If MS were to use this patent against other companies, how easy would it be for the companies to overturn/invalidate the patent?
Would it take lots of money for a big legal team or could you just have one good(but not exceptional) lawyer?
And if it takes a big legal team, then why on earth does it take a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of money to uphold the law? Something is wrong with this country if you need to spend money to uphold the law.
There was an article I read a couple of months ago which argued that the word "compelling" should be used to describe the kind of game that people usually refer to as "addictive".
You don't call books you can't resist putting down, or movies you keep watching over and over addictive do you? You call them compelling. Addictive implies a physical addiction and being in a category together with crack. Compelling implies something being of so high quality, it naturally is something you don't want to stop (whichever medium applicable) playing/watching/reading/listening to/thinking about.
That's about as breif a summary as I can make of the (free subscription required) article.
There's a similar AI robotic combat program Tech tv did a
story
on called MelBotWars.
It's basically a plugin for maya which uses the MEL(Maya Embedded Language) programming language for coding your bot's AI, and uses the rigidBody dynamics in Maya for the physics.
Also, take note that you only need the Maya personal learning edition to use it, which is free.
Many of you slasbots dont seem to realize that battlebots is a separate entity from the battlebots show. It was going on before the show and before the Pay-Per-View event some of you may know about. Comedy central tapes the competition and edits it until it turns to utter crap. They pick 3 fights for every thirty minutes and pack mind-numbing fluff between them by:
a) having those boring(and often lame) "meet the builder" blurbs before the fights.
b) have one of the interviewers do a blurb which usually ends up being worse than the builder interview blurbs.
c) show the post-fight interviews featuring either a blank-minded barbie asking idiotic questions or the comics cracking a joke.
They could easily put in 6-8 fights per 30 min (12-16/hr) if they just eliminated a and b above, and had interviewers who knew their shit. That way the majority of the show would consist of fights, and therefore allows for the full tourney tree to be broadcasted.
I should also mention that advertising for the season 5 premier was virtually nonexistant, and after the idiot execs saw the ratings numbers for the first few season 5 shows, they decided to cancel it.
Why is it that many of these plans I hear of involve some elaborate scheme which involves landing on the asteroid and using the rocket's thrust, solar sails, painting it white(yes, I've heard a "researcher" say this), or some other nonsense. Nuking the surface is often downplayed by these said researchers as possibly making things worse by splitting it up and having more impacts(although it's a much better bet than the other plans). The plan I only occasionally hear these researchers mention is detonating the nuke near it(either directly in front or slightly off-center). Doing this wouldn't split the asteroid into pieces, and it would have a much higher chance of working than the elaborate schemes
If you read the story more carefully, you'd know that BattleBots isn't the same thing as Battlebots IQ. BattleBots(a competition which existed before it was ever on tv, and is currently being filmed and aired on comedy central) is a totally separate competition from BBIQ, which is only for highschool and middleschool students and is held in Universal Studios in Orlando and has never been televised. Thus, there are no ratings for them to be focused on, and as for your suggestion that "LEARNING and GRACIOUS PROFESIONLISM" is absent from this program, what the hell do you know about it other than your ignorant assumptions based on comedy central's depiction of Battlebots, a different competition altogether? You might want to look at a two-page article in the new york times comparing BBIQ and FIRST.
There's also a BBIQ curriculum you might want to take a look at.
Slashdot Mirror
If MS were to use this patent against other companies, how easy would it be for the companies to overturn/invalidate the patent? Would it take lots of money for a big legal team or could you just have one good(but not exceptional) lawyer? And if it takes a big legal team, then why on earth does it take a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of money to uphold the law? Something is wrong with this country if you need to spend money to uphold the law.
It's been delayed until fall. They didn't mention that did they?
There was an article I read a couple of months ago which argued that the word "compelling" should be used to describe the kind of game that people usually refer to as "addictive".
You don't call books you can't resist putting down, or movies you keep watching over and over addictive do you? You call them compelling. Addictive implies a physical addiction and being in a category together with crack. Compelling implies something being of so high quality, it naturally is something you don't want to stop (whichever medium applicable) playing/watching/reading/listening to/thinking about.
That's about as breif a summary as I can make of the (free subscription required) article.
There's a similar AI robotic combat program Tech tv did a story on called MelBotWars.
It's basically a plugin for maya which uses the MEL(Maya Embedded Language) programming language for coding your bot's AI, and uses the rigidBody dynamics in Maya for the physics.
Also, take note that you only need the Maya personal learning edition to use it, which is free.
Many of you slasbots dont seem to realize that battlebots is a separate entity from the battlebots show. It was going on before the show and before the Pay-Per-View event some of you may know about. Comedy central tapes the competition and edits it until it turns to utter crap. They pick 3 fights for every thirty minutes and pack mind-numbing fluff between them by:
a) having those boring(and often lame) "meet the builder" blurbs before the fights.
b) have one of the interviewers do a blurb which usually ends up being worse than the builder interview blurbs.
c) show the post-fight interviews featuring either a blank-minded barbie asking idiotic questions or the comics cracking a joke.
They could easily put in 6-8 fights per 30 min (12-16/hr) if they just eliminated a and b above, and had interviewers who knew their shit. That way the majority of the show would consist of fights, and therefore allows for the full tourney tree to be broadcasted.
I should also mention that advertising for the season 5 premier was virtually nonexistant, and after the idiot execs saw the ratings numbers for the first few season 5 shows, they decided to cancel it.
Why is it that many of these plans I hear of involve some elaborate scheme which involves landing on the asteroid and using the rocket's thrust, solar sails, painting it white(yes, I've heard a "researcher" say this), or some other nonsense.
Nuking the surface is often downplayed by these said researchers as possibly making things worse by splitting it up and having more impacts(although it's a much better bet than the other plans).
The plan I only occasionally hear these researchers mention is detonating the nuke near it(either directly in front or slightly off-center). Doing this wouldn't split the asteroid into pieces, and it would have a much higher chance of working than the elaborate schemes
If you read the story more carefully, you'd know that BattleBots isn't the same thing as Battlebots IQ . BattleBots(a competition which existed before it was ever on tv, and is currently being filmed and aired on comedy central) is a totally separate competition from BBIQ, which is only for highschool and middleschool students and is held in Universal Studios in Orlando and has never been televised. Thus, there are no ratings for them to be focused on, and as for your suggestion that "LEARNING and GRACIOUS PROFESIONLISM" is absent from this program, what the hell do you know about it other than your ignorant assumptions based on comedy central's depiction of Battlebots, a different competition altogether? You might want to look at a two-page article in the new york times comparing BBIQ and FIRST. There's also a BBIQ curriculum you might want to take a look at.
There was a story comparing BBIQ and FIRST a while back. It turns out that Dean Kamen (founder of first) doesn't really like battlebots. Go figure...