the system on site.
Better yet, setup a few of these, record lots of names/evidence of those who use them, feed that list to the MPAA for a cut of the settlement costs. Brilliant.
That's what people are doing. And that's what the RIAA is using as justification for 'lost sales' due to non-DRM protected music/downloads. The more people who don't buy their music, the more numbers RIAA has to push on the government as 'lost sales'.
Slashdot Mirror
All it takes is one kid to make some animations that other adult entities would not approve of, and it seems like it could rapidly collapse.
Secondly, by using Joost with P2P, over a source that they define, you at least have a way of authenticating original content and content consumers. Sure, people could hack the protocols Joost uses, and reference other servers, but then Joost/Viacom could go after these rogue servers, and hunt them down. By allowing user uploaded content, YouTube can't support this.
Secondly, let's do the math, and say they can get there in 70 years with an ark. If you could come up with something that gets there in 35 years, with technology that takes 35 years to develop, they would arrive at the same time.
If technology can be developed that satisfies this:
(time to develop new tech) + (speed of new tech)*(10.5 light years) less than or equal to 70 years
Then obviously, it would be better to wait. If $ is taken into consideration, that could also be a different story. How much would the extra supplies cost for another 35 years? How much would the new technology's development cost (which, unlike the supplies, could be reused or done regardless)?
It only seems to do this if new technology will not significantly surpass the equation above.
The expansions for Baldur's Gate and NWN start you off at higher than the 'looser' level. Granted, you can import your character from previous versions, but you can just buy the Diamond/Ultra edition of BG/NWN, and start off with the expansion, and skip the 'intro' part if you want.
Seems like just a few changes from the Graph-based Intrusion Detection System developed by UC Davis 8 years ago.
70% accuracy is meaningless unless you know what the sample size is. So if they only tested 10 people, they only were able to guess 2 more than just randomly guessing '+' or '-', which doesn't say alot. Why do studies release numbers like this without mentioning the sample size? Whenever they do, it makes me highly doubt the results.
I actually looked into this, and from what I could tell (at least from 1-2 years ago), the only way to get MFC library support (legally) is to purchase a non-express version of Visual C. They even have a FAQ question about it mentioning that it must be purchased for MFC support. I did forget to mention RakNet, and it did seem to have amazing performance claims, but I never fully tried it out. (I haven't looked at it, again, in 1-2 years.)
Am I missing something? Wouldn't 640x0 resolution be invisible? (640 columns but 0 rows)
I've looked at the blender environment for making games. However, it has poor network support for multiplayer games (last I checked), and is meant for smaller single person games. DirectX has had a bit better multiplayer support so far, so I imagine XNA has decent multiplayer support, or soon will. Blender is licensed under the GPL, but any scripts and artwork can be under any license you choose, and can be used commercially.
There's also OGRE3D. Although, I've had my share of tracing memory leaks and seg faults enough to know that as a development team of 1, there are much more interesting things I'd rather be doing (like adding content). Given I have been using Java a bit more lately, I've been leaning towards trying to use ogre4j, although progress with this has been relatively slow over the years. (Although their automated conversion of C++ hooks to Java seems interesting.) Also of note, OGRE3D is a graphic engine, not a game framework. However, other game related components exist based on this engine, although each has their own bit of requirements. For example, Yake will not compile without the latest and greatest Visual Studio. (The free Express version won't cut it, because it has dependencies on MFC, which the express version doesn't include.) This solution is the most attractive to me, nonetheless, because games can be made with minimal publishing/license constraints (most are licensed under LGPL).
There are other solutions, such as Garage Games, but they take a huge cut out of any money your game makes (used to be upwards of 80%). They also have mediocre network support, placing them as a poor choice in my opinion. Their claim is that they will, however, handle all of the marketing for your game and get others to play (& pay) for your game. Alternatively, you could pay a $15,000 license per game to remove royalty restrictions. There are also several OpenGL game frameworks, but they require all game releases to be under the GPL.
Does anyone else know of a similar solution that does not require a GPL license for the game, has good multiplayer (or massively multiplayer) network support, and a decent (or active) game development framework?
At 4000km, even over 6 days, that's 4000km *( 1 mi / 1.6km ) / 6 days / 24 hours = 17 mph. Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to get impressed about something going as fast as I can on a bicycle, even if I can't bike for 6 days straight.
Lets say each AI robot has a right to vote. Let's say you can create millions of clones of the same artificially intelligent robot (each a few millimeters in size), with slight programmed differences, that each get a vote, but are 'inclined' to vote one way. Not quite as easy to do with humans. Even if the robot has some sentience, damage to that robot could be repaired by modifying what the robot 'remembers'. Granted, this could be more complex, depending on the complexity of the AI used for the robot. Suppose it has a self learning neural network, with no 'backup' from before the incident. Suppose after the robot is tortured, it constantly thinks all humans will harm it, and becomes 'shy'. The only alternative is to restore the neural network of the robot to some earlier state, which loses all of the 'progress', memories, etc., that may have occurred since then. It's a true 'clean' reboot, it's akin to something of "I shot your dog, so here's a brand new puppy! Enjoy!", which might not quite be the same to the 'owner'.
Or suppose they keep their changes private because that gives them far greater competitive advantage in the marketplace (in the conventional view of things, despite the fact that they lose any other value they'd gain) and don't want to give away all their hard work to a bunch of fanboys for a few dollars.
The point here is that suppose you, as Company X, has some software advantage over your competitor, in one area. As time progresses, your competitors are likely going to try and mimic that advantage (unless it's patent worthy, etc., but that's another can of worms). Instead of letting them mimic that advantage, where they spent money developing exactly what you developed, wouldn't it be cheaper to sell them this advantage, and use that money to create another advantage? If company Y dedicates their efforts in mimicing this advantage, now all of a sudden instead of Company X selling it to Company Y for cash, they lose out on income they could have earned. However, I agree, identifying exactly what point you should sell, vs. which point in selling is too early, making you lose more money than it's worth, can be a toss up. That's why theoretically, Company X would only sell software components that have been around for a while, but noone has found a suitable solution for yet.
Theoretically, if you hit the right spot, you could become a combination of a service developer and a service provider (using services you develop, and selling them to other service providers). There are many large companies out there that host services, and sell server software so that others can host their services. Something very similar already happens in large corporations.
The point of this model isn't to BSD the code and hope people contribute. It's to sell the code to the few that want it to make it 'free' for everyone. It can be profitable from a standpoint of those wishing to pay for it (especially if they are given the option of buying BSD code they can change, or buying a proprietary plugin for more money), beneficial for anyone attempting to start up from scratch, but the biggest question is how profitable is it from the seller's standpoint. However, also consider that the seller can sell support to individual companies wishing to use the software as fast as possible. That provides even more potential income for the seller, and is how MySQL, Red Hat, and many others make money.
I already commented at length within the Ryzom forums that I believe a better license would be a BSD license. Unfortunately, everything, including the artwork, will be under the GPL. First off, this doesn't make it impossible to make money from. You can keep the server code proprietary for your version, since you don't distribute the server code, although you would have to make the client code available to the public, since you distribute it for your game. Not a horrible thing, since you could get user communities interested in customizing their client/UI, leaving you to better develop the server and core code. Secondly, you can add BSD modules to the game, if you wanted, that operate with the GPL core engine. This could handle physics engines, etc., that you may not want under a GPL. My recommendation in the forums envisioned having a BSD cycle with something like an MMORPG, where the investors would primarily be a community of MMORPG developers. Suppose an MMORPG company has a choice of buying a physics engine for $50k, or donating $10k to make the same engine open sourced under a BSD license, where multiple MMORPG companies 'chip in'. They all get the raw code of the engine they are using, to customize as they wish, and they pay less than they paid before. In return, when they made sufficient changes and feel they have enough differences to still put them ahead of the competition, but would like to make a bit of change, they could 'sell' their changes where the others in the community chip in. Here's an example. Let's say I release a raw physics engine, similar to that in Oblivion, City of Heroes, etc, that includes base ragdoll physics. Everyone chips in $1-10k, and buys out the BSD license so anyone can use it, including themselves. One company doesn't like how some animations end up 'stuck' on certain parts, so they fix almost all of the 'stuck' conditions, and auction up their changes in a few years, after they notice noone else has quite gotten it right. Others chip in for the fix, and more changes progress. It'd be very interesting (to me) if things worked like this, although I'm betting there are business reasons against it. But as a huge plus, anyone getting into the MMORPG market would have all of the code the other communities have invested in and bought out, which gives them a great start. Although those MMOGs that have been using it would probably be more familiar with the code, and would need less 'up to speed' time.
Why not Web 3.0 it? Lets make it all smart and stuff... with AI and whatnot... I mean, that's never been done before...
I used to use tracfone too. If you prepay for a year during a promotion, you can usually get about 250 minutes for 1 year worth of service, with no extra 'use' fees that you desribe. The only downside is that almost everywhere is roaming, which doubles the minutes that are ticked off. This didn't bother me, since at the time I only used it for emergencies (e.g., car breaks down) and when travelling, which was quite rare.
According to the provided Wikipedia link in the article, the world requires 13 terawatts of electricity. With an installation cost of $3 per watt, that would require a 13,000,000,000,000 * $3 or $39,000,000,000,000 ($39 trillion) upfront cost to install. Somehow, I don't see this happening overnight.
Splashpower seems like another solution that may work for you. Wirelessly powers devices that you just sit on a tray. Since the recent article about wireless power that also mentioned this solution, I've thought about giving this a shot (as it seems more realistic).
The people with the ability to make massive changes are in politics. You tell me, who people will remember, vote for, or value. If politicians made changes that increased taxes, but helped avert this crisis, would the average person even know? Would they care? Now look on the opposite side of the coin. Let's say a crisis or huge situation happens, and the politician is there to propose a radical fix to the problem. People remember the catastrophes, and the politicians eagerness to help solve problems that existed. In short, people remember (and consciously or subconsciously value) reactive politicians much moreso than proactive.
It's been around for a while, but not stable as far as I've known. Beta v3 has crashed on me several times (where 1.5 is still rock solid for me). And these are fun crashes where you have to manually kill the 'hidden' gaim.exe from the Task Manager before restarting it. Instead of new features, I'd appreciate more stability than feature enhancements to 2.0. If 2.0 is released with the same bugs, I'll have to end up switching to something else.
I find it interesting that a topic discussing the useless bouncing of email messages results in another case of useless email messages... One would hope these email addresses weren't real: rodolfo.borges@gmail.com albert@users.sf.net
Under the newer patent laws (first to file over first to invent), this would mean the person with the crappiest prototype gets the patent. If that's the case, why prototype?
Get an adware supported version of Windows to run as a server. Get the latest DirectX, since 10.0 will only be supported by Vista. Install and run your game server on an adware Windows server. The only time you'd see the ads would be when you had to reboot/debug the system on site.
Better yet, setup a few of these, record lots of names/evidence of those who use them, feed that list to the MPAA for a cut of the settlement costs. Brilliant.
That's what people are doing. And that's what the RIAA is using as justification for 'lost sales' due to non-DRM protected music/downloads. The more people who don't buy their music, the more numbers RIAA has to push on the government as 'lost sales'.